|
Post by icefisher on Feb 12, 2018 0:51:55 GMT
The following diagram is interesting as it shows the temperature gradient reverses direction very near the surface (less than 1mm). So one can say evaporation is overriding any warming occurring in that region from IR. However, IR extends beyond 1mm. If the depletion of IR light curve is similar to the depletion of visible light curve. Approximately 20% of IR will penetrate to 10cm or about 4 inches. I don't know how much one can extrapolate from this sketch but you can see an increase in warming rate above maybe 2 meters (scale is logarithmic) for what is probably solar near IR during the day and nothing at night. However, anything there would be working against natural convection occurring as the surface cools. p.s. the legend did not process for the image. (a) is nighttime; (b) is daytime
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2018 1:02:45 GMT
The following diagram is interesting as it shows the temperature gradient reverses direction very near the surface (less than 1mm). So one can say evaporation is overriding any warming occurring in that region from IR. However, IR extends beyond 1mm. If the depletion of IR light curve is similar to the depletion of visible light curve. Approximately 20% of IR will penetrate to 10cm or about 4 inches. You need to remember that the IR we are talking about in this case is the 'downwelling' IR from CO2. This apart from a very small window is solidly in the absorption band for water so cannot penetrate past the first molecule it hits. AGW assumes that downwelling IR heats the surface but it doesn't. A water or plant surface (which has water evaporation from stomata) will be cooled by downwelling IR in the CO2 frequency band as evaporation and loss of latent heat is enhanced. Similarly a warm atmosphere blowing over a water surface will also increase evaporation cooling the surface (or the plant). In the case of dry land the downwelling infrared will increase the heat of the surface but Stefan Boltzmann's equation shows that the heating results in an increase of the radiation from the surface by the fourth power of the rise in temperature - a built in negative feedback. So tell me again how the magic CO2 molecule causes warming?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 12, 2018 1:28:22 GMT
The following diagram is interesting as it shows the temperature gradient reverses direction very near the surface (less than 1mm). So one can say evaporation is overriding any warming occurring in that region from IR. However, IR extends beyond 1mm. If the depletion of IR light curve is similar to the depletion of visible light curve. Approximately 20% of IR will penetrate to 10cm or about 4 inches. You need to remember that the IR we are talking about in this case is the 'downwelling' IR from CO2. This apart from a very small window is solidly in the absorption band for water so cannot penetrate past the first molecule it hits. AGW assumes that downwelling IR heats the surface but it doesn't. A water or plant surface (which has water evaporation from stomata) will be cooled by downwelling IR in the CO2 frequency band as evaporation and loss of latent heat is enhanced. Similarly a warm atmosphere blowing over a water surface will also increase evaporation cooling the surface (or the plant). In the case of dry land the downwelling infrared will increase the heat of the surface but Stefan Boltzmann's equation shows that the heating results in an increase of the radiation from the surface by the fourth power of the rise in temperature - a built in negative feedback. So tell me again how the magic CO2 molecule causes warming? I would argue, or at minimum ask for proof on the "first molecule" claim. But as in the chart I posted earlier in the CO2 absorption range IR light is about 99.999% absorbed by one meter. Using data on visible light to create a curve that suggests that 20% of IR light in the CO2 absorption range reaches to 5cm or about 2 inches. (based on visible light reaching to 200 meters and being 22% absorbed in the first 10 meters). I am not arguing thats right I am just saying the following absorption chart suggests it gets down a little ways past the first couple of picometers.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 12, 2018 1:47:45 GMT
But other than that IR may warm the skin and account for the incline in temperatures below the very top of the skin down to less than one millimeter at which point convection and natural mixing overrides the signal. I actually agree that its possible very little ocean heating occurs from CO2 IR downwelling unless you choose to single out the downwelling IR from all the other radiation and modes of heat transfer by CO2 molecules.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 12, 2018 18:39:05 GMT
Solar Cycle 23 And 24 - Sunspot and Spotless Day ProgressionThere are another 19 months remaining in SC24 IF it is as long as SC23. The number of spotless days in SC24 was 3 times that of SC23 in its opening stages ... and have so far been 3 times the number in the current tail. This ratio is of course dependent on the final length of SC24.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 19, 2018 19:20:43 GMT
I was looking through the Greenhouse Gas Effect thread to find a link I wanted and I noticed this statement by Nautonnier.
“A simple experiment, put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating.”
High school physics often associates evaporation with adding heat to liquid water which brings the temperature up to the boiling point. That’s what people remember. But, in fact, almost all evaporation occurs at temperatures far below the boiling point.
Oceans, lakes, rivers and water on the ground or in receptacles are the major sources of evaporation.
There’s the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum. Similarly, water evaporates because the air above is not saturated. This evaporation occurs even at very low temperatures, but stops when the air is at 100% relative humidity.
Now reread the Nautonnier quote above.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2018 19:38:25 GMT
I was looking through the Greenhouse Gas Effect thread to find a link I wanted and I noticed this statement by Nautonnier. “A simple experiment, put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating.” High school physics often associates evaporation with adding heat to liquid water which brings the temperature up to the boiling point. That’s what people remember. But, in fact, almost all evaporation occurs at temperatures far below the boiling point. Oceans, lakes, rivers and water on the ground or in receptacles are the major sources of evaporation. There’s the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum. Similarly, water evaporates because the air above is not saturated. This evaporation occurs even at very low temperatures, but stops when the air is at 100% relative humidity. Now reread the Nautonnier quote above. Good straw man yes of course evaporation depends on Henry's law - but the the evaporation rate would increase with the added IR. And remember (vide your previous IR going a meter deep) that it is IR in the CO2 absorption/emission band only. As I have said though set the experiment up - as it is _fundamental_ to the claims of global warming due to 'downwelling' IR from CO2.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 19, 2018 21:18:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 19, 2018 22:48:59 GMT
I knew his sister:
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 20, 2018 2:46:08 GMT
I was looking through the Greenhouse Gas Effect thread to find a link I wanted and I noticed this statement by Nautonnier. “A simple experiment, put an infrared source over some water and see what happens. I would suggest that the water would start evaporating.” High school physics often associates evaporation with adding heat to liquid water which brings the temperature up to the boiling point. That’s what people remember. But, in fact, almost all evaporation occurs at temperatures far below the boiling point. Oceans, lakes, rivers and water on the ground or in receptacles are the major sources of evaporation. There’s the old saying that nature abhors a vacuum. Similarly, water evaporates because the air above is not saturated. This evaporation occurs even at very low temperatures, but stops when the air is at 100% relative humidity. Now reread the Nautonnier quote above. Good straw man yes of course evaporation depends on Henry's law - but the the evaporation rate would increase with the added IR. And remember (vide your previous IR going a meter deep) that it is IR in the CO2 absorption/emission band only. As I have said though set the experiment up - as it is _fundamental_ to the claims of global warming due to 'downwelling' IR from CO2. Nautonnier, I'm glad we got that corrected. Another question, are you suggesting that the downwelling IR resulting from CO2 absorption of upwelling IR would have the same wavelength as the absorbed IR?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2018 12:51:44 GMT
Good straw man yes of course evaporation depends on Henry's law - but the the evaporation rate would increase with the added IR. And remember (vide your previous IR going a meter deep) that it is IR in the CO2 absorption/emission band only. As I have said though set the experiment up - as it is _fundamental_ to the claims of global warming due to 'downwelling' IR from CO2. Nautonnier, I'm glad we got that corrected. Another question, are you suggesting that the downwelling IR resulting from CO2 absorption of upwelling IR would have the same wavelength as the absorbed IR? My understanding is yes - the 3 vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule are what gives it the 3 absorption bands and these vibrational modes are what emit the infrared. So the IR frequency should be the same. (I read somewhere that was always the case but cannot find it immediately) See science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 4, 2018 13:26:05 GMT
From the 'questions for Dr Svalgaard' thread not worth discussing: From Abdussmatov also not worth considering: It would seem though that we have 2 votes in favor of Theo's outlook
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 6, 2018 0:32:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 6, 2018 0:56:01 GMT
Commentary anyone?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 6, 2018 1:57:39 GMT
Commentary anyone? I think I need the author's (and others) interpretations.
|
|