|
Post by Andrew on Feb 1, 2016 19:12:38 GMT
After 4 years of being bashed and listening to an never ending stream of garbage the only sensible option would have been to have left a long time ago. Yeah i have become a bit of a psycho since I found this board Take it easy... We were discussing the latent heat in water vapor. Lets get back to it. K? I will take it slow for you. water is 1000 times as dense as air. It takes approx 970 BTUS to phase change (Go from liquid to a gas) one pound of water. Both of the above aren't in contention right? Water vapor is made at the surface by the sun. Then condenses back into liquid water at some nominal height in the atmosphere. Is this without contention? My contention is that water vapor rises into the air column with heat energy. As it condenses it provides "heat" to those higher regions in the atmosphere. Is this a point of contention? That heat provided high up in the atmosphere blankets the area below. All that matters at the moment is when you place heat into the atmosphere with water it causes the sun to heat the planet to a higher temperature. You appear to be agreeing with that because you are talking about a blanket. it is like a blanket for sure.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 19:23:53 GMT
Reread my reply... I said " IF co2 is causing heating" it's already taken place. You made the contention that ocean heating by the atmosphere was possible. I was discounting that offhand. It simply isn't possible for the air to heat the ocean. If one knows the properties of water. AKA BTU needed to evaporate a pound of water. Any simple calculations bare this out. That's why I suggested not getting into pointless discussions... AKA Atmosphere "heating" the ocean. >>You made the contention that ocean heating by the atmosphere was possible I did not. The colder CO2 is not heating the surface. The colder atmosphere is not heating the oceans. The sun heats the planet to a higher temperature where heat losses from the surface are reduced by the atmosphere but this is not like insulation where heat gets trapped and accumulates. So....if something is heating the Surface layers to a higher temperature it takes a long time for this heating to bring the huge mass of the oceans to a new steady state temperature. Dang! Where is conduction and convection when you need it! Geez there it is!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 1, 2016 19:40:59 GMT
The whole issue boils down to whether 4 a) or 4 b) is true (in the How it Works topic! Can solar rays heat the atmosphere?
According to the popular radiation model bandied about by mainstream climate science. . . .it cannot. . . .yet it does in the thermosphere. How about that?
The logic of the radiation principle that an object cools in all directions at a rate determined by The Stefan Boltzmann Law is only suggestive of an internal heating source of adequate power. Insulation only determines how long it takes to reach an equilibrium state. And as Sigurdur recently pointed out thats determined primarily by heat capacity which in a given element is proportional to its mass.
The radiation diagram bandied about by Andrew and even Harvard University to educate (or inculcate) its students appears to be pure hogwash.
Andrew wants to argue that this slowing of cooling is heating the surface with magic warming cooling rays. To which I have to ask what slowing of cooling? Are we talking about a few inches of CO2 and the time it takes to heat it up to an average temperature?
LOL! What we really need to figure is how long it takes for it to cool down as most CO2 is expelled out of 300C or better exhaust pipes and in the end what we are left with is a teensy bit of cooled CO2.
Sure is it possible that under a one way glass heat trapping technology warming could be induced? Yeah anything is possible. But I think I will need to see some evidence of it before I jump on the bandwagon like some cracker who just fell off the turnip truck.
Sure for professional academics its like the bandwagon is full of Daisy Maes. Sure they hop on. Of course, if the plan is to bend you over and ram it to you, well the choice is yours I guess.
As I see it the entire issue is just complicated enough and too little is known about it and you can't get funded to test it because everybody who decides that is already rolling the straw with Daisy Mae; that it makes for the biggest medicine show ever seen by mankind by a long shot. Geo centrism need not apply. All that turmoil was about the Pope worrying about his flock seeing him as a fraud. Hardly anybody else worried about it. The Protestants were ticked off over the selling of indulgences to the rich while locking up, beating, and executing the poor.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 1, 2016 20:50:57 GMT
Take it easy... We were discussing the latent heat in water vapor. Lets get back to it. K? I will take it slow for you. water is 1000 times as dense as air. It takes approx 970 BTUS to phase change (Go from liquid to a gas) one pound of water. Both of the above aren't in contention right? Water vapor is made at the surface by the sun. Then condenses back into liquid water at some nominal height in the atmosphere. Is this without contention? My contention is that water vapor rises into the air column with heat energy. As it condenses it provides "heat" to those higher regions in the atmosphere. Is this a point of contention? That heat provided high up in the atmosphere blankets the area below. All that matters at the moment is when you place heat into the atmosphere with water it causes the sun to heat the planet to a higher temperature. You appear to be agreeing with that because you are talking about a blanket. it is like a blanket for sure. Ok, your so close... the reason the water cycle can't cause runaway warming is the only result of added heating is a faster movement of latent energy higher into the atmosphere. So see Co2 induced global warming has no net effect. Wasn't that painless?
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Feb 2, 2016 4:37:45 GMT
Did this really go to 8 pages in 2 days? Have you guys saved the world yet?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 6:24:57 GMT
All that matters at the moment is when you place heat into the atmosphere with water it causes the sun to heat the planet to a higher temperature. You appear to be agreeing with that because you are talking about a blanket. it is like a blanket for sure. Ok, your so close... the reason the water cycle can't cause runaway warming is the only result of added heating is a faster movement of latent energy higher into the atmosphere. So see Co2 induced global warming has no net effect. Wasn't that painless? This conversation is about the physics of why water causes the planet to be warmer. I am not a warmist and have no interest at all in discussing CO2 in this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 2, 2016 16:37:01 GMT
Ok, your so close... the reason the water cycle can't cause runaway warming is the only result of added heating is a faster movement of latent energy higher into the atmosphere. So see Co2 induced global warming has no net effect. Wasn't that painless? This conversation is about the physics of why water causes the planet to be warmer. I am not a warmist and have no interest at all in discussing CO2 in this conversation. The reason Water effects the climate so much is the unique properties of water. It takes an awful lot of energy to phase change, so our temperatures here on earth are highly regulated. I laid this out several times... It takes 150 extra btu's to go from 31 degree frozen water, to 32 degree liquid. and an extra 970 btu's to go from 212 to vapor at 213. Those same values hold regardless of temperature. For instance it still takes the additional Btus to evaporate water at 50 degrees if atmospheric conditions allow it to. It's the phase change not the temperature. Now in the atmosphere as this water vapor travels up... It tries to cool. Warming the surrounding air. To phase change it needs to release a lot of energy as noted above. But there is an issue. The air is less dense so it has less mass to dissipate the heat into and it can stay a vapor at lower temperature. So it rises higher and even less mass is available to dissipate the heat into. This goes on into the high atmosphere where "regular" temps are well below freezing. The vapor now must phase change to ice skipping the water step. This is the heat that is effectively "trapped". The heat of the phase change or about 1000 BTUs per pound of water vapor. It still can cool by convection, conduction, and radiation. But it takes time because the air is thin.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 17:11:21 GMT
This conversation is about the physics of why water causes the planet to be warmer. I am not a warmist and have no interest at all in discussing CO2 in this conversation. The reason Water effects the climate so much is the unique properties of water. It takes an awful lot of energy to phase change, so our temperatures here on earth are highly regulated. I laid this out several times... It takes 150 extra btu's to go from 31 degree frozen water, to 32 degree liquid. and an extra 970 btu's to go from 212 to vapor at 213. Those same values hold regardless of temperature. For instance it still takes the additional Btus to evaporate water at 50 degrees if atmospheric conditions allow it to. It's the phase change not the temperature. Now in the atmosphere as this water vapor travels up... It tries to cool. Warming the surrounding air. To phase change it needs to release a lot of energy as noted above. But there is an issue. The air is less dense so it has less mass to dissipate the heat into and it can stay a vapor at lower temperature. So it rises higher and even less mass is available to dissipate the heat into. This goes on into the high atmosphere where "regular" temps are well below freezing. The vapor now must phase change to ice skipping the water step. This is the heat that is effectively "trapped". The heat of the phase change or about 1000 BTUs per pound of water vapor. It still can cool by convection, conduction, and radiation. But it takes time because the air is thin. You are making life a bit complicated. With no water, the sky temperature would be horribly cold perhaps -250C say. With water it is about -50C say and so we feel warmer. It is that simple. It does not matter how the heat moves around the atmosphere it still can only escape via radiation to space.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 2, 2016 17:38:13 GMT
The reason Water effects the climate so much is the unique properties of water. It takes an awful lot of energy to phase change, so our temperatures here on earth are highly regulated. I laid this out several times... It takes 150 extra btu's to go from 31 degree frozen water, to 32 degree liquid. and an extra 970 btu's to go from 212 to vapor at 213. Those same values hold regardless of temperature. For instance it still takes the additional Btus to evaporate water at 50 degrees if atmospheric conditions allow it to. It's the phase change not the temperature. Now in the atmosphere as this water vapor travels up... It tries to cool. Warming the surrounding air. To phase change it needs to release a lot of energy as noted above. But there is an issue. The air is less dense so it has less mass to dissipate the heat into and it can stay a vapor at lower temperature. So it rises higher and even less mass is available to dissipate the heat into. This goes on into the high atmosphere where "regular" temps are well below freezing. The vapor now must phase change to ice skipping the water step. This is the heat that is effectively "trapped". The heat of the phase change or about 1000 BTUs per pound of water vapor. It still can cool by convection, conduction, and radiation. But it takes time because the air is thin. You are making life a bit complicated. With no water, the sky temperature would be horribly cold perhaps -250C say. With water it is about -50C say and so we feel warmer. It is that simple. It does not matter how the heat moves around the atmosphere it still can only escape via radiation to space. Don't forget one detail... It's not so much that the upper atmosphere is cold. It's that it can't remove heat from things well due to the very low mass environment. So it's not nearly as cold as you suggest.... You'd feel perfectly warm @ 50 below.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 2, 2016 18:31:32 GMT
You are making life a bit complicated. With no water, the sky temperature would be horribly cold perhaps -250C say. With water it is about -50C say and so we feel warmer. It is that simple. It does not matter how the heat moves around the atmosphere it still can only escape via radiation to space. Don't forget one detail... It's not so much that the upper atmosphere is cold. It's that it can't remove heat from things well due to the very low mass environment. So it's not nearly as cold as you suggest.... You'd feel perfectly warm @ 50 below. It is about -55C at the top of the troposphere which is not particularly high. On average about 43,000 feet. Additionally you do not need mass to remove heat. All hot bodies including our own body emit heat and so we cool down, and we cool down faster when the environment we see with a radiation thermometer is colder regardless of a very low mass around us.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 3, 2016 10:48:00 GMT
Don't forget one detail... It's not so much that the upper atmosphere is cold. It's that it can't remove heat from things well due to the very low mass environment. So it's not nearly as cold as you suggest.... You'd feel perfectly warm @ 50 below. It is about -55C at the top of the troposphere which is not particularly high. On average about 43,000 feet. Additionally you do not need mass to remove heat. All hot bodies including our own body emit heat and so we cool down, and we cool down faster when the environment we see with a radiation thermometer is colder regardless of a very low mass around us. So a pound of feathers and a pound of lead transfer heat equally well. You can't see the forest for the trees.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 11:28:50 GMT
It is about -55C at the top of the troposphere which is not particularly high. On average about 43,000 feet. Additionally you do not need mass to remove heat. All hot bodies including our own body emit heat and so we cool down, and we cool down faster when the environment we see with a radiation thermometer is colder regardless of a very low mass around us. So a pound of feathers and a pound of lead transfer heat equally well. You can't see the forest for the trees. If you have a theory then the polite thing to do is explain it. A person at altitude does not need a large amount of local mass to feel cold if their surroundings are at -55C as measured by a thermometer. There is a different situation in the very highest thinnest parts of the atmosphere. Although the energetic particles can be considered to be 1500C at night, a thermometer would read a very cold temperature.
|
|
|
Post by stanb999 on Feb 3, 2016 14:02:43 GMT
So a pound of feathers and a pound of lead transfer heat equally well. You can't see the forest for the trees. If you have a theory then the polite thing to do is explain it. A person at altitude does not need a large amount of local mass to feel cold if their surroundings are at -55C as measured by a thermometer. There is a different situation in the very highest thinnest parts of the atmosphere. Although the energetic particles can be considered to be 1500C at night, a thermometer would read a very cold temperature. The issue your having is that your stuck on radiative cooling. Radiative cooling or heating is very inefficient. Take and cook a steak a few inches below an electric burner. All the radiative energy one could possibly need and yet it will stay cold. Put it a foot above and the steak will sizzle. It's not sizzling due to radiative heating. It's sizzling due to convective and conductive heating. As I stated, The atmosphere simply can't cool fast. Due to limited mass to transfer the heat. So the effect seen by the obtuse is "glodal warming". When in fact it's just slow cooling.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 3, 2016 14:37:38 GMT
The steak sounds good. It is also a good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 15:53:57 GMT
If you have a theory then the polite thing to do is explain it. A person at altitude does not need a large amount of local mass to feel cold if their surroundings are at -55C as measured by a thermometer. There is a different situation in the very highest thinnest parts of the atmosphere. Although the energetic particles can be considered to be 1500C at night, a thermometer would read a very cold temperature. The issue your having is that your stuck on radiative cooling. Radiative cooling or heating is very inefficient. Take and cook a steak a few inches below an electric burner. All the radiative energy one could possibly need and yet it will stay cold. Put it a foot above and the steak will sizzle. It's not sizzling due to radiative heating. It's sizzling due to convective and conductive heating. As I stated, The atmosphere simply can't cool fast. Due to limited mass to transfer the heat. So the effect seen by the obtuse is "glodal warming". When in fact it's just slow cooling. The beginning point of any model is the earth system can only cool to outerspace so no matter how inefficient that cooling system is it must work perfectly fine for our purposes. You have declared the Atmosphere is so thin at -50C that not much can happen there to cool the Earth, so it seems you believe the radiation emissions of any consequence are happening lower in the atmosphere. If we then compare the Earth being exposed to outerspace of 3k, when we would feel very cold, and us being exposed to a temperature of less than -50c as you seem to be suggesting, we would be warmer still than when we are exposed to -50C So before you tell me I am stuck on radiative cooling you need to explain to me how the earth system is cooling in your model where radiative cooling is the only method we know about.
|
|