|
Post by mondeoman on Sept 22, 2018 17:50:06 GMT
watching with interest......
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2018 18:13:13 GMT
The greenhouse gas effect is 100% consistent with the gas laws. Which means that there is no greenhouse gas effect as the lapse rates (atmospheric temperatures with height) can be generated solely by reference to the gas laws without any 'CO2' infrared absorption. The infrared absorption is an important part of the whole.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 22, 2018 19:11:30 GMT
Which means that there is no greenhouse gas effect as the lapse rates (atmospheric temperatures with height) can be generated solely by reference to the gas laws without any 'CO2' infrared absorption. The infrared absorption is an important part of the whole. There is no argument that CO2 absorbs infrared. If it passes on that energy to Nitrogen or Oxygen molecules - then it may increase their kinetic energy (temperature) in which case the warmer gases will rise convecting up. As they do the pressure reduces (the number of molecules in the volume reduces) so the temperature reduces (Charles Law). The rising warm air is replaced by cooler air and so the cooling cycle goes on. If some of the infrared is radiated and hits the surface -(**)- 80% of the time it will hit water or a plant that is transpiring - and will be absorbed a micron or two below the surface adding energy to a water molecule. The extra energy increases evaporation and that cools the surface due to the latent heat of evaporation being lost with the water molecule. This humid air lighter than dry air will convect up and when it is cool enough the water will change state and the latent heat will be released and most will radiate to space some will return to the surface (Goto **). The hydrologic cycle cools the surface and releases radiant heat to space. There is no greenhouse effect as the system is an open system there is no 'green house roof'.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 23, 2018 2:03:32 GMT
[ Snipped ] There is no greenhouse effect as the system is an open system there is no 'green house roof'. When I knew even less than I know now **, that was an argument I put. From an early email to (now former) friends: The Earth is not a greenhouse, it is an extremely complex circulatory system that is impossible to model. ** hard to believe, I know.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2018 3:53:02 GMT
There is no greenhouse effect as the system is an open system there is no 'green house roof'.
I agree with the no roof. Climate is an open system.
Radiation is the driver of all systems. The CO2 bandwidth is a bit player. Infrared radiation is wider than the all bandwidth of CO2 infrared.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 24, 2018 16:06:09 GMT
The greenhouse gas effect is 100% consistent with the gas laws. Which means that there is no greenhouse gas effect as the lapse rates (atmospheric temperatures with height) can be generated solely by reference to the gas laws without any 'CO2' infrared absorption. Nautonnier, I believe you are intelligent enough to know what you've said above is nonsense, just like your claim that latent heat is not released as sensible heat on condensation. I think you just like to create havoc. If I'm wrong, tell me.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2018 16:45:14 GMT
Which means that there is no greenhouse gas effect as the lapse rates (atmospheric temperatures with height) can be generated solely by reference to the gas laws without any 'CO2' infrared absorption. Nautonnier, I believe you are intelligent enough to know what you've said above is nonsense, just like your claim that latent heat is not released as sensible heat on condensation. I think you just like to create havoc. If I'm wrong, tell me. You are wrong. ICAN who generate the 'standard atmosphere' lapse rates for aviation, do not refer to any 'warming' from carbon dioxide. The paper Ratty referred to generated the correct as observed surface/atmospheric temperatures for known planets/moons in the solar system purely using the gas laws. If you can find a reference that says more than just 'latent heat is released' I would be very interested. It is obvious that some if not most is released as infrared as that is what you can see from satellites. It is possible some may be released by collision/conduction but as there doesn't seem to be anyone in the scientific community willing to describe how the huge amount of energy of latent heat is actually held or released by a water molecule all we can go by is the infrared pictures of storms showing they radiate infrared where water is condensing and freezing.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 24, 2018 18:24:35 GMT
Let's not go down this route gents, it's bad for everyone else and I don't think anyone is intentionally creating argumentative situations. The subject is complex, poorly understood and poorly explained by science. It's highly likely to be confusing and difficult to explain here.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2018 18:48:04 GMT
Let's not go down this route gents, it's bad for everyone else and I don't think anyone is intentionally creating argumentative situations. The subject is complex, poorly understood and poorly explained by science. It's highly likely to be confusing and difficult to explain here. Having spent a little time on this - I think that it is the term 'sensible heat' that is causing the problem. It is another one of the loose terms like 'hotter'. I found this definition: " Sensible heat is potential energy in the form of thermal energy or heat. The thermal body must have a temperature higher than its surroundings, (also see: latent heat). The thermal energy can be transported via conduction, convection, radiation or by a combination thereof." www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Sensible_heat.htmlSo the thermal energy can be passed on by a combination of conduction and radiation (convection merely carries the heated molecules higher rather than takes heat from a condensing water molecule). At around 2300Kj/Kg the latent heat of condensation is a significant amount of energy.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 24, 2018 19:01:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2018 19:13:24 GMT
Serendipity - this was just tweeted by Pierre Gosselin - Notrickszone " Climate Scientist Karl Zeller Sums Up The ‘Discovery’ That Pressure, Not CO2, Determines Planets’ Temps
In an interview at the Porto Climate Conference earlier this month, Dr. Karl Zeller provided a brief overview of the theory he and Dr. Ned Nikolov have developed. The theoretical model uses NASA data to quantify the surface temperature of “all the planets across our solar system” precisely and accurately by using two values only: (1) distance from the Sun and (2) atmospheric pressure. The gaseous composition of planetary atmospheres – including CO2 concentration – is immaterial to the calculations, as CO2 is “just like any other gas”."notrickszone.com/2018/09/24/climate-scientist-karl-zeller-sums-up-the-discovery-that-pressure-not-co2-determines-planets-temps/
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 24, 2018 19:42:26 GMT
Nautonnier, I believe you are intelligent enough to know what you've said above is nonsense, just like your claim that latent heat is not released as sensible heat on condensation. I think you just like to create havoc. If I'm wrong, tell me. You are wrong. ICAN who generate the 'standard atmosphere' lapse rates for aviation, do not refer to any 'warming' from carbon dioxide. The paper Ratty referred to generated the correct as observed surface/atmospheric temperatures for known planets/moons in the solar system purely using the gas laws. If you can find a reference that says more than just 'latent heat is released' I would be very interested. It is obvious that some if not most is released as infrared as that is what you can see from satellites. It is possible some may be released by collision/conduction but as there doesn't seem to be anyone in the scientific community willing to describe how the huge amount of energy of latent heat is actually held or released by a water molecule all we can go by is the infrared pictures of storms showing they radiate infrared where water is condensing and freezing. In the latent heat thread, someone referenced a laboratory test which showed that 2 to 4 photons per molecule are released (and were measured) when water was condensed. This is an insignificant percentage of the heat released from condensation, less than 0.001%. Logically, this small number of photons came from changes in the bonds and not the latent heat itself. The latent heat is released as sensible heat. But even without knowing about that test, many references were provided in that thread that say upon condensation, the latent heat is released as sensible heat. Every physics textbook says this in some way or another and every knowledgeable scientist knows this, whether he is a warmist or a sceptic or something else. If you need the references, they are provided in the latent heat thread. Furthermore, the satellite graph you showed did not show the quantity of infrared released as you claimed. It is an indication of the temperature of the source (cloud tops, for example) based on the wavelength of the emitted IR. This was discussed on the latent heat thread. If that was your “proof” that latent heat is released as IR, then you should reread the discussion. I’m hoping there are others here besides Sigurdur who understand the general concept of latent heat, otherwise, these global warming discussions get sidetracked too easily. I’ll write something more on your comments with respect to the greenhouse gas effect and the gas laws in a second post to follow. I’m done discussing latent heat.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 24, 2018 21:33:25 GMT
Let's not go down this route gents, it's bad for everyone else and I don't think anyone is intentionally creating argumentative situations. The subject is complex, poorly understood and poorly explained by science. It's highly likely to be confusing and difficult to explain here. The molecular mechanisms for the absorption and release of latent heat fits your description of complex, poorly understood and poorly explained, but at the physical level, latent heat is not that complex, is well understood by scientists and engineers and by many who have taken basic level physics courses and it is well explained by science. It's explained in a few paragraphs in Wikipedia. It's not controversial in the scientific community. As to being confusing and difficult to explain here, well maybe so, but I'd take a look at Wikipedia. All you really have to understand is that when a molecule of water evaporates it takes with it a lot of heat which is "hidden" and it releases that heat as sensible (unhidden heat you can feel) when it condenses. What happens to that heat is important but not necessary as far as understanding what latent heat of evaporation/condensation is.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 25, 2018 5:42:47 GMT
Let's not go down this route gents, it's bad for everyone else and I don't think anyone is intentionally creating argumentative situations. The subject is complex, poorly understood and poorly explained by science. It's highly likely to be confusing and difficult to explain here. The molecular mechanisms for the absorption and release of latent heat fits your description of complex, poorly understood and poorly explained, but at the physical level, latent heat is not that complex, is well understood by scientists and engineers and by many who have taken basic level physics courses and it is well explained by science. It's explained in a few paragraphs in Wikipedia. It's not controversial in the scientific community. As to being confusing and difficult to explain here, well maybe so, but I'd take a look at Wikipedia. All you really have to understand is that when a molecule of water evaporates it takes with it a lot of heat which is "hidden" and it releases that heat as sensible (unhidden heat you can feel) when it condenses. What happens to that heat is important but not necessary as far as understanding what latent heat of evaporation/condensation is. Tbh Duwayne that's exactly what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2018 10:17:07 GMT
The molecular mechanisms for the absorption and release of latent heat fits your description of complex, poorly understood and poorly explained, but at the physical level, latent heat is not that complex, is well understood by scientists and engineers and by many who have taken basic level physics courses and it is well explained by science. It's explained in a few paragraphs in Wikipedia. It's not controversial in the scientific community. As to being confusing and difficult to explain here, well maybe so, but I'd take a look at Wikipedia. All you really have to understand is that when a molecule of water evaporates it takes with it a lot of heat which is "hidden" and it releases that heat as sensible (unhidden heat you can feel) when it condenses. What happens to that heat is important but not necessary as far as understanding what latent heat of evaporation/condensation is. Tbh Duwayne that's exactly what I mean. " As to being confusing and difficult to explain here, well maybe so, but I'd take a look at Wikipedia. All you really have to understand is that when a molecule of water evaporates it takes with it a lot of heat which is "hidden" and it releases that heat as sensible (unhidden heat you can feel) when it condenses. What happens to that heat is important but not necessary as far as understanding what latent heat of evaporation/condensation is."So there is a small microscopic cloud condensation particle on which water is condensing high in the atmosphere - now the latent heat has to be released by conduction (your definition of sensible heat being 'not radiation') That is sufficient heat to evaporate the neighboring condensing water molecules which are also trying to give up their latent heat as sensible heat; why would water ever condense? I know every text book _says_ that {waves arms} the latent heat is released as sensible heat but they do not say HOW that happens nor do they say WHY the water molecule chooses that moment to {waves arms} release the latent heat of condensation. That water molecule may have risen way up into the atmosphere with millions of molecular collisions on the way _without_ losing that latent heat, yet at the dewpoint temperature it {waves arms} releases the latent heat as sensible heat I know that the latent heat is released I understand that it provides kinetic energy to the molecules around it (sensible heat) There is no mechanism I can find saying how that occurs. Infrared photons are released at the same time as the water molecule {waves arms} releases the latent heat as sensible heat in the water absorption bands - infrared does not have a 'temperature' as it is radiant heat. It can be seen by satellites Yes I realize that it the received radiation can be colored whatever the software programmer wants the software to color it - but the infrared is being radiated from water molecules as they change state to a less energetic phase. As that infrared got to the satellite it was on its way to space as direct loss of radiant energy to space. I also realize that dependent on pixellation mathematics the apparent amount can vary but at all scales a storm shows infrared being radiated to space and a large storm will show infrared radiation over very large volumes of the atmosphere. It is far more significant than CO2 molecules occasionally re-radiating a single photon. I get a we cannot see the forest for the trees feeling about all this
|
|