|
Post by socold on May 12, 2009 19:13:54 GMT
This assumes you put on blinders though and ignore all sorts of other affects. The ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM without feedbacks should be about 1.5C for a doubling of CO2. But water vapor is a much more common gas and overlaps CO2's spectrum. With such high concentrations that overlapped portion of CO2's spectrum can't increase temperatures at all. At least half of the energy that CO2 DOES manage to capture either gets radiated away without "thermalizing" or gets tied up with water. Of the energy that "thermalizes" about 1/2 of it immediately radiates out into space. You just can't use that absorption math...because it doesn't apply. So what branch of alternative physics are you using? You clearly are not using anything from mainstream physics because that is what the models are based on.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 13, 2009 4:52:42 GMT
This assumes you put on blinders though and ignore all sorts of other affects. The ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM without feedbacks should be about 1.5C for a doubling of CO2. But water vapor is a much more common gas and overlaps CO2's spectrum. With such high concentrations that overlapped portion of CO2's spectrum can't increase temperatures at all. At least half of the energy that CO2 DOES manage to capture either gets radiated away without "thermalizing" or gets tied up with water. Of the energy that "thermalizes" about 1/2 of it immediately radiates out into space. You just can't use that absorption math...because it doesn't apply. So what branch of alternative physics are you using? You clearly are not using anything from mainstream physics because that is what the models are based on. Well the first part of the statement is kind of obvious, I should think. Water vapor overlaps CO2's spectrum so you can't even get that initial amount of warming. This is just reality...sorry it dosn't fit with your global warming beliefs. YOU should actually be working this stuff out for yourself..."looking out the window" as many skeptics point out, instead of looking at the models which are now either disproven or skirting the edge of their error bars. Right at the start the AGW hypothesis fails to meet even the energy levels suggested by the simple math. But then you've got to look at where the energy is getting radiated away in the first place. Since CO2 is already absorbing over half of the radiation in its bands. All that energy is already escaping elsewhere and completely unhindered. It makes very little difference how much of CO2's frequencies you cover up because that's not where the energy's leaving. The only thing that matters is how it's LEAVING. Adding more CO2 just stops up something that was already pretty well stopped up.
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 13, 2009 22:59:31 GMT
So what branch of alternative physics are you using? You clearly are not using anything from mainstream physics because that is what the models are based on. Well the first part of the statement is kind of obvious, I should think. Water vapor overlaps CO2's spectrum so you can't even get that initial amount of warming. This is just reality...sorry it dosn't fit with your global warming beliefs. YOU should actually be working this stuff out for yourself..."looking out the window" as many skeptics point out, instead of looking at the models which are now either disproven or skirting the edge of their error bars. Right at the start the AGW hypothesis fails to meet even the energy levels suggested by the simple math. But then you've got to look at where the energy is getting radiated away in the first place. Since CO2 is already absorbing over half of the radiation in its bands. All that energy is already escaping elsewhere and completely unhindered. It makes very little difference how much of CO2's frequencies you cover up because that's not where the energy's leaving. The only thing that matters is how it's LEAVING. Adding more CO2 just stops up something that was already pretty well stopped up. I could just repeat what I wrote, but I will rephrase it. What equations or physical laws are you using to come to this conclusion which models are neglecting to factor in?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 14, 2009 1:19:00 GMT
What equations or physical laws are you using to come to this conclusion which models are neglecting to factor in? Two schools of thought exist. One is you should build models and manage stuff you know nothing about. This is the precautionary management principle. The other school of thought is to build models and manage stuff you know somthing about. This is the crisis mode management principle. For some reason most people cannot see where the grey area is which is where we should manage. We should manage not on the edge of constant crisis, nor in a precautionary mode for which no real harm has been experienced. One approach is too reckless the other approach is too timid. Those who live long and prosper are those who learn to properly balance those two opposites. So bottom line Socold you express the concept of rejecting other theories on the basis of a lack of thereoms and equations. . . .but that presupposes that you should manage with the best available equations. . . .its the very definition of precautionary management. . . .manage everything. . . .including stuff we know nothing or very little about. The reason people and presumably societies don't prosper from such timidity is the lack of efficiency involved in managing everything. In business poor producing managers are either laggards or micro-managers. Good producing managers learn what is important and put their efforts in there.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 14, 2009 4:21:13 GMT
Well the first part of the statement is kind of obvious, I should think. Water vapor overlaps CO2's spectrum so you can't even get that initial amount of warming. This is just reality...sorry it dosn't fit with your global warming beliefs. YOU should actually be working this stuff out for yourself..."looking out the window" as many skeptics point out, instead of looking at the models which are now either disproven or skirting the edge of their error bars. Right at the start the AGW hypothesis fails to meet even the energy levels suggested by the simple math. But then you've got to look at where the energy is getting radiated away in the first place. Since CO2 is already absorbing over half of the radiation in its bands. All that energy is already escaping elsewhere and completely unhindered. It makes very little difference how much of CO2's frequencies you cover up because that's not where the energy's leaving. The only thing that matters is how it's LEAVING. Adding more CO2 just stops up something that was already pretty well stopped up. I could just repeat what I wrote, but I will rephrase it. What equations or physical laws are you using to come to this conclusion which models are neglecting to factor in? Most of the models have already been shown to be wrong. The remainders are not proven by a long shot. The fact that both the falsified and unproven use the same basic methods should be a strong indication that their results should be treated with great skepticism. The climate has been warmer than this for much of the Holocene and significantly warmer during the previous interglacial. The ice ages are far, far colder. We've no explanation for the warming or cooling but we do KNOW that warming had started (without explanation) before the CO2 began to increase. Until we can tell how much of the warming is from what, it would be stupid to make any rash decisions based on these unverified models. It would certainly be unwise to assume some rate of warming that doesn't fit the observed data. (You remember observations, don't you? That's what REAL science is based on)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 13, 2010 18:11:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Aug 28, 2010 15:27:20 GMT
Watts, Anthony. “ Solar UV linkage to earth’s atmosphere confirmed.” Scientific Blog. Watts Up With That?, August 26, 2010. wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/26/solar-linkage-to-earths-atmosphere-confirmed/"From the “you don’t know everything about the sun and earth yet so stop telling us the sun doesn’t matter” department and National Science Foundation: Shrinking atmospheric layer linked to low levels of solar radiation."
"Large changes in the sun’s energy output may drive unexpectedly dramatic fluctuations in Earth’s outer atmosphere."
“This research makes a compelling case for the need to study the coupled sun-Earth system,” says Farzad Kamalabadi, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, “and to illustrate the importance of solar influences on our terrestrial environment with both fundamental scientific implications and societal consequences.”...
“It is now clear that the record low temperature and density were primarily caused by unusually low levels of solar radiation at the extreme-ultraviolet level,” Solomon says.
"The results also showed the thermosphere's density decreasing by 31 percent, with just 3 percent attributable to carbon dioxide, and closely approximated the 30 percent reduction in density indicated by measurements of satellite drag."
"Woods says the research indicates that the sun could be going through a period of relatively low activity, similar to periods in the early 19th and 20th centuries."
"This could mean that solar output may remain at a low level for the near future."
"If it is indeed similar to certain patterns in the past, then we expect to have low solar cycles for the next 10 to 30 years," Woods says. Referenced NSF Press Release is here: www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117580&org=NSF&from=news
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 13, 2012 15:14:10 GMT
A follow-on to the matter of instrument accuracy and stability up-thread. Kopp, Greg, and Judith L Lean. “ A New, Lower Value of Total Solar Irradiance: Evidence and Climate Significance.†Geophysical Research Letters 38, no. 1 (January 14, 2011): L01706. www.mendeley.com/research/new-lower-value-total-solar-irradiance-evidence-climate-significance/"The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 0.5 W ^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 +/- 1.3 W m^2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use. Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view-limiting aperture. In the TIM, the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument. We assess the accuracy and stability of irradiance measurements made since 1978 and the implications of instrument uncertainties and instabilities for climate research in comparison with the new TIM data. TIM's lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun's output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations on climate-relevant time scales and in improving estimates of Earth energy balance, which the Sun initiates." This appears to be a follow-on to Kopp, 2007, which contained an analysis of what accuracy and stability would be needed to detect long-term trends of the beginning of another Maunder Minimum. (page 29) Kopp, Greg. “ The History and Future of TSI and SSI Measurements.†Scientific. Sorce, December 13, 2007. lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 13, 2012 17:17:16 GMT
There is a very strong solar connection with the hydrological cycles of earth.
Now all we have to do is figure out what causes this? Is Svensmark correct?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 24, 2012 19:38:20 GMT
There is a very strong solar connection with the hydrological cycles of earth. Now all we have to do is figure out what causes this? Is Svensmark correct? My personal opinion is that it is much more complex than that, even though Svensmark may have a significant piece of the puzzle. Looking through the post by Just The Facts (below), I am reminded of a process flow diagram. In systems architecture, there are two primary subjects: Process (perhaps a hierarchy) and Data (a flow). As you get into detail, each Process may have multiple flows in, and multiple flows out. By analogy, the climate problem has States/Actions of something; the flows in are Impacts on the climate state and the flows out are Impacts on one or more other States. Obviously, Impacts may be lagged or distributed over time. Just The Facts. “ Potential Climatic Variables Page.†Scientific. Watts Up With That?, February 19, 2012. wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/potential-climatic-variables/"This list of Potential Climatic Variables was built with the help of a multitude of WUWT reader comments, beginning on this thread on January, 15th 2011, and growing on January 22nd, 2011, February 10th, 2011, February 28th, 2011, June 30th, 2011 and January 21st, 2012. Your help in continuing to build this list would be most appreciated. Please take a look through the list below and note in comments if you have any additions, suggestions or corrections." Edits: (1) Comments continue through 2/29/12. (2) Note: The WUWT post is difficult to follow: heavy reading. However, considering the scope of the attempt and the need to point to support, it should be expected.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 29, 2012 15:05:13 GMT
One point that appears to have been missed on this thread is the effect of particular wavelengths in the Sun's spectrum on the Earth. For example low frequency IR only 'penetrates' a few microns into water and will at most increase evaporation or just reflect off but it will warm the land. Whereas higher frequencies will penetrate to considerable depths into the oceans warming them but reflect off land. The ultra-violet to x-ray frequencies affect the atmosphere for example creating O3 which shields the surface from the more damaging frequencies but also heats the higher parts of the atmosphere.
It is not simple sunlight => heat as the more simplistic diagrams from Trenberth would have people believe.
So alteration in the amount of heat in each energy band can have significant impact on the weather/climate while the 'averaged' TSI could have the same overall energy.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 29, 2012 17:26:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 30, 2012 7:30:57 GMT
One point that appears to have been missed on this thread is the effect of particular wavelengths in the Sun's spectrum on the Earth. For example low frequency IR only 'penetrates' a few microns into water and will at most increase evaporation or just reflect off but it will warm the land. Whereas higher frequencies will penetrate to considerable depths into the oceans warming them but reflect off land. The ultra-violet to x-ray frequencies affect the atmosphere for example creating O 3 which shields the surface from the more damaging frequencies but also heats the higher parts of the atmosphere. It is not simple sunlight => heat as the more simplistic diagrams from Trenberth would have people believe. So alteration in the amount of heat in each energy band can have significant impact on the weather/climate while the 'averaged' TSI could have the same overall energy. But the hot higher atmosphere does heat the lower atmosphere. And the warmed but colder lower atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the hotter surface. Evaporation to remove heat still operates with a surface that emits radiation at the SB rate for that temperature and emissivity. Therefore because the lower atmosphere is almost opaque to surface emissions apart from the windows areas, (even the window areas do not i think extend to the top of the atmosphere from the surface), then convective heat loss from the surface is strongly driven by greenhouse effects near the surface because of the large amount of water vapour that exists there. Even the rising air is being strongly heated by the radiation from the surface and the lower hotter atmospheric levels. So emphasising latent heat effects seems to be missing the point? Ie the atmosphere is warmer and because of the GHE this slows down the heat loss from the surface where the surface is heated by the Sun. But I am very interested in finding out more about these lower atmospheric greenhouse effects. And i am also very very interested in finding out why it is so very important that many people say the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface. I recently phoned a very well regarded atmospheric scientist who did talk about the atmosphere heating the surface on the phone with me, and I had to point out to him it was not possible and briefly explained why, and he was able to quickly agree I was totally correct and then said he never did say the atmosphere heated the surface. :-) However to be fair to him I contacted him, because he was saying in a reference the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere can do nothing to prevent the flow of heat from the surface, but instead it acts to slow down the heat loss from the surface. The impression I am getting is that people are getting brain washed into considering that the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface and there is some reason that is being said. Quite what the reason is I cannot work out but it seems very important that it is explained like that. A well known climate scientist yesterday called me a loon because I was saying the surface heats the atmosphere. And when i politely wrote to him on his blog asking if he could explain his comments, he deleted my comments He has now commented to my third message with "Do go away silly troll'
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 30, 2012 10:44:40 GMT
One point that appears to have been missed on this thread is the effect of particular wavelengths in the Sun's spectrum on the Earth. For example low frequency IR only 'penetrates' a few microns into water and will at most increase evaporation or just reflect off but it will warm the land. Whereas higher frequencies will penetrate to considerable depths into the oceans warming them but reflect off land. The ultra-violet to x-ray frequencies affect the atmosphere for example creating O 3 which shields the surface from the more damaging frequencies but also heats the higher parts of the atmosphere. It is not simple sunlight => heat as the more simplistic diagrams from Trenberth would have people believe. So alteration in the amount of heat in each energy band can have significant impact on the weather/climate while the 'averaged' TSI could have the same overall energy. But the hot higher atmosphere does heat the lower atmosphere. And the warmed but colder lower atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the hotter surface. Evaporation to remove heat still operates with a surface that emits radiation at the SB rate for that temperature and emissivity. Therefore because the lower atmosphere is almost opaque to surface emissions apart from the windows areas, (even the window areas do not i think extend to the top of the atmosphere from the surface), then convective heat loss from the surface is strongly driven by greenhouse effects near the surface because of the large amount of water vapour that exists there. Even the rising air is being strongly heated by the radiation from the surface and the lower hotter atmospheric levels. So emphasising latent heat effects seems to be missing the point? Ie the atmosphere is warmer and because of the GHE this slows down the heat loss from the surface where the surface is heated by the Sun. But I am very interested in finding out more about these lower atmospheric greenhouse effects. And i am also very very interested in finding out why it is so very important that many people say the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface. I recently phoned a very well regarded atmospheric scientist who did talk about the atmosphere heating the surface on the phone with me, and I had to point out to him it was not possible and briefly explained why, and he was able to quickly agree I was totally correct and then said he never did say the atmosphere heated the surface. :-) However to be fair to him I contacted him, because he was saying in a reference the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere can do nothing to prevent the flow of heat from the surface, but instead it acts to slow down the heat loss from the surface. The impression I am getting is that people are getting brain washed into considering that the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface and there is some reason that is being said. Quite what the reason is I cannot work out but it seems very important that it is explained like that. A well known climate scientist yesterday called me a loon because I was saying the surface heats the atmosphere. And when i politely wrote to him on his blog asking if he could explain his comments, he deleted my comments He has now commented to my third message with "Do go away silly troll' Take this slice by slice. 1. "But the hot higher atmosphere does heat the lower atmosphere. And the warmed but colder lower atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the hotter surface."Explain that statement in terms of troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere etc. 2, "Therefore because the lower atmosphere is almost opaque to surface emissions apart from the windows areas, (even the window areas do not i think extend to the top of the atmosphere from the surface),"The atmosphere is _not_ opaque to surface emissions. IR is used all the time for remote sensing, the temperature of the oceans surface can be assessed from satellites, the International Space Station can see all the towns and roads outlined by their lights. CO 2 contrary to the statements routinely made does not 'absorb' IR in the three bands that it is sensitive to for any length of time. It is more like scattering as within nanoseconds the IR is re-emitted at a slightly different frequency (that CO 2 cannot reabsorb). If within those nanoseconds the 'excited' CO 2 molecule happens to collide with another molecule usually N 2 or O 2 then that energy may be passed in collision rather than re-emitted. If an excited N 2 molecule happens to hit a CO 2 molecule then the reverse can happen the energy transfers to the CO 2 molecule and the excited CO 2 molecule then emits IR (which the N 2 cannot do so easily) and drops back to unexcited state. So CO 2 actually allows the atmosphere to cool faster too. Given the speed of light how much delay do you think that a photon of IR would have in reaching space if we assume say 100 bounces to the tropopause (say 8 miles up) and back before escape?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Mar 30, 2012 12:22:46 GMT
But the hot higher atmosphere does heat the lower atmosphere. And the warmed but colder lower atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the hotter surface. Evaporation to remove heat still operates with a surface that emits radiation at the SB rate for that temperature and emissivity. Therefore because the lower atmosphere is almost opaque to surface emissions apart from the windows areas, (even the window areas do not i think extend to the top of the atmosphere from the surface), then convective heat loss from the surface is strongly driven by greenhouse effects near the surface because of the large amount of water vapour that exists there. Even the rising air is being strongly heated by the radiation from the surface and the lower hotter atmospheric levels. So emphasising latent heat effects seems to be missing the point? Ie the atmosphere is warmer and because of the GHE this slows down the heat loss from the surface where the surface is heated by the Sun. But I am very interested in finding out more about these lower atmospheric greenhouse effects. And i am also very very interested in finding out why it is so very important that many people say the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface. I recently phoned a very well regarded atmospheric scientist who did talk about the atmosphere heating the surface on the phone with me, and I had to point out to him it was not possible and briefly explained why, and he was able to quickly agree I was totally correct and then said he never did say the atmosphere heated the surface. :-) However to be fair to him I contacted him, because he was saying in a reference the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere can do nothing to prevent the flow of heat from the surface, but instead it acts to slow down the heat loss from the surface. The impression I am getting is that people are getting brain washed into considering that the colder atmosphere is heating the hotter surface and there is some reason that is being said. Quite what the reason is I cannot work out but it seems very important that it is explained like that. A well known climate scientist yesterday called me a loon because I was saying the surface heats the atmosphere. And when i politely wrote to him on his blog asking if he could explain his comments, he deleted my comments He has now commented to my third message with "Do go away silly troll' Take this slice by slice. 1. "But the hot higher atmosphere does heat the lower atmosphere. And the warmed but colder lower atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the hotter surface."Explain that statement in terms of troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere etc. 2, "Therefore because the lower atmosphere is almost opaque to surface emissions apart from the windows areas, (even the window areas do not i think extend to the top of the atmosphere from the surface),"The atmosphere is _not_ opaque to surface emissions. IR is used all the time for remote sensing, the temperature of the oceans surface can be assessed from satellites, the International Space Station can see all the towns and roads outlined by their lights. CO 2 contrary to the statements routinely made does not 'absorb' IR in the three bands that it is sensitive to for any length of time. It is more like scattering as within nanoseconds the IR is re-emitted at a slightly different frequency (that CO 2 cannot reabsorb). If within those nanoseconds the 'excited' CO 2 molecule happens to collide with another molecule usually N 2 or O 2 then that energy may be passed in collision rather than re-emitted. If an excited N 2 molecule happens to hit a CO 2 molecule then the reverse can happen the energy transfers to the CO 2 molecule and the excited CO 2 molecule then emits IR (which the N 2 cannot do so easily) and drops back to unexcited state. So CO 2 actually allows the atmosphere to cool faster too. Given the speed of light how much delay do you think that a photon of IR would have in reaching space if we assume say 100 bounces to the tropopause (say 8 miles up) and back before escape? By slice 1. You were talking about the sun heating the higher parts of the atmosphere. We dont have to make it much more complicated than that i think? It is several hundred degrees up there in parts. But it has little mass and little ability to majorly warm the lower atmosphere. Warming of the lower atmosphere however happens. 2. I was only referring to long wave IR emissions. Can you actually see the *surface* of the Earth in the long wave IR window bands from space? Possibly but only by using the window bands. I think it was you showing me a weather type of picture that when i checked used a window frequency. GOES 4 i think it was. 3. I am not really at all interested in C02. Why cant we focus on water? However if you say C02 can absorb IR and emit an IR that C02 cannot absorb, that seems an extraordinary claim and would need a reference or two to support it so i can read more about that before i can comment on it. If you want to say things about the greenhouse effect and restrict yourself to C02 then you could have said that and will not much interest me. The actual greenhouse effect itself does interest me though. 4. Light bouncing back and forth. I think this might refer to the idea of heat being trapped by absorption? Heat is not really trapped by absorption. Instead, energy that enters via solar radiation cannot escape as quickly because there is less cooling of the surface due to the emission in the atmosphere, and therefore the surface is forced to rise in temperature until all the energy arriving equals all the energy leaving. If the ghe molecules increase, then the surface which is cooling less slowly and which is connected to the heat sink of the oceans and the soil, could take hundreds of years to fully absorb the effect of that reduction in cooling before the surface fully rises in temperature to account for that increase in GHE. I am not saying this is alarming though. I dont believe in alarming changes our world cannot deal with. Warm sounds good to me. I was thinking about this trapping idea yesterday. It is not trapping, but rather like a legless dog or a tethered dog, that slows down the rate of escape of sheep, where the dog cannot possibly stop the sheep escaping or trap them.
|
|