|
Post by Ratty on Nov 27, 2017 22:11:01 GMT
Sorry Sig. Missed it. There was a cricket test match on ..... What are they testing? Patience.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 27, 2017 22:41:28 GMT
How do we quantify, is it necessary to quantify, heat in the atmosphere derived from the pressure exerted on it by itself. Air at our surface must exhibit some temperature difference as it's at a greater pressure then air at 30,000ft. Acidohm, before moving on, I want to see if you passed freshman atmospheric science. Have anthropogenic CO2 emissions been a major contributor to the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age? From a freshman atmospheric science textbook the answer would be yes. Feed the kids what you like, 4.6% currently per annum. Yes, apparently all previous non-anthropogenic co2 emissions balanced out. This however an argumentative circle. Next we discuss co2 molecules and ir photons, then blackbodies etc All we know is that a bunch of well Informed and possibly intelligent (well, you all are, I just speak for myself there...) people cannot agree. This is a very dynamic and complicated subject. Duwayne I think your efforts to calculate future temp trends are brilliant. However, do you think the agw thing is 97% or not? Because as of this minute I do not fully understand every aspect of this massive subject and I have an inquiring mind, many people here tolerate this and only mildly abuse me publicly (ratty.....š) I do not think the agw thing is 97%, that's just gut instinct...now. sure, i.m just a plumber, ratty is just retired, sigs just a farmer, MOboy is just a data whizz, Graywolf is in politics I think? I actually don't know if atmospheric pressure at our surface exerts a temperature Increase due to that pressure, so while I sat in my 12 year olds guitar lesson I read up on avogrados constant. Why not, I'd rather use my brain then be brain dead. I may not know everything, but I keep trying to learn. If you wish to stamp on that by referring to my efforts as freshman with a loaded question then that's fine, but believe me, I'm in no way reduced by that, only perhaps my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 27, 2017 22:43:34 GMT
How do we quantify, is it necessary to quantify, heat in the atmosphere derived from the pressure exerted on it by itself. Air at our surface must exhibit some temperature difference as it's at a greater pressure then air at 30,000ft. Pressure adds, but is not as important as chemical composition. Upper Strat is hotter than Troposphere. Much less pressure, yet much hotter. Due to ozone??
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 28, 2017 0:12:37 GMT
Pressure adds, but is not as important as chemical composition. Upper Strat is hotter than Troposphere. Much less pressure, yet much hotter. Due to ozone?? Maybe Missouri can produce a graph for altitude, atmospheric chemical concentrations, temperature gradients, and .... ??
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2017 1:33:33 GMT
Nautonnier, you say āwithout radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.ā Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. A radiative gas will absorb and radiate heat energy. That energy can be obtained by collision (conduction/sensible heat) or by being hit by a photon of energy with the right frequency to be absorbed by that gas molecule and possibly be immediately re-radiated. CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases they can accelerated to higher kinetic energy states by collision but they do not radiate infrared at all efficiently if you like they have poor emissivity in comparison to CO2. However, I have also just read this - and will have to research it.... "In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 Ā°C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottelās experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 Ā°C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottelās and Lecknerās graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
Since we are at a temperature of less than 33 C and a partial pressure of less than .6096 of CO2 why should I not think CO2 has no effect when it has a ZERO emissivity in almost all of earths atmosphere? "wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/27/mirrors-and-mazes-a-guide-through-the-climate-debate/#comment-2678643
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2017 1:38:57 GMT
Pressure adds, but is not as important as chemical composition. Upper Strat is hotter than Troposphere. Much less pressure, yet much hotter. Due to ozone?? Yes, due to ozone.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 28, 2017 1:54:54 GMT
Pressure adds, but is not as important as chemical composition. Upper Strat is hotter than Troposphere. Much less pressure, yet much hotter. Due to ozone?? CO2 in the Troposphere does very little in regards to temperatures. An example is a dessert. Hot during the day, cold at night even though the soil is VERY warm. Without H2O vapor, heat flees the Troposphere. The main reason the "tropical hot spot" has NOT been detected is because H2O vapor dominates the radiation bands. Tropics have high AH, hence high radiation loads. Another item that is critical is H2O vapor actually HOLDS heat AND cold. CO2 does NOT have that property at atmospheric pressures and temps. Now....in the Statā¦.... ..... A whole different story. The question I have, which I have NOT been able to find the answer, what is the level of CO2 IN THE STRAT? We know H2O vapor is increasing.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Nov 28, 2017 3:39:02 GMT
Sig the heat capacity of H2O in the atmosphere is related to its latent heat very largely.(condensation and freezing) CO2 O2 N2 etc are just gas all the time. The gaseous H2O adds buoyancy but when the latent heat of the H2O is liberated it falls at terminal velocity back to earth for its next trip up there. The troposphere is thicker at the equator because its warmer that is all. Do we really know if the H2O in the Atmosphere is rising, I know the models depend on this outcome?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 28, 2017 3:45:59 GMT
CO2 in the Troposphere does very little in regards to temperatures. An example is a dessert. Hot during the day, cold at night even though the soil is VERY warm. Without H2O vapor, heat flees the Troposphere. The main reason the "tropical hot spot" has NOT been detected is because H2O vapor dominates the radiation bands. Tropics have high AH, hence high radiation loads. Another item that is critical is H2O vapor actually HOLDS heat AND cold. CO2 does NOT have that property at atmospheric pressures and temps. Now....in the Statā¦.... ..... A whole different story. The question I have, which I have NOT been able to find the answer, what is the level of CO2 IN THE STRAT? We know H2O vapor is increasing. I did a Google search ( what is the carbon dioxide level in the stratosphere? ) but am not intellectually equipped to determine the value of its results. Variations of the search are suggested at the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 28, 2017 12:57:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 28, 2017 20:16:20 GMT
Can we expect a surrender anytime soon? I remember reading a paper to this effect on this site sometime back. My aged eyes are having trouble reading the references. Does anyone remember / have that link?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 28, 2017 22:09:49 GMT
Nautonnier, you say āwithout radiative gases like CO2 (the atmosphere) could be a lot warmer as N2 and O2 have to become a lot hotter than the radiative gases to start radiating heat away.ā Where do you get these ideas? First of all, all gases radiate. Secondly, N2 and O2 radiate at any temperature above absolute zero. Thirdly, as Sigurdur says, H2O(like CO2) is a greenhouse gas and causes the earth and its atmosphere to be warmer than it would otherwise be. A radiative gas will absorb and radiate heat energy. That energy can be obtained by collision (conduction/sensible heat) or by being hit by a photon of energy with the right frequency to be absorbed by that gas molecule and possibly be immediately re-radiated. CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases they can accelerated to higher kinetic energy states by collision but they do not radiate infrared at all efficiently if you like they have poor emissivity in comparison to CO2. However, I have also just read this - and will have to research it.... "In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 Ā°C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottelās experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 Ā°C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottelās and Lecknerās graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
Since we are at a temperature of less than 33 C and a partial pressure of less than .6096 of CO2 why should I not think CO2 has no effect when it has a ZERO emissivity in almost all of earths atmosphere? "wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/27/mirrors-and-mazes-a-guide-through-the-climate-debate/#comment-2678643 Absorption Of Light By Gases In The Atmosphere Light is a wave which has wavelength and frequency. Absorption of light causes the conversion of light energy to heat or thermal energy. Atmosphere consists of gases like Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and carbon dioxide which are in different proportions. It is emitted in the atmosphere in the form of electromagnetic radiation. www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/absorption-of-light-by-gases-in-the-atmosphere-6
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 29, 2017 0:11:13 GMT
Except when it is quanta - and particulate like a photon. or both as in the interference fringes where a photon can go through both slits probabilistically
The question being discussed at WUWT is that the lapse rate is caused by gravity. Downbursts actually cause the highest surface temperatures in the experienced due to the increase in pressure - not surprising if you understand the gas laws. So called green house gases do not have an effect in the world of physics and physical chemistry.
It is worth reading the thread that I referenced. Anthony deleted the original post and it had a 'Streisand Effect' and the discussion moved from the post subject to the subject of the banned post.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 29, 2017 15:51:46 GMT
Acidohm, before moving on, I want to see if you passed freshman atmospheric science. Have anthropogenic CO2 emissions been a major contributor to the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age? From a freshman atmospheric science textbook the answer would be yes. Feed the kids what you like, 4.6% currently per annum. Yes, apparently all previous non-anthropogenic co2 emissions balanced out. This however an argumentative circle. Next we discuss co2 molecules and ir photons, then blackbodies etc All we know is that a bunch of well Informed and possibly intelligent (well, you all are, I just speak for myself there...) people cannot agree. This is a very dynamic and complicated subject. Duwayne I think your efforts to calculate future temp trends are brilliant. However, do you think the agw thing is 97% or not? Because as of this minute I do not fully understand every aspect of this massive subject and I have an inquiring mind, many people here tolerate this and only mildly abuse me publicly (ratty.....š) I do not think the agw thing is 97%, that's just gut instinct...now. sure, i.m just a plumber, ratty is just retired, sigs just a farmer, MOboy is just a data whizz, Graywolf is in politics I think? I actually don't know if atmospheric pressure at our surface exerts a temperature Increase due to that pressure, so while I sat in my 12 year olds guitar lesson I read up on avogrados constant. Why not, I'd rather use my brain then be brain dead. I may not know everything, but I keep trying to learn. If you wish to stamp on that by referring to my efforts as freshman with a loaded question then that's fine, but believe me, I'm in no way reduced by that, only perhaps my opinion. Acidohm, let me give you my opinion on the CAGW debate. There are six pieces to the CAGW discussion. 1) Is man a major contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels? 2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? 3) What is the direct effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 4) What is the feedback effect (warming) of a doubling of CO2? 5) What are the overall consequences of the warming (benefits and problems)? 6) Is the projected warming catastrophic? The first question is the easiest. Thatās why I label it the freshman question. The label had nothing to do with you or your opinion. The questions which follow get progressively more difficult because more scientific knowledge is required. I believe certain people will answer ānoā to the first question even though they realize the right answer is āyesā because they believe ānoā is the answer to point 6. Since they do not have the scientific knowledge to debate points 2 through 6 they attempt to āstopā the debate with a ānoā for point 1 or 2. Unfortunately, that backfires because the warmists jump on the ānoā answer and point out quite easily that it is incorrect and then apply the denialist label to all skeptics and with the help of the media they win the public debate without dealing with important real questions. As Iāve said before, I shudder to see skeptics put forth arguments that are obviously wrong and help feed the alarmist claims that skeptics donāt know what they are talking about. Gillās article on WUWT was one of many examples and the fact that only a few of the 800+ posts in response made any sense at all indirectly enables the alarmist cohorts to continue to label skeptics as denialists.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Nov 29, 2017 15:59:56 GMT
Nautonnier, do you believe the linked video above credibly proves the point that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax?
|
|