|
Post by jurinko on Sept 7, 2009 22:32:26 GMT
At Wood experiment it is interesting to note, that the normal glass reflects the WHOLE IR radiation spectrum, not just here bit and there bit (where absorption occurs and it is not occupied by water vapor, as in reality); still, he reported barely 1 deg C difference in the boxes.
IMO, the whole GH/33K issue is basically wrong. First, 33K is BS; it is calculated as hypothetical Earth without GHG/atmosphere, but with existing albedo 0,3, which is made mainly by clouds - but you can not have clouds while not having GHG-water vapor. So with realistic lower albedo for cloud-free earth (and also ice-free then) you get some ~273K (0C) temperature and the difference is just 15K. Of course, diurnal fluctuations like on Moon.
However, this difference can not be attributed to GHG (only); if you check other planets, their surface temperature is proportional to Sun proximity (amount of incoming solar energy per square unit) and pressure of their atmosphere, not depending what the atmosphere is composed of. Earth is pretty in line with all those planets; no 33K higher temperature than expected. So, the sole existence of atmosphere, made of nitrogen and oxygen works as a heating "blanket". The higher you fly, the colder is air because the pressure is also falling and there are less and less warm molecules to touch you. You do not need any back radiation; the mass of atmosphere keeps the heat. Can you imagine Moon with hypothetical 385ppm CO2 and nothing else, suddenly having 8C higher temperature (if CO2 is responsible for 25% of those 33K)??
Atmosphere has also other important tasks; besides redistributing warmth, together with clouds it prohibit strong cooling down of surface during night (like happens on Moon with no atmosphere). During the day, clouds cool earth and air cools the surface by convection, so we do not have 100+ deg C days like on Moon.
I dare to say that existence of greenhouse gases is actually cooling the Earth: clouds (made of condensed water vapor = main "GH gas") reflect 20% of incoming solar energy; latent heat of water by evaporation strongly cools the surface (compare arid deserts with humid jungle) and transports the heat upwards. Oceans are huge heat sinks and sources of water vapor and equalling summer and winter temperatures.
You can not separate "GH effect" from existence of atmosphere and clouds; clouds cover almost 70% of the surface according to new satellites and how much does GH gases in the rest 30% clear sky don´t ask me - but I believe it is NEGLIGIBLE.
There are calculations claiming 1K warming by pure CO2 doubling - so we should see 0,6K (as we do since 1900) since we are halfway to doubling; however, this 0,6K happened mostly before CO2 rose after WWII and we still have had Grand solar maximum + positive PDO/AMO, which is pretty responsible for all that after 1950. But, there is no abundant 0,6K in the last 100 years, which we can attribute to "CO2 forcing" above natural forcing.
So there are these options: - either the CO2 effect is not detectable, since the GH effect itself is overrated by magnitude (my guess) - the effect of CO2 is counterbalanced by something else, like drop of water vapor in the troposphere (which has been measured) - there are no data showing increased GH effect except claiming CO2 as "GH gas" and its rise.
Where´s the hotspot, bunnyfvcks?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 7, 2009 22:39:29 GMT
At Wood experiment it is interesting to note, that the normal glass reflects the WHOLE IR radiation spectrum, not just here bit and there bit (where absorption occurs and it is not occupied by water vapor, as in reality); still, he reported barely 1 deg C difference in the boxes. IMO, the whole GH/33K issue is basically wrong. First, 33K is BS; it is calculated as hypothetical Earth without GHG/atmosphere, but with existing albedo 0,3, which is made mainly by clouds - but you can not have clouds while not having GHG-water vapor. So with realistic lower albedo for cloud-free earth (and also ice-free then) you get some ~273K (0C) temperature and the difference is just 15K. Of course, diurnal fluctuations like on Moon. However, this difference can not be attributed to GHG (only); if you check other planets, their surface temperature is proportional to Sun proximity (amount of incoming solar energy per square unit) and pressure of their atmosphere, not depending what the atmosphere is composed of. Earth is pretty in line with all those planets; no 33K higher temperature than expected. So, the sole existence of atmosphere, made of nitrogen and oxygen works as a heating "blanket". The higher you fly, the colder is air because the pressure is also falling and there are less and less warm molecules to touch you. You do not need any back radiation; the mass of atmosphere keeps the heat. Can you imagine Moon with hypothetical 385ppm CO2 and nothing else, suddenly having 8C higher temperature (if CO2 is responsible for 25% of those 33K)?? Atmosphere has also other important tasks; besides redistributing warmth, together with clouds it prohibit strong cooling down of surface during night (like happens on Moon with no atmosphere). During the day, clouds cool earth and air cools the surface by convection, so we do not have 100+ deg C days like on Moon. I dare to say that existence of greenhouse gases is actually cooling the Earth: clouds (made of condensed water vapor = main "GH gas") reflect 20% of incoming solar energy; latent heat of water by evaporation strongly cools the surface (compare arid deserts with humid jungle) and transports the heat upwards. Oceans are huge heat sinks and sources of water vapor and equalling summer and winter temperatures. You can not separate "GH effect" from existence of atmosphere and clouds; clouds cover almost 70% of the surface according to new satellites and how much does GH gases in the rest 30% clear sky don´t ask me - but I believe it is NEGLIGIBLE. There are calculations claiming 1K warming by pure CO2 doubling - so we should see 0,6K (as we do since 1900) since we are halfway to doubling; however, this 0,6K happened mostly before CO2 rose after WWII and we still have had Grand solar maximum + positive PDO/AMO, which is pretty responsible for all that after 1950. But, there is no abundant 0,6K in the last 100 years, which we can attribute to "CO2 forcing" above natural forcing. So there are these options: - either the CO2 effect is not detectable, since the GH effect itself is overrated by magnitude (my guess) - the effect of CO2 is counterbalanced by something else, like drop of water vapor in the troposphere (which has been measured) - there are no data showing increased GH effect except claiming CO2 as "GH gas" and its rise. Where´s the hotspot, bunnyfvcks? Here it is. 100 years of global warming caused by one molecule in a sea of 10,000. Amazing isn't it? Don't bother remarking the oceans are what warms the continents, not the atmosphere which is but a tiny fraction of the heat capacity of oceans. Without the oceans, the surface would be a very inhospitable uninhabitable world. BTW, what is the heat capacity of a CO2 molecule?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 22:47:43 GMT
What qualities do climate models have if they only exist inside a computer programme?? Science explains phenomena by constructing models, or theories formulated from observations of those phenomena. Models or theories never exist in the real world, they are abstractions of the real world. They can be tested against the real world and the idea is to get them in as close agreement as possible with the real world, but it makes no sense as an argument to complain they are "inside a computer" or "inside a book", where else could they possibly be? Remaining issues in science cannot be resolved by "simple experiments" because they are too complex. Simple experiments can be used to develop understanding of small parts of the jigsaw, but theory is needed to tie it all together. Simple experiments have been used to determine the IR absorbing properties of different gases, in the atmosphere and in the lab. Satellites have measured IR emissions from space. IR absorption is understood at the quantum level (again theory). Experiments have been performed on a whole variety of physical aspects of that atmosphere. This is what the theory is trying to explain. That's a double edged sword. If you use the claim that anything can be shown with models then I might ask why then has noone been able to show low climate sensitivity with models. The answer is that we have enough understanding of climate that not simply any old result can be shown when it is put together. The uncertainty is much much lower than it was 100 years ago. The fact is that human understanding of thermodynamics and other physics leads to significant warming from co2. It's a powerful argument, which is why skeptics see it as a primary target and attempt to dismiss it out of hand. It's much the same as how creationists attack evolution as "just a theory". Until I can show them a "monkey turning into man" experiment they just don't want to know.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 23:01:37 GMT
IMO, the whole GH/33K issue is basically wrong. First, 33K is BS; it is calculated as hypothetical Earth without GHG/atmosphere, but with existing albedo 0,3, which is made mainly by clouds - but you can not have clouds while not having GHG-water vapor. So with realistic lower albedo for cloud-free earth (and also ice-free then) you get some ~273K (0C) temperature and the difference is just 15K. Of course, diurnal fluctuations like on Moon. The 33K is the difference between IR absorption in the atmosphere and no IR absorption. It's how much cooler would the planet be if the atmosphere did not absorb infrared.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2009 23:02:05 GMT
Socold: Concerning evolution there is the pesky missing link. And of course, there is now DNA evidence that mankind came from one mother. I will let you decide where that mother came from.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 7, 2009 23:05:28 GMT
What qualities do climate models have if they only exist inside a computer programme?? Science explains phenomena by constructing models, or theories formulated from observations of those phenomena. Models or theories never exist in the real world, they are abstractions of the real world. They can be tested against the real world and the idea is to get them in as close agreement as possible with the real world, but it makes no sense as an argument to complain they are "inside a computer" or "inside a book", where else could they possibly be? Remaining issues in science cannot be resolved by "simple experiments" because they are too complex. Simple experiments can be used to develop understanding of small parts of the jigsaw, but theory is needed to tie it all together. Simple experiments have been used to determine the IR absorbing properties of different gases, in the atmosphere and in the lab. Satellites have measured IR emissions from space. IR absorption is understood at the quantum level (again theory). Experiments have been performed on a whole variety of physical aspects of that atmosphere. This is what the theory is trying to explain. That's a double edged sword. If you use the claim that anything can be shown with models then I might ask why then has noone been able to show low climate sensitivity with models. The answer is that we have enough understanding of climate that not simply any old result can be shown when it is put together. The uncertainty is much much lower than it was 100 years ago. The fact is that human understanding of thermodynamics and other physics leads to significant warming from co2. It's a powerful argument, which is why skeptics see it as a primary target and attempt to dismiss it out of hand. It's much the same as how creationists attack evolution as "just a theory". Until I can show them a "monkey turning into man" experiment they just don't want to know. Do you even know what a theory is? The fact is that human understanding of thermodynamics and other physics leads to significant warming from co2. Really? What thermodynamical physics are embodied in climate models? I don't expect an answer because you won't have one, but it doesn't hurt to ask. It's much the same as how creationists attack evolution as "just a theory". Until I can show them a "monkey turning into man" experiment they just don't want to know. Per Lindzen, which I discount, however since you cling to logical fallacy: What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man. The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science.
Where does that place you socold?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 23:23:29 GMT
Socold: Concerning evolution there is the pesky missing link. And of course, there is now DNA evidence that mankind came from one mother. I will let you decide where that mother came from. There was no literal "missing link" anymore than there was a literal "big bang". There are variety of ape-human transitional fossils and there was an rapid expansion of the early universe.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 23:24:04 GMT
At Wood experiment it is interesting to note, that the normal glass reflects the WHOLE IR radiation spectrum, not just here bit and there bit (where absorption occurs and it is not occupied by water vapor, as in reality); still, he reported barely 1 deg C difference in the boxes. IMO, the whole GH/33K issue is basically wrong. First, 33K is BS; it is calculated as hypothetical Earth without GHG/atmosphere, but with existing albedo 0,3, which is made mainly by clouds - but you can not have clouds while not having GHG-water vapor. So with realistic lower albedo for cloud-free earth (and also ice-free then) you get some ~273K (0C) temperature and the difference is just 15K. Of course, diurnal fluctuations like on Moon. However, this difference can not be attributed to GHG (only); if you check other planets, their surface temperature is proportional to Sun proximity (amount of incoming solar energy per square unit) and pressure of their atmosphere, not depending what the atmosphere is composed of. Earth is pretty in line with all those planets; no 33K higher temperature than expected. So, the sole existence of atmosphere, made of nitrogen and oxygen works as a heating "blanket". The higher you fly, the colder is air because the pressure is also falling and there are less and less warm molecules to touch you. You do not need any back radiation; the mass of atmosphere keeps the heat. Can you imagine Moon with hypothetical 385ppm CO2 and nothing else, suddenly having 8C higher temperature (if CO2 is responsible for 25% of those 33K)?? Atmosphere has also other important tasks; besides redistributing warmth, together with clouds it prohibit strong cooling down of surface during night (like happens on Moon with no atmosphere). During the day, clouds cool earth and air cools the surface by convection, so we do not have 100+ deg C days like on Moon. I dare to say that existence of greenhouse gases is actually cooling the Earth: clouds (made of condensed water vapor = main "GH gas") reflect 20% of incoming solar energy; latent heat of water by evaporation strongly cools the surface (compare arid deserts with humid jungle) and transports the heat upwards. Oceans are huge heat sinks and sources of water vapor and equalling summer and winter temperatures. You can not separate "GH effect" from existence of atmosphere and clouds; clouds cover almost 70% of the surface according to new satellites and how much does GH gases in the rest 30% clear sky don´t ask me - but I believe it is NEGLIGIBLE. There are calculations claiming 1K warming by pure CO2 doubling - so we should see 0,6K (as we do since 1900) since we are halfway to doubling; however, this 0,6K happened mostly before CO2 rose after WWII and we still have had Grand solar maximum + positive PDO/AMO, which is pretty responsible for all that after 1950. But, there is no abundant 0,6K in the last 100 years, which we can attribute to "CO2 forcing" above natural forcing. So there are these options: - either the CO2 effect is not detectable, since the GH effect itself is overrated by magnitude (my guess) - the effect of CO2 is counterbalanced by something else, like drop of water vapor in the troposphere (which has been measured) - there are no data showing increased GH effect except claiming CO2 as "GH gas" and its rise. Where´s the hotspot, bunnyfvcks? Here it is. 100 years of global warming caused by one molecule in a sea of 10,000. Amazing isn't it? Don't bother remarking the oceans are what warms the continents, not the atmosphere which is but a tiny fraction of the heat capacity of oceans. Without the oceans, the surface would be a very inhospitable uninhabitable world. BTW, what is the heat capacity of a CO2 molecule? There are only 2 molecules in each square that can absorb infrared radiation.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 7, 2009 23:36:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2009 23:58:02 GMT
Socold: the nordita link is built upon model after model. I can see that you will always believe a model rather than question said model. You do know that even a model of the Boeing 787's flight etc didn't show how it worked in air and is now causing huge problems for that jet didn't you? If a model of something as simple and well understood as an aircraft flying is fraught with errors, one can only know that a model of something as complex as climate would, by demonstration, be almost worthless with our poresent understanding of water vapor I would hope. Imagine building a model of aircraft flight without Burnoulie's principles. That is about the same as building a climate model with todays understanding. I expect that a reasonable working model will be developed within approx 25-30 years. That expectation is based upon the fact that tech will continue to be expanded at the current rate and the parimiters of the models will be good enough that retro-analysis will be close to 100%.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 7, 2009 23:59:22 GMT
Socold: Concerning evolution there is the pesky missing link. And of course, there is now DNA evidence that mankind came from one mother. I will let you decide where that mother came from. There was no literal "missing link" anymore than there was a literal "big bang". There are variety of ape-human transitional fossils and there was an rapid expansion of the early universe. And DNA has allowed us to find out that humans evolved from one female. You can google the work if you care to, otherwise know that I am correct in that statement.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 8, 2009 0:33:25 GMT
And DNA has allowed us to find out that humans evolved from one female. You can google the work if you care to, otherwise know that I am correct in that statement. Ok, first off this sort of subject doesn't belong in this part of the forums. Second, comparing the evidence and science that verifies the theory of evolution to the science that supposedly verifies the untested hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming... is like comparing the contents of an entire science library to an old copy of TV Guide.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 8, 2009 0:46:54 GMT
And DNA has allowed us to find out that humans evolved from one female. You can google the work if you care to, otherwise know that I am correct in that statement. Ok, first off this sort of subject doesn't belong in this part of the forums. Second, comparing the evidence and science that verifies the theory of evolution to the science that supposedly verifies the untested hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming... is like comparing the contents of an entire science library to an old copy of TV Guide. True. AGW is not proven at all, but the DNA thing is basic DNA science. I just coulnd't resist socolds statement as the science in THIS matter is very settled.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 8, 2009 1:25:10 GMT
It would be nice just once to see glc, SoCold or Steve provide quantification (or a link/citation to where it is) for the energy transport from the surface to the tropopause* by convection and by the l atent heat of state changes of water vapor. This will be a variable dependent on surface temperature, surface type and humidity and the atmospheric lapse rate. So there should be a nice formula for the variance based on these metrics. It should be easy enough for them to do. It easy enough for me to point you in the right direction, but the physics is too advanced for me to summarize to you myself (I wonder if it is even possible to summarize the physics even if I knew it - could a textbooks be taught in a single forum post?). It takes atmospheric physics textbooks, this one is free, many are not: geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdfThat perhaps can eventually lead to understanding the modelled physics: www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/Early on in your first reference: "In this book I have chosen to deal only with aspects of climate that can be treated without consideration of the fluid dynamics of the Atmosphere or Ocean"Well there you go - lets pretend there is no flow or GLAAM because its too difficult and "That does not prevent me from entertaining a vision of adding one more at some point, as a sequel to the present volume. This sequel, entitled Things that Flow would treat the additional phenomena that emerge when fluid dynamics is introduced. It would continue the theme of taking a broad planetary view of phenomena, and of providing students with the computational tools needed to build models of their own. It would take a rather broad view of what counts as a ”flow,” including such things as glaciers and sea ice as well as the more traditional atmospheres and oceans. We shall see; for the moment, this is just a vision."So this first expert of yours has put modeling the atmosphere into the 'too difficult pile' In the model description from NCAR which is your second cite there is : "The CAM 3.0 cleanly separates the parameterization suite from the dynamical core, and makes it easier to replace or modify each in isolation. The dynamical core can be coupled to the parameterization suite in a purely time split manner or in a purely process split one, as described below."A parameterization suite that is subdivided into: "the total parameterization package in CAM 3.0 consists of a sequence of components, indicated by
P={M, R, S, T}
where M denotes (Moist) precipitation processes, R denotes clouds and Radiation, S denotes the Surface model, and T denotes Turbulent mixing. Each of these in turn is subdivided into various components: " So the best you can do is point at a partial model of the atmosphere that the author has a vision may include reality; or an NCAR model that allows the user to play with parameterised values to get the result they want? What I asked for was: " a quantification (or a link/citation to where it is) for the energy transport from the surface to the tropopause (not the TOA) by convection and by the latent heat of state changes of water vapor. This will be a variable dependent on surface temperature, surface type and humidity and the atmospheric lapse rate. So there should be a nice formula for the variance based on these metrics." Its OK SoCold - I know it doesn't exist - its too difficult that's why you always revert back to the simplistic radiation case and why the IPCC calculated radiatiive forcing by treating the atmosphere to be an unresponsive slab while magically CO 2 is doubled and added to that slab as a well mixed trace gas. Its EVER SO EASY to disregard reality but unfortunately that is the real world we are in.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 8, 2009 2:48:41 GMT
What qualities do climate models have if they only exist inside a computer programme?? Science explains phenomena by constructing models, or theories formulated from observations of those phenomena. Models or theories never exist in the real world, they are abstractions of the real world. They can be tested against the real world and the idea is to get them in as close agreement as possible with the real world, but it makes no sense as an argument to complain they are "inside a computer" or "inside a book", where else could they possibly be? Remaining issues in science cannot be resolved by "simple experiments" because they are too complex. Simple experiments can be used to develop understanding of small parts of the jigsaw, but theory is needed to tie it all together. Simple experiments have been used to determine the IR absorbing properties of different gases, in the atmosphere and in the lab. Satellites have measured IR emissions from space. IR absorption is understood at the quantum level (again theory). Experiments have been performed on a whole variety of physical aspects of that atmosphere. This is what the theory is trying to explain. A simple study showing IR absorption of C02 with different CO2 concentrations and different C02 temperatures would be a good start Then we can look at water Then we could look at water and C02 together. Then we can vary the pressure Then we can shine sunlight thru the experiment and so forth Just some simple experiments please
|
|