|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 3:47:46 GMT
Ok. There are numerous times that the sun heats the surface, the surface becomes warmer, but the atmosphere continues to cool. This is extremely well demonstrated in the spring and fall seasons. During winter, the dynamics can become even more pronounced.
The main reason for this is that the RH of the atmosphere becomes less, the mass of water able to maintain heat is so much less that the radiation freely emits to space.
Another example of this is in a desert. Wide variations in air temperature, because the mass of the air is less.
Even tho H2O vapor is a gas, it maintains it's liquid properties in regards to heat gain/loss.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 4:00:59 GMT
Ok. There are numerous times that the sun heats the surface, the surface becomes warmer, but the atmosphere continues to cool. This is extremely well demonstrated in the spring and fall seasons. During winter, the dynamics can become even more pronounced. The main reason for this is that the RH of the atmosphere becomes less, the mass of water able to maintain heat is so much less that the radiation freely emits to space. Another example of this is in a desert. Wide variations in air temperature, because the mass of the air is less. Even tho H2O vapor is a gas, it maintains it's liquid properties in regards to heat gain/loss. The key factor is the temperature of the atmosphere is far higher than the coldness of space. If the atmosphere cools the surface is still far warmer than it would be if it were exposed to the coldness of space Even if the sun dies the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer because the atmosphere continues to be heated by the surface, so the atmosphere remains warmer than space and continues to reduce the heat losses of the planet. if we were directly exposed to the coldness of space at night or in the winter life on earth would be very limited. Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 4:22:50 GMT
I would not at all end that list with me Sig and Mag. You have this strange idea that skepticism is somehow linked to having a high opinion of oneself. Does that mean you have a low opinion of yourself so you just take what you are told as fact? Skepticism has to be based in something understandable or it is just denialism. Your objections are gibberish that no human being can understand and it seems totally clear you only produce those objections so you can obfuscate and misdirect and frustate for no person other than to satisfy your strange need to deny simple physics. Its not denialism to be skeptical about anything at all that cannot be demonstrated with clear evidence that rules out what one is skeptical of. Obviously you didn't read the article linked to in the first post in the skepticism thread. One does not need an argument to be aa skeptic and in fact if you believe something else fervently you aren't even a skeptic.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 4:25:47 GMT
it has been known since 1796 that if you warm a cold object that is radiatively coupled to a heated thermometer the thermometer will become hotter. The surface of the earth must be radiatively coupled to an absorbing emitting atmosphere and the earth is heated by the sun. If the sun heats the surface or anything heats the surface and the atmosphere becomes warmer then the surface becomes warmer because the heat losses between the surface and the atmosphere are reduced. But according to his majestic highness icefisher it is impossible to warm a heated object when the same object heats the colder object to a higher temperature unless one considers insulation and any number of incomprehensible reasons why 18th century physics is forbidden in his majesties presence Holy crap! Yes if something gets warmer the thermometer coupled to it will get hotter. We went over all this in the dead body discussion years ago. You keep forgetting what we all ended up agreeing upon. What you claimed to have believed all along.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 6:20:54 GMT
Ok. There are numerous times that the sun heats the surface, the surface becomes warmer, but the atmosphere continues to cool. This is extremely well demonstrated in the spring and fall seasons. During winter, the dynamics can become even more pronounced. The main reason for this is that the RH of the atmosphere becomes less, the mass of water able to maintain heat is so much less that the radiation freely emits to space. Another example of this is in a desert. Wide variations in air temperature, because the mass of the air is less. Even tho H2O vapor is a gas, it maintains it's liquid properties in regards to heat gain/loss. The key factor is the temperature of the atmosphere is far higher than the coldness of space. If the atmosphere cools the surface is still far warmer than it would be if it were exposed to the coldness of space Even if the sun dies the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer because the atmosphere continues to be heated by the surface, so the atmosphere remains warmer than space and continues to reduce the heat losses of the planet. if we were directly exposed to the coldness of space at night or in the winter life on earth would be very limited. Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature. Yep. One of the main reasons for the lack of cooling at night is that the earth's atmosphere has mass, of which H2O vapor plays the controlling roll of temperature modulation. Mars has an atmosphere that is almost 100% CO2. Yet, the temperature fluctuations on Mars are dramatic. The density of Mars atmosphere is a pittance compared to Earth. Also, the physical characteristics of Mars do not have mass that has heat/cold values.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 7:16:07 GMT
The key factor is the temperature of the atmosphere is far higher than the coldness of space. If the atmosphere cools the surface is still far warmer than it would be if it were exposed to the coldness of space Even if the sun dies the atmosphere keeps the surface warmer because the atmosphere continues to be heated by the surface, so the atmosphere remains warmer than space and continues to reduce the heat losses of the planet. if we were directly exposed to the coldness of space at night or in the winter life on earth would be very limited. Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature. Yep. One of the main reasons for the lack of cooling at night is that the earth's atmosphere has mass, of which H2O vapor plays the controlling roll of temperature modulation. Mars has an atmosphere that is almost 100% CO2. Yet, the temperature fluctuations on Mars are dramatic. The density of Mars atmosphere is a pittance compared to Earth. Also, the physical characteristics of Mars do not have mass that has heat/cold values. Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature. A simple consequence of radiation law. If an atmosphere has almost no atmosphere it functions like the moon with extremes of temperature.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 7:19:15 GMT
Holy crap! Yes if something gets warmer the thermometer coupled to it will get hotter. You have been denying that for 4 years, claiming I was talking about a magic heating device, heat is coming from my sauna, I am a useless experimentalist, or I was using some insulation property created by a heating gradient that invalidated the results. You have also been talking in tongues whenever Spencers ice box thought experiment is mentioned claiming the engineers curves need to be interpreted according to his majesties totally unitelligible gibberish instructions. You also began ranting and raving in response to this threads thought experiment And you have been calling me a liar for years and years because I even dared to mention it to his majesties almighty God like incredibleness. Icefisher you are just an idiot. Once you realise that things will be a lot easier to understand
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 31, 2016 1:46:50 GMT
Yep. One of the main reasons for the lack of cooling at night is that the earth's atmosphere has mass, of which H2O vapor plays the controlling roll of temperature modulation. Mars has an atmosphere that is almost 100% CO2. Yet, the temperature fluctuations on Mars are dramatic. The density of Mars atmosphere is a pittance compared to Earth. Also, the physical characteristics of Mars do not have mass that has heat/cold values. Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature. A simple consequence of radiation law. If an atmosphere has almost no atmosphere it functions like the moon with extremes of temperature. Composition of the atmosphere is the critical differential. Earth's atmosphere has mass, and absorbs heat. When the source of the heat is removed, the residual warmth will slowly radiate away to the coldness of outer space. Take H2O vapor out of our atmosphere, and we are totally screwed as the temperature swings would not allow life out of the ocean to survive. With no H2O vapor, there would also be no oceans. Thankfully, we have H2O vapor!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 31, 2016 6:17:51 GMT
Dry area nighttime passive cooling systems operate thru the warmth of the night time atmosphere to create about 12F of cooling on a metal roof compared to the air temperature. A simple consequence of radiation law. If an atmosphere has almost no atmosphere it functions like the moon with extremes of temperature. Composition of the atmosphere is the critical differential. Earth's atmosphere has mass, and absorbs heat. When the source of the heat is removed, the residual warmth will slowly radiate away to the coldness of outer space. Take H2O vapor out of our atmosphere, and we are totally screwed as the temperature swings would not allow life out of the ocean to survive. With no H2O vapor, there would also be no oceans. Thankfully, we have H2O vapor! Your theory seems a bit unlikely to me. Or perhaps I am not understanding it. The mass difference between moist air and dry air is 3% Wiki says the heat capacity of dry air at sea level and air in a room are almost the same - which does not seem right but perhaps it is because we are talking about differences relatively when the air is not fully moist. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 1, 2016 15:19:06 GMT
My goodness all these years and the conversation finally comes to the actual cause of the "greenhuose effect" on earth...
Water vapor cycle or better the hydrologic cycle. Water is an amazing molecule that can store 1000 times more energy than would be expected. Do some quick calculations... Water can transfer or hold tremendous amounts of BTU's the results will astound you.
One pound of water.. Going from vapor to solid or the other way takes 1292 BTU's. To change the temp of the remainder of the compounds in the atmosphere is about 1 BTU per pound per degree. Lets carry this to it's logical conclusion... Water may only be 3% of the atmosphere. But due to phase change it contains 75% of the latent heat. As as Sigurdur says in summer the air is more humid so it move more heat. In the winter the air is drier so it moves less. Neat system.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 15:36:16 GMT
My goodness all these years and the conversation finally comes to the actual cause of the "greenhuose effect" on earth... Water vapor cycle or better the hydrologic cycle. Water is an amazing molecule that can store 1000 times more energy than would be expected. Do some quick calculations... Water can transfer or hold tremendous amounts of BTU's the results will astound you. One pound of water.. Going from vapor to solid or the other way takes 1292 BTU's. To change the temp of the remainder of the compounds in the atmosphere is about 1 BTU per pound per degree. Lets carry this to it's logical conclusion... Water may only be 3% of the atmosphere. But due to phase change it contains 75% of the latent heat. As as Sigurdur says in summer the air is more humid so it move more heat. In the winter the air is drier so it moves less. Neat system. If you take the heat from the surface and put it up in the air it still radiates. Only if there is no radiation at all that finds its way to the surface can it be said this is not the most stupid conversation in history.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 1, 2016 16:27:47 GMT
My goodness all these years and the conversation finally comes to the actual cause of the "greenhuose effect" on earth... Water vapor cycle or better the hydrologic cycle. Water is an amazing molecule that can store 1000 times more energy than would be expected. Do some quick calculations... Water can transfer or hold tremendous amounts of BTU's the results will astound you. One pound of water.. Going from vapor to solid or the other way takes 1292 BTU's. To change the temp of the remainder of the compounds in the atmosphere is about 1 BTU per pound per degree. Lets carry this to it's logical conclusion... Water may only be 3% of the atmosphere. But due to phase change it contains 75% of the latent heat. As as Sigurdur says in summer the air is more humid so it move more heat. In the winter the air is drier so it moves less. Neat system. If you take the heat from the surface and put it up in the air it still radiates. Only if there is no radiation at all that finds its way to the surface can it be said this is not the most stupid conversation in history. And that is the crux... Can a cold object warm a warmer one? You will say that's not what I mean. You will now go into how it's about conservation... AKA Insulation. The issue with insulation theory is warm air rises.. Thus casting doubts on your insulation.b You think this is my first rodeo?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 16:38:59 GMT
If you take the heat from the surface and put it up in the air it still radiates. Only if there is no radiation at all that finds its way to the surface can it be said this is not the most stupid conversation in history. And that is the crux... Can a cold object warm a warmer one? You will say that's not what I mean. You will now go into how it's about conservation... AKA Insulation. The issue with insulation theory is warm air rises.. Thus casting doubts on your insulation.b You think this is my first rodeo? Conservation? never heard that one. I was talking about the irrelevancy of putting the heat higher 50 minutes before you answered and you just answered that post with whatever you are talking about now What are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 1, 2016 17:07:47 GMT
And that is the crux... Can a cold object warm a warmer one? You will say that's not what I mean. You will now go into how it's about conservation... AKA Insulation. The issue with insulation theory is warm air rises.. Thus casting doubts on your insulation.b You think this is my first rodeo? Conservation? never heard that one. I was talking about the irrelevancy of putting the heat higher 50 minutes before you answered and you just answered that post with whatever you are talking about now What are you talking about? Ultimately, the theory of global warming resides with conservation. Differently, A tiny bit of heat, Stays just a bit longer near the surface. Causing it to be a bit warmer than it would have been. All the models come down to this simple supposition. The issue with the theory of conservation is the "heating" is instant and all the expected global warming is already done. The atmospheric "location of heat" has little meaning, About that we both agree. But don't get caught in the weeds of the discussion about it. It's not relevant to the discussion of global warming. You can spend a ton of effort looking for alternatives. You can try to find a place for the atmosphere to store the heat it obviously does. The actual reason for our "warm" planet is the large amount of water in the atmosphere, period. The ground evaporates water, in doing so huge amounts of latent heat is pent up... It floats up and that heat is released into the surrounding air. Heating the atmosphere. No need for magic co2 molecules that can heat objects warmer than it. P.S. I was talking to Sigurdur in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 17:33:01 GMT
Conservation? never heard that one. I was talking about the irrelevancy of putting the heat higher 50 minutes before you answered and you just answered that post with whatever you are talking about now What are you talking about? Ultimately, the theory of global warming resides with conservation. Differently, A tiny bit of heat, Stays just a bit longer near the surface. Causing it to be a bit warmer than it would have been. All the models come down to this simple supposition. The issue with the theory of conservation is the "heating" is instant and all the expected global warming is already done. The atmospheric "location of heat" has little meaning, About that we both agree. But don't get caught in the weeds of the discussion about it. It's not relevant to the discussion of global warming. You can spend a ton of effort looking for alternatives. You can try to find a place for the atmosphere to store the heat it obviously does. The actual reason for our "warm" planet is the large amount of water in the atmosphere, period. The ground evaporates water, in doing so huge amounts of latent heat is pent up... It floats up and that heat is released into the surrounding air. Heating the atmosphere. No need for magic co2 molecules that can heat objects warmer than it. P.S. I was talking to Sigurdur in the first post. Global warming heating is instantaneous. I think you are talking about the difficulty measuring it because the oceans as well as the shallower solid few hundred meters are such a large heat sink which in turn causes the atmosphere to be colder than by the time that amount of extra forcing has had a full impact upon the surface. It would not be right to talk about a warming method that traps heat as if heat somehow cannot escape and therefore slowly accumulates What point are you wanting to make about that? Er...why are you now talking about magic CO2 heating something hotter? when earlier you appeared to be up to speed when you said >>Can a cold object warm a warmer one? You will say that's not what I mean.
|
|