|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 16, 2009 10:54:57 GMT
Water's various phase changes account for an IMMENSE amount of the earth's trapped energy. CO2 has this terrible habit of instantly reradiating the energy it captures. Water that's gone through a phase change has no energy to radiate. The energy is not released until it changes from a gas to a liquid or a liquid to a solid. This latent heat isn't released fractions of a second later like the energy captured by greenhouse gasses, it's released hours, days and sometimes thousands of years later. Adding another layer of pegs to a plinko game doesn't significantly increase the number of items temporarily trapped inside...laying it on its side for a couple of hours and only emptying it at the end of the day does.
A great deal of the earth's greenhouse affect is in the water's phase changes delaying energy for hours to months. Since it traps this energy WITHOUT increasing temperature in the slightest...it prevents daytime energy input from increasing IR output as much.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 16, 2009 11:58:42 GMT
1. The perpetuum mobile stuff is claiming that the greenhouse effect must be wrong because it requires heat to go from cold to warm objects. This is a misunderstanding:
- the "greenhouse effect" (in quotes because it's not the same as a greenhouse) is related to the fact that it reduces the ability of the earth to *cool*. If you put on a coat on a cold day, you do not say that heat is going from the cold coat to warm your body do you.
- the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies, and there is no physical law that says a molecule deliberately directs any photon it radiates towards cooler rather than warmer regions. Though statistically, the net flow is always likely to be from warm to cold. This means that the radiation from the cooler region reduces the rate of cooling of the warmer region.
Putting it in an extreme way, the temperature of space is 3 Kelvin. The temperature of Pluto is about 70 Kelvin. Earth's temperature is about 250 Kelvin. We are nevertheless receiving slightly more energy from Pluto than we would receive from the area of space that Pluto covers (in fact Pluto sends about 300000 times more energy than the equivalent area of space - but 30000 times not very much is... not very much).
Therefore the existence of Pluto keeps us ever so slightly warmer than we would be otherwise.
2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution.
This is a pet theory of Ross McKitrick. Unfortunately (or deliberately) in his papers he has committed a large number of embarrassing statistical and arithmetical errors such as assuming a temperature of zero if a measurement is missing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 20:28:50 GMT
More More more is unscientific - you simply must obey physical laws. The only example I know of more more more was Enron & Lehman brothers. ;D The Earth is NOT a black body. The atmosphere is NOT in thermal equilibrium. The laws of thermodynamics apply. Heat moves from hot to cold. Not more, more, more. ;D Nowhere in my post did I say Earth was a blackbody or that heat moves from hot to cold.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 16, 2009 23:35:18 GMT
1. The perpetuum mobile stuff is claiming that the greenhouse effect must be wrong because it requires heat to go from cold to warm objects. This is a misunderstanding: - the "greenhouse effect" (in quotes because it's not the same as a greenhouse) is related to the fact that it reduces the ability of the earth to *cool*. If you put on a coat on a cold day, you do not say that heat is going from the cold coat to warm your body do you. - the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies, and there is no physical law that says a molecule deliberately directs any photon it radiates towards cooler rather than warmer regions. Though statistically, the net flow is always likely to be from warm to cold. This means that the radiation from the cooler region reduces the rate of cooling of the warmer region. Putting it in an extreme way, the temperature of space is 3 Kelvin. The temperature of Pluto is about 70 Kelvin. Earth's temperature is about 250 Kelvin. We are nevertheless receiving slightly more energy from Pluto than we would receive from the area of space that Pluto covers (in fact Pluto sends about 300000 times more energy than the equivalent area of space - but 30000 times not very much is... not very much). Therefore the existence of Pluto keeps us ever so slightly warmer than we would be otherwise. 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. This is a pet theory of Ross McKitrick. Unfortunately (or deliberately) in his papers he has committed a large number of embarrassing statistical and arithmetical errors such as assuming a temperature of zero if a measurement is missing. Nice try, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. climatesci.org/2009/03/16/publication-of-the-commentreply-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-which-raises-serious-questions-on-the-robustness-of-the-assessment-of-global-warming-using-the-global-average-surface-temperature-trend/
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 16, 2009 23:37:43 GMT
Increase co2 and more IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and more IR is emitted by the atmosphere. If more IR is emitted from the atmosphere then more IR reaches the surface as well as space. If more IR reaches the surface then the surface is absorbing more IR and so will warm up and emit more IR. And all you need to do is find the missing heat, wherever it may be. The IR was measured in 2002; the atmosphere wasn't heating then, why would it be now?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 23:58:26 GMT
Increase co2 and more IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and more IR is emitted by the atmosphere. If more IR is emitted from the atmosphere then more IR reaches the surface as well as space. If more IR reaches the surface then the surface is absorbing more IR and so will warm up and emit more IR. And all you need to do is find the missing heat, wherever it may be. The IR was measured in 2002; the atmosphere wasn't heating then, why would it be now? Bumps in the upward trend caused by weather. For example El Ninos (like the one that occured in 2002) cause temperature warm spikes in the atmosphere and La Ninas cause temperature cold spikes. Those are quick and short bumps. The road doesn't stop going uphill just because of a few potholes.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 17, 2009 0:07:32 GMT
And all you need to do is find the missing heat, wherever it may be. The IR was measured in 2002; the atmosphere wasn't heating then, why would it be now? Bumps in the upward trend caused by weather. For example El Ninos (like the one that occured in 2002) cause temperature warm spikes in the atmosphere and La Ninas cause temperature cold spikes. Those are quick and short bumps. The road doesn't stop going uphill just because of a few potholes. Oceans are a heat sink, the atmosphere and land are not. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1110252v2It's not happening.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 17, 2009 0:36:37 GMT
The Pielke paper isn't relevant to the point I'm making about the G+T tosh. Read the G+T tosh first. It's quite hard work because they deliberately over complicate it, but as long as you can remember your basic graduate differentiation in spherical coords you should be OK.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 17, 2009 1:50:55 GMT
The Pielke paper isn't relevant to the point I'm making about the G+T tosh. Read the G+T tosh first. It's quite hard work because they deliberately over complicate it, but as long as you can remember your basic graduate differentiation in spherical coords you should be OK. This is what you said: 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. And it is pure Hansen/Schmidt psychobabble. Show me an empirically derived study that shows IR is increasing in the atmosphere, a necessary component of CO2 AGW. You won't find it, because it was already measured in 2002 and isn't doing what the soothsayers predicted. I have posted that on more than one occasion.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 17, 2009 1:51:54 GMT
Steve
You miss the point: Heat transfer includes radiation. The fact that heat travels BOTH ways isn't a contradiction of the laws of thermodynamics. But what you miss is this: Earth sends vastly more heat energy toward Pluto than ever Pluto send toward earth.
So the Net transfer is toward Pluto.
In the same way, cold air receives vastly more radiation from the Earth surface than it ever returns.
Ignorance is fun to watch, but gets tiresome after a while. I suggest you go & buy a good undergrad book on thermodynamics.
Go through the same pain as many of us have. ;D
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Mar 17, 2009 4:10:17 GMT
"Increase co2 and more IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and more IR is emitted by the atmosphere. If more IR is emitted from the atmosphere then more IR reaches the surface as well as space. If more IR reaches the surface then the surface is absorbing more IR and so will warm up and emit more IR."
I have a question in regards to what socold wrote above,
If what he is saying is true then there is no mechanism to stop this from happening and the Earth will continue to warm because CO2 will always increase either from us or from the oceans which are being warmed by the IR as socold explained.
My question is what mechanism stopped all this from happening in 1900 when CO2 levels were 285ppm. Or millions of years ago when it was over 7000ppm?
Cheers
Confused Crakar
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 17, 2009 5:41:09 GMT
"Increase co2 and more IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and more IR is emitted by the atmosphere. If more IR is emitted from the atmosphere then more IR reaches the surface as well as space. If more IR reaches the surface then the surface is absorbing more IR and so will warm up and emit more IR." I have a question in regards to what socold wrote above, If what he is saying is true then there is no mechanism to stop this from happening and the Earth will continue to warm because CO2 will always increase either from us or from the oceans which are being warmed by the IR as socold explained. My question is what mechanism stopped all this from happening in 1900 when CO2 levels were 285ppm. Or millions of years ago when it was over 7000ppm? Cheers Confused Crakar Don't worry Crakar - the statement is confused. Thermodynamics requires heat movement, by radiation, conductance or convection, to move from warmer areas to cooler areas. The reverse can happen when an outside agency is involved - heat pumps in other words. If there was an exception for radiation then this would work: This joke is pointing out that if the classical (pre thermodynamics) greenhouse effect, as used by the IPCC, was correct, then such ovens could indeed be created. If its true for the atmosphere, it would be certainly true for technology. It isn't. Heat moves from warm to cold unless an outside energy system is involved to pump the heat. (in which case, the "effect" is the outside energy source.) The Earth radiates heat. The Atmosphere radiates heat. The warmest sends more radiation in that direction. There is no cascade back to the earth to warm it further. Due to the Earth's rotation, the system is dynamic. This constantly changes the surface from warm to cool & ditto for the atmosphere. Energy is always changing direction. We call this WEATHER.
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Mar 17, 2009 5:54:51 GMT
I gotta get me one of those ovens. LMBFAO
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 17, 2009 6:14:07 GMT
Love the oven. Question: Where can I get one? If one were to put a warm jar of hydrogen gas into the oven, would the ultimate result be a fusion reactor or a supernova? ;D
Being a dummy, I recall an ancient tome: "Thermodynamics for Dummies". In summary, the three laws were: #1) You can't win. #2) You can't break even. #3) You can't get out of the game.
Cheers! ;D
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Mar 17, 2009 7:32:25 GMT
1. The perpetuum mobile stuff is claiming that the greenhouse effect must be wrong because it requires heat to go from cold to warm objects. This is a misunderstanding: - the "greenhouse effect" (in quotes because it's not the same as a greenhouse) is related to the fact that it reduces the ability of the earth to *cool*. If you put on a coat on a cold day, you do not say that heat is going from the cold coat to warm your body do you. - the theory involves *radiation* not heat going from cooler to warmer bodies, and there is no physical law that says a molecule deliberately directs any photon it radiates towards cooler rather than warmer regions. Though statistically, the net flow is always likely to be from warm to cold. This means that the radiation from the cooler region reduces the rate of cooling of the warmer region. Putting it in an extreme way, the temperature of space is 3 Kelvin. The temperature of Pluto is about 70 Kelvin. Earth's temperature is about 250 Kelvin. We are nevertheless receiving slightly more energy from Pluto than we would receive from the area of space that Pluto covers (in fact Pluto sends about 300000 times more energy than the equivalent area of space - but 30000 times not very much is... not very much). Therefore the existence of Pluto keeps us ever so slightly warmer than we would be otherwise. 2. Arguments about whether the "average temperature" makes sense are a misdirection. What is measured is the temperature *anomaly* - ie. how much the temperature has changed. When you measure the temperature *anomaly* it doesn't matter very much whether you use T^4 or T. [wrong!] The *relative* change will be the same unless there is a very large difference in the way energy is proportioned across the earth. You can try it yourself by creating your own temperature distribution, calculating metrics from it in different ways and seeing what happens when you change the temperature distribution. This is a pet theory of Ross McKitrick. Unfortunately (or deliberately) in his papers he has committed a large number of embarrassing statistical and arithmetical errors such as assuming a temperature of zero if a measurement is missing. That last paragraph is pure argument ad hominem, Steve. Argument ad hominem is still a fallacy, and your conclusion is therefore more damaging than supporting of your case. At least Ross is putting his calculations out there where they can be seen, instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of "proprietary" models and unpublished code. Ad hom attacks are standard AGW tripe. Can't you think up anything more original than that? At least try to come up with something better than that lame "Pluto-is-hot-stuff, relatively speaking," red herring.
|
|