|
Post by Ratty on Sept 20, 2016 11:56:34 GMT
Understood. Getting back in my hole now .....
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 11:58:53 GMT
exactly now define what unstable air is " To be "unstable", the lowest layers of an air mass must be so warm and/or humid that, if some of the air rises, then that air parcel is warmer than its environment, and so it continues to rise. This is called moist convection." www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_an_unstable_air_mass.htmFor example when a high pressure area is forming the air is expanding which makes it easier to push away the upper layer trapping the warmer layers below, but when the high pressure area is decaying the air is descending and the air becomes 'stable'. Regardless, warm moist air cannot simply move upwards and pass through the layers of air that trap this huge mass of air nearer to the ground. The whole issue is however irrelevant anyway because it does not matter if the heat is down there or up there. Emission will cause the earth to be warmer than it would be without those emissions. Your theory depends entirely on some half baked idea you can cool things by heating them, which months ago i did my best to explain to you and Sigurdur was a complete misconception of the way IR heats water where it is not possible for IR to free the top molecules of water without most of the IR passing thru a layer of tens of thousands of other molecules to penetrate the water by some amount that is not at the absolute surface. If you put your wet hands under an air drier that is blowing hot air - your hands will feel cold until they become dry whereupon you will start feeling the heat of the air drier. That is a very thin 0.3mm layer perhaps. It is somewhat more difficult with a kilometer or more of water covering 70% of the Earth for it to dry. Therefore, the effect remains cooling. What heats the oceans is shorter wave radiation from the Sun and sensible heat from the shores and rivers running through hotter soil and rocks.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 12:31:56 GMT
You should look at Avogadro's Hypothesis and Charles Law. It is a volume of air containing millions of molecules and in a particular volume at the same temperature and pressure Avogadro's Hypothesis (law in some docs) is that there will be the same number of molecules. If a percentage of molecules in a volume of air are lighter the volume of air will tend to rise. The same way that if a number of molecules have more kinetic energy so tend to take up more room due to their more energetic collisions (temperature and pressure is higher) the volume of gas will tend to rise. Nautonnier, the first sentence is supported by Avagadro, the third sentence is supported by Charles. But I don’t see any support for the middle sentence. Remember, we're not talking about a contained volume such as the contents of a balloon. But let’s go on to a second question concerning your original post (the one I copied from Astro’s site). Concerning the photons that are absorbed and reemitted by CO and based on your description of what happens to the photon energy, how much of that photon energy remains in the earth’s system? None of the photon energy "ramains in the Earth's system" it will all end up radiating to space. What the discussion is about is how long the delay is before that happens. A desert can go from extremely hot during the day to freezing at night. Even in temperate areas well inland the temperatures can be -10C to +20C as diurnal variation. Some papers dispute the idea that CO2 'absorbs' infrared as the time that the CO2 remains at a high energy state before releasing an infrared photon is more like 'scattering'. The claim is that the CO2 molecule collides with an N2 or O2 molecule in that short period and passes on the energy to the molecule with which it collides. I have not seen any experimental validation of this claim. Similarly, CO2 on each collision also receives kinetic energy from N2 and O2 molecules that at normal atmospheric temperatures are non-radiative. The CO2 given the right level of energy from a collision can radiate a photon of infrared. So in adding CO2 to a mixture of N2 and O2 at say 15C should result in infrared being radiated by the added CO2 molecules (this is accepted for the stratosphere) So how long is the residence time of a photon of infrared that is radiated from the surface, then is 'scattered' by CO2 say twice hits a rock and is radiated back and let's say it does that 100 times before finally making a home run to space. That is what a whole tenth of a second delay getting to space? Of course overwhelming all of this is the infrared radiated by condensing and freezing water in the atmosphere most of which evaporated from the oceans but also from lakes, rivers and plant stomata.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2016 13:28:20 GMT
Duwayne, I've been an interested onlooker in the whole debate for over twenty years but I have no scientific background and - at 71 - may have insufficient time left to build up an understanding. EDIT: If you neglect the straw man, do you think the paper has any merit? PS: The title and use of language ** may suggest a hidden agenda? ** "Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities ..... " Ratty, I only have a couple of minutes a day to spend on this site. I save time by not reading anything that Icefisher writes. But I want to finish my discussion with Nautonnier before I look further at the paper. Hmmm, Dwayne must be getting confused. I am trying to figure out how I ended up being an excuse for Dwayne to not answer Ratty. I had nothing to do with either paper Ratty produced. But while I don't have a technical answer that goes beyond the multitude of arguments advanced by the authors of the papers Ratty produced regarding radiation acting as its own insulator. But I can say that effect is ignored completely in heating engineering up to the point it interacts with another independent source of heat. I realize that heating engineers operate off a slightly different program that may embed some insulation value in the concept of thermal conductivity which incorporates everything. And that works fine. The idea that the greenhouse doesn't exist arises from every experiment that has been attempted to demonstrate it from Woods onward. However, there are a lot of reasons to believe it might exist like the experiments run by Roy Spencer on his site in the past couple of weeks. But these experiments of Roy are not very similar to the greenhouse effect and only give a partial view of the conditions of the greenhouse effect. Previous efforts by Roy were spoiled by convection so he turned the experiment upside down to eliminate the effect of convection. My opinion is Roy's experiments clearly shows the warming potential of restricting cooling via radiation from a cooler object. But it falls short as it was not responsible for keeping the less warmed object warm, the room was responsible for that and that goes to the engineering principle that when you run into an independent 2nd source of heat you can no longer ignore the radiation effect of that independent source of heat. And of course all human construction projects, including satellites trying to keep sensitive electronics cool enough runs into a 2nd independent source of heat outside the project whether it be the ambient air temperature or it be the sun. Bottom line Ratty. The greenhouse effect eventually rests on a fallacy, the fallacy of ignorance about other means of explaining observed phenomena such as the surface temperature being warmer than expected. The science falls short of being able to duplicate the effect at will. As an auditor I understand how to quickly get to that answer from the standpoint of sufficient proof. I went to the IPCC documentation and found the argument from ignorance as the centerpiece argument for the greenhouse effect. When auditing complex financial instruments and real estate valuation ends up boiling down to observation of trends. So the IPCC did exactly that and examined the 17 year warming trend from 1980 to 1997. Dr Ben Santer was at the center of this observational trend analysis. Since then Ben himself nearly invalidated his finding by saying after the earth had not warmed for 16.5 years, he claimed you needed a minimum of 17 years a number he obviously picked off his IPCC analysis. Well now that it has gone beyond that there has been a lot of modifications to temperature records to produce a warming trend. While I can't make a call of fraud, what I can say is the whole issue needs a deep investigation. But its so political we have the courts blocking access to records to do the investigation. While our constitution provides a lot of protections to individual rights those protections should not apply to work for government institutions. However, then you run into the Clinton email scandal where Clinton's attorney's determined what the government had a right to see. But I digress. G&T's paper covered a lot of territory but it was rejected on a very narrow range of issues by the warmist community. Thats the experience you have when the government has adopted a view that the utterings of their contracted scientists need to be disproved rather than the utterings proven. They have turned science on its head like Roy turned his experiment on its head. I understand the arguments of the warmists. They claim convection does not matter because the heating has already occurred. Any cooling that comes from convection is part of the feedback sensitivity figure. So when it was warming they saw that as proof of their theory and when it wasn't warming they saw it as a temporary anomaly in the system like the ocean absorbing heat or aerosols scattering solar radiation back before it warms the surface. But thats an argument for the effect not for surface warming. This difference in treatment is exactly what auditors look for when auditing because the number one rule is consistency of accounting practices. If they wish to use aerosols and ocean absorbing to describe a lack of warming they cannot ignore it when they have warming. Eventually auditors will settle if they consider the full range of everything and no contrary trends can be detected, thus the move toward fixing the observational system as doing all that took the heart out of the alarming amount of warming that was occurring, which according to the satellites over the past 30 years is about 1.3 degrees per century. That note should be sufficient to warning potential investors that warming from CO2 isn't likely to exceed that. As to the fixed observation record we should wait according to the advice of Dr Ben Santer at least 17 years to see if those adjustments must be done again or not. Its hard to respond to more or to the religious beliefs of those who don't need to know more as its impossible to dismiss God using an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2016 15:37:22 GMT
For example when a high pressure area is forming the air is expanding which makes it easier to push away the upper layer trapping the warmer layers below, but when the high pressure area is decaying the air is descending and the air becomes 'stable'. Regardless, warm moist air cannot simply move upwards and pass through the layers of air that trap this huge mass of air nearer to the ground. The whole issue is however irrelevant anyway because it does not matter if the heat is down there or up there. Emission will cause the earth to be warmer than it would be without those emissions. Your theory depends entirely on some half baked idea you can cool things by heating them, which months ago i did my best to explain to you and Sigurdur was a complete misconception of the way IR heats water where it is not possible for IR to free the top molecules of water without most of the IR passing thru a layer of tens of thousands of other molecules to penetrate the water by some amount that is not at the absolute surface. If you put your wet hands under an air drier that is blowing hot air - your hands will feel cold until they become dry whereupon you will start feeling the heat of the air drier. That is a very thin 0.3mm layer perhaps. It is somewhat more difficult with a kilometer or more of water covering 70% of the Earth for it to dry. Therefore, the effect remains cooling. What heats the oceans is shorter wave radiation from the Sun and sensible heat from the shores and rivers running through hotter soil and rocks. Sigh. Dry doing the same thing without the hair dryer on the hot setting and see how that feels. You cannot cool things by heating them.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 20, 2016 16:37:02 GMT
Nautonnier, the first sentence is supported by Avagadro, the third sentence is supported by Charles. But I don’t see any support for the middle sentence. Remember, we're not talking about a contained volume such as the contents of a balloon. But let’s go on to a second question concerning your original post (the one I copied from Astro’s site). Concerning the photons that are absorbed and reemitted by CO and based on your description of what happens to the photon energy, how much of that photon energy remains in the earth’s system? None of the photon energy "ramains in the Earth's system" it will all end up radiating to space. What the discussion is about is how long the delay is before that happens. A desert can go from extremely hot during the day to freezing at night. Even in temperate areas well inland the temperatures can be -10C to +20C as diurnal variation. Some papers dispute the idea that CO2 'absorbs' infrared as the time that the CO2 remains at a high energy state before releasing an infrared photon is more like 'scattering'. The claim is that the CO2 molecule collides with an N2 or O2 molecule in that short period and passes on the energy to the molecule with which it collides. I have not seen any experimental validation of this claim. Similarly, CO2 on each collision also receives kinetic energy from N2 and O2 molecules that at normal atmospheric temperatures are non-radiative. The CO2 given the right level of energy from a collision can radiate a photon of infrared. So in adding CO2 to a mixture of N2 and O2 at say 15C should result in infrared being radiated by the added CO2 molecules (this is accepted for the stratosphere) So how long is the residence time of a photon of infrared that is radiated from the surface, then is 'scattered' by CO2 say twice hits a rock and is radiated back and let's say it does that 100 times before finally making a home run to space. That is what a whole tenth of a second delay getting to space? Of course overwhelming all of this is the infrared radiated by condensing and freezing water in the atmosphere most of which evaporated from the oceans but also from lakes, rivers and plant stomata. Nautonnier, do these photons that are reemitted by CO2 and "hit a rock" or something else on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere and then make a "home run to space" cause any warming on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 16:42:32 GMT
Ratty, I only have a couple of minutes a day to spend on this site. I save time by not reading anything that Icefisher writes. But I want to finish my discussion with Nautonnier before I look further at the paper. Hmmm, Dwayne must be getting confused. I am trying to figure out how I ended up being an excuse for Dwayne to not answer Ratty. I had nothing to do with either paper Ratty produced. But while I don't have a technical answer that goes beyond the multitude of arguments advanced by the authors of the papers Ratty produced regarding radiation acting as its own insulator. But I can say that effect is ignored completely in heating engineering up to the point it interacts with another independent source of heat. I realize that heating engineers operate off a slightly different program that may embed some insulation value in the concept of thermal conductivity which incorporates everything. And that works fine. The idea that the greenhouse doesn't exist arises from every experiment that has been attempted to demonstrate it from Woods onward. However, there are a lot of reasons to believe it might exist like the experiments run by Roy Spencer on his site in the past couple of weeks. But these experiments of Roy are not very similar to the greenhouse effect and only give a partial view of the conditions of the greenhouse effect. Previous efforts by Roy were spoiled by convection so he turned the experiment upside down to eliminate the effect of convection. My opinion is Roy's experiments clearly shows the warming potential of restricting cooling via radiation from a cooler object. But it falls short as it was not responsible for keeping the less warmed object warm, the room was responsible for that and that goes to the engineering principle that when you run into an independent 2nd source of heat you can no longer ignore the radiation effect of that independent source of heat. <<<SNIP>>> So to show that the 'greenhouse effect' exists in the atmosphere and finding that it doesn't due to convection, he removes the convection and says that proves there is a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere? That must be the ultimate in confirmation bias.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 16:48:11 GMT
If you put your wet hands under an air drier that is blowing hot air - your hands will feel cold until they become dry whereupon you will start feeling the heat of the air drier. That is a very thin 0.3mm layer perhaps. It is somewhat more difficult with a kilometer or more of water covering 70% of the Earth for it to dry. Therefore, the effect remains cooling. What heats the oceans is shorter wave radiation from the Sun and sensible heat from the shores and rivers running through hotter soil and rocks. Sigh. Dry doing the same thing without the hair dryer on the hot setting and see how that feels. You cannot cool things by heating them. I just gave you a common example that you feel cold when hot air is blown on wet hands so you are being cooled by being heated. The fact that you can also be cooled to a lesser extent by using just ambient air does not disprove it. Hot air can cool. Infrared on water does precisely the same - it excites surface molecules those at close to escape energy now have sufficient to escape taking their energy with them so the high energy molecules selectively evaporate. Those with a little less continue to be excited by the incident infrared and then escape. Infrared does not penetrate past the first layers of molecules in water it does not warm water.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 16:54:26 GMT
None of the photon energy "ramains in the Earth's system" it will all end up radiating to space. What the discussion is about is how long the delay is before that happens. A desert can go from extremely hot during the day to freezing at night. Even in temperate areas well inland the temperatures can be -10C to +20C as diurnal variation. Some papers dispute the idea that CO2 'absorbs' infrared as the time that the CO2 remains at a high energy state before releasing an infrared photon is more like 'scattering'. The claim is that the CO2 molecule collides with an N2 or O2 molecule in that short period and passes on the energy to the molecule with which it collides. I have not seen any experimental validation of this claim. Similarly, CO2 on each collision also receives kinetic energy from N2 and O2 molecules that at normal atmospheric temperatures are non-radiative. The CO2 given the right level of energy from a collision can radiate a photon of infrared. So in adding CO2 to a mixture of N2 and O2 at say 15C should result in infrared being radiated by the added CO2 molecules (this is accepted for the stratosphere) So how long is the residence time of a photon of infrared that is radiated from the surface, then is 'scattered' by CO2 say twice hits a rock and is radiated back and let's say it does that 100 times before finally making a home run to space. That is what a whole tenth of a second delay getting to space? Of course overwhelming all of this is the infrared radiated by condensing and freezing water in the atmosphere most of which evaporated from the oceans but also from lakes, rivers and plant stomata. Nautonnier, do these photons that are reemitted by CO2 and "hits a rock" or something else on the surface or in the atmosphere and then make a "home run to space" cause any warming on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere? I was going to add that but decided I had typed long enough. Yes infrared will heat the surface of rocks and as the rock is heated the Stefan Boltzmann equation means that the rock emits at a rate equivalent to the 4th power of its temperature. So the hotter the rock becomes the more it radiates heat away. Nevertheless, there will be conduction into the rock so the internal rock also heats up (dependent on conductivity). So land will heat up and stay hot longer. Water (see the discussion with Andrew) will not heat up with incident infrared and will cool. Water covers more than 70% of the Earth's surface - probably more than that if you include transpiration from vegetation. So the <30% of the Earth that is land will have a greater range of temperatures than the oceans, rivers lakes and vegetation.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2016 18:20:24 GMT
Sigh. Dry doing the same thing without the hair dryer on the hot setting and see how that feels. You cannot cool things by heating them. I just gave you a common example that you feel cold when hot air is blown on wet hands so you are being cooled by being heated. The fact that you can also be cooled to a lesser extent by using just ambient air does not disprove it. So you are claiming you are cooled less by cold air passing over your body than warm air passing over your body? Who would have thought it? The polar heros did not freeze to death they just died of heat exhaustion. Amazing what you can learn on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 20, 2016 23:05:51 GMT
Nautonnier, do these photons that are reemitted by CO2 and "hits a rock" or something else on the surface or in the atmosphere and then make a "home run to space" cause any warming on the earth's surface or in the atmosphere? I was going to add that but decided I had typed long enough. Yes infrared will heat the surface of rocks and as the rock is heated the Stefan Boltzmann equation means that the rock emits at a rate equivalent to the 4th power of its temperature. So the hotter the rock becomes the more it radiates heat away. Nevertheless, there will be conduction into the rock so the internal rock also heats up (dependent on conductivity). So land will heat up and stay hot longer. Water (see the discussion with Andrew) will not heat up with incident infrared and will cool. Water covers more than 70% of the Earth's surface - probably more than that if you include transpiration from vegetation. So the <30% of the Earth that is land will have a greater range of temperatures than the oceans, rivers lakes and vegetation. Nautonnier, so you are saying that a photon generator like a heat lamp or a microwave oven won't heat water?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 23:07:52 GMT
I just gave you a common example that you feel cold when hot air is blown on wet hands so you are being cooled by being heated. The fact that you can also be cooled to a lesser extent by using just ambient air does not disprove it. So you are claiming you are cooled less by cold air passing over your body than warm air passing over your body? Who would have thought it? The polar heros did not freeze to death they just died of heat exhaustion. Amazing what you can learn on the internet. I said ambient air, that is 'not hot' air. Obviously a blast freezer will cool what it is blowing on, in just the same way that superheated air would rapidly overcome any evaporative effect. Just carry on blowing on your coffee to keep it warm as I am sure you do following your logic.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 20, 2016 23:10:07 GMT
I was going to add that but decided I had typed long enough. Yes infrared will heat the surface of rocks and as the rock is heated the Stefan Boltzmann equation means that the rock emits at a rate equivalent to the 4th power of its temperature. So the hotter the rock becomes the more it radiates heat away. Nevertheless, there will be conduction into the rock so the internal rock also heats up (dependent on conductivity). So land will heat up and stay hot longer. Water (see the discussion with Andrew) will not heat up with incident infrared and will cool. Water covers more than 70% of the Earth's surface - probably more than that if you include transpiration from vegetation. So the <30% of the Earth that is land will have a greater range of temperatures than the oceans, rivers lakes and vegetation. Nautonnier, so you are saying that microwave ovens won't heat water? Duwayne you may not be aware but microwave ovens do not use infrared they use microwaves at around 2.4GHz (hence the name?). Their power is also several orders of magnitude more than so called downwelling infrared.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 20, 2016 23:14:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 20, 2016 23:15:27 GMT
Nautonnier, so you are saying that microwave ovens won't heat water? Duwayne you may not be aware but microwave ovens do not use infrared they use microwaves at around 2.4GHz (hence the name?). Their power is also several orders of magnitude more than so called downwelling infrared. Yes. I know that but they are photons. How about the heat lamp?
|
|