|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 17:53:00 GMT
If you allow all to vary volume increase with pressure drop then there is no change in temperature. The volume remains the same as you rise in altitude so the number of molecules in the volume reduces (pressure reducing with altitude) so the total kinetic energy reduces without reducing the kinetic energy of an individual molecule. So you are in effect saying the loss of kinetic energy in the upper atmosphere is due entirely to mixing, radiation, and collisions between molecules of different levels of kinetic energy? So I can just forget the question I asked. I hope thats right because its always good to be able to post a "not a through street" sign on a bunny trail.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 21:08:15 GMT
Icefisher, against my better judgment, I’m going to respond to your question number 1. We’ll see how it goes. Assuming the metal pieces are connected to the spacecraft by a non-conductive material, convection and conduction play no role. With radiation (incoming and outgoing) being the only determinant of the temperature, the Stephan-Boltzman laws can be used. It’s easy to find a calculation of earth’s temperature with no atmosphere using Stephan-Boltzman. The calculation could be adjusted to estimate the temperature of a metal piece in space. If the metal pieces are not the same distance from the sun as the earth then an adjustment is required. If the albedo is different, then an adjustment is required. Since the metal pieces are flat rather than spherical an adjustment is required. A flat circular flat object with the same circumference as a sphere will have half the surface area of a sphere. This will not affect the incoming radiation amount since a circular flat piece perpendicular to the sun will receive the same amount of radiation energy as a sphere of the same circumference. But because of the area difference the outgoing emissions at any given temperature will only be half as much. This means the temperature will need to be higher in order to emit enough radiation energy to offset the incoming radiation. I agree with everything but the albedo adjustment. Stefan Boltzmann equations have a factor called the emissivity factor. It is represented by a E. This emissivity factor is the inverse of albedo. Thus emissivity with albedo at .3 gives gives an emissivity factor of .7. That can be confirmed by looking at the 340.3 watts that according to Trenberth is 1/4th the solar constant and dividing it into total emissivity of the planet of 239.9. The division rounds to .705 emissivity. Then reflection comes up with and albedo of .294 since Trenberth is looking for an imbalance of .6k the sum doesn't quite balance. Use that .705 in both SB equations for both absorption and emission and it makes no difference in estimating equilibrium temperature. Climate science fudges the concept as they do a lot of concepts such as feedback for the alleged purpose of informing the public in a more simplified manner when in fact its more like the "hide the decline" trick where complexity is erased and substituted with another measure. So the simplified version is fastidiously cleaned of complexity explicitly designed to convince you they are correct and the science is settled. This is related to another deception concerning albedo! Albedo is subtracted from planetary equilibrium value to make the greenhouse effect look larger, (and it probably does strictly from the point of view of greenhouse gas emissions if you define greenhouse gas emissions as synonymous with the greenhouse effect). But what is albedo caused by? Albedo is almost exclusively negative feedback from water vapor being lifted into the sky creating clouds and snowfall. By burying this feedback into a reduced equilibrium temperature it makes the greenhouse effect larger and thus artificially supports a large sensitivity number that deals with a lot more than just greenhouse gas emissions. What it does is set the stage for positive feedback only. After hiding all that negative feedback in the closet they claim feedback is all positive in the future because we cannot be sure about future snowfalls and clouds. Then the models are parameterized in concert with this wisdom holding more water vapor in the sky with no more clouds and maybe even less snowfall. All it is is models aiming at a target that has already been blessed that was arrived at simply because they believe it and can't think of anything else....just like the Ptolemy Theory. Indeed science has evolved greatly since the middle ages but I can guarantee you scientists have not. So who is calling them on this? Well nobody whose career funding is controlled by magazines and advocacy groups for scientists in general that also publish journals, which comprise virtually all the peer reviewed journals. That's career suicide going against the massed interest of NGO-owned, yellow journalism, and the broad interest of science in motivating the public to invest in science. Its like flipping off your boss who has no sense of humor. So who do you hear calling them out? Well retired scientists that actually know something about the atmosphere that aren't advancing their careers. Also Meteorologists that don't depend upon the science community buying their product. But few retired scientists actually go to the trouble to get anything published as their work is shunned by most journals and most of them are just trying to enjoy their retirement. There have been exceptions. For instance in a recent interview with Dr. Will Happer he stated that the actual equilibrium temperature for the earth was 5C. That's notably not the -18C peddled by mainstream climate science. The 5C statement spurred a rebuttal by some engineer speaking on behalf of climate science. But generally its no a debate welcomed by climate science. 5C (rounded) is the expected temperature of an object in space where the earth is located in relationship to the sun without regard to albedo. So I have an atmospheric physicist with an impeccable reputation on my side in this debate. So the request for experiment is just to set up the convoluted fallacy being peddled by climate science. As I said if you define terms in certain ways you can argue different ways and still be true to science. But at the end of the day the usefulness of science for both future science and policy and understanding by the public depends upon speaking the same language. With 30plus years of work experiences and an education centered around it in logic, semantics, auditing, and policy making I see two major abuses that arise out of the work of scientists. 1) The horse blinder effect where observations lead to narrowly defined concepts ignoring all the surrounding noise going on that further investigation finds relevant. This was the Ptolemy theory problem. It is also a big problem in investing. 2) The semantics effect where concepts are narrowly defined deliberately or mistakenly out unconsciously playing the horseblinder game so that everybody listening doesn't really understand what you are talking about. Used to deceive and used out of being deceived. they are closely related. The first one leads to wrong conclusions by ignoring the details. The second one is in describing the conclusions semantics are employed to convince others not by observation but through the communication of the conclusions drawn from the observations. Thus all auditors are trained to avoid number 2 and then get the observations themselves and look for what might have been overlooked. So in conclusion, if one strictly uses Stefan Boltzmann equations one cannot arrive at the conclusion that an object with an albedo greater than zero will have a lower equilibrium value due to the albedo. This is taught at all levels in physics. www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/stephan_boltzmann_law_formula/514/p.s. much can be learned about this by studying window technology. In the 1970's there was a lack of standards related to insulated windows. A paper was written saying very little research has been done in this area as to how to make windows insulated. The national standards paper then set out to layout the physics and left the rest to the industry to demonstrate what they were offering was consistent with the physics. Expanding that idea to the atmosphere requires a bit more experimentation work. It may have already been done but I can't find it. Its the observations that would be somewhat relevant to space ship technology that examines the skin of a space ship with various surface coatings, insulation, and interior design temperatures. I see generalities but I am interested in the actual results. Clearly increasing the albedo of a space ship decreases both its heat loss and its heat gain putting less pressure on interior temperature control systems. And its likely the only relevant ones I am looking for are for manned spacecraft that have internal atmospheres to support men and animals in space as I would like to see the actual correct calculations for putting a man in space in a situation he can take off his space suit and work in the capsule in regular dress. Only in that situation do you have an interior gas diffusing around the inside of a space ship. Its a fairly complex computation as one side of the capsule is cold and the other hot. It would be pretty uncomfortable is you were allowing most the heat to average inside of the capsule with one hot radiating wall and another very cold wall sucking radiation out of the passenger.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 2, 2019 22:54:33 GMT
Someone could ask Joe Postma for an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 3, 2019 3:23:21 GMT
Someone could ask Joe Postma for an opinion. Hey thanks for that. I found three analyses. Joe's, Real Climates and Skeptical Sciences criticisms of Joe. Exactly something I was looking for. Fact is when somebody won't tell you what they think sometimes you can figure it out from what they say about others.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 3, 2019 5:50:24 GMT
Someone could ask Joe Postma for an opinion. Hey thanks for that. I found three analyses. Joe's, Real Climates and Skeptical Sciences criticisms of Joe. Exactly something I was looking for. Fact is when somebody won't tell you what they think sometimes you can figure it out from what they say about others. Remember ..... take heart from knowing the scientists are screwing with themselves too.BTW, for a first consultation, I waive my usual fee. PS: You do realise that I know nothing, don't you? Now go get some sleep preferably in your fallout bunker.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 3, 2019 7:14:49 GMT
If you allow all to vary volume increase with pressure drop then there is no change in temperature. The volume remains the same as you rise in altitude so the number of molecules in the volume reduces (pressure reducing with altitude) so the total kinetic energy reduces without reducing the kinetic energy of an individual molecule. So you are in effect saying the loss of kinetic energy in the upper atmosphere is due entirely to mixing, radiation, and collisions between molecules of different levels of kinetic energy? So I can just forget the question I asked. I hope thats right because its always good to be able to post a "not a through street" sign on a bunny trail. No. It is simpler than that. If a volume of gas at standard temperature and pressure contains 100,000 molecules (for simplicity it is way more than that) each has kinetic energy. That kinetic energy multiplied by the 100,000 is the 'temperature' of that volume of gas. As the pressure reduces with altitude there are less molecules in the volume so let's say at a particular altitude there are only 50,000 molecules each still with their same kinetic energy the total kinetic energy in the volume has reduced to half because the number of molecules has reduced by half. Obviously, this a a simple view
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 4, 2019 20:52:15 GMT
Icefisher, I think when you say that emissivity and albedo add to 1, you mean absorption and albedo add to 1.
Albedo is the amount of solar radiation that is reflected without being absorbed.
Emissivity refers to how effective a planet is in radiating heat compared to a blackbody. Emissivity and albedo don't add to 1 except in a very unusual coincidence.
I have other issues with your post, but I'll wait until this one is settled.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 5, 2019 2:07:02 GMT
Icefisher, I think when you say that emissivity and albedo add to 1, you mean absorption and albedo add to 1. Albedo is the amount of solar radiation that is reflected without being absorbed. Emissivity refers to how effective a planet is in radiating heat compared to a blackbody. Emissivity and albedo don't add to 1 except in a very unusual coincidence. I have other issues with your post, but I'll wait until this one is settled. Well actually emissivity equals absorption. www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/687
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 5, 2019 17:06:24 GMT
Icefisher, I think when you say that emissivity and albedo add to 1, you mean absorption and albedo add to 1. Albedo is the amount of solar radiation that is reflected without being absorbed. Emissivity refers to how effective a planet is in radiating heat compared to a blackbody. Emissivity and albedo don't add to 1 except in a very unusual coincidence. I have other issues with your post, but I'll wait until this one is settled. Well actually emissivity equals absorption. www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo300/node/687In an "idealized case" with opaque surfaces, etc. emissivity equals absorption for "individual" wavelengths. For the real world and planets and moons average emissivity generally has a value somewhat different from absorption. If the object dangling from the satellite described above is a blackbody with an albedo of 0 and an emissivity of 1 and has a spherical shape my calculated temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmamm law is 5.5C. Since you describe the metal piece as being perpendicular to the sun, I envisioned a flat piece which would have a significantly higher temperature I believe.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 8, 2019 1:48:43 GMT
In an "idealized case" with opaque surfaces, etc. emissivity equals absorption for "individual" wavelengths. For the real world and planets and moons average emissivity generally has a value somewhat different from absorption. If the object dangling from the satellite described above is a blackbody with an albedo of 0 and an emissivity of 1 and has a spherical shape my calculated temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmamm law is 5.5C. Since you describe the metal piece as being perpendicular to the sun, I envisioned a flat piece which would have a significantly higher temperature I believe. You will need to support that statement Dwayne. What law of physics are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 9, 2019 12:46:04 GMT
In an "idealized case" with opaque surfaces, etc. emissivity equals absorption for "individual" wavelengths. For the real world and planets and moons average emissivity generally has a value somewhat different from absorption. If the object dangling from the satellite described above is a blackbody with an albedo of 0 and an emissivity of 1 and has a spherical shape my calculated temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmamm law is 5.5C. Since you describe the metal piece as being perpendicular to the sun, I envisioned a flat piece which would have a significantly higher temperature I believe. You will need to support that statement Dwayne. What law of physics are you referring to? Which paragraph are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2019 17:24:34 GMT
You will need to support that statement Dwayne. What law of physics are you referring to? Which paragraph are you referring to? I am talking about your comments on absorption equaling emissivity. What we have here is in reality, IMO, is some crafty substitution of one substance for another. The difference between the emissivity of the system as opposed to just the emissivity of the surface. This topic was the subject of my exchange with Kevin Trenberth by email. Trenberth responded to my question on the matter by saying he did not use a blackbody equation to determine the energy being emitted by the surface, yet the result is the same as if he had. He then provided me with some references which I read that and noted that the source used a lower emissivity value than used by Trenberth. When I pointed out that discrepancy with Trenberth he merely responded that he didn't agree with his own source on that matter. So by all means if you can resolve the issue I would love to read the results. p.s. however in large part this issue really isn't all that relevant. What is relevant is that albedo is primarily water vapor caused negative feedback. If as hypothesized by the warmists, water is controlled by CO2 all that negative feedback has been buried to increase the effect of the CO2. Take away that feedback then the equilibrium temperature of the earth most definitely becomes about 278K rather than 255K.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 12, 2019 2:03:02 GMT
"China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve Research sheds light on 500-year Chinese weather cycle and suggests a cool change could be on the way Findings leave no room for complacency or inaction
A new study has found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000BC – regardless of human activity – but the mainland scientists behind the research warn there is no room for complacency or inaction on climate change, with the prospect of a sudden global cooling also posing a danger. The study found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. It appears to have little to do with the increase in greenhouse gases which began with the industrial revolution, according to the researchers.
...... As a result of the research findings, Wu said she was now more worried about cooling than warming."www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 4, 2019 5:36:08 GMT
"China scientists warn of global cooling trick up nature’s sleeve Research sheds light on 500-year Chinese weather cycle and suggests a cool change could be on the way Findings leave no room for complacency or inaction
A new study has found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000BC – regardless of human activity – but the mainland scientists behind the research warn there is no room for complacency or inaction on climate change, with the prospect of a sudden global cooling also posing a danger. The study found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. It appears to have little to do with the increase in greenhouse gases which began with the industrial revolution, according to the researchers.
...... As a result of the research findings, Wu said she was now more worried about cooling than warming."www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve The Chinese scientists should be very worried about global cooling than warming, as we already entered the climate of global cooling in 2017 and with solar cycle #25 and the Sun's super Grand Minimum, there is plenty to be worried about for everyone I should say.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 11, 2019 18:00:08 GMT
They left out the starving part.
|
|