|
|
Post by touko on Jun 12, 2010 13:29:45 GMT
Northspihnx, greenhouse effect on Earth does not primarily depend on the heat capacity of the atmosphere, but on its optical properties at different wavelengths of radiation.
Touko
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2010 14:22:20 GMT
Northspihnx, greenhouse effect on Earth does not primarily depend on the heat capacity of the atmosphere, but on its optical properties at different wavelengths of radiation. Touko Touko: Do you understand how the greenhouse effect works? Your answer shows that you do not. Without h20, there is NO greenhouse effect. I could go into a long explantion for you, but rather than that, I would encourage you to do research to increase your understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 12, 2010 14:48:23 GMT
Sigurdur, please, no more BS. Ok?
Touko
|
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 12, 2010 15:00:24 GMT
No.
Read Your own quote. If the atmosphere is to thin will CO2 not be working. As on mars. And high up in our atmosphere.
The conclusion of that is there is no heat to "store" will it not be any heat trapped.
THEN is the amount trapped depending on optical properties which in most cases is a function on vapor content and clouds.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2010 15:21:50 GMT
Sigurdur, please, no more BS. Ok? Touko Touko: Once again, please research and learn about how the Greenhouse Effect works. It is apparant that your understanding is very limited. |
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 12, 2010 17:32:06 GMT
The conclusion of that is there is no heat to "store" will it not be any heat trapped.
Yep, you will not be able to store heat in matter that does not exist.
THEN is the amount trapped depending on optical properties which in most cases is a function on vapor content and clouds.
Clouds do not change the optical properties of the atmosphere itself. Optical properties arise from ALL greenhouse molecules, including but not being exclusive to H2O.
Once again, please research and learn about how the Greenhouse Effect works. It is apparant that your understanding is very limited.
Unfortunately, your understanding on the other hand seems to be of a politically skewed nature. Not even WUWT would maintain H2O is the sole greenhouse gas. I don't think ANY denialist source would make such a laughable claim as that can be physically denied.
Touko
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2010 17:36:47 GMT
Sorry Touko:
My understanding is based on the physics of the atmosphere. Do you actually understand the greenhouse effect?
1. Quick start to tutorial:
a. What is the overlap in the band between h2o and co2?
b. What is the dominant greenhouse gas?
|
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 12, 2010 18:17:26 GMT
What is the overlap in the band between h2o and co2?
And exactly how is the existence of one tied to the other?
What is the dominant greenhouse gas?
What is the dictionary meaning of "dominant"? A synonym to "sole", huh?
Even bullshitting has its limits, and I think we're seeing them here.
Touko
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 12, 2010 18:59:44 GMT
What is the overlap in the band between h2o and co2? And exactly how is the existence of one tied to the other? What is the dominant greenhouse gas? What is the dictionary meaning of "dominant"? A synonym to "sole", huh? Even bullshitting has its limits, and I think we're seeing them here. Touko What we are seeing is the inability to answer straightforward questions. As I said earlier, please study the greenhouse effect. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jun 12, 2010 20:28:53 GMT
I will add, that the whole story with water vapor is much more complicated. Water vapor is the most powerful "greenhouse gas", but water vapor also creates clouds (net cooling effect) and falling rain from condensed clouds cools the surface by evaporation (net cooling effect). Both these effects are much more powerful than the hypothetical warming by "backradiation" which I suspect is just theoretical construction anyway to explain the wrongly calculated 33K difference. So the most powerful "greenhouse gas" is actually causing cooling. Heh.
99% of the atmosphere emits IR downwards, since N2/O2 molecules, which got warmed by convection, are above absolute zero: now, how do you recognize the tiny portion of IR, which was re-radiated by 400 molecules out of every million which got warmed not only by convection, but also by partial absorption of upwards IR? Not speaking about the crucial fact, that the atmosphere emits IR because it IS a warm, daily heat retaining blanket laying on the earth surface - emitted IR is just a result from being warm.
The whole construction "Earth is 33K warmer because of GH gases so lets redistribute this 33K between H2O, CO2, CH4 and calculate what happens if we increase them" is dead wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 13, 2010 16:30:41 GMT
The following image sums it up. The backradition is IR emitted by greenhouse gases. Non greenhouse gases like N2 and O2 in the Earth's atmosphere do not emit infrared. The Earth only aborbs 235wm-2 sunlight and a 235wm-2 blackbody is about -19C. The Earth's surface on the otherhand is roughly about 33K warmer than this and that's because of the 324wm-2 backradiation in addition to the 168wm-2 sunlight aborbed at the surface.  |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 13, 2010 18:02:49 GMT
There's one important thing about water vapor that most AGW types don't get. Water vapor's low density allows it to induce convection even when the temperature gradient would make a dry atmosphere stable. Another negative feedback is that as water vapor content goes up...the point at which the moist lapse rate is reached falls...which effectively rams most of the supposed additional energy into the tropopause. A warmer tropopause then emits more efficiently...offsetting much of the supposed greenhouse effect. Oh, and of course the lower cloud deck makes the clouds more efficient black body emitters.
So for a 1.2C increase in ground temperature, latent heat and convection go up by about 6watts. Surface radiation would go up by around 4watts. The energy emitted by the atmosphere would go up out of proportion because of the lowering of the moist lapse rate. The energy emitted by clouds would go up out of proportion...because the base temperature increases and the cloud deck drops enough for a couple degrees increase in cloud temperature. Then of course you can't count ANY of the increase in "greenhouse gas forcing" by water vapor because at lower levels (where the entirety of the change occurs) there is no functional difference within the system between latent heat released and supposed "back radiation" because any increase in energy just stops release of latent heat until higher altitudes.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 13, 2010 18:54:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 13, 2010 23:24:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 13, 2010 23:43:22 GMT
The Earth's surface on the otherhand is roughly about 33K warmer than this and that's because of the 324wm-2 backradiation in addition to the 168wm-2 sunlight aborbed at the surface. Looking at this diagram I have to wonder. If it gets warmer. I would expect more clouds via increased evaporation and the resulting increase in convection from the warming. That seems to universally agreed upon by everybody. That would go hand in hand with increased reflection of SW. That would decrease SW absorption and thereby decrease the 235w/m2 outgoing be less by the amount reflected to outer space by clouds? Further since clouds are also more opaque to SW than the cloudless sky a higher proportion of SW is also trapped by the atmosphere. . . .resulting in relatively higher IR emissions to space by the atmosphere. Also, since we had a driver to spur this increase in clouds, namely the warmer surface temperature increasing total surface radiation of all frequencies including those that consider CO2 transparent. That would imply that the atmospheric window wattage would have to decrease sufficiently to make up for everything and prevent cooling. And since it is the smaller number by a factor of more than 3 to start with, anybody care to elaborate. |
|
