|
Post by jurinko on Mar 28, 2010 8:43:26 GMT
How do you recognize the excessive IR radiation, re-radiated by IR active gases from radiation, emitted from 99% bulk atmosphere? Because all nitrogen and oxygen has its temperature, obtained by contact with warmed earth surface.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 28, 2010 12:38:51 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. You've quoted something I said, but your criticism above seems to be a misstatement of what I've said that is unrelated to the quotation. Indeed, many of the models do demonstrate increased convection. And if the convection were able really bypass all of the CO2 the result would be that the upper layers of the troposphere would warm at a faster rate than both the observations and models suggest. So CO2 offers no resistance to the outgoing radiation!!! What sort of unscientific claim is that. Kirchoff's theorem tells us that radiation and absorption from gases are linked. You are suggesting that there is a part of the atmosphere that can radiate into space, but can't absorb any of the radiation it is emitting. This should raise a red flag to you as northsphinx might say. All your LOLs and your self declared annoyance and amusement at my supposed "confusion" does not change the fact that your analysis is somewhat confused.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 28, 2010 12:42:11 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? Yes. But not in the way the other side would like More seriously, being challenged by opposing views is what gives me an incentive to read around and learn more.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 28, 2010 13:18:00 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? Yes. But not in the way the other side would like More seriously, being challenged by opposing views is what gives me an incentive to read around and learn more. I've shifted slightly in the past 24 months or so. Let's say: 1. a score of 100 means you believe global warming is happening, is totally man-made, and is certain to be a catastrophic problem. 2. a score of 0 (zero) means you are a dyed-in-the wool sceptic/denier/whatever. Then I 've moved from a score of 45 (Jan 2008) to a score of 55 (now). Basically, I think the 2xCO2 warming will be more than 1 deg rather than less.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 13:40:20 GMT
Well you could start by looking at Meteo 101 and reading about radiation fog SoCold That's not a measurement of zero backradiation from the night sky. I don't have to show you anything. You are the one who is making an extraordinary claim, you provide the evidence. Provide evidence that the night sky doesn't radiate IR downwards, or be more specific exactly what you are claiming. Edit: By evidence I mean actual measured IR being zero. I don't mean guesses and inferences about fog. I mean hard measurements that show no downwelling IR.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 13:52:02 GMT
Specific humidity looks pretty much constant to me Wait you think you can eyeball a trend from that (unsourced, unreferenced) graph? Read AR4 section on observed atmospheric water vapor trends (3.4.2): Lower troposphere: To summarise, global, local and regional studies all indicate increases in moisture in the atmosphere near the surface, but highlight differences between regions and between day and night. Satellite observations of oceanic lower-tropospheric water vapour reveal substantial variability during the last two decades. This variability is closely tied to changes in surface temperatures, with the water vapour mass changing at roughly the same rate at which the saturated vapour pressure does. A signifi cant upward trend is observed over the global oceans and some NH land areas, although the calculated trend is likely infl uenced by large interannual variability in the record.Upper troposphere: To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric specifi c humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent with the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and the absence of any change in relative humidity.Also see: The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric MoisteningBrian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4 Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/Bornoecourse/Material/soden.pdf
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 14:07:42 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? Because most is not all. And we know the Earth's surface is warmer because of the greenhouse effect so it's a moot point anyway.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 19:30:16 GMT
Specific humidity looks pretty much constant to me Wait you think you can eyeball a trend from that (unsourced, unreferenced) graph? Read AR4 section on observed atmospheric water vapor trends (3.4.2): Lower troposphere: To summarise, global, local and regional studies all indicate increases in moisture in the atmosphere near the surface, but highlight differences between regions and between day and night. Satellite observations of oceanic lower-tropospheric water vapour reveal substantial variability during the last two decades. This variability is closely tied to changes in surface temperatures, with the water vapour mass changing at roughly the same rate at which the saturated vapour pressure does. A signifi cant upward trend is observed over the global oceans and some NH land areas, although the calculated trend is likely infl uenced by large interannual variability in the record.Upper troposphere: To summarise, the available data do not indicate a detectable trend in upper-tropospheric relative humidity. However, there is now evidence for global increases in upper-tropospheric specifi c humidity over the past two decades, which is consistent with the observed increases in tropospheric temperatures and the absence of any change in relative humidity.Also see: The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric MoisteningBrian J. Soden,1* Darren L. Jackson,2 V. Ramaswamy,3 M. D. Schwarzkopf,3 Xianglei Huang4 Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.www.gfy.ku.dk/~kaas/Bornoecourse/Material/soden.pdfIPCC said this, IPCC said that. IPCC said a lot of things. They also said the stratosphere was cooling. Now that it is plainly not, the AGW snake oil salesmen had to come up with a new story to explain the noncompliance with climate models. What's the latest fairytale for that? They also wiped out the MWP by publishing the hockey stick fraud. They did a lot of things. --------------------------------------------------- The other example you gave is just more of the same: Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. More untested climate model folly. Will you ever learn? Excuse me, but isn't WATER VAPOR the most important GHG? One must believe the earth's atmosphere is akin to an egg delicately balanced on the head of pin to agree with AGW. Look at the graphs on water vapor again. You point out the "detectable trend" rather than linking to more IPCC propaganda. Now show me where climate models do not assume a constant RH with rising CO2 levels. There is no physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. ------------------------------------------------ IPCC also said this in AR4 WG1 pg 253 and SPM: "The linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years" with the accompanying graph as "proof". Now put on your thinking cap for just 30 seconds socold and without running to your favorite AGW talking points blog, tell us what is wrong with both the quote and the picture, aside from the exaggerated temperature profile. Tick tock, tick tock.......your time is up! Below is a sinusoidal wave with no apparent trend, but using IPCC AGW trend analysis methodology, it can be proven global warming is accelerating over time! -------------------------------------- Just give us the bottom line direct evidence of CO2 AGW taking place today, not in 100 years. And please, no more references to Solomon et al OHC nonsense; increasing OHC in the upper 700m is the hypothesis, not speculation about the heat hiding deep below; heat "in the pipeline". Here's why John Cook is just another RC parasite. motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Mar 28, 2010 20:38:59 GMT
I continue with the basic figure Just to explain the variance in the numbers: Incoming SW radiance to the earth surface is between 0 to about 1000 W m-2 during daytime. Absorbed up to about 900 W m-2. Average 161 over the year. Mean outgoing LW radiation to space is typically in the range of 100- 400 W m-2 monthly average example here: And here is measured annual NET radiation . That figure is explained by this one: The AGW model is that energy is trapped in lower altitudes and released in higher and colder altitudes. The real world story is that heat is also trapped in low latitudes and released in higher and colder latitudes. That latitude net transport is in the range of 0 to 60 W/m2 depending on latitude or about 20% of total energy budget, eye estimate. Compare with CO2 claimed 3,7 W m-2 of 240 w/m2 or about 1.5% The poleward circulation is a larger natural green house effect than claimed CO2 forcing..
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 28, 2010 21:00:29 GMT
IPCC said this, IPCC said that. IPCC said a lot of things. They also said the stratosphere was cooling. Now that it is plainly not, the AGW snake oil salesmen had to come up with a new story to explain the noncompliance with climate models. What's the latest fairytale for that? They also wiped out the MWP by publishing the hockey stick fraud. They did a lot of things. The stratosphere is cooling. What you see there is the effect of volcanoes, they cause a sudden increase in stratospheric temperature followed by an over-adjustment, ie a slight decrease below trend. There are observations that water vapor levels have increased in the upper atmosphere. Not entirely surprising given it's warmed. But as you mention water vapor is indeed the most important GHG, so why do you dismiss out of hand that those heightened water vapor levels will not have an effect? Your graph is unreferenced and unsourced. It's also got a terrible y-axis scale whereby you cannot hope to determine trends by eye. Dismissing the peer reviewed literature won't help you - it's not going away. Relative constant humidity is consistent with observations of the upper atmosphere. There's nothing wrong with the quote. They are pointing out that the rate of warming in recent decades is greater than the overall rate over the past 100+ years. You can see that from the graph itself. This is in context of the recent warming being largely anthropogenic (while the early 20th century warming is largely not). The global temperature record is not a sinusoidal wave! It clearly shows the overall warming of the 20th century is lower than recent warming - which remember is in the context of a continued anthropogenic cause. Here's part of the bottom line www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 28, 2010 23:24:16 GMT
IPCC said this, IPCC said that. IPCC said a lot of things. They also said the stratosphere was cooling. Now that it is plainly not, the AGW snake oil salesmen had to come up with a new story to explain the noncompliance with climate models. What's the latest fairytale for that? They also wiped out the MWP by publishing the hockey stick fraud. They did a lot of things. The stratosphere is cooling. What you see there is the effect of volcanoes, they cause a sudden increase in stratospheric temperature followed by an over-adjustment, ie a slight decrease below trend. There are observations that water vapor levels have increased in the upper atmosphere. Not entirely surprising given it's warmed. But as you mention water vapor is indeed the most important GHG, so why do you dismiss out of hand that those heightened water vapor levels will not have an effect? Your graph is unreferenced and unsourced. It's also got a terrible y-axis scale whereby you cannot hope to determine trends by eye. Dismissing the peer reviewed literature won't help you - it's not going away. Relative constant humidity is consistent with observations of the upper atmosphere. There's nothing wrong with the quote. They are pointing out that the rate of warming in recent decades is greater than the overall rate over the past 100+ years. You can see that from the graph itself. This is in context of the recent warming being largely anthropogenic (while the early 20th century warming is largely not). The global temperature record is not a sinusoidal wave! It clearly shows the overall warming of the 20th century is lower than recent warming - which remember is in the context of a continued anthropogenic cause. Here's part of the bottom line www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.htmlIt appears both you and John Cook don't know what direct evidence means. Nothing that he has posted has ever met the qualification.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 29, 2010 0:38:18 GMT
The thing that most people get wrong is they are using models as fact. Models are not factual by nature. They are supositions with various inputs. When the inputs have to be guessed at, the error bars are so huge on the results that they results are basically worthless.
Once again, h2o vapor is the elephant in the room. At some point someone will figure out how to model this accurately, but so far no one has.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 29, 2010 2:42:15 GMT
So CO2 offers no resistance to the outgoing radiation!!! What sort of unscientific claim is that. Kirchoff's theorem tells us that radiation and absorption from gases are linked. You are suggesting that there is a part of the atmosphere that can radiate into space, but can't absorb any of the radiation it is emitting. This should raise a red flag to you as northsphinx might say. The temperature gradient above the tropopause INCREASES with altitude. It emits more than it absorbs from below.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 29, 2010 19:12:23 GMT
It appears both you and John Cook don't know what direct evidence means. Nothing that he has posted has ever met the qualification. Creationists often use a little debate trick where they demand evidence of transitional fossils. When you present them with such examples, at great time expense to yourself, they swiftly deny each in turn is a transitional fossil. After a while they announce that their "challenge" hasn't been met and therefore evolution is evidenceless. The trick I eventually learned was not to provide them with any evidence up front, they simply deny it. What you do instead is to force them to be more specific. Just ask them: What would a transitional fossil look like? And you know what? most of them bail out. They mumble some excuses and go running. Because they know if they provide a definition, they risk such an example being provided which they can hardly then deny is transitional. Their other alternative is to strive to make an absurdly extreme definition that can't possibly be met. But to do that they expose their ploy because absurd definitions expose the mockery of their challenge. So it strikes me that to save myself time I can just use a similar method here, you know just to be on the safe side. I mean maybe you are asking for "direct evidence" because you want to find it, or maybe it's just one of those "challenges". Either way it makes sense for me to ask you to explain what kind of direct evidence would satisfy you. So what would your definition of "direct evidence of AGW" entail?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 29, 2010 22:49:18 GMT
Steve, Not speaking for magellan, but I find that when I am speaking with AGW true beleivers, and ask them what would it take for their theory to be falsified, I either get blank stares or am told that it would require for someone to discover new physical laws. IOW, it is non-falsifiable for many believers. As to what would evidence of AGW look like, let us say for starters that evidence of AGW is not going to look like snow in winter, heat in summer or droughts in deserts. AGW is a theory that claims we are even now experiencing climate 'crisis' or climate catastrophe. AGW also posits that we are facing unprecedented changes in the climate. So is it unreasonable to ask to be shown some crisis or calamity that is not actually historically normal? Perhaps even to be shown a set of climate changes that do not require the erasure or rewriting of the historical record in order to stand out?
But to repeat my question: Is there anything about AGW that can be proven false to you?
|
|