|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 13, 2013 23:54:47 GMT
I've asked socold twice to address this. So far ... crickets.
Basic premise: 1. Temperature does not equal energy/heat. 2. Without global, long-term RH data assessing heat flux is not possible.
socold? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 14, 2013 2:05:06 GMT
Harold: Somewhere on this forum there is a discussion about AH levels. trends etc. There is very little data prior to sat RTA and the quality of the data since then is very subjective.
Do you have any insight to reliable data?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 14, 2013 11:20:37 GMT
Not really. In fact, my thread is pretty much a rhetorical question. And it's worse than that: a diminished version of a rhetorical question. What I really mean is the following: I continue to feel that using temperature to stand in for heat as AGW proponents do is misbegotten, that in the absence of accurately measured, extensively measured, and correctly calculated global RH values over the same period as supposed AGW discussions of added heat in the system are largely bunk. ARGO is a step in the right direction for measuring the whole system more accurately, if only it weren't administered by Team players, etc. But even it is arguably going to just scratch the surface, even when it's running at its full potential over decades. Because there are other forms of energy in the system! For instance, if I want to measure total energy of the oceans and the atmosphere, I'm compelled to measure: ocean currents wind atmospheric chemical composition oceanic chemical composition global ocean temperature (at all mixed depths!) global air temperature relative humidity water vapor lightning strikes potential electric energy Re wind, for instance, if it turned out that the planet was less windy now than 150 years ago, that would indicate less energy in the system (in that lone variable). And likewise if we were a little windier now than 150 years ago, in the absence of other change, that would indicate more energy/heat in the system. The fact that temperature is being allowed to represent total energy of this unbelievably complex, layered, interdependent system seems incredible to me. How could scientists stand up and swear that they "know" how much heat has been added to the system without having a handle on everything on the list I produced here (and presumably there are things I have failed to list...) In other words, I argue that the only reason that temperature has been granted "celebrity" status among scientists and the public alike is that an effort was made to come up with a global mean figure for it. In other words, the false impression of objectivity that averaging temperatures measured in different ways in different conditions around the Earth gave was so intoxicating that an entire industry grew around it. Part of that was scientists being conferred the "right" to say the sky was falling, which it turns out many of them had been waiting for their whole lives. I started the thread, just to draw out our AGW-is-a-clear-and-present-danger friends, on the single basis that global RH data does not exist for the period of supposed AGW. Again, AGW doesn't stand for Anthropogenic Global Increase in Temperature it stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, even though temperature flux does not equal heat flux. And now, let the hands wave.  |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 15, 2013 23:16:27 GMT
Harold, As I pointed out in my post here I feel that the climate 'scientists' have been clustered around the lamppost of 'atmospheric temperature' because they have those metrics, despite the fact that they are the incorrect metrics. They show the same trait with treemometers - claiming that tree ring widths tell them atmospheric temperature, yes temperature again thus compounding their use of incorrect inaccurate metrics. You point out the other energy being transmuted by the climate system. I read a paper (which I have somewhere) that estimated the amount of energy in all the weather systems startlingly large. Look at the GOES infrared imagery and you can see the hyrdologic cycle emitting latent heat of condensation and fusion out to space (which does not obey Stefan Boltzmann). NOAA actually provides a training exercise on the amount of energy involved in a 'standard' hurricane. Splitting it into the hydrologic cycle and the wind energy produced PER DAY.
" Method 1) - Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity - an incredible amount of energy produced!
Method 2) - Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated:
For a mature hurricane, the amount of kinetic energy generated is equal to that being dissipated due to friction. The dissipation rate per unit area is air density times the drag coefficient times the windspeed cubed (See Emanuel 1999 for details). One could either integrate a typical wind profile over a range of radii from the hurricane's center to the outer radius encompassing the storm, or assume an average windspeed for the inner core of the hurricane. Doing the latter and using 40 m/s (90 mph) winds on a scale of radius 60 km (40 n.mi.), one gets a wind dissipation rate (wind generation rate) of
1.3 x 1017 Joules/day or
1.5 x 1012Watts.
This is equivalent to about half the world-wide electrical generating capacity - also an amazing amount of energy being produced! ""200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity" per day! NOAA Site is here Add up all the cyclones all the jet streams and the entire hydrologic cycle and the figures are immense. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 16, 2013 1:56:56 GMT
Much too scientific just ask Kerry or Obama we must act now! Its hotter than it has ever been, forget the RH and heat content why I am in charge and I know all of the science. Sorry HAHN estate 2011 Chardonnay from the Marina area. link |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 16, 2013 3:30:07 GMT
The big difference between H20 and C02 is that H20 vapor actually has HEAT, whereas CO2 has nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 16, 2013 3:51:12 GMT
Gentlemen, thank you for weighing in, and so well. Nautonnier, the hurricane figures look familiar to me, and yet if so I hadn't seen them recently and am glad to see them now. The idea that the system can be measured, ever, and compared week to week, month to month, year to year, etc. is a howler.
Not an AGW-thumper in sight ... or earshot ... fancy that.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 16, 2013 4:01:35 GMT
Harold: I have some thoughts that I will share when I am at my desk. I would hope you will respond to them when I get them posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 16, 2013 20:45:31 GMT
Harold:
Wind Energy. The forces required to produce wind are fairly constant around the globe. They shift from hemisphere to hemisphere depending on the season. The energy expended or contained to produce these I feel is fairly constant.
Cyclonic Energy: The wind speed of the cyclone is not important. What is important is it is a large heat vector. A cyclone/hurricane does not produce energy, but rather concentrates it with a vector for it to rise to the Strat and beyond. It also pushed water vapor into the Strat, which once again will over ride the CO2 that is present in that area. A cyclone/hurricane results in a net minus energy available.
A northern example of this would be a SSW during the winter over the Arctic. The trop is so thin that anything a 1,000 meters high is in the strat. And once in the strat.......the heat is expelled very very fast.
One thing to bear in mind is that TOA (Top of Atmosphere) in climate models is only 20 miles up. Yet, the atmosphere is considered at least 140 miles up, and further depending on sun spot cycles. Right now our atmosphere has shrunk. Area wise, when we loose even 10 miles of atmosphere, the area is HUGE....and is bound to have an effect. I think this effect is born out by the current cooling trend.
CO2 transports heat, but itself is not hot nor cold. We all know that H2O vapor, by its physical properties, actually retains heat. At the same time it radiates heat or retains that heat, so it mimics CO2 in that regard, and the bandwidths overlap so that in the lower atmosphere there could be no CO2 and it would not change the overall dynamics of such. Take the H2O away tho...and we would be screwed temperature wise.
This is not a "back radiation" type of phenomena, but rather the ability to capture warmth and retain it. Back to physical properties.
Ocean Currents: It takes energy to drive these currents. However, the flow rate, depth, etc...etc.....is not well known. One would guess that the variation in a short period of time because of the sheer physical weight of motion does not vary a lot overall. Yes, you can have variations in one area, but it does appear that the variation is off set in another area so that useage of energy is somewhat constant. Over centuries, it can and does appear to change. Short time scales tho, such as the last 30 years....no effect one way or the other on total energy.
An important area that I think is overlooked it the actual depth of our atmosphere. We now know that it changes by 100's of miles. Those changes are an artifact of sun performance.
Conclusion:
1. CO2 at low elevation has zero effect on temperature. H20 vapor completely overwhelms anything that CO2 might be thought to do.
2. Total energy absorbed/emitted is not well measured. The metrics of TOA are substantially too shallow. The reason for this potentially is that higher up the CO2 molecule would demonstrate net cooling as the radiation chances of reaching the earth diminish with height. The earth is somewhat round, not flat as some think. When one talks about atmosphere, one must always consider this. A single air column as presented in Climate Models is not at all applicable to reality of shape and function of radiation to said shape.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 17, 2013 12:54:02 GMT
Harold: Wind Energy. The forces required to produce wind are fairly constant around the globe. They shift from hemisphere to hemisphere depending on the season. The energy expended or contained to produce these I feel is fairly constant. Cyclonic Energy: The wind speed of the cyclone is not important. What is important is it is a large heat vector. A cyclone/hurricane does not produce energy, but rather concentrates it with a vector for it to rise to the Strat and beyond. It also pushed water vapor into the Strat, which once again will over ride the CO2 that is present in that area. A cyclone/hurricane results in a net minus energy available. A northern example of this would be a SSW during the winter over the Arctic. The trop is so thin that anything a 1,000 meters high is in the strat. And once in the strat.......the heat is expelled very very fast. One thing to bear in mind is that TOA (Top of Atmosphere) in climate models is only 20 miles up. Yet, the atmosphere is considered at least 140 miles up, and further depending on sun spot cycles. Right now our atmosphere has shrunk. Area wise, when we loose even 10 miles of atmosphere, the area is HUGE....and is bound to have an effect. I think this effect is born out by the current cooling trend. CO2 transports heat, but itself is not hot nor cold. We all know that H2O vapor, by its physical properties, actually retains heat. At the same time it radiates heat or retains that heat, so it mimics CO2 in that regard, and the bandwidths overlap so that in the lower atmosphere there could be no CO2 and it would not change the overall dynamics of such. Take the H2O away tho...and we would be screwed temperature wise. This is not a "back radiation" type of phenomena, but rather the ability to capture warmth and retain it. Back to physical properties. Ocean Currents: It takes energy to drive these currents. However, the flow rate, depth, etc...etc.....is not well known. One would guess that the variation in a short period of time because of the sheer physical weight of motion does not vary a lot overall. Yes, you can have variations in one area, but it does appear that the variation is off set in another area so that useage of energy is somewhat constant. Over centuries, it can and does appear to change. Short time scales tho, such as the last 30 years....no effect one way or the other on total energy. An important area that I think is overlooked it the actual depth of our atmosphere. We now know that it changes by 100's of miles. Those changes are an artifact of sun performance. Conclusion: 1. CO2 at low elevation has zero effect on temperature. H20 vapor completely overwhelms anything that CO2 might be thought to do. 2. Total energy absorbed/emitted is not well measured. The metrics of TOA are substantially too shallow. The reason for this potentially is that higher up the CO2 molecule would demonstrate net cooling as the radiation chances of reaching the earth diminish with height. The earth is somewhat round, not flat as some think. When one talks about atmosphere, one must always consider this. A single air column as presented in Climate Models is not at all applicable to reality of shape and function of radiation to said shape. Thoughts? I can't agree that "The forces required to produce wind are fairly constant around the globe." Indeed, that is precisely the kind of presumptive thinking informing AGW. Neither you nor I have very little idea how much energy is exchanged annually among solar radiation, wind, waves, precipitation, evaporation, etc. Saying any one of these is constant year upon year does not make it so. And, again, we know even less about these metrics when AGW supposedly commenced than we do now. So, comparisons among them is *not possible.* Regarding the TOA, the missing hot spot in the upper troposphere is well documented. It's in the same hide-and-go-seek game as the missing heat in the oceans, holding hands behind a tree somewhere. Gotta be a big tree, though, lol. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 17, 2013 13:47:09 GMT
A really large tree.
The large item concerning the forces of wind, currents etc is that they do not leave earth. They are part of the energy distribution on earth.
Certain items, such as a hurricane lifts the energy so high and with such intensity that this allows energy to be transported quickly. Like a leak in a hose.
As far as the "hot spot" idea.....it was foolish to begin with and is foolish now. Anyone worth their salt knew it. Unfortunately, the folks reading the models didn't sea a false flag when they saw it.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 17, 2013 17:29:52 GMT
A really large tree. The large item concerning the forces of wind, currents etc is that they do not leave earth. They are part of the energy distribution on earth. Certain items, such as a hurricane lifts the energy so high and with such intensity that this allows energy to be transported quickly. Like a leak in a hose. As far as the "hot spot" idea.....it was foolish to begin with and is foolish now. Anyone worth their salt knew it. Unfortunately, the folks reading the models didn't sea a false flag when they saw it. The "large item" you mention (wind, currents, etc.) can disguise energy in such a way that heat appears to increase or decrease, though, and there's the rub. Friction pun not intended. Again, to claim temperature as a "separate" metric, one standing in for a complex, layered, interdependent system, is hilarious, really. |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Aug 20, 2013 14:22:35 GMT
Basic premise: 1. Temperature does not equal energy/heat. Send me that wonder stuff that gets hot without any energy spent. Lots of it if you can. Also the stuff that can hide itself being hot, or that never does get hot, would also be nice to have. I'll have a sample of both, please. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 20, 2013 17:45:26 GMT
Basic premise: 1. Temperature does not equal energy/heat. Send me that wonder stuff that gets hot without any energy spent. Lots of it if you can. Also the stuff that can hide itself being hot, or that never does get hot, would also be nice to have. I'll have a sample of both, please. A case of "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Simply put the specific heat of air - known as 'enthalpy' - varies considerably with its humidity. This means that a kilogram of humid air needs significantly more heat measured in kilojoules - to be raised one degree than does dry air. Atmospheric temperature is not therefore a measure of atmospheric heat content. Humid air at 75F has nearly twice the amount of heat energy in kilojoules per kilogram as dry air at 100F. The entire AGW hypothesis is based on 'trapping heat' and raising the atmospheric heat content. But the climate 'scientists' then proceed to use the incorrect metric for atmospheric heat content. So for example Finland could be 90F and bright dry and sunny then a month later be 70F and misty - and the heat content at 70F be more than the heat content at 90F. But people unaware of that may trumpet the 'proof of global warming' of the 90F not realizing that there was actually less heat energy in the air. These misunderstandings are what happen when people use colloquial terms and usage instead of precise scientific and engineering metrics. I believe that these misunderstandings have been capitalized on to raise a scare when in actual fact all that has happened is a small reduction in global humidity. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 20, 2013 19:27:24 GMT
One thing of importance in all of this is the trend of humidity. Contrary to the AGW theory, humidity levels appear to have fallen globally. This of course would result in the dry bulb temperature increasing, unless is there a new physics dept that I am not aware off.
When looking at the humidity levels and dry bulb readings, it is actually scarry. We have not warmed, via dry bulb guesses, for 15 years. Yet, humidity has potentially fallen.
That would mean that we are MUCH cooler at present than we were 15 years ago. What happens if we see a 1 or 2% rise in global humidity? How much colder would we get??
|
|
