|
Post by graywolf on Feb 12, 2017 12:42:31 GMT
Warm air migrating to the poles is the worst thing that can happen, in regards to over all earth temperatures. Graywolf is correct to be worried about lower ice, but for all the wrong reasons. I still don't think he grasps the climatic effect of warm air at the poles, and in fact what is happening to earth's heat. It is leaving......fast! The oceans will buffer this for awhile, but that state can't last forever either. The only thing we, as humans, can hope for is that the level of clouds over the oceans in the tropics stays low. CO2 bandwidth does squat to ocean heat. UV bandwidth warms the oceans, like a large heat sink that is then distributed over earth via atmospheric actions and currents. The prime example that Graywolf should understand is the Gulf Current, and its effects on Europe. The warmth doesn't originate in Europe, but so far it gets there to ameliorate the cold temperatures that should be present. The push, in regards to CO2 effects, has come to the point of ruining actual research in order to come to a better understanding of drivers that DO regulate climate. I'm sorry Siggy but you are appearing a little dated in your current 'beliefs' on how temp is working over the Arctic basin. We've had a number of studies from within the arctic over the past 3 years looking at just how the energy balance is being impacted and the amount of energy 'leaving' is not increasing in line with higher temps. The infamous 'inversion' that used to keep the heat trapped below is now supplemented by down welling of the heat in the moist air masses again keeping the heat close to the ice. Last years N-ICE 15 have a full freeze season worth of atmospheric soundings, four times a day, that show us just what is occurring when these heat engines trawl over the pole.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 12, 2017 12:52:32 GMT
Warm air migrating to the poles is the worst thing that can happen, in regards to over all earth temperatures. Graywolf is correct to be worried about lower ice, but for all the wrong reasons. I still don't think he grasps the climatic effect of warm air at the poles, and in fact what is happening to earth's heat. It is leaving......fast! The oceans will buffer this for awhile, but that state can't last forever either. The only thing we, as humans, can hope for is that the level of clouds over the oceans in the tropics stays low. CO2 bandwidth does squat to ocean heat. UV bandwidth warms the oceans, like a large heat sink that is then distributed over earth via atmospheric actions and currents. The prime example that Graywolf should understand is the Gulf Current, and its effects on Europe. The warmth doesn't originate in Europe, but so far it gets there to ameliorate the cold temperatures that should be present. The push, in regards to CO2 effects, has come to the point of ruining actual research in order to come to a better understanding of drivers that DO regulate climate. I'm sorry Siggy but you are appearing a little dated in your current 'beliefs' on how temp is working over the Arctic basin. We've had a number of studies from within the arctic over the past 3 years looking at just how the energy balance is being impacted and the amount of energy 'leaving' is not increasing in line with higher temps. The infamous 'inversion' that used to keep the heat trapped below is now supplemented by down welling of the heat in the moist air masses again keeping the heat close to the ice. Last years N-ICE 15 have a full freeze season worth of atmospheric soundings, four times a day, that show us just what is occurring when these heat engines trawl over the pole. Can we have some links pls??
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 12, 2017 13:04:08 GMT
Warm air migrating to the poles is the worst thing that can happen, in regards to over all earth temperatures. Graywolf is correct to be worried about lower ice, but for all the wrong reasons. I still don't think he grasps the climatic effect of warm air at the poles, and in fact what is happening to earth's heat. It is leaving......fast! The oceans will buffer this for awhile, but that state can't last forever either. The only thing we, as humans, can hope for is that the level of clouds over the oceans in the tropics stays low. CO2 bandwidth does squat to ocean heat. UV bandwidth warms the oceans, like a large heat sink that is then distributed over earth via atmospheric actions and currents. The prime example that Graywolf should understand is the Gulf Current, and its effects on Europe. The warmth doesn't originate in Europe, but so far it gets there to ameliorate the cold temperatures that should be present. The push, in regards to CO2 effects, has come to the point of ruining actual research in order to come to a better understanding of drivers that DO regulate climate. I'm sorry Siggy but you are appearing a little dated in your current 'beliefs' on how temp is working over the Arctic basin. We've had a number of studies from within the arctic over the past 3 years looking at just how the energy balance is being impacted and the amount of energy 'leaving' is not increasing in line with higher temps. The infamous 'inversion' that used to keep the heat trapped below is now supplemented by down welling of the heat in the moist air masses again keeping the heat close to the ice. Last years N-ICE 15 have a full freeze season worth of atmospheric soundings, four times a day, that show us just what is occurring when these heat engines trawl over the pole. Yes, I am getting more dated every day. You still don't understand that the tiny thickness of the trop at the poles is letting the heat out.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2017 16:59:01 GMT
Warm air migrating to the poles is the worst thing that can happen, in regards to over all earth temperatures. Graywolf is correct to be worried about lower ice, but for all the wrong reasons. I still don't think he grasps the climatic effect of warm air at the poles, and in fact what is happening to earth's heat. It is leaving......fast! The oceans will buffer this for awhile, but that state can't last forever either. The only thing we, as humans, can hope for is that the level of clouds over the oceans in the tropics stays low. CO2 bandwidth does squat to ocean heat. UV bandwidth warms the oceans, like a large heat sink that is then distributed over earth via atmospheric actions and currents. The prime example that Graywolf should understand is the Gulf Current, and its effects on Europe. The warmth doesn't originate in Europe, but so far it gets there to ameliorate the cold temperatures that should be present. The push, in regards to CO2 effects, has come to the point of ruining actual research in order to come to a better understanding of drivers that DO regulate climate. I'm sorry Siggy but you are appearing a little dated in your current 'beliefs' on how temp is working over the Arctic basin. We've had a number of studies from within the arctic over the past 3 years looking at just how the energy balance is being impacted and the amount of energy 'leaving' is not increasing in line with higher temps. The infamous 'inversion' that used to keep the heat trapped below is now supplemented by down welling of the heat in the moist air masses again keeping the heat close to the ice. Last years N-ICE 15 have a full freeze season worth of atmospheric soundings, four times a day, that show us just what is occurring when these heat engines trawl over the pole. The infamous 'inversion' that used to keep the heat trapped below is now supplemented by down welling of the heat in the moist air masses again keeping the heat close to the ice.You blow over your tea to keep it warm do you GW? Heat will radiate in all directions and is not affected by inversions. Heat in the form of infrared will not penetrate into water it will increase the loss of heat due to evaporation especially in the very dry air. So the heat will escape into space. The only reason that it is warmer in the Arctic is that the winds are blowing warmer air in over Iceland and Svalbard to the pole to replace the cold air which is blowing south into North West Canada and the Northern USA.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 12, 2017 20:11:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 12, 2017 21:06:11 GMT
S B law.... I'm just getting my head around this stuff as I want too understand what happens to a photon of energy emitted from the surface and how it makes its way back to space. .. I struggle a little to understand where a blackbody has a role in our understanding of energy balance on our planet.....which isn't a blackbody...nor a vacuum.... Is there not a law which encompasses our actual physical environment?? Ah....emissivity....is the answer to the blackbody question Law of conservation of energy to the vacuum question. So yeah....pure SB law not relevant, need correct emissivity of given surface and know how much energy is lost after light energy is absorbed by surface matter (energy lost will determine frequency of...by this point ...ir wavelength. Different matter will absorb different amounts of light, therefore appearing colourful to us, processes such as evaporation affect subsequent photon energy left for production of ir wavelength) objectivistindividualist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-stefan-boltzmann-law-at-non-vacuum.html?m=1As this blog points out, IPCC have emissivity constant wrong and do not allow for vacuum component of SB so invalidate their equations from there on... So, please excuse the thought process but correct if needed, a photon of energy emitted from the surface radiates outwards at 300,000,000 m/s, may hit a co2 molecule at 0.004% of atmosphere, makes it vibrate for a nanosecond and travels in random direction. So 0.004% of ir may be involved in an equation involving pi and circumference to head back to the surface?? Of course, water also bounces ir around. I keep reading that co2 'absorbs' ir which is rubbish...I can't pin down if it retains some of the photon energy and bounces the rest out raising it's energy state. However this is irrelevant as water vapour is many many times more prevalent in the atmosphere and does THE SAME THING!! A good test I think for co2 effect would be night time temp in desert. If co2 has an effect, the heat loss would be less in dry night air then prior 1940 or so. Of course there aren't many temp records in these areas.... So, stepping ahead of myself a little here....air and water and land are heated by incoming TSI absorbing light and reflecting light and ir mostly. Atmosphere further warmed by further absorption of reflected light, radiated heat and mixes with convection. Ocean heated primarily through TSI and some atmosphere radiation (high heat capacity so atmosphere finds it hard to transfer energy) As light takes 100,000 years to escape sun due to photon scatter, photons find it hard to escape moisture laden atmosphere... Escape to space at 300,000m/s when unimpeded. Still not sure as to the nature of energy transfer as photons interact with molecules/atoms in the atmosphere, I'd assume the wavelength of the ir increases as it loses energy with every subsequent interaction, therefore imparting some of its 'mass' as heat to the atmosphere.... But Google ain't that helpful
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 12, 2017 22:08:58 GMT
By golly, you are catching on!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 12, 2017 22:23:20 GMT
How do you raise the temp of Svalbard from minus 17 to plus 5 and keep it there for over 5 days? Plug it into Panama!
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 13, 2017 0:04:31 GMT
What is the source of the image GW?
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Feb 13, 2017 3:16:26 GMT
There you have it its just a single string of hot wet air rushing to get cold.
Other than that the world will be cooler. That is why Greenland has record snow accumulations I would say.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 13, 2017 5:52:01 GMT
There you have it its just a single string of hot wet air rushing to get cold. Other than that the world will be cooler. That is why Greenland has record snow accumulations I would say. Been wondering about that .... Greenland accumulated SMB powering away, accelerating while the sea ice stagnates.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 13, 2017 10:16:49 GMT
There you have it its just a single string of hot wet air rushing to get cold. Other than that the world will be cooler. That is why Greenland has record snow accumulations I would say. Been wondering about that .... Greenland accumulated SMB powering away, accelerating while the sea ice stagnates. sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/Thx to whoever posted a link to this guy. Answers the question Ratty... Warm moisture laden air firing up the north atlantic to the pole is dumping snow on Greenland, while losing its heat as latent energy. Still warmer then average once it gets to the pole however...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 13, 2017 12:25:46 GMT
S B law.... <<<SNIP>>>>Of course, water also bounces ir around. I keep reading that co2 'absorbs' ir which is rubbish...I can't pin down if it retains some of the photon energy and bounces the rest out raising it's energy state. However this is irrelevant as water vapour is many many times more prevalent in the atmosphere and does THE SAME THING!! A good test I think for co2 effect would be night time temp in desert. If co2 has an effect, the heat loss would be less in dry night air then prior 1940 or so. Of course there aren't many temp records in these areas.... So, stepping ahead of myself a little here....air and water and land are heated by incoming TSI absorbing light and reflecting light and ir mostly. Atmosphere further warmed by further absorption of reflected light, radiated heat and mixes with convection. Ocean heated primarily through TSI and some atmosphere radiation (high heat capacity so atmosphere finds it hard to transfer energy) As light takes 100,000 years to escape sun due to photon scatter, photons find it hard to escape moisture laden atmosphere... Escape to space at 300,000m/s when unimpeded. Still not sure as to the nature of energy transfer as photons interact with molecules/atoms in the atmosphere, I'd assume the wavelength of the ir increases as it loses energy with every subsequent interaction, therefore imparting some of its 'mass' as heat to the atmosphere.... But Google ain't that helpful Doing fine until you got to water. A water molecule can absorb an IR photon and retain the energy as 'latent heat' as different molecular vibrations. If the water changes state to a lower energy state - normally by convecting upward into colder ambient air then that latent heat is released as one or more photon(s) of IR energy at that new level in the atmosphere. The oceans are only heated by shorter wavelength light that can penetrate into water not by longer 'heat' energy IR which is absorbed within 2 or 3 microns, adds energy to the first surface molecules which gain enough to evaporate taking even more energy from the surface as latent heat of evaporation. Then go to the convection upward above. The other points that people seem to forget: - Heat Energy does not have a temperature. Temperature is a measure of the amount of kinetic or vibrational energy of molecules which they get when they convert a photon of heat energy into kinetic or vibrational energy but Infrared heat energy itself does not have a 'temperature'. - A water molecule giving up latent heat of a phase change liberates the same amount of latent heat regardless of the ambient temperature. So a water molecule freezing in ambient air at 0degC gives up the same energy as a water molecule freezing in ambient air at -50degC. So water freezing at the top of a strong convective air current - say at the top of a hurricane gives off IR which is shown in satellite imagery.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 13, 2017 12:30:33 GMT
The extra snow compacts and puts more pressure at the origin of the glaciers which then increase in speed due to that extra snow. Cue wailing and gnashing of teeth as the glaciers are moving faster it must all be melting.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 13, 2017 12:35:12 GMT
S B law.... <<<SNIP>>>>Of course, water also bounces ir around. I keep reading that co2 'absorbs' ir which is rubbish...I can't pin down if it retains some of the photon energy and bounces the rest out raising it's energy state. However this is irrelevant as water vapour is many many times more prevalent in the atmosphere and does THE SAME THING!! A good test I think for co2 effect would be night time temp in desert. If co2 has an effect, the heat loss would be less in dry night air then prior 1940 or so. Of course there aren't many temp records in these areas.... So, stepping ahead of myself a little here....air and water and land are heated by incoming TSI absorbing light and reflecting light and ir mostly. Atmosphere further warmed by further absorption of reflected light, radiated heat and mixes with convection. Ocean heated primarily through TSI and some atmosphere radiation (high heat capacity so atmosphere finds it hard to transfer energy) As light takes 100,000 years to escape sun due to photon scatter, photons find it hard to escape moisture laden atmosphere... Escape to space at 300,000m/s when unimpeded. Still not sure as to the nature of energy transfer as photons interact with molecules/atoms in the atmosphere, I'd assume the wavelength of the ir increases as it loses energy with every subsequent interaction, therefore imparting some of its 'mass' as heat to the atmosphere.... But Google ain't that helpful Doing fine until you got to water. A water molecule can absorb an IR photon and retain the energy as 'latent heat' as different molecular vibrations. If the water changes state to a lower energy state - normally by convecting upward into colder ambient air then that latent heat is released as one or more photon(s) of IR energy at that new level in the atmosphere. The oceans are only heated by shorter wavelength light that can penetrate into water not by longer 'heat' energy IR which is absorbed within 2 or 3 microns, adds energy to the first surface molecules which gain enough to evaporate taking even more energy from the surface as latent heat of evaporation. Then go to the convection upward above. The other points that people seem to forget: - Heat Energy does not have a temperature. Temperature is a measure of the amount of kinetic or vibrational energy of molecules which they get when they convert a photon of heat energy into kinetic or vibrational energy but Infrared heat energy itself does not have a 'temperature'. - A water molecule giving up latent heat of a phase change liberates the same amount of latent heat regardless of the ambient temperature. So a water molecule freezing in ambient air at 0degC gives up the same energy as a water molecule freezing in ambient air at -50degC. So water freezing at the top of a strong convective air current - say at the top of a hurricane gives off IR which is shown in satellite imagery. Thx Naut...that's very helpful Is it true then to say that co2 bounces photons but h2o can retain the energy until it changes state??
|
|