Hi all. This section shows that once again the climate models are getting it wrong. SH and RH have been dropping and they should be rising.
So in effect, we are loosing the H2O vapor feedback mechanism. That could very well be why the radiation budget previously thought is not working out so well.
Hi all. This section shows that once again the climate models are getting it wrong. SH and RH have been dropping and they should be rising.
So in effect, we are loosing the H2O vapor feedback mechanism. That could very well be why the radiation budget previously thought is not working out so well.
Hi all. This section shows that once again the climate models are getting it wrong. SH and RH have been dropping and they should be rising.
So in effect, we are loosing the H2O vapor feedback mechanism. That could very well be why the radiation budget previously thought is not working out so well.
The important point here is that as the humidity drops the enthalpy drops very rapidly. So the same amount of heat will raise the temperature of the air faster. So all the people who do not understand enthalpy will be saying look its getting warmer!! so more heat is being trapped - this is false.
As an example: A Louisiana bayou in the afternoon just after a thundershower the air temperature is 25C (~77F) the humidity is 100% with mist slowly burning off in the sun. At the same time over in the Arizona desert the temperature is 38C (~100F) and almost zero humidity. The energy content of the air in the bayou at 25C is ~76.8 kJ/Kg but the energy of the Arizona air at 38C is ~38.2 kJ/Kg only half that of the cooler Louisiana air.
People using simple 'air temperature' to assess heat content are using the incorrect metric. Just because these records were kept for a long time doesn't make air temperature a suitable metric for the amount of heat 'trapped' in the atmosphere. Averaging the temperatures makes even less sense. It is not uncommon in Florida for morning temperatures to be 60F with afternoon peak temperature 90F but as the morning is ~90% humidity or more and the afternoon is say ~60% the actual heat content of the atmosphere may have been unaltered or even dropped from morning to afternoon.
Air temperature as a metric on its own is only marginally more useful than tree rings.
If global heat content is going to be assessed then use ocean temperatures. But measuring them is not a simple process either.
Hi all. This section shows that once again the climate models are getting it wrong. SH and RH have been dropping and they should be rising.
So in effect, we are loosing the H2O vapor feedback mechanism. That could very well be why the radiation budget previously thought is not working out so well.
The important point here is that as the humidity drops the enthalpy drops very rapidly. So the same amount of heat will raise the temperature of the air faster. So all the people who do not understand enthalpy will be saying look its getting warmer!! so more heat is being trapped - this is false.
As an example: A Louisiana bayou in the afternoon just after a thundershower the air temperature is 25C (~77F) the humidity is 100% with mist slowly burning off in the sun. At the same time over in the Arizona desert the temperature is 38C (~100F) and almost zero humidity. The energy content of the air in the bayou at 25C is ~76.8 kJ/Kg but the energy of the Arizona air at 38C is ~38.2 kJ/Kg only half that of the cooler Louisiana air.
People using simple 'air temperature' to assess heat content are using the incorrect metric. Just because these records were kept for a long time doesn't make air temperature a suitable metric for the amount of heat 'trapped' in the atmosphere. Averaging the temperatures makes even less sense. It is not uncommon in Florida for morning temperatures to be 60F with afternoon peak temperature 90F but as the morning is ~90% humidity or more and the afternoon is say ~60% the actual heat content of the atmosphere may have been unaltered or even dropped from morning to afternoon.
Air temperature as a metric on its own is only marginally more useful than tree rings.
If global heat content is going to be assessed then use ocean temperatures. But measuring them is not a simple process either.
What you are saying is very interesting but there is still the observation that as the humidity drops it becomes harder to heat the surface and atmosphere due to the huge absorption by water
Besides heat in the air because of water vapour containing heat means the surface was cooled by water and if the surface is cooler then the temperature measured in a stevenson screen is also cooler.
It sounds however impossibly difficult to easily make sense of the competing forces and you are right that it appears to invalidate the historical temperature record if here is no record of humidity.
The important point here is that as the humidity drops the enthalpy drops very rapidly. So the same amount of heat will raise the temperature of the air faster. So all the people who do not understand enthalpy will be saying look its getting warmer!! so more heat is being trapped - this is false.
As an example: A Louisiana bayou in the afternoon just after a thundershower the air temperature is 25C (~77F) the humidity is 100% with mist slowly burning off in the sun. At the same time over in the Arizona desert the temperature is 38C (~100F) and almost zero humidity. The energy content of the air in the bayou at 25C is ~76.8 kJ/Kg but the energy of the Arizona air at 38C is ~38.2 kJ/Kg only half that of the cooler Louisiana air.
People using simple 'air temperature' to assess heat content are using the incorrect metric. Just because these records were kept for a long time doesn't make air temperature a suitable metric for the amount of heat 'trapped' in the atmosphere. Averaging the temperatures makes even less sense. It is not uncommon in Florida for morning temperatures to be 60F with afternoon peak temperature 90F but as the morning is ~90% humidity or more and the afternoon is say ~60% the actual heat content of the atmosphere may have been unaltered or even dropped from morning to afternoon.
Air temperature as a metric on its own is only marginally more useful than tree rings.
If global heat content is going to be assessed then use ocean temperatures. But measuring them is not a simple process either.
What you are saying is very interesting but there is still the observation that as the humidity drops it becomes harder to heat the surface and atmosphere due to the huge absorption by water
Besides heat in the air because of water vapour containing heat means the surface was cooled by water and if the surface is cooler then the temperature measured in a stevenson screen is also cooler.
It sounds however impossibly difficult to easily make sense of the competing forces and you are right that it appears to invalidate the historical temperature record if here is no record of humidity.
Definately interesting!
Did you write that yourself?
I think I may have to write it slower for you.
If the humidity is very low (therefore low enthalpy) then it takes less 'heat' to raise the temperature of the air. And vice versa.
It is perfectly possible to have high or low humidity regardless of whether there has been any precipitation, so you will have to explain why it makes 'the surface more difficult to heat'.
Reports are that generally the humidity of the atmosphere is reducing. This means that for the same heat content the atmosphere will have a higher temperature.
What you are saying is very interesting but there is still the observation that as the humidity drops it becomes harder to heat the surface and atmosphere due to the huge absorption by water
Besides heat in the air because of water vapour containing heat means the surface was cooled by water and if the surface is cooler then the temperature measured in a stevenson screen is also cooler.
It sounds however impossibly difficult to easily make sense of the competing forces and you are right that it appears to invalidate the historical temperature record if here is no record of humidity.
Definately interesting!
Did you write that yourself?
I think I may have to write it slower for you.
If the humidity is very low (therefore low enthalpy) then it takes less 'heat' to raise the temperature of the air. And vice versa.
It is perfectly possible to have high or low humidity regardless of whether there has been any precipitation, so you will have to explain why it makes 'the surface more difficult to heat'.
Reports are that generally the humidity of the atmosphere is reducing. This means that for the same heat content the atmosphere will have a higher temperature.
If you read this slower you might absorb it better.
The vapour pressure of water is such that there is a significant amount of water in the first 10 feet of the atmosphere. Water has an extraordinary ability to absorb radiation not just from the surface but from its own emissions.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
If there is less water then it can be colder.
However as i said there is complexity and competing forces.
If the humidity is very low (therefore low enthalpy) then it takes less 'heat' to raise the temperature of the air. And vice versa.
It is perfectly possible to have high or low humidity regardless of whether there has been any precipitation, so you will have to explain why it makes 'the surface more difficult to heat'.
Reports are that generally the humidity of the atmosphere is reducing. This means that for the same heat content the atmosphere will have a higher temperature.
If you read this slower you might absorb it better.
The vapour pressure of water is such that there is a significant amount of water in the first 10 feet of the atmosphere. Water has an extraordinary ability to absorb radiation not just from the surface but from its own emissions.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
If there is less water then it can be colder.
However as i said there is complexity and competing forces.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
Water vapor cools the surface. There's a reason why the desert floor gets much hotter than the tropics during the day.
If you read this slower you might absorb it better.
The vapour pressure of water is such that there is a significant amount of water in the first 10 feet of the atmosphere. Water has an extraordinary ability to absorb radiation not just from the surface but from its own emissions.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
If there is less water then it can be colder.
However as i said there is complexity and competing forces.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
Water vapor cools the surface. There's a reason why the desert floor gets much hotter than the tropics during the day.
You need to understand that i said 'can be', you also need to understand that context produces different observations.
Also you need to be aware that i said the situation is complex.
A layer of water at the surface enables the surface to remain warmer at night . The formation of dew protects plants from frost.
A dry surface in humid air will warm the air at a distance from the surface much quicker than a dry surface can warm dry air at a distance from the surface.
Also in the context of desert floors being warmer than the tropics, the formation of water vapour which is a strongly rising light gas, aids the production of thermals that act to replace the hotter surface layers of air. However when water vapour is in higher concentrations it tends to remain near water so that water in the air is found in greater concentration near liquid water at the surface.
Therefore the vapour pressure of Mercury created by gravity and the heaviness of Mercury, is a different phenonema to the vapour pressure of water where water vapour is lighter than nitrogen and oxygen which make up the bulk of the air.
It seems that water vapour in high concentration is a transition state from liquid to gas where water is known to have an amount of hydrogen bonding that acts to hold the molecules together.
Water vapour at the surface must need the 'attack' of molecular vibrations caused by more heating to split apart the bonding that keeps the gas at the surface even while it is lighter than most of the air.
Possibly the same phenonema of water water bonds helps keep a cloud in such an unusual formation for the length of time the cloud exists, where the cloud is a combination of water vapour and water.
Normally gases mix very quicky by diffusion, which is related to molecular velocities or heat content, Clouds obviously do not do this so readily.
A dry surface in humid air will warm the air at a distance from the surface much quicker than a dry surface can warm dry air at a distance from the surface.
Not if you ascribe to the right hand diagram as you have asserted you ascribe to.
No warming occurs in the righthand diagram as all the radiation is accounted for before any warming occurs.
These diagrams are supposed to be representations of the disposition of energy at points in time where conduction is a non-factor (i.e. no longer bleeding off energy from the GHG) at equilibrium.
In the left hand diagram the molecules are warm to equilibrium with the surface and either sending 341 watts/m2 from all surfaces no matter how a surface plane is oriented. . . .
Steve asserted the molecules don't warm.
Its probably only true when you introduce conduction/convection to the model (which is a process not allowed before 1.2 degrees surface warming occurs in his model).
However, if conduction were allowed the extra energy converted to heat is conducted to adjoining cooler molecules and is not available for backradiation. So the bottom emitting 171 would then be directed to conduction/convection at the heat flux rate of .5, which computes to half of what is received.
Gases are very efficient at conducting due to the motion of molecules in a gas. Throw the book on conductivity out the window for gas convective conductivity. In fact this is where the convective heat flux comes in.
The process reverses at night, drawing heat from nearby molecules, losing energy in all directions in relationship to the relative warmth of the different directions.
So you are being inconsistent here claiming radiation heats the sky Iceskater with some of the other arguments you have supported in this forum.
This is the basic problem with climate science. They claim all this internal conduction/radiation business is settled science and they go on to model the results from a purely radiative point of view. They then multiply that result by 3 to account as good as the model can for historical temperature variation. . . .which requires a hockey stick since there was no source of excess CO2 allegedly prior to the industrial age.
That means the real answer is in the feedback bag. It could be positive or negative, but most likely its 100% negative feedback and the warming never occurs or if it does its temporary until the system adjusts to its emissive/conductive equilibriums.
The numbers in the diagram do not matter. Its the disposition of whatever is intercepted in total that can allow or disallow cooling or warming of the atmosphere. You selected a model that disallows it.
It is impossible to have a conversation with either you or your other personalities.
1. You have produced a diagram where you refuse to say what it is or where you got it from
2. Each time one personality gets threatened you use the other personality to keep up an attack that is without reason or method or anything that can be understood or discussed.
It is impossible to have a conversation with either you or your other personalities.
1. You have produced a diagram where you refuse to say what it is or where you got it from
2. Each time one personality gets threatened you use the other personality to keep up an attack that is without reason or method or anything that can be understood or discussed.
OK lets use your diagram.
As I said in the bottom of my post the actual numbers are not important its the distribution of input that is important.
So what figure goes into warming the atmosphere IN YOUR MODEL? Or are you claiming its the same temperature as the surface at 42watts input so nothing is lost to conduction?
It seems that if the atmosphere is as warm as the surface then it must be the case that all that radiation is absorbed very near the surface.
The following graph from NASA shows:
Incoming 100% equals 341watts/m2
so NASA shows 15% of 341 is 51watts/m2 of which all is emitted to space.
Its in compliance with the left hand side, not the right hand side of the diagram in my previous post.
But this discussion is a bit off topic here.
We should take this discussion back to the backradiation thread so we can determine if you believe the surface warms the atmosphere or not or if it just turns all the energy around and either sends it back to the surface and to space in equal proportions without warming the atmosphere.
Only in that way can you argue consistently throughout this forum rather than trying to have your cake and eating it too.
If the humidity is very low (therefore low enthalpy) then it takes less 'heat' to raise the temperature of the air. And vice versa.
It is perfectly possible to have high or low humidity regardless of whether there has been any precipitation, so you will have to explain why it makes 'the surface more difficult to heat'.
Reports are that generally the humidity of the atmosphere is reducing. This means that for the same heat content the atmosphere will have a higher temperature.
If you read this slower you might absorb it better.
The vapour pressure of water is such that there is a significant amount of water in the first 10 feet of the atmosphere. Water has an extraordinary ability to absorb radiation not just from the surface but from its own emissions.
It is well known that when it is humid the surface can be warmer because of the ability of water to keep the earth and lower atmosphere warmer.
If there is less water then it can be colder.
However as i said there is complexity and competing forces.
It would appear that you are deliberately missing the points made.
I had a link to a paper that showed humidity levels in the atmosphere when I started this thread. I hadn't cleared my cache, and didn't save the link nor information.
I have since searched for that elusive information. Does anyone have a link etc to the current trend in humidity? I know it has been going down, but I want to be able to document this.
The humidity of the atmosphere has a great bearing on the temperature as recorded by bulb thermometers.
