|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2011 17:51:38 GMT
The effect of removing co2 would be for the emission to be at the 800-900 mlb rather than at the 200 mlb? Yes, I think so. I think that the pink ribbon would continue through the 600-700cm-1 co2 line if the co2 were not there. ie. you would have quite a large extra bit of pink (and dark blue), indicating cooling of 6-10 milliKelvins per day between the surface and 700-600 mbar in place of the relatively small blue area of CO2 cooling, and small patch of CO2 warming. In reality, the CO2 is not warming the planet, it is preventing the H2O from cooling the planet.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 17, 2011 18:16:22 GMT
Steve; "Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen" from wiki. More UV, more O3 and more heating. Less UV, less O3 and cooling. OK? Note that O3 "blob"have no cooling capacity, contrary to CO2
Then is the model terminated at 100 mbar. We do not see the total CO2 cooling effect. I always get suspicious when "some unconvinced " information are hided.
Obviously you are wrong, since the "emitting altitude" for h2o in the waveband around 666cm-1 is below 500 mbar, but the "emitting altitude" for the co2 is above 200 mbar, which is way above the "emitting altitude" for most of the h20 cooling effect.
OK i try to explain this very important issue again. I begin with H2O which is are declining with altitude. At low altitude with more H2O are the atmosphere not cooling by radiation even with more H2O available. That is because with a sautered level of the most important greenhouse gas H2O are radiative heat transport blocked. On top of H2O are the atmosphere cooling because the distance between absorbing molecules is large enough to avoid absorbing emitted energy by a nearby molecule with about the same temperature. That is the altitudes where vapor dries out due to low temperatures. Note below CO2. If the absorbing molecules are close enough the emitting molecules is the temperature difference small and by SB law are net transport of energy leveled out. Back radiation = radiation, and completely blocked net transport of energy.
You see the same thing when CO2 are reduced, Colling capacity increase when emitted energy can escape to space without hitting another CO2 molecule. Below CO2 "blob" are CO2 so efficient that it block heat transfer by radiation until it thin out enough to leak energy between its molecules. That is why it is no cooling in that spectral band below CO2 blob. CO2 are efficient in blocking radiative net heat transfer. That is what all AGW models say. I do not understand why You object this? CO2 block radiation below the break even point. Above is the cooling enhanced. Stratospheric cooling as AGW models claim. My view is that the cooling capacity is far larger than the claimed heating capacity. My view is that the CO2 heating capacity below the break even altitude is not possible because the energy is not trapped in that spectral band below the CO2 "blob". You can not trap energy below an open roof window. Energy below CO2 "blob" do not stay there it is very efficient disappear into the other spectral band by convection. And by the help of water disappear to space.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2011 18:19:05 GMT
In reality, the CO2 is not warming the planet, it is preventing the H2O from cooling the planet.
Steve, what do you make of the robust cooling enhancement that surrounds the CO2 attenuated frequencies?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2011 18:53:36 GMT
Steve; "Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from ultraviolet rays reacting with oxygen" from wiki. More UV, more O3 and more heating. Less UV, less O3 and cooling. OK? Note that O3 "blob"have no cooling capacity, contrary to CO2 The "warming capacity" of the Ozone is dependent on the amount of UV it absorbs. As there is more UV the higher you go, the cooling capacity never outweighs the warming capacity (I would assume). Clutching at straws. What about all the other frequencies too? But the image demonstrates that there is measurable transmission of radiation from heights close to the surface and into space at, say, 500cm-1. So therefore there is also going to be significant transmission between layers of the atmosphere at different temperatures. Energy doesn't work like that. There is no reason on earth why the water vapour should not emit at 667cm-1 in a similar way to the emissions at either side to the CO2 stripe. You don't see the effect of the emission, though because virtually *all* of the emission is reabsorbed by surrounding CO2 molecules. Not just the molecules up at 200 mbar, the molecules in the whole atmospheric column.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 17, 2011 19:07:21 GMT
In reality, the CO2 is not warming the planet, it is preventing the H2O from cooling the planet.Steve, what do you make of the robust cooling enhancement that surrounds the CO2 attenuated frequencies? Do you mean the widening of the ribbon just to the left (and right) of the CO2 stripe? It's not clear whether this is enhanced cooling, or whether the same amount of cooling is spread to higher levels of the atmosphere (due to the effect of CO2). Either way, I think that you would have to redo the calculation with more CO2 to see whether it becomes more, or less "enhanced". I would expect the feature to look similar, but the light blue stripe will be ever so slightly wider.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jul 17, 2011 19:31:51 GMT
No Steve O3 is produced of UV. "The photochemical mechanisms that give rise to the ozone layer were discovered by the British physicist Sidney Chapman in 1930. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3." From wiki. THEN is the available ozone absorbing UV. No UV, No Ozone no heating. I do not mind all the other frequencies but that is less interesting as You know. But why is the most upper part of the atmosphere not included? The model show that there is far less radiated below the altitude where GHG molecules are available to escape to space. The fact that radiative cooling increase with height DESPITE lower temperatures (SB law) proof that GHG block heat transfer by radiation below the altitude where GHG thins out. For CO2 is that below 200 mb. The error AGW believers do is that they do the wrong assumption that despite GHG block heat transfer by radiation are the atmosphere heated by radiation emitted from surface. It is not. It is cooled by radiation at higher altitudes and heated by convection in molecule level as well as global level. And Your figure is a proof of that. Edit spelling.... Again.....
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 17, 2011 19:54:07 GMT
Steve, what do you make of the robust cooling enhancement that surrounds the CO2 attenuated frequencies?
Do you mean the widening of the ribbon just to the left (and right) of the CO2 stripe?
It's not clear whether this is enhanced cooling, or whether the same amount of cooling is spread to higher levels of the atmosphere (due to the effect of CO2).
Either way, I think that you would have to redo the calculation with more CO2 to see whether it becomes more, or less "enhanced". I would expect the feature to look similar, but the light blue stripe will be ever so slightly wider.
This seems fundamental to the greenhouse effect Steve.
Your equivocating on an answer does not inspire confidence.
It is small wonder the common-man public questions CAGW predictions when simple inquiries are met with such huge uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 17, 2011 23:28:28 GMT
I had that in my model, I am sure that you had it in yours. Why we know so much about the radiative transfer of CO2 we just overlooked 20 trillion watts. Call Lisa and Obama I bet they had it figured too. "Radioactive decay fuels Earth's inner fires " "The researchers found the decay of radioactive isotopes uranium-238 and thorium-232 together contributed 20 trillion watts to the amount of heat Earth radiates into space, about six times as much power as the United States consumes. U.S. power consumption in 2005 averaged about 3.34 trillion watts. As huge as this value is, it only represents about half of the total heat leaving the planet. The researchers suggest the remainder of the heat comes from the cooling of the Earth since its birth. " www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43786480/ns/technology_and_science-science/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 18, 2011 1:42:36 GMT
"Our Refutation of Dessler (2010) is Accepted for Publication" "Well, our paper entitled On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance which refutes Dessler’s claim, has just been accepted for publication. In it we show clear evidence that cloud changes DO cause a large amount of temperature variability during the satellite period of record, which then obscures the identification of temperature-causing-cloud changes (cloud feedback). Along with that evidence, we also show the large discrepancy between the satellite observations and IPCC models in their co-variations between radiation and temperature:" www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/our-refutation-of-dessler-2010-is-accepted-for-publication/
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 18, 2011 4:00:08 GMT
"Our Refutation of Dessler (2010) is Accepted for Publication" "Well, our paper entitled On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance which refutes Dessler’s claim, has just been accepted for publication. In it we show clear evidence that cloud changes DO cause a large amount of temperature variability during the satellite period of record, which then obscures the identification of temperature-causing-cloud changes (cloud feedback). Along with that evidence, we also show the large discrepancy between the satellite observations and IPCC models in their co-variations between radiation and temperature:" www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/our-refutation-of-dessler-2010-is-accepted-for-publication/Well thank you for posting this trbixler. I'm sure steve will be most appreciative as well.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 9:49:20 GMT
No Steve O3 is produced of UV. "The photochemical mechanisms that give rise to the ozone layer were discovered by the British physicist Sidney Chapman in 1930. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere is created by ultraviolet light striking oxygen molecules containing two oxygen atoms (O2), splitting them into individual oxygen atoms (atomic oxygen); the atomic oxygen then combines with unbroken O2 to create ozone, O3." From wiki. THEN is the available ozone absorbing UV. No UV, No Ozone no heating. Yes I know that ozone is created by UV and that the UV causes heating. Ozone also absorbs infrared radiation, and this is what is shown in the plot. Most of the atmosphere *is* shown. The bit above 100 mbar is 10% of the atmosphere. It is above the tropopause, so here the atmosphere warms with increasing height. Yes there will be more CO2 cooling here but it is cooling the stratosphere, not the atmosphere. If you are right and a massive amount of cooling is occurring, then how come the stratosphere increases in temperature with height? Re the yellow bit: As you go up in height in the atmosphere at, say, 250cm-1 1st the emission and absorption is approximately equal, and you see light blue of no cooling or warming. Then emissions start to be able to escape to space, and you get dark blue and then pink as you have less and less atmosphere above. Meanwhile, temperatures are cooling with increased height, so the SB law says emission will start to reduce. *This* is why the pink turns to dark blue and then light blue with a further increase in height. This doesn't happen for CO2 because it absorbs so strongly in a small region of the spectrum, and by the time you get to a point where the absorption drops off, you are in the stratosphere where temperature is rising with height which means that emission is rising with height. The point of this diagram is to show that your simple description of the "error" of "AGW believers" is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 9:55:09 GMT
Steve, what do you make of the robust cooling enhancement that surrounds the CO2 attenuated frequencies?Do you mean the widening of the ribbon just to the left (and right) of the CO2 stripe?
It's not clear whether this is enhanced cooling, or whether the same amount of cooling is spread to higher levels of the atmosphere (due to the effect of CO2).
Either way, I think that you would have to redo the calculation with more CO2 to see whether it becomes more, or less "enhanced". I would expect the feature to look similar, but the light blue stripe will be ever so slightly wider.This seems fundamental to the greenhouse effect Steve. Your equivocating on an answer does not inspire confidence. It is small wonder the common-man public questions CAGW predictions when simple inquiries are met with such huge uncertainty. I'm not equivocating. I've told you what I would expect. I have good reasons for expecting that: One point of the diagram is to indicate that it is relatively easy to do such calculations. Another way of displaying the results is to calculate the spectra of outgoing radiation using a tool such as this: geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/Projects/modtran.orig.html[/quote] If you play with the values you can see the spectrum for different amounts of CO2, h2o and so forth. Increasing co2 slightly widens the CO2 line. That translates back to the cooling diagram as a slightly wider blue stripe.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 10:03:48 GMT
trbixler
We're off topic, but back of the envelope calculation should point out your error.
20 trillion watts is a piddling amount.
TSI roughly 1000 watts at noon. 20 trillion watts is 20,000 km worth of noon TSI, or 200km by 100km square - a tiny area.
They are comparing sources of heat for the earth's core. They are not comparing with the Sun.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 18, 2011 10:11:24 GMT
magellan, trbixler,
We're off topic again, so please take to another thread.
Since you mention Roy Spencer though, he is super-critical of "Sky Dragon Slayers" who think the greenhouse effect is a figment of imagination. Roy's satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are dependent on the type of physics used to calculate the diagram I linked to. Though the oxygen emissions that he uses are too small for the scale of this graph, and would only show up on the very left-hand sliver of the graph.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 18, 2011 13:11:43 GMT
magellan, trbixler, We're off topic again, so please take to another thread. Since you mention Roy Spencer though, he is super-critical of "Sky Dragon Slayers" who think the greenhouse effect is a figment of imagination. Roy's satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature are dependent on the type of physics used to calculate the diagram I linked to. Though the oxygen emissions that he uses are too small for the scale of this graph, and would only show up on the very left-hand sliver of the graph. You said: But I think it is wrong to do so because there is definitely going to be a positive water vapour feedback. That is a direct paraphrase of Dessler, therefore Spencer's paper is right on topic!
|
|