|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2018 14:41:43 GMT
So here's a thought from the question I posed earlier. A lot of water molecules currently in liquid phase at minus 15C all wanting to give up their heat but if they do they just get it given back by their neighbor. Is this what Icefisher was describing with his supercooled water bottles? Then he tapped a bottle and all the molecules gave up their 'heat' at once resulting in an IR flash from the tapped bottle NOT a swap of sensible heat keeping everything liquid and heating the bottle.
Similar things are seen in the atmosphere with a clear sky and an aircraft contrails through a humid layer of supercooled water vapor and suddenly a layer of cirrostratus forms.
It still doesn't explain where that amount of latent heat energy is stored.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2018 16:42:16 GMT
So here's a thought from the question I posed earlier. A lot of water molecules currently in liquid phase at minus 15C all wanting to give up their heat but if they do they just get it given back by their neighbor. Is this what Icefisher was describing with his supercooled water bottles? Then he tapped a bottle and all the molecules gave up their 'heat' at once resulting in an IR flash from the tapped bottle NOT a swap of sensible heat keeping everything liquid and heating the bottle. Similar things are seen in the atmosphere with a clear sky and an aircraft contrails through a humid layer of supercooled water vapor and suddenly a layer of cirrostratus forms. It still doesn't explain where that amount of latent heat energy is stored. I would like to stress that I only paid $13 for my IR scanner. I avoided operator error by repeating the experiment several times until I ran out of unfrozen bottles of supercooled water (about 5 as I recall) and always got at least a small pulse on the scanner read out. It appears to be some very similar to a chemical release of energy ala TNT. Both are defined by science as exothermic processes. There is sort of a bang as the ice makes a noise as it freezes though I would not define that anylike like a firecracker but instead a faint crackling that was overwith like very quickly like maybe as short as a fraction of a second, but close that anyway. The flash was even much shorter of a fraction of a second, like as if the infrared was not blocked by the plastic bottle (many plastics are transparent to infrared) but was blocked by layers of water absorption of infrared as the water froze completely into a single block of ice sometimes (but I don't recall if everytime) leaving a small amount of unfrozen water outside of the block of ice. The explanation provided by science is that latent heat isn't heat but energy and that energy is deployed in keeping the molecules apart. Otherwise you have a black hole or something like that. Nothing like stirring up the natives some with science experimenting with this stuff. Perhaps that touches on the ultimate of why we haven't made contact with an advanced civilization yet beyond a few stray flying saucers crashing in the desert.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 25, 2018 21:45:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 27, 2018 0:00:09 GMT
As promised earlier, this is a response to other posts on the greenhouse gas effect and the gas laws.
Every so often there is a claim which goes something like this. “I can accurately estimate the temperature of a planet’s atmosphere just by plugging the pressure (weight of the gases divided by the planet’s surface area) and volume into the gas law equations. And since you don’t need to adjust this calculation for the greenhouse gas effect to get the correct answer , it’s obvious that there is no greenhouse gas effect or the effect is essentially zero.” Ratty posted a link to such an article recently and Nautonnier posted another version and his own views on lapse rates.
The answer to this conundrum? is that the greenhouse gas effect is already incorporated into the temperature just like the solar effect. No adjustment is required.
For example, if the greenhouse gas effect causes the earth’s atmosphere to warm by 0.5C then the atmosphere volume will increase (by an increase in height) in accordance with gas laws. If one then uses the new volume value in the calculation the atmospheric temperature you will get is the current temperature which includes the 0.5C greenhouse gas effect.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 27, 2018 0:22:52 GMT
As promised earlier, this is a response to other posts on the greenhouse gas effect and the gas laws. Every so often there is a claim which goes something like this. “I can accurately estimate the temperature of a planet’s atmosphere just by plugging the pressure (weight of the gases divided by the planet’s surface area) and volume into the gas law equations. And since you don’t need to adjust this calculation for the greenhouse gas effect to get the correct answer , it’s obvious that there is no greenhouse gas effect or the effect is essentially zero.” Ratty posted a link to such an article recently and Nautonnier posted another version and his own views on lapse rates. The answer to this conundrum? is that the greenhouse gas effect is already incorporated into the temperature just like the solar effect. No adjustment is required. For example, if the greenhouse gas effect causes the earth’s atmosphere to warm by 0.5C then the atmosphere volume will increase (by an increase in height) in accordance with gas laws. If one then uses the new volume value in the calculation the atmospheric temperature you will get is the current temperature which includes the 0.5C greenhouse gas effect. That is a logical approach. Except that is not the way the papers referred to calculated the atmospheric temperatures at the surface. They assumed just another gas, in the same way that Avogadro's hypothesis considers all gas molecules in a volume as equivalent. From that a gas is a gas, approach they calculated the surface temperatures from just the surface pressure and insolation. Whether it was Venus high CO2 high pressure, Mars high CO2 low pressure, Earth or Titan, the temperatures they calculated were accurate based on what the insolation and pressure are and on just another gas. Adiabatic lapse rates (temperature with pressure drop) follow the gas laws and do not show any warming from CO2. The only difference is the 'wet' or 'moist' adiabatic lapse rates where the latent heat of water is involved. Balloon ascents to check the lapse rates show that they are accurate and do not show any CO2 effects either.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 27, 2018 2:10:25 GMT
CO2 bandwidth is a small fraction of the radiative bandwidth involved in the green house effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2018 4:22:30 GMT
As promised earlier, this is a response to other posts on the greenhouse gas effect and the gas laws. Every so often there is a claim which goes something like this. “I can accurately estimate the temperature of a planet’s atmosphere just by plugging the pressure (weight of the gases divided by the planet’s surface area) and volume into the gas law equations. And since you don’t need to adjust this calculation for the greenhouse gas effect to get the correct answer , it’s obvious that there is no greenhouse gas effect or the effect is essentially zero.” Ratty posted a link to such an article recently and Nautonnier posted another version and his own views on lapse rates. The answer to this conundrum? is that the greenhouse gas effect is already incorporated into the temperature just like the solar effect. No adjustment is required. For example, if the greenhouse gas effect causes the earth’s atmosphere to warm by 0.5C then the atmosphere volume will increase (by an increase in height) in accordance with gas laws. If one then uses the new volume value in the calculation the atmospheric temperature you will get is the current temperature which includes the 0.5C greenhouse gas effect. Yes a good observation. The gas law argument can be used to explain the greenhouse effect and so can the greenhouse gas theory. The gas law argument gets no love because it can't explain observed temperature variation. But who can? Temperature was varying as much as we have seen recently for reasons other than human emissions. As my granddaddy used to say all the time as he pursued an improvised and inventive solution to an elusive engineering challenge. "There is more than one way to skin a cat". In this case radiation probably isn't one of the ways as there is no factor for it in engineering problems that actually come up with reliable results as pointed out clearly by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner and demonstrated by Dr. RW Wood in 1909. Instead an elaborate theory has been composed that the surface greenhouse effect is proportionally equal to the difference in temperature radiated by CO2 in the upper atmosphere subtracted from what it should be radiating if there were no greenhouse effect. The proportional part is for the percentage of total heat in the CO2 bands as compared to the blackbody radiation. Certainly a plausible idea if you can't imagine another mechanism and a completely different explanation for the radiating temperature of CO2 viewed from high in the atmosphere. In my view the idea that CO2 causes generalized air temperature increases as implausible. However, I have yet to delve into the details of the effect of the hot spot which I see as the final step in my research. Now there are plenty of scientists of high esteem taking shots at this part of the theory which in modeling terms is like a keystone. Obliterate that keystone and the entire radiation theory will collapse on itself. Personally I think its inevitable. But I say that with a grain of salt because climate is multi-faceted and air temperatures are only part of the climate story.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2018 4:25:25 GMT
You have my permission. Just send a few of the checks this way so I can buy one too.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 27, 2018 4:52:55 GMT
You have my permission. Just send a few of the checks this way so I can buy one too.[/quote] After I have skimmed my commission, you will be able to buy a spare $13.00 version. No need to thank me .....
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 27, 2018 5:00:02 GMT
That is a logical approach. Except that is not the way the papers referred to calculated the atmospheric temperatures at the surface. They assumed just another gas, in the same way that Avogadro's hypothesis considers all gas molecules in a volume as equivalent. From that a gas is a gas, approach they calculated the surface temperatures from just the surface pressure and insolation. Whether it was Venus high CO2 high pressure, Mars high CO2 low pressure, Earth or Titan, the temperatures they calculated were accurate based on what the insolation and pressure are and on just another gas. Adiabatic lapse rates (temperature with pressure drop) follow the gas laws and do not show any warming from CO2. The only difference is the 'wet' or 'moist' adiabatic lapse rates where the latent heat of water is involved. Balloon ascents to check the lapse rates show that they are accurate and do not show any CO2 effects either. I agree. The point of view of modeling climate scientists who are members of the IPCC hand selected club it seems they believe that CO2 works against the lapse rate similar to how water does. This effect called the negative lapse rate effect discussed in the Christy paper linked in here a few days ago is more or less an insulation gradient similar to what is seen between the two sides of an insulated wall. Gerlich and Tscheuschner argued that no such insulation gradient from radiation has ever been established in science.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 27, 2018 16:35:33 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I understand what you are saying in your posts above. The gas laws work no matter what the composition of the gas is. Replacing oxygen with CO2 will not change the gas law calculations. I agree.
If you replace the oxygen with hydrogen cyanide, the gas law calculations don’t change.
But hydrogen cyanide in gas does have effects. If you breathe it in significant concentrations it will kill you.
If you replace the oxygen in the atmosphere with nitrogen the gas laws will still work but we will all die without oxygen in the air.
The composition of the gas is not a factor in the gas laws but it can make a big difference in other ways and one of those ways is in the temperature of the earth.
Take nitrogen, for example. Nitrogen absorbs some of the photons emitted by the sun which would otherwise hit the earth’s surface and then reemits photons in all directions. This would reduce the amount of energy hitting the earth’s surface and would cause the earth to cool. If all the nitrogen in the atmosphere were replaced by CO2 which absorbs very little solar radiation, the cooling effect of nitrogen would be eliminated and the earth would warm. And the gas laws would still work.
In the real world, CO2 added to the atmosphere doesn’t reduce the amount of nitrogen so the cooling effect of nitrogen doesn’t change. On the other hand, CO2 absorbs long wave IR which is carrying energy away from the earth’s surface and then reemits the energy in all directions which has the effect of warming the earth.
So gas composition has no effect on the gas laws but it does have an effect on the earth’s temperature.
CO2 has no effect on the lapse rates, but it has an effect on the earth’s temperature.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 27, 2018 17:17:17 GMT
On the other hand, CO2 absorbs long wave IR which is carrying energy away from the earth’s surface and then reemits the energy in all directions which has the effect of warming the earth.
0.04% of our atmosphere returning a small amount of specific band widths of already reflected energy.... There are natural variables which have much greater effect, certainly some which operate on a 30 year+ oscillation.
How do we know these are not responsible for the warming our planet experienced between 20 and 50 years ago?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 28, 2018 3:56:38 GMT
Nautonnier, I think I understand what you are saying in your posts above. The gas laws work no matter what the composition of the gas is. Replacing oxygen with CO2 will not change the gas law calculations. I agree. If you replace the oxygen with hydrogen cyanide, the gas law calculations don’t change. But hydrogen cyanide in gas does have effects. If you breathe it in significant concentrations it will kill you. If you replace the oxygen in the atmosphere with nitrogen the gas laws will still work but we will all die without oxygen in the air. The composition of the gas is not a factor in the gas laws but it can make a big difference in other ways and one of those ways is in the temperature of the earth. Take nitrogen, for example. Nitrogen absorbs some of the photons emitted by the sun which would otherwise hit the earth’s surface and then reemits photons in all directions. This would reduce the amount of energy hitting the earth’s surface and would cause the earth to cool. If all the nitrogen in the atmosphere were replaced by CO2 which absorbs very little solar radiation, the cooling effect of nitrogen would be eliminated and the earth would warm. And the gas laws would still work. In the real world, CO2 added to the atmosphere doesn’t reduce the amount of nitrogen so the cooling effect of nitrogen doesn’t change. On the other hand, CO2 absorbs long wave IR which is carrying energy away from the earth’s surface and then reemits the energy in all directions which has the effect of warming the earth. So gas composition has no effect on the gas laws but it does have an effect on the earth’s temperature. CO2 has no effect on the lapse rates, but it has an effect on the earth’s temperature. The reemission of energy in all directions is an unproven theory. Early on in efforts to influence the public that model was bandied about by the institutions put together to sell the public on global warming. Since no one has been able to experimentally demonstrate that effect (other than to note a warm object will slow the cooling of a warmer object) and its an easy enough experiment to set up with a greenhouse, many have tried but none of these papers are listed by the IPCC. The theory in the models is that GHGs have an influence on the lapse rate. This is a far more reasonable model since the heat being intercepted by the greenhouse gases can be radiated or conducted to fellow gas molecules to actually warm the atmosphere and change the lapse rate. For what we might call the "vocal" group of advocates that were tossing around the "radiate every which way" theory were as I recall pooh poohing any significant loss of CO2 intercepted energy by conduction to water switched gears to a lot of conduction loss. The lapse rate influence is and was undoubtedly buried in black box computer model code right from the start with a few details revealed such as the paper on the hot spot. Judy Curry was in the middle of this when she was a member of the club. I posted a link to a post where she pondered the process whereby the heat intercepted by CO2 might find its way back to the surface and acknowledged it was an area of uncertainty. All that is certain and I repeat all that is certain is that the heat is still someplace in the system at least immediately after being absorbed. Did it conduct to another molecule, did it radiate to space, did it radiate to a water molecule, did it radiate to another CO2 molecule, did it stay in the CO2 molecule and warm that molecule? Only thing Judy Curry did was adopt the Richard Feynman notion that since observations were not matching prediction something must be wrong with the "larger" theory at least, larger part being of course the positive feedback, saying nothing about no-feedback sensitivity at current levels of warming during the satellite era. But upon request she acknowledged the possibility of problems with that. Roy Spencer a big advocate of no-feedback sensitivity has even acknowledged he and mainstream science could be wrong. I was initially bamboozled by the radiate every which direction theory also. But certain life experiences eventually brought me here where I started challenging it starting with Steve and later with Radiant with Radiant particularly annoyed by my challenging of Steve. So yes the absorption of heat by CO2 is going to have an effect on something in the system. Looking at it rather logically, hot objects warm cold objects. Cold objects don't warm hot objects. Yet in the radiating everything every which direction theory the only thing not warming is the cold object. That's clear when they tell us the hotspot will form mid atmosphere in the tropics while the stratosphere cools. What that appears to me a bunch of mental gymnastics to explain how you can have both fewer emissions to space and a warming surface. . . .essentially put the clog in the middle of the atmosphere. Excuse me if I am a bit too skeptical. So Missouri Boy! What is that saying in Missouri?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 28, 2018 16:20:45 GMT
On the other hand, CO2 absorbs long wave IR which is carrying energy away from the earth’s surface and then reemits the energy in all directions which has the effect of warming the earth. 0.04% of our atmosphere returning a small amount of specific band widths of already reflected energy.... There are natural variables which have much greater effect, certainly some which operate on a 30 year+ oscillation. How do we know these are not responsible for the warming our planet experienced between 20 and 50 years ago? Acidohm, that is the problem. The earth's systems are so complex that no one can accurately determine the individual contributions of the natural variables and the individual "man-made" variables to global temperatures. This thread, which I started, does not help much, nor was it intended to, answer the question you pose. It was intended to describe, not quantify, the greenhouse gas effect in order to better understand why most of the oft-quoted sceptics like Curry, Spencer, Watts, Pielke, Heller,and Lindzen concur that there is such an effect. AS to whether 0.04% is a significant amount, I would expect that with 0.04% of alcohol in your blood you are probably able to operate smoothly and you may see it as beneficial. But with the still very small quantity of 0.10% or more, the alcohol effect may start to become a problem.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 28, 2018 18:52:57 GMT
Excuse me if I am a bit too skeptical. So Missouri Boy! What is that saying in Missouri?Us boys from the " Show Me" State wouldn't know what you're talking about.
|
|