|
Post by icefisher on Oct 10, 2018 23:37:14 GMT
Icefisher, let's change seats and let me propose a statement of how water vapor moves in the atmosphere and you critique it. Water vapor, like other gases in the atmosphere, moves around with the movements of the parcel of air in which it resides and within the parcel it will diffuse toward an evenly mixed state. I have no problem with that as long as you recognize the influence water vapor has on those parcels of air. Its lightness and low density influences the speed with which it diffuses, that influence is mostly attributable to its ability to absorb large amounts of light which in turn results in a great deal of robustness in ability to transfer heat to other molecules without losing density. And when the water vapor condenses it loses the gas-borne diffusion forces you have been discussing and begins to fall in the atmosphere if winds do not exist to move it higher. However, cloud bottoms are also maintained by the fact lower air is warmer causing falling small droplets of water to rapidly once again to evaporate, lighten/lose density, and cycle back up into the cloud via its ability to absorb light. Clouds evaporating occurs a lot without any rainfall occurring as is often referred to the clouds or fog burning off once the sun gets high in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 11, 2018 20:56:16 GMT
Icefisher, let's change seats and let me propose a statement of how water vapor moves in the atmosphere and you critique it. Water vapor, like other gases in the atmosphere, moves around with the movements of the parcel of air in which it resides and within the parcel it will diffuse toward an evenly mixed state. I have no problem with that as long as you recognize the influence water vapor has on those parcels of air. Its lightness and low density influences the speed with which it diffuses, that influence is mostly attributable to its ability to absorb large amounts of light which in turn results in a great deal of robustness in ability to transfer heat to other molecules without losing density. And when the water vapor condenses it loses the gas-borne diffusion forces you have been discussing and begins to fall in the atmosphere if winds do not exist to move it higher. However, cloud bottoms are also maintained by the fact lower air is warmer causing falling small droplets of water to rapidly once again to evaporate, lighten/lose density, and cycle back up into the cloud via its ability to absorb light. Clouds evaporating occurs a lot without any rainfall occurring as is often referred to the clouds or fog burning off once the sun gets high in the sky. I think we are in agreement.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 12, 2018 5:01:33 GMT
Happy days! 😊
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 24, 2018 21:26:31 GMT
From Tallblokes Talkshop: " Met Office fakes the Foehn effectPosted: October 24, 2018 by tallbloke in atmosphere, general circulation, Incompetence, MET office, Thermodynamics, weather, wind Descending air in the atmosphere rises in temperature as it is adiabatically compressed in the pressure gradient created by gravity acting on atmospheric mass. This has been known for centuries. However, the MET Office has decided to do away with this fundamental fact of physics in a short video it has produced. Even their own website page on the Foehn effect (now safely screenshotted and web-cited) tells us: “ foehn air… becomes warmer and drier on the leeside after it is compressed with descent due to the increase in pressure towards the surface.” So why would the MET Office miss out one of the principle causes of the Foehn Effect in its info-video they tweeted out? Is it that the MET Office is staffed by people who don’t understand the basic thermodynamics of meteorology these days? Or could it be they don’t like Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller’s discovery that adiabatic heating in the pressure gradient is the cause of the ‘greenhouse effect’ rather than trace gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide." a lot more here: tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/10/24/met-office-fakes-the-foehn-effect/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 25, 2018 1:26:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 8, 2018 21:15:29 GMT
Cat amongst pigeons? Has global warming already arrived?Abstract
The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.<serious_stuff_in_this_space> Conclusions
From the analysis presented above the following conclusions could be drawn: • The temperature trend shows a decreasing warming from the lower troposphere up to the tropopause level and then reverses to cooling in the lower stratosphere. This trend at the tropopause can be considered almost zero. The latter can not support the increase in the height of tropopause, a fingerprint of global warming.
• At the lower stratosphere there is a negative temperature trend which is lower over both poles (compared to tropics and extratropics) with the lowest value over the North Pole.
• In the lower and mid-troposphere the temperature trend decreases with height and latitude.
The above-mentioned three results do not agree with the global warming theory, namely, the gradual increase of tropospheric warming with latitude.
The DFA and MDFA analyses conducted on the possible association of warming in the global troposphere with cooling in the global lower stratosphere showed the following: • The temperature fluctuations in the global troposphere exhibit power-law behaviour with an exponent gradually increasing with altitude reaching the unity at the tropopause.
• The global lower stratospheric temperature anomalies do not exhibit long-range correlation behaviour. In particular, the lower stratospheric temperature anomalies over tropics obey power-law behaviour, while it is not the case for the low stratospheric temperature anomalies over both poles. This may be attributed to the ozone dynamics in this region.
The two above-mentioned results lead to the main conclusion that the intrinsic properties of the thermal regime in the lower stratosphere are not associated with the thermal regime in the troposphere.
In summary, the tropospheric temperature has not increased over the last four decades, in both hemispheres, in a way that is more amplified at high latitudes near the surface. In addition, the lower stratospheric temperature did not decline as a function of latitude. Finally, the intrinsic properties of the tropospheric temperature are different from those of the lower stratosphere. Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities. The temperatures used are often estimated indirectly from satellite observations of radiances (e.g. Cracknell and Varotsos, 2007, Cracknell and Varotsos, 2011). It would be interesting to directly analyse these radiances to answer questions about warming or cooling.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 9, 2018 5:27:21 GMT
Cat amongst pigeons? Has global warming already arrived?Abstract
The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.At least portions of this paper is consistent with the underlying theory of my paper which suggests a disconnect between upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere heat exchange processes. I will need to study this paper closely and see if all observations laid out in this paper are consistent with my theory.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Nov 9, 2018 6:47:13 GMT
Cat amongst pigeons? Has global warming already arrived?Abstract
The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.At least portions of this paper is consistent with the underlying theory of my paper which suggests a disconnect between upper atmosphere and lower atmosphere heat exchange processes. I will need to study this paper closely and see if all observations laid out in this paper are consistent with my theory. It's all Greek to me ..... C.A.Varotsos & M.N.Efstathiou: Climate Research Group, Division of Environmental Physics and Meteorology, Faculty of Physics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, University Campus Bldg. Phys. V, Athens, 15784, GreeceMore light reading for you, Ice: Stratospheric Cooling
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 9, 2018 16:56:54 GMT
Grimm knew his business ... Grimm's Fairytales.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2019 11:40:47 GMT
This reference was buried in a WUWT post. Why CO2 is not a problem.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 25, 2019 15:19:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 25, 2019 18:13:24 GMT
This reference was buried in a WUWT post. Why CO2 is not a problem. If I could get the English translation, this would make a wonderful Believer Christmas gift.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 25, 2019 19:57:14 GMT
This reply by schroeder is both factual (completely supported by known laws of heat transfer and energy conservation) and is actually central to my paper. Guess I better work on it and get it done by beating writer's block into submission. Eisenbach's post complains about the lack of knowledge surrounding the amount of incoming solar that hits the ground. But thats only one of the accuracy problems in climate modeling. A recent post by Roy Spencer states none of the parameters in climate science are accurate. I have been agonizing for a few years trying to figure out a better way to measure emissivity. I even reported here I had contacted Kevin Trenberth and asked him why he used emissivity of 1.0, to which he lied and said he didn't, but its obvious he did as you can calculate emissivity from using Stefan Boltzmann equations. Pressed further pointing out several sources had reported much lower emissivities for the ocean he simply stated that he had no "faith" in those estimates and provided links to papers with higher emissivities but still not 1.0 as he uses in his budget. And that study only studied a narrow range of emissivity in the atmospheric IR window. If you reduce surface emissivity you have to compensate by changing something else. What else might be very wrong? Well I have also agonized over the latent heat estimates. Latent heat is calculated against measured precipitation. Yet having been on the ocean all my life it sure seems to me I got a lot wetter from unmeasured ocean dew than I ever did by precipitation. Its really an obscene abuse of science to claim .6 watt energy imbalances when probably not a single other energy flow in the entire system budget is known anywhere close to that level of precision. Its simply a number calculated from the predetermined results of, not of a model, but instead a large array of models that produce the desired effect their author's sought. I spent years working on big models with lots of uncertain variables. The version you release to a client is the one that fits the top firm honcho's intuition and you work on it until you get that right. Fortunately I worked for a firm where the top honcho had really good intuition, but modeling doesn't provide an answer, what it does is try to test all the implications of intuition to sort of determine if the top honcho was suffering from a bad hangover the day he found some intuition. Trenberth's deceptive response strongly suggests he doesn't down deep believe it either "Its a Travesty!". He just happens to be a rainmaking king maker distributing millions upon millions of dollars all over the science community and he knows which side of the bread has butter on it.
|
|
|
Post by fatjohn1408 on Feb 17, 2019 13:17:58 GMT
I dont know if I should make a separate thread about this but I just came across this interesting blogpost: scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/As I understand it, the greenhouse effect is responsible for the difference in radiation coming from the sun at the top of the Earth's atmosphere (240 Watts/m^2) and the radiation coming from the Earth's surface (396 Watts/m^2), leaving a total of 156 Watts/m^2 constantly looped and bouncing between the surface and various layers of the atmosphere. At 396 Watts/m^2 the blackbody temperature is about 16 degrees celcius, whilst at 240 it would be -18 degrees. Now if we go by the radiative forcing equation that the IPCC came up with: 5.35ln(C/C0), we learn that at 1000 ppm CO2 causes a radiative forcing of 5.35 ln (1000/280) = 6.81 W/m^2 compared with only 280 ppm of the middle ages. So with 1000 ppm CO2 the new blackbody radiation output should become 402.81 W/m^2. Now if we put this into our blackbody radiation calculator (http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php) we get that we need to raise the blackbody temperature with 1.25 degrees to realise the 6.81 W/m^2 increase in blackbody radiation. 1.25 degrees anthropogenic temperature increase by raising CO2 from 280 ppm to 1000 ppm. We are currently at 410 ppm. Doing this calculation over with 410 ppm leads to less than 0.4 degrees of warming. Seems we have all the time in the world to avert armageddon. I would really like to know why the IPCC is claiming a 4 degree change with a 1000 ppm atmosphere. I have no idea at this point where they are getting this from. IPCC simplified experssion for radiative forcing comes from here: www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-06.pdfOn top of all of that there is the tremendous lag that temperatures should follow since the total heat capacity of the oceans is 5.6*10^24 J/Kelvin. This means that the annual output of an extra 3 W/M^2 of radiative forcing would result in a net energy increase of 4.825E22 Joules per year. Enough to heat the oceans 0.008625 degrees per year. However as the earth and its oceans heat, the net energy increase in the system due to radiative forcing will decrease due to increased blackbody radiation of the Earth and its oceans because the 3 W/M^2 figure they quote is with respect to the Earth in 1850 prior to any warming. In order to get the oceans to heat with 4 degrees of warming in the next hundred years, there needs to be an energy injection equal to 14 W/m^2 on average! Linearly this would mean 0 today and gradually rising to 28 W/M^2 by 2120. Due to net energy injection not being equal to net radiative forcing as I tried to make clear above there would probably need to be an increase in the greenhouse gas effect of probably 40 W/M^2 or so to make the IPCC's 4 degree rising temperatures projection to come through. I know that the oceans would lag the atmosphere a bit but still... their figures are all over the place. Who are they kidding? Am I seeing things here?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 17, 2019 14:17:57 GMT
They are kidding people who aren't smart enough or willing to listen to facts.
|
|