|
Post by touko on Jun 17, 2010 15:50:26 GMT
Icefisher, I must admit I've lost your point. Was it something related to the two diagrams, or something completely different? Perhaps you could present the equation that gives you the result of 2,000%
Touko
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 17, 2010 16:52:03 GMT
Icefisher, I must admit I've lost your point. Was it something related to the two diagrams, or something completely different? Perhaps you could present the equation that gives you the result of 2,000% Touko Have you ever accounted for anything before? The books are out of balance by at least 20 watts and the claim is the results show a current AGW potential of .9watts. The AGW claim is specious as it all might be found in the balancing of the books. If you are willing to conclude the 20watt difference is of no concern in arriving at an AGW conclusion based upon physics then it makes no sense to say we should be concerned about less than one watt. If you think about it some this is an issue called "materiality". Is a number material to your conclusions? If less than a watt is material then you can't talk about 1 watt differences being material and suggest 20 watts are not. The ratio here is 2000% suggesting you are not even close from the standpoint of physics and atmospheric budgets which are accountings for the physical system.
|
|
|
Post by touko on Jun 17, 2010 17:39:43 GMT
Ratio of what to what is 2,000% please?
Touko
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 17, 2010 19:14:47 GMT
So conduction and rising air is 7% of incoming solar energy? That seems reasonable. Looks like the diagram is wrong afterall, as you point out 6% of 340wm-2 is not 40wm-2. The NOAA diagram calculates to 22 watts which is different than Trenbreth's 40 watts. I have more trust in Trenberth's diagram given that I know the source and can read the methodology. The other diagram is not sourced, has no methodology. How did you conclude the diagram is from NOAA? Everyone has ERBE data. Trenberth cites ERBE data in the 2009 paper. However the calculation for the atmospheric window is described as "ah hoc" in the paper, it doesn't seem to be a precise value at all. It would be nice if uncertainty ranges of some kind could be put on the figures to reflect which ones are more certain and which less.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 18, 2010 18:44:04 GMT
I have more trust in Trenberth's diagram given that I know the source and can read the methodology. The other diagram is not sourced, has no methodology. Golly Socold if you were so diligent all the time the quality of conversation here would greatly increase. I merely pointed this out is usually its not a good idea to simply dismiss what NASA puts up and decides to be internally what they want to rely on. I mean these guys shoot space ships all over the place, they should know what they are doing more than a few desk pilots in the ivy covered halls of academia that get their data primarily from NASA as you point out. If the science community does not want to tackle this maybe we can.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2010 13:52:12 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 "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."That is SO humorous !!!!! You obviously have not ever done any sunbathing - or perhaps you wait for a nice thick cloud cover to lie out on a beach to tan? A simple task for you that I KNOW you will be UNABLE to carry out - Tell us why radiation fog does NOT form when there is cloud cover - and how that is in agreement with the statement "Clouds do not change the optical properties of the atmosphere"
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2010 14:01:22 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. But don't you realize that SoCold can only cope with everything frozen in place at one value. SoCold believes that convection is a mathematical constant as shown in that diagram. Things get even more interesting when night falls and you have the same diagram. But then that's too difficult - hence the Mickey Mouse everything in perfect stasis diagrams with the Sun permanently overhead and stationary clouds. In SoCold's world there are never any cold cloudless nights. After all however could a cloudless night be colder?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 19, 2010 15:20:51 GMT
I wouldn't trust the percentage diagram, not because I know that it's wrong, but because I am not sure what many of the %s are supposed to mean. There is also no information for how it was put together.
For example is the "7% conduction and rising air" depicting 7% of the heat flow from the surface, or 7% of the "51% energy absorbed by the surface"? Or 7% of the "64% radiation emitted into space"? That last one might seem a little odd, but I throw it in as a possibility because I notice 7 + 16 + 3 + 23 + 15 happens to equal 64...
Proportions tend to work that way. The 7 is a nice figure that works in wonderous ways. The heat flow from the surface from conduction and rising air is 7/51 sts of the heat rising from the surface, 7/64 ths of the amount radiated to space from clouds and atmosphere, and 7/100ths of the incoming solar energy. Pretty neat huh?
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 19, 2010 20:11:53 GMT
Love this: "It is rather amazing that these relatively few “greenhouse” gases are largely responsible for the temperature structure of the atmosphere. Without them, the atmosphere would have no way of losing the heat energy that it gains from the Earth’s surface in response to solar heating. Such an atmosphere would eventually become the same temperature throughout its depth, called an “isothermal” atmosphere. All vertical air motions would stop in such an atmosphere, which means there would be no weather either." Quote from Dr Roy Spencer www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2010 20:36:54 GMT
Love this: "It is rather amazing that these relatively few “greenhouse” gases are largely responsible for the temperature structure of the atmosphere. Without them, the atmosphere would have no way of losing the heat energy that it gains from the Earth’s surface in response to solar heating. Such an atmosphere would eventually become the same temperature throughout its depth, called an “isothermal” atmosphere. All vertical air motions would stop in such an atmosphere, which means there would be no weather either." Quote from Dr Roy Spencer www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/He has obviously not watched convection in fluids - his isothermal atmosphere would only arise in a completely closed system. Otherwise heat rises and radiates from the top of that convection . This occurs in all fluids.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 19, 2010 20:49:15 GMT
Radiates by/from what?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 19, 2010 20:58:46 GMT
As I said - if you assume a closed system with some heat imbalance then eventually all will become balanced.
As soon as you have an open system with heat applied to it then the heat will radiate away at some point. Think of watching cooking oil in a pan - no green house gas there - but you will see convection from heat applied and eventually you will feel the heat radiating from the oil.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 19, 2010 21:20:00 GMT
Earth atmosphere is a closed system, surrounded by empty space.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 20, 2010 1:25:13 GMT
Earth atmosphere is a closed system, surrounded by empty space. Which by definition is NOT a closed system
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 20, 2010 2:12:58 GMT
NASA Energy Budget (new and improved) Compare to the popular Trenberth/IPCC illustration, which BTW has also morphed from the original 1997 one. Now ask the question: if the sun were shut off, which version would continue to warm the earth's surface by "back radiation". Hmmm? Hence the toon: P.S. also note that clouds are assigned a constant of 3%.
|
|