|
Post by socold on Jun 19, 2009 16:37:36 GMT
"The average temp of the planet as surface is the same but the atmsophere will be warmer" Warmer than what? The earth´s surface. Air temp is higher than surface temp. Heat is going into the atmosphere from the surface more efficient than from the atmosphere. That will rise atmosphere temperature to balance this. The balance will be against maximum daily surface temperature. Not an average temperature. Why is heat going into the atmosphere from the surface more efficiently than from the atmosphere to the surface? If the atmosphere is warmer than the surface then I would have throught the heat flow would be from the atmosphere to the surface. This isn't what the greenhouse effect is. The Earth has a greenhouse effect but the atmosphere is not warmer than the surface.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Jun 19, 2009 20:29:05 GMT
Keep in mind that the temperature of the thermosphere and exosphere are magnitudes greater than the Earth's surface temperature - although the heat quantum in each of these atmospheres is less than that found at the Earth's surface.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Jun 19, 2009 23:39:49 GMT
socold; When the atmosphere is heated during the day is warmer air rising inside the atmosphere, from the bottom. Warmer air have less density so that air will rise upward. All the way through the atmosphere. During the night will the atmosphere be cooled from the bottom which is less efficient. Hot air will not go downward to be cooled. Cooler air will stay at the ground. Hot air will not sink down to eart due to gravity. The cooled air will remain at the bottom of the atmosphere and the air further up will not be cooled at all.
Heat is going only one way into the atmosphere until the heat balance is achieved. The atmosphere will reach close to the earth´s surface highest temperature.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Jul 1, 2009 20:29:36 GMT
A planet can only lose energy by radiating it into space. A Therefore the only role the atmosphere can play to make the planet warmer is to reduce the flow of radiation into space. Nothing else matters. It doesn't matter how thick or thin you make the atmosphere, if it can't absorb IR it's thickness is irrelevant as it is effectively "invisible" to Earth's energy loss and therefore cannot reduce it. socold.... I find it interesting that in this thread you talk about the atmosphere as a whole, not a group of differentiated layers, as you have stated in the past in reference to how the climate models work... Seems to me that convection rather than radiation is the main force of energy transfer for the bottom layers of the atmosphere. You know, where its thicker, and therefore there's more of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases. I gotta wonder why you are not being consistent with your arguements. Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 1, 2009 21:08:49 GMT
socold.... I find it interesting that in this thread you talk about the atmosphere as a whole, not a group of differentiated layers, as you have stated in the past in reference to how the climate models work... Seems to me that convection rather than radiation is the main force of energy transfer for the bottom layers of the atmosphere. You know, where its thicker, and therefore there's more of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases. I gotta wonder why you are not being consistent with your arguements. I gotta wonder what you even mean by being not consistent. How can one fact be inconsistant with another? Fact 1) The Earth can only lose energy by radiating it into space Fact 2) The Earth's atmosphere can be broken down into layers A case in point for why I mention it - you say "convection rather than radiation is the main force of energy transfer for the bottom layers of the atmosphere" Convection cools the surface, so hardly explains why the surface is 33K warmer than it should be given it's distance from the Sun. If anything this suggests the total warming from greenhouse gases is greater than 33K (has to overcome that difference and the cooling from convection)
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Jul 2, 2009 18:21:43 GMT
If the atmosphere can be broken down into layers, and is in the models, doesn't that mean convective transfer of energy is ignored?
Sure seems like it to me. Since you think I'm wrong, can you explain it to me in laymans terms?
I'd really prefer that you type it out rather than sending me a link, as I'm headed to Red Dog tomorrow, and my internet will be limited at best.
Thanks.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 2, 2009 18:28:16 GMT
If the atmosphere can be broken down into layers, and is in the models, doesn't that mean convective transfer of energy is ignored? The energy transfer between layers is calculated, including energy transfered through convection.
|
|
|
Post by Belushi TD on Jul 2, 2009 19:01:08 GMT
Didn't expect you to get back to me so quickly... Since you're online today, can you send a link?
I was not previously aware that convection was part of the models. I may be misremembering, but I seem to think that it wasn't mentioned on the chart of variables that was presented on a couple different threads. The one with the forcings on it.
Have any measurements been made to compare the calculations with whats actually been going on?
Belushi TD
|
|