|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 9, 2017 8:22:11 GMT
Naut, i feel you have far more to teach me then i you....however the vid I posted on climate science thread recently shows using basic physics the disparity between the expected surface temp of our planet with no atmosphere, and the surface temp including atmosphere, and there's about ( from memory) a -30°c difference. Ie, there is a warming effect being exerted on the surface beyond the incoming solar radiation. Well, an insulating effect really because the energy into our planet must equal the energy out or we would be warming, and not necessarily by fractions of a degree over a century (where it is dubious we could measure such a thing through history anyway!!) Best watch the vid...the professor is an expert....i am not!! There would be that disparity in surface temperature just because of an atmosphere. The gas laws would lead to the increase in temperature without any need to resort to carbon dioxide ( See Charles' Law and Avogadro's hypothesis). Indeed the lapse rates (change in temperature with height) were calculated by ICAN using -them- without any need to use CO2 'forcing'.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 7, 2018 7:41:13 GMT
Just a thought I have no clue as to the answer.
Correct me where I'm wrong....specific wave lengths of IR correspond with the vibrational frequency of the C-O bonds in co2. These IR photons interact with the bonds and are effectively bounced.
However, do they leave at the same wave length?? I'd have thought there'd be some energy/wave length reduction as a result of the interaction....🤔
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 7, 2018 12:29:28 GMT
Just a thought I have no clue as to the answer. Correct me where I'm wrong....specific wave lengths of IR correspond with the vibrational frequency of the C-O bonds in co2. These IR photons interact with the bonds and are effectively bounced. However, do they leave at the same wave length?? I'd have thought there'd be some energy/wave length reduction as a result of the interaction....🤔 Warning the following reference may cause brain pain. It depends on how the light is scattered. * Rayleigh scattering has no effect on wavelength (frequency) i.e energy state * Raman scattering caused by vibrational excitation of molecular bonds ... == can be emitted at a lower energy state - i.e. longer wavelength/lower frequency - known as Stokes Raman scattering == can be emitted at a higher energy state - i.e. shorter wavelength/higher frequency - known as 'anti-Stokes Raman scattering' The Raman scattering varies dependent on the vibrational energy that the molecule had at start compared to after the scattering. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scatteringIt does not appear to be as climate 'scientists' would have you believe simple absorb and then radiate. I have no doubt that it is more complicated - I also feel that looking things up on the internet now is a little of a fools errand as anywhere that has even tangential relationships to 'Global Warming' has been 'adjusted' to match the hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 7, 2018 18:43:38 GMT
Just a thought I have no clue as to the answer. Correct me where I'm wrong....specific wave lengths of IR correspond with the vibrational frequency of the C-O bonds in co2. These IR photons interact with the bonds and are effectively bounced. However, do they leave at the same wave length?? I'd have thought there'd be some energy/wave length reduction as a result of the interaction....🤔 The photon absorbtion and emission energy to and from a molecule do not have to be the same. But an energy radiation imbalance will mean the molecule will warm or cool such that the conservation of energy is maintained.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 7, 2018 19:22:40 GMT
Thankyou both, food for thought and avenues to explore!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 14, 2018 18:54:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 14, 2018 21:45:37 GMT
Important issues to be aware of is that precipitation supports vegetation growth and increased CO2 makes plants more drought tolerant because plants lose less water through pores opened to absorb the CO2 needed for growth because higher levels of CO2 increases the absorption rate. Seems to me that fact alone makes it almost impossible to claim a negative outcome from increased levels of CO2. Obviously the only avenue for doing so is to suggest a runaway warming for which no evidence exists. Even the IPCC has had a hard time getting science on board with truly dangerous levels of warming. What we are dealing with is religion, in this case a simplistic paganism, using an illusion of science to advance its cause. Nothing much new about that either just ask Galileo.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 23, 2018 7:16:04 GMT
Have we seen Doug Cotton's work before? Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse HypothesisAbstract
The author's 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" presented what amounts to a totally new paradigm in climate change science. The hypothesis can be used to explain all temperatures and the main heat transfer mechanism in all planets. Only one hypothesis can be the correct one, and the issue as to which it is can be resolved using standard laws of physics. The study of heat transfer mechanisms lies wholly within the discipline of physics, and yet it appears that few, if any, physicists have been asked to review the physics that is being presented by climatologists, whose papers are referred to by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientific authorities, including NASA. It appears that most physicists have avoided the debate, although some are now looking into it and finding false physics being used.
In physics it has been explained in the 19th century that force fields like gravity will establish a situation in which temperatures do not level out as they would in a horizontal plane. Instead a stable non-zero temperature gradient is formed and this is a state of equilibrium. Because it is such a state, it was shown in the above 2013 paper that we cannot assume that heat transfers by non-radiative molecular collision processes need always to be from a warmer object to a cooler one. Imagine what must happen when the Sun rises and starts to warm the tops of clouds, thus disturbing the state of equilibrium that was closely the case the night before. There is now more energy but the temperature gradient will tend to restore its previous value. This means that the whole thermal profile (graph) will rise to a higher (but parallel) position with downward heat transfer being necessary towards warmer regions. Climatologists have completely overlooked this process and wrongly assumed the required energy came from atmospheric radiation that caused a heat transfer into the warmer surface.
Because of this assumption, there is now an implication in energy diagrams, such as those from NASA, that the Earth's surface temperature is determined primarily by the assumed combined effect of solar radiation and about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. This assumption is shown to be contrary to standard physics, and empirical evidence is presented that proves their assumption to be incorrect.
Climate change is shown to follow natural cycles that are probably regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits. A possible mechanism for this regulating is suggested.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 23, 2018 8:28:28 GMT
Have we seen Doug Cotton's work before? Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse HypothesisAbstract
The author's 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" presented what amounts to a totally new paradigm in climate change science. The hypothesis can be used to explain all temperatures and the main heat transfer mechanism in all planets. Only one hypothesis can be the correct one, and the issue as to which it is can be resolved using standard laws of physics. The study of heat transfer mechanisms lies wholly within the discipline of physics, and yet it appears that few, if any, physicists have been asked to review the physics that is being presented by climatologists, whose papers are referred to by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientific authorities, including NASA. It appears that most physicists have avoided the debate, although some are now looking into it and finding false physics being used.
In physics it has been explained in the 19th century that force fields like gravity will establish a situation in which temperatures do not level out as they would in a horizontal plane. Instead a stable non-zero temperature gradient is formed and this is a state of equilibrium. Because it is such a state, it was shown in the above 2013 paper that we cannot assume that heat transfers by non-radiative molecular collision processes need always to be from a warmer object to a cooler one. Imagine what must happen when the Sun rises and starts to warm the tops of clouds, thus disturbing the state of equilibrium that was closely the case the night before. There is now more energy but the temperature gradient will tend to restore its previous value. This means that the whole thermal profile (graph) will rise to a higher (but parallel) position with downward heat transfer being necessary towards warmer regions. Climatologists have completely overlooked this process and wrongly assumed the required energy came from atmospheric radiation that caused a heat transfer into the warmer surface.
Because of this assumption, there is now an implication in energy diagrams, such as those from NASA, that the Earth's surface temperature is determined primarily by the assumed combined effect of solar radiation and about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. This assumption is shown to be contrary to standard physics, and empirical evidence is presented that proves their assumption to be incorrect.
Climate change is shown to follow natural cycles that are probably regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits. A possible mechanism for this regulating is suggested.Well we have - but it is either extremely poorly written or he doesn't understand the atmospheric physics as he repeatedly claims. When 'the sun warms the tops of clouds' what the longer wavelengths will do is supply the latent heat of fusion/evaporation and the cloud droplets will slowly evaporate and become water vapor - with no temperature change to warm any lower layers except that the sunlight will now reach closer to the surface. Warm air rises faster than its heat will conduct downward by collision. However, the Gas Laws account completely for the adiabatic lapse rate add in the effect of latent heat and humidity and you have the wet adiabatic lapse rate. It is notable that people do not appear to understand the gas laws and keep on trying to talk of 'work done' when that is supplied by the force of gravity and not by the gases in the atmosphere. If you have a pressure gradient then due to the gas laws you will have a temperature gradient - the adiabatic lapse rate. [Adiabatic - a process that occurs without heat transfer --- Temperature of a gas is the measure of the overall kinetic energy of the gas molecules in a volume. Increase only the pressure and there are more gas molecules hence more kinetic energy and the temperature is higher]
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 23, 2018 15:05:16 GMT
Have we seen Doug Cotton's work before? Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse HypothesisAbstract
The author's 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" presented what amounts to a totally new paradigm in climate change science. The hypothesis can be used to explain all temperatures and the main heat transfer mechanism in all planets. Only one hypothesis can be the correct one, and the issue as to which it is can be resolved using standard laws of physics. The study of heat transfer mechanisms lies wholly within the discipline of physics, and yet it appears that few, if any, physicists have been asked to review the physics that is being presented by climatologists, whose papers are referred to by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many scientific authorities, including NASA. It appears that most physicists have avoided the debate, although some are now looking into it and finding false physics being used.
In physics it has been explained in the 19th century that force fields like gravity will establish a situation in which temperatures do not level out as they would in a horizontal plane. Instead a stable non-zero temperature gradient is formed and this is a state of equilibrium. Because it is such a state, it was shown in the above 2013 paper that we cannot assume that heat transfers by non-radiative molecular collision processes need always to be from a warmer object to a cooler one. Imagine what must happen when the Sun rises and starts to warm the tops of clouds, thus disturbing the state of equilibrium that was closely the case the night before. There is now more energy but the temperature gradient will tend to restore its previous value. This means that the whole thermal profile (graph) will rise to a higher (but parallel) position with downward heat transfer being necessary towards warmer regions. Climatologists have completely overlooked this process and wrongly assumed the required energy came from atmospheric radiation that caused a heat transfer into the warmer surface.
Because of this assumption, there is now an implication in energy diagrams, such as those from NASA, that the Earth's surface temperature is determined primarily by the assumed combined effect of solar radiation and about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. This assumption is shown to be contrary to standard physics, and empirical evidence is presented that proves their assumption to be incorrect.
Climate change is shown to follow natural cycles that are probably regulated by the Sun and planetary orbits. A possible mechanism for this regulating is suggested.Well we have - but it is either extremely poorly written or he doesn't understand the atmospheric physics as he repeatedly claims. When 'the sun warms the tops of clouds' what the longer wavelengths will do is supply the latent heat of fusion/evaporation and the cloud droplets will slowly evaporate and become water vapor - with no temperature change to warm any lower layers except that the sunlight will now reach closer to the surface. Warm air rises faster than its heat will conduct downward by collision. However, the Gas Laws account completely for the adiabatic lapse rate add in the effect of latenI t heat and humidity and you have the wet adiabatic lapse rate. It is notable that people do not appear to understand the gas laws and keep on trying to talk of 'work done' when that is supplied by the force of gravity and not by the gases in the atmosphere. If you have a pressure gradient then due to the gas laws you will have a temperature gradient - the adiabatic lapse rate. [Adiabatic - a process that occurs without heat transfer --- Temperature of a gas is the measure of the overall kinetic energy of the gas molecules in a volume. Increase only the pressure and there are more gas molecules hence more kinetic energy and the temperature is higher] I agree. This is close to what my paper is about. I had not seen this paper but did participate in a very long debate on WUWT years ago when a theory very close to this was offered up via a model of a world with no external forcing or loss of heat. Naut since I don't speak technically, it seems to me that the gas laws don't completely account for the adiabatic lapse rate, at least by any source I can find. By my math according to the ideal gas law the 500mb level in the atmosphere should be about -129C assuming the surface is an average of 15C (288k-144K for a 50% drop in pressure). But I calculate it to -45C by the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~-3C per thousand feet using a chart that showing the 500mb level being around 19,000feet). I have seen the "dry" lapse rate referred as having "little" water. I also realize the ideal gas laws aren't anything found in nature, kind of like blackbodies. I assume the reason for the discrepancy must have something to do with either condensation or mixing of air parcels. I had a go around with Kevin Trenberth noting that he had used a blackbody calculation for surface radiation in his global energy budget that it seems everybody uses. He denied it and promptly offered an explanatory link that calculated to about 20 watts less surface radiation than the number he used. Called him on that and he said he didn't trust the source he sent me and sent me another source which supported more radiation, in fact, about 9 watts less than what he used. Trenberth is a very irritating guy to talk to; however, he is accommodating, but maybe only because that's his job description. . . .top public information source or something like that. Reviewing the methodologies used by the two different sources, the high emissivity of water in the source he didn't trust used a broader range of frequencies of radiation than the source he did trust that he didn't use in his budget. I am still pondering what he is trying to cover up. Right now I think its the main premise of the paper I am writing.
|
|
jopo
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by jopo on Sept 3, 2018 9:23:26 GMT
My apologies if this has been here before. it has come to my attention via another Aussie blogger on a paper that James Hansen wrote in 2000. Less the links and some general comments I was flabbergasted. Anyway I found the paper and post the following comments further below by James Hansen. Totally blown away by Hansens acknowledgement that his concerns for the 20th Century warming is due to NON CO2 ghgs. He is even more worried about emissions of industry Aerosols having a major warming effect on our climate. He does raise CO2 as an issue but he states " it will become the dominant forcing" clearly that it will become an issue in the next 50 years. ( made in 2000)Very interesting www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875Non-CO2 GHGs. These gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing. There are economic incentives to reduce or capture CH4 emissions, but global implementation of appropriate practices requires international cooperation. Definition of appropriate policies requires better understanding of the CH4 cycle, especially CH4 sources. Climate forcing by CFCs and related chemicals is still growing today, but if Montreal Protocol restrictions are adhered to, there should be no net growth in this forcing over the next 50 years. A small decrease from today's forcing level is possible, at least comparable in magnitude to the expected small rebound in stratospheric O3 forcing. Tropospheric O3 increases in business-as-usual scenarios, which assume that CH4 increases and that there is no global effort to control O3 precursors. Despite limited success in past efforts to reduce O3, the human health and ecological impacts of O3 are so great that it represents an opportunity for international cooperation. At least it should be possible to prevent tropospheric O3 forcing in 2050 from exceeding that of today.
Aerosols. Climate forcing due to aerosol changes is a wild card. Current trends, even the sign of the effect, are uncertain. Unless climate forcings by all aerosols are precisely monitored, it will be difficult to define optimum policies.
We argue that black carbon aerosols, by means of several effects, contribute significantly to global warming. This conclusion suggests one antidote to global warming, if it becomes a major problem. As electricity plays an increasing role in future energy systems, it should be relatively easy to strip black carbon emissions at fossil fuel power plants. Stripping and disposal of CO2, although more challenging, provide an effective backup strategy.
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 will become the dominant climate forcing, if its emissions continue to increase and aerosol effects level off. Business-as-usual scenarios understate the potential for CO2 emission reductions from improved energy efficiency and decarbonization of fuels. Based on this potential and current CO2 growth trends, we argue that limiting the CO2 forcing increase to 1 W/m2 in the next 50 years is plausible.
|
|
|
Post by fredzl4dh on Sept 6, 2018 0:47:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 6, 2018 1:06:28 GMT
Pinched and posted elsewhere, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 6, 2018 12:45:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 6, 2018 13:10:53 GMT
I hope it's not from this Dai Davies: Obituary
|
|