|
Post by icefisher on Feb 3, 2016 20:19:56 GMT
OK if the models are not messed up enough! Probably the number one point of contention on greenhouse warming whether you believe in the popular photon (fixed packets of energy being transported) model or not is how do you measure greenhouse warming in the presence of natural variation and natural feedback. The socalled mainstream warmists have claimed that solar variation is to small to explain observed temperature changes. I just located the following article from UCAR. For those not familiar with UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) it is a heavily funded US information agency whose mission is: We develop state-of-the-art educational experiences that connect UCAR science to diverse learners, creating pathways towards a scientifically literate society.It is a plum assignment. It is a hot bed of warmist scientists seeking appointments to UCAR. For example Tom Wigley left his UK job as head of the UEA CRU unit and handed over leadership to Phil Jones of Climategate fame many years ago to take a UCAR job. Kevin Trenberth works for UCAR. Dozens of scientists from UCAR have worked on the IPCC assessment reports. So here is a page of the UCAR website: scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overviewHere they say that the temperature of the thermosphere can vary by almost 2,000C and say typical temperatures (which I take to be a mean temperature) varies from 200C to 500C as the solar cycle progresses! The pregnant question is if the thermosphere can exhibit such huge temperature swings with the solar cycle why can't a degree or two be explained by the same effect on the surface? Warmists like a bunch of idiotic robots close ranks on the issue pointing to the estimated wattage of the flow of photons from the sun. But clearly here UCAR is attributing the change not to wattage but to wave frequency of the higher frequency UV and Xray variation in the sun. And of course Planck's photon theory was self descibed by Planck as an "Act of Despair" to solve the so-called "UV catastrophy". Hmmm, it sounds like Planck's calculation of the power of solar radiation is totally bogus if the sun is capable of warming a virtually uninsulated thermosphere far beyond its blackbody limits due to the higher frequencies of light. I am totally confused. My first reaction was how the heck do they even know what the temperature of the thermosphere is? I had seen one chart that topped out at about 60C. Thats a nice figure that can be calculated via average solar energy alone, the temperature of transparent object exposed to the rays of the sun 50% of the time. So immediately skeptical a lot of thoughts came to mind. Like how the heck do they measure the temperature of the thermosphere. Couldn't find much except some rather sketchy proxy ideas of estimating drag on satellites and estimating the density of the air then figuring the amount of heat it would take to separate the molecules as far as that density figure implies. But the main thing that pops into mind is maybe the UV catastrophy has more merit than Planck gave it. Maybe its all, kit and caboodle, messed up! Sure sounds like we need to know one heckuvalot more about thermodynamics to begin to understand climate. Sure sounds like to me spending billions on climate models based upon poorly established thermodynamic principles isn't likely very soon to begin the advancement of our knowledge of climate. Sounds like to me at least Astromet might be at least studying at least the loosest variable. Makes me want to become a thermodynamic researcher. The thermosphere temps if true seem to indicate cooling rates don't mean spit on the basis of what we know about the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 21:09:41 GMT
If you place a perfectly insulated object anywhere in the solar system that can be heated, it will heat to the temperature of the sun.
The lower thermosphere contains separated atmospheric gases such as O2 and N2 which are very poor emitters of infra red until they get to about 750C or something like that, but presumably they can absorb UV and Xrays. The upper thermosphere contains atomic oxygen which does not behave like the molecular O2 and these have more chances for emission.
So whatever is up there is a very poor emitter of radiation until it gets very hot and yet it can still absorb UV and Xrays during the day.
Lief Svalgaard told me that while UV causes the upper atmosphere to puff up during solar cycles the area where this is happening is so thin that something like 99.9997% of the atmospheric mass is below this area.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 3, 2016 21:25:09 GMT
If you place a perfectly insulated object anywhere in the solar system that can be heated, it will heat to the temperature of the sun. The lower thermosphere contains separated atmospheric gases such as O2 and N2 which are very poor emitters of infra red until they get to about 750C or something like that, but presumably they can absorb UV and Xrays. The upper thermosphere contains atomic oxygen which does not behave like the molecular O2 and these have more chances for emission. So whatever is up there is a very poor emitter of radiation until it gets very hot and yet it can still absorb UV and Xrays during the day. Lief Svalgaard told me that while UV causes the upper atmosphere to puff up during solar cycles the area where this is happening is so thin that something like 99.9997% of the atmospheric mass is below this area. Not a bad explanation. So you are saying in essence that the lower levels of the atmosphere stunts the heating due to vast amounts of conduction or?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 21:41:35 GMT
If you place a perfectly insulated object anywhere in the solar system that can be heated, it will heat to the temperature of the sun. The lower thermosphere contains separated atmospheric gases such as O2 and N2 which are very poor emitters of infra red until they get to about 750C or something like that, but presumably they can absorb UV and Xrays. The upper thermosphere contains atomic oxygen which does not behave like the molecular O2 and these have more chances for emission. So whatever is up there is a very poor emitter of radiation until it gets very hot and yet it can still absorb UV and Xrays during the day. Lief Svalgaard told me that while UV causes the upper atmosphere to puff up during solar cycles the area where this is happening is so thin that something like 99.9997% of the atmospheric mass is below this area. Not a bad explanation. So you are saying in essence that the lower levels of the atmosphere stunts the heating due to vast amounts of conduction or? The thermosphere is hot because that is where the bulk of a particular UV and Xray are absorbed, so if more Energy were available the thermosphere would extend lower and heat it and puff it up. I suppose it must be true that below the most intense heating area that heat must be conducted and radiated in all directions till it is radiated away from the area and mixes with air that is being heated by other forces such as other direct solar radiation and indirect forces coming from surface heating
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 3, 2016 21:47:08 GMT
Good Catch Icefisher. UV variation is a LOT more important that climate scientists let on.
Back to that "Mass" thing again as well.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 3, 2016 21:50:00 GMT
I found it interesting that night glow radiation that comes from hot emitters mainly in the atmosphere only has the same power to heat as the full moon has. So while it can be used to be the driving force for ordinary thermal cameras (not thermal imaging cameras) the high temperatures up there have more or less no ability to heat us down here at all.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 3, 2016 22:01:10 GMT
I found it interesting that night glow radiation that comes from hot emitters mainly in the atmosphere only has the same power to heat as the full moon has. So while it can be used to be the driving force for ordinary thermal cameras (not thermal imaging cameras) the high temperatures up there have more or less no ability to heat us down here at all. What do you base the "no ability to heat us down here at all"?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 3, 2016 23:14:36 GMT
I found it interesting that night glow radiation that comes from hot emitters mainly in the atmosphere only has the same power to heat as the full moon has. So while it can be used to be the driving force for ordinary thermal cameras (not thermal imaging cameras) the high temperatures up there have more or less no ability to heat us down here at all. What do you base the "no ability to heat us down here at all"? i think he is saying they are to hot to emit down. . . .only cold radiation can warm the surface. or maybe he is saying the total mass of oxygen and nitrogen is too great in the atmosphere only small masses of gases can heat the surface. shiit I don't have a clue as to what he is saying. i thought he gave a good reason for why the atmosphere in the thermosphere was hot but he completely lost me also on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 4, 2016 0:00:37 GMT
Using 'temperature' to measure 'heat content' is a 'type' error. The units for heat in a gas should be kilojoules per kilogram especially in such a sparsely filled volume as the thermosphere.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2016 0:17:11 GMT
Using 'temperature' to measure 'heat content' is a 'type' error. The units for heat in a gas should be kilojoules per kilogram especially in such a sparsely filled volume as the thermosphere. Dang, back to that mass item again... Won't it ever go away? ??
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2016 6:27:19 GMT
Using 'temperature' to measure 'heat content' is a 'type' error. The units for heat in a gas should be kilojoules per kilogram especially in such a sparsely filled volume as the thermosphere. Dang, back to that mass item again... Won't it ever go away? ?? The karman line for the supposed beginning of outerspace is 100km and the thermosphere begins at 200km I suppose then there is agreement here that since there is almost no mass in the thermosphere at night it has very little ability to heat us directly from up there even though it is hot. Moonlight is about 100,000 times weaker than the power of the Sun, and night time air glow includes radiation from the stars. Yes the thermosphere must radiate into and conduct into the upper atmosphere and that will give us an indirect warming effect at night if that energy can penetrate down to us before it is re-emitted to space. Some of the secondary effects must be able to heat us directly at the surface but there is bugger all to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2016 10:33:59 GMT
Dang, back to that mass item again... Won't it ever go away? ?? The karman line for the supposed beginning of outerspace is 100km and the thermosphere begins at 200km I suppose then there is agreement here that since there is almost no mass in the thermosphere at night it has very little ability to heat us directly from up there even though it is hot. Moonlight is about 100,000 times weaker than the power of the Sun, and night time air glow includes radiation from the stars. Yes the thermosphere must radiate into and conduct into the upper atmosphere and that will give us an indirect warming effect at night if that energy can penetrate down to us before it is re-emitted to space. Some of the secondary effects must be able to heat us directly at the surface but there is bugger all to begin with. hmmmmmmmm, well maybe not much mass but for complete absorption it has to present a complete surface and you sure believe in the power of complete surfaces.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2016 10:55:19 GMT
The karman line for the supposed beginning of outerspace is 100km and the thermosphere begins at 200km I suppose then there is agreement here that since there is almost no mass in the thermosphere at night it has very little ability to heat us directly from up there even though it is hot. Moonlight is about 100,000 times weaker than the power of the Sun, and night time air glow includes radiation from the stars. Yes the thermosphere must radiate into and conduct into the upper atmosphere and that will give us an indirect warming effect at night if that energy can penetrate down to us before it is re-emitted to space. Some of the secondary effects must be able to heat us directly at the surface but there is bugger all to begin with. hmmmmmmmm, well maybe not much mass but for complete absorption it has to present a complete surface and you sure believe in the power of complete surfaces. Nobody is talking about 'complete' surfaces. The atmosphere cannot absorb completely. Even over water you can still see images of ships kilometers away using thermal imaging if you select the atmospheric window frequencies for the camera design. A 'surface' either exists or it does not. No matter where you are in the earth system if you point a radiation thermometer into the atmosphere in any direction you will measure the temperature of a 'surface' The model has three temperatures to worry about. Where you are, whatever the 'surface' temperature is measured to be and the 3k of space.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 4, 2016 17:07:15 GMT
The thermosphere is hot because that is where the bulk of a particular UV and Xray are absorbed, so if more Energy were available the thermosphere would extend lower and heat it and puff it up. I suppose it must be true that below the most intense heating area that heat must be conducted and radiated in all directions till it is radiated away from the area and mixes with air that is being heated by other forces such as other direct solar radiation and indirect forces coming from surface heating Well it can't both absorb the "bulk" of all that radiation Andrew and: hmmmmmmmm, well maybe not much mass but for complete absorption it has to present a complete surface and you sure believe in the power of complete surfaces. Nobody is talking about 'complete' surfaces. The atmosphere cannot absorb completely. Even over water you can still see images of ships kilometers away using thermal imaging if you select the atmospheric window frequencies for the camera design. A 'surface' either exists or it does not. No matter where you are in the earth system if you point a radiation thermometer into the atmosphere in any direction you will measure the temperature of a 'surface' The model has three temperatures to worry about. Where you are, whatever the 'surface' temperature is measured to be and the 3k of space. not be at least a near surface. This near surface, where the bulk of this high energy radiation is absorbed, absorbs what percent? 90%? And is 2000C, why can't we read it? Because we are using an IR camera, not a UV camera? The IR surface you say you read for greenhouse gases only absorbs what 90 to 95% of the outgoing IR the rest goes through the IR window.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 4, 2016 18:02:10 GMT
The thermosphere is hot because that is where the bulk of a particular UV and Xray are absorbed, so if more Energy were available the thermosphere would extend lower and heat it and puff it up. I suppose it must be true that below the most intense heating area that heat must be conducted and radiated in all directions till it is radiated away from the area and mixes with air that is being heated by other forces such as other direct solar radiation and indirect forces coming from surface heating Well it can't both absorb the "bulk" of all that radiation Andrew and: Nobody is talking about 'complete' surfaces. The atmosphere cannot absorb completely. Even over water you can still see images of ships kilometers away using thermal imaging if you select the atmospheric window frequencies for the camera design. A 'surface' either exists or it does not. No matter where you are in the earth system if you point a radiation thermometer into the atmosphere in any direction you will measure the temperature of a 'surface' The model has three temperatures to worry about. Where you are, whatever the 'surface' temperature is measured to be and the 3k of space. not be at least a near surface. This near surface, where the bulk of this high energy radiation is absorbed, absorbs what percent? 90%? And is 2000C, why can't we read it? Because we are using an IR camera, not a UV camera? The IR surface you say you read for greenhouse gases only absorbs what 90 to 95% of the outgoing IR the rest goes through the IR window. www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/airglow.htmInterestingly the brightest night time airglow is coming from chemiluminescence. CHEMILUMINESCENCE: emission results from chemical reactions mainly between oxygen and nitrogen atoms and molecules and hydroxyl molecules at a height between 100 and 300 kilometers. Solar radiation energy breaks molecules apart during the day, and it is their recombination, which is accompanied by the emission of light, that generates the nightglow.
The brightest region of airglow is about 10 mile (10 to 20 km) thick zone at an altitude of about 60 miles (100 km). One contributor to airglow is the sodium layer.
Green line of atomic oxygen at the top of the thermosphere was first detected in 1868. The brightest emissions happen in the Short wave IR (cheap IR camera) www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=50540The wavelength spectrum of airglow, depicted in Figure 1, shows its maximum intensity in the SWIR range between 1 and 1.8 µm
|
|