|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 8, 2009 21:22:24 GMT
We get bombarded with the nonsense that only the "Greenhouse" gases cause the greenhouse effect. Best read this pdf before continuing with my post: www.energy-based.nrct.go.th/Article/Ts-3%20the%20downward%20atmospheric%20longwave%20radiation%20at%20night%20in%20northern%20thailand.pdf(During the day, the Sun's own inward IR swamps the atmosphere, so downward IR from the atmosphere is measured at night) Check out the instrument: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyrgeometerNote that the Atmosphere is a "grey" body, i.e. absorbs all frequencies under the thermal curve. This can only be true if all air molecules absorb & emit IR (Which of course they do). Note that if the IR radiation was a result of spectral peaks it would NOT change with temperature via the T^4 laws. Spectral absorption and emission follows completely different math. At least 65% of the "greenhouse effect" (probably more) is caused by the entire atmosphere, and the remainder is almost entirely water molecules. (This figure is from a climate text) Remember the basic principles: 1. ALL matter absorb and emit equally likely (If air radiates, it equally absorbs) 2. Thermal radiation is a property of all matter, and is entirely dependent on molecular motion. (The distribution of molecular energies is the same shape as the thermal curve) 3. The thermal curve moves with temperature, spectral peaks DO NOT. 4. The power = Area under a radiation curve, and this is mainly NOT due to the small area under spectral peaks. ======================================= By confusing spectral radiation with thermal radiation, we get a number of confusing statements. It is entirely true that CO2 absorbs very strongly in its absorption band, and in that band, (comparatively) O2 & N2 have a much lower absorption. However, in terms of power, the reverse is true. The above paper shows that the atmosphere is a true grey body absorber/emitter (works both ways) obeying the t^4 law. If ONLY greenhouse gases were involved, there would be no curve, only peaks moving in and out of the Earth's thermal outward radiation curve, and the returned radiation could not possibly follow the T^4 law. (I don't intend to respond to any debate. The science is all well established, and anyone can verify the basics above.)
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 8, 2009 22:09:23 GMT
This can only be true if all air molecules absorb & emit IR (Which of course they do). First you need to see that the simple instrument described in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyrgeometerCannot measure different IR radiation frequencies Then you need to think about what emissivity means When a body is heated then its ability to radiate depends upon the surface properties and atoms and molecules at the surface You also need to understand what is meant by: The first idea is to assume that the sky is a blackbodyand Additionally, the atmosphere is assumed to be a gray bodyAnd then contrast that with your statement that: the Atmosphere is a "grey" bodyYou also need to see that there is a continuum between: 1. a theoretical blackbody and 2. different real grey bodies having different emissivities towards 3 theoretical transparant none radiating materials. Nitrogen and oxygen are towards the theoretical end of transparant none radiating materials at ordinary temperatures There is also dust in the atmosphere. You might want to note the high relative error in the dry season in the Thailand study and their note: It indicated that in this region, Chiang Khong, the night skies are not quite clear in the dry season, which may be cased by the air pollution from forest and rice field burning around the observation area.You also need to consider that professor woods (1909) was an expert in IR radiation when he said it is 'because air is such a poor emitter of IR radiation' that our atmosphere is warm. So that when you say: At least 65% of the "greenhouse effect" (probably more) is caused by the entire atmosphere, and the remainder is almost entirely water molecules. (This figure is from a climate text)It shows you are not thinking this thru correctly - because from a variety of different sources people are telling you that nitrogen and oxygen are poor emitters of ir radiation at ordinary temperatures
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 9, 2009 2:27:11 GMT
Radiant, I don't intend to debate, I teach - and I don't debate with my students - they pass or fail!. I am correct, as are all the sources that are not corrupted by the AGW doctrine. I have no need to debate or argue. Read widely & do study the climate texts.
Assuming that the atmosphere is a grey body WORKS.
The while atmosphere radiates, which means that the whole atmosphere EQUALLY absorbs.
Go read outside the corrupted texts designed for the true believers. Generally, climate science texts earlier than 1988 are more reliable, as are papers published outside the USA/UK.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 6:22:16 GMT
Radiant, I don't intend to debate, I teach - and I don't debate with my students - they pass or fail!. I am correct, as are all the sources that are not corrupted by the AGW doctrine. I have no need to debate or argue. Read widely & do study the climate texts. Assuming that the atmosphere is a grey body WORKS. The while atmosphere radiates, which means that the whole atmosphere EQUALLY absorbs. Go read outside the corrupted texts designed for the true believers. Generally, climate science texts earlier than 1988 are more reliable, as are papers published outside the USA/UK. I assume you are joking about being a teacher of this subject Kiwi! The atmosphere other than water does not majorly radiate or absorb infra red energy The atmosphere is warm because it contacts the earths surface.Note that if the IR radiation was a result of spectral peaks it would NOT change with temperature via the T^4 laws. Spectral absorption and emission follows completely different math. The warm air warms the water etc. The device used in your study has no ability to say from where the sky warmth comes from. It is just a thermometer compensated for ground warmth . It can also be used during the day as per your link. Obviously if the temperature of the air changes the amount of emitted radiation is going to change and maths and laws does not have much to do with it. Ask yourself why it was under -35C all day long at 10,500 feet in Greenland about 20th September 2009. How can it be that cold if the air is being warmed by the sun? Please let go of the theory and allow the real world to influence the way you are viewing this. Also recognise please that your own references do not support what you believe to be true. Why pick a study investigating night sky temperatures that use a very crude device unsuited for the task of talking authoritatively about radiation of a spectrum of different frequencies? Also allow in the ideas of quantum physics which have transformed humans understanding of the nature of radiation from substances Blackbody radiation is an idealised theoretical concept that works as a good approximation for objects with high emissivity. You need to grasp the nature of the greyness of the atmosphere and realise each component of the atmosphere has a known and relatively understandable different greyness. Nitrogen and oxygen are effectively not grey bodies at ordinary temperatures. Instead they are remarkably transparant bodies that do not absorb 'stuff'. For that reason dry air in the tropics is a source of tremendous radiative cooling of the earths warm surface to outerspace, and at the poles where there is almost no atmospheric water, exstreme coldness is achieved via radiation to outerspace. For some reason you are chosing to rely on maths and theory and models of what is real. Your quoted study could not account for why their observed night sky temperatures were so much higher than they predicted and modeled other than suggesting the air was polluted by fires. I dont think you can use maths and models to say you can know reality and yet you persist with erroneous ideas based in theory, assumptions and maths that are in conflict with real world observations while simultaneously you ignore quantum physics
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 15:32:24 GMT
This study references Miller 1966: Basic atmospheric studies indicate that the water vapor in the atmosphere plays a major role in infrared longwave radiation [2]This study also references Swinbank 1963: journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FANS%2FANS8_01%2FS0954102096000132a.pdf&code=dddf37bc885f6f9e417e3dfa463249ffthe effective radiative temperature of the atmosphere does not differ greatly from the surface temperature. Swinbank (1963) showed that, in cloud-free conditions and over a wide range of air temperatures, L (downdwelling IR). was well described by the relation: L (downdwelling IR) = 5.31 *10 to the minus 13 * Ta to the power of 6 (1) where L is measured in W m-z and Ta is the "screen" temperature (i.e. near-surface air temperature) in degrees K. This result is superficially surprising since, intuitively, one might expect a fourth-power relationship between radiative flux and temperature from the Stefan-Boltzmann law. An explanation of the sixth-power relationship was provided by Deacon (1970), who noted that there was a good climatological correlation between total column water vapour and surface temperature, arising from the strong (approximately exponential) variation of saturation vapour pressure with temperature. The optical depth (and hence the effective emissivity) of the atmosphere can be expressed as a function of the total column water vapour.In the absence of cloud, L is dominated by emission from atmospheric water vapour and, to a lesser extent, carbon dioxide. Even in the relatively dry Antarctic atmosphere emissions from water vapour near the surface dominate LAnd dont forget that antarctica is incredibly dry relative to the rest of the world and yet still water dominates as the source of L. Interestingly this paper says: A strong surface-based temperature inversion is present over the Antarctic ice sheets for much of the year (Phillpot & Zillman 1970). The temperature at the surface may be up to 25 K colder than that at 200-300m above the surface and, under clear-sky conditions, the temperature, TM,at the top of the inversion will be more representative of the radiating atmosphere than will the surface temperature since the warmer, moister air above the inversion is a more effective emitter than the cold, dry air within the inversion layer. Observations also indicate that, over the East Antarctic plateau, cloud bases generally coincide with the top of the inversion layer (Stone 1993)Finally Kiwis Quoted study concludes: If both Ta, and e0 are available, the R0 (downdwelling IR) (Ta, e0) model is recommended to use for predicting the effective sky temperature.Where: Ta is the temperature at the measuring station e0 is the vapour pressure of water And R0 (downdwelling IR) is L (downdwelling IR) Once again Kiwis own studies totally support my point of view But Kiwi concludes: The above paper shows that the atmosphere is a true grey body absorber/emitter (works both ways) obeying the t^4 law.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 17:11:59 GMT
Ask yourself why it was under -35C all day long at 10,500 feet in Greenland about 20th September 2009. How can it be that cold if the air is being warmed by the sun? When you put the question in true scientific mode. . . .if the air is so warm that it is 238degK how can it be so warm if its not warmed by the sun?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 18:53:18 GMT
Ask yourself why it was under -35C all day long at 10,500 feet in Greenland about 20th September 2009. How can it be that cold if the air is being warmed by the sun? When you put the question in true scientific mode. . . .if the air is so warm that it is 238degK how can it be so warm if its not warmed by the sun? Icefisher Greenland and antarctica have what is called a katabatic wind which is wind driven by the density of the cold air travelling down the slope of the hill. From the paper i quote earlier you can see that Antartica has a temperature inversion so that it is about 25K warmer 200-300 metre above the surface dry cold air. Therefore it must be so that warm moist air is constantly arriving to these areas where it is cooled, water is removed to create the characteristic very dry air and this air moves down to sea level The air that arrives to these places has been warmed by previous contact with the surface which was warmed by the sun. So look at it differently please. The air is not directly warmed by the sun to any significant amount relative to the heat that it gains via contact with the surface
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 20:04:51 GMT
When you put the question in true scientific mode. . . .if the air is so warm that it is 238degK how can it be so warm if its not warmed by the sun? Icefisher Greenland and antarctica have what is called a katabatic wind which is wind driven by the density of the cold air travelling down the slope of the hill. From the paper i quote earlier you can see that Antartica has a temperature inversion so that it is about 25K warmer 200-300 metre above the surface dry cold air. Therefore it must be so that warm moist air is constantly arriving to these areas where it is cooled, water is removed to create the characteristic very dry air and this air moves down to sea level Why must it be so? The air that arrives to these places has been warmed by previous contact with the surface which was warmed by the sun. Evidence please! So look at it differently please. The air is not directly warmed by the sun to any significant amount relative to the heat that it gains via contact with the surface What is your definition of "significant" here? Do you have a percentage?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 20:31:05 GMT
Icefisher Greenland and antarctica have what is called a katabatic wind which is wind driven by the density of the cold air travelling down the slope of the hill. From the paper i quote earlier you can see that Antartica has a temperature inversion so that it is about 25K warmer 200-300 metre above the surface dry cold air. Therefore it must be so that warm moist air is constantly arriving to these areas where it is cooled, water is removed to create the characteristic very dry air and this air moves down to sea level Why must it be so? If there is a katabatic wind then air must be arriving and being cooled and descending under gravity to a lower level.Evidence please! ?? 99% of the atmosphere has almost no ability to absorb infra red radiation and visible light. UV is absorbed very very high in the atmosphere where it is hot. The atmosphere in the troposphere is generally very very cold relative to the surface air temperature. What kind of evidence do you want?
So look at it differently please. The air is not directly warmed by the sun to any significant amount relative to the heat that it gains via contact with the surface What is your definition of "significant" here? Do you have a percentage? Please note my additional answers in yellow above. It is just a fact of life surely? I can tell you for example that if you leave the warm summer surface of NZ and fly at 22000 feet in an unheated glider it is very cold. Mount cook below at 12,000 feet is permanantly covered in snow and there is summer snow at 8000 feet on the minor peaks. At the surface under about 3000 -5000 feet it gets significantly warmer because this is the area of thermal movement of the air and mixing of the surface air with the upper air. Sunlight must be just passing thru the cold air to the warm surface surely?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 21:32:46 GMT
If there is a katabatic wind then air must be arriving and being cooled and descending under gravity to a lower level. You did not provide any rationale for why the air needs to be moist. In fact, in Los Angeles we have a Katabatic wind that involves hot dry air. You are trying to make a case for no radiation by the air. Here wiki explains: " A katabatic wind originates from the cooling by radiation of air atop a plateau, a mountain, glacier, or even a hill. Since the density of air increases with lower temperature, the air will flow downwards, warming adiabatically as it descends. The temperature of the wind depends on the temperature in the source region and the amount of descent. In the case of the Santa Ana, for example, the wind can (but does not always) become hot by the time it reaches sea level. In the case of Antarctica, by contrast, the wind is still intensely cold." Note they mention "radiation of air" and do not require moisture. So I would suggest this argument of yours of all radiation originating in GHG as completely unsupported. ?? 99% of the atmosphere has almost no ability to absorb infra red radiation and visible light. UV is absorbed very very high in the atmosphere where it is hot. The atmosphere in the troposphere is generally very very cold relative to the surface air temperature. What kind of evidence do you want?
You are talking relative to the surface. But it is very hot relative to deep space. What is your definition of "significant" here? Do you have a percentage?Please note my additional answers in yellow above.
It is just a fact of life surely? I can tell you for example that if you leave the warm summer surface of NZ and fly at 22000 feet in an unheated glider it is very cold. Mount cook below at 12,000 feet is permanantly covered in snow and there is summer snow at 8000 feet on the minor peaks. At the surface under about 3000 -5000 feet it gets significantly warmer because this is the area of thermal movement of the air and mixing of the surface air with the upper air.
Sunlight must be just passing thru the cold air to the warm surface surely? You have just presented an argument that the upper atmosphere should be the temperature of deep space since that warm air from the surface is not going up there. How does it get so hot in the upper atmosphere if surface heated air is not going up there?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 22:14:59 GMT
If there is a katabatic wind then air must be arriving and being cooled and descending under gravity to a lower level. You did not provide any rationale for why the air needs to be moist. In fact, in Los Angeles we have a Katabatic wind that involves hot dry air. You are trying to make a case for no radiation by the air. Here wiki explains: " A katabatic wind originates from the cooling by radiation of air atop a plateau, a mountain, glacier, or even a hill. Since the density of air increases with lower temperature, the air will flow downwards, warming adiabatically as it descends. The temperature of the wind depends on the temperature in the source region and the amount of descent. In the case of the Santa Ana, for example, the wind can (but does not always) become hot by the time it reaches sea level. In the case of Antarctica, by contrast, the wind is still intensely cold." Note they mention "radiation of air" and do not require moisture. So I would suggest this argument of yours of all radiation originating in GHG as completely unsupported. You are talking relative to the surface. But it is very hot relative to deep space. What is your definition of "significant" here? Do you have a percentage?Please note my additional answers in yellow above.
It is just a fact of life surely? I can tell you for example that if you leave the warm summer surface of NZ and fly at 22000 feet in an unheated glider it is very cold. Mount cook below at 12,000 feet is permanantly covered in snow and there is summer snow at 8000 feet on the minor peaks. At the surface under about 3000 -5000 feet it gets significantly warmer because this is the area of thermal movement of the air and mixing of the surface air with the upper air.
Sunlight must be just passing thru the cold air to the warm surface surely? You have just presented an argument that the upper atmosphere should be the temperature of deep space since that warm air from the surface is not going up there. How does it get so hot in the upper atmosphere if surface heated air is not going up there? Warm air holds more moisture than colder air. When the air is already very cold if you cool it more it must become dryer by forming ice that descends out of the air. Very cold air has almost no ability to hold water as a gas. Warm dry air can still hold moisture when colder without it leaving the air because relatively it is still warm. I am assuming the slightly colder santa anna air that leaves the plateau is warmed partly by the hot surface as it descends along the surface to sea level and also it warms because higher pressure air is measured as being warmer as the energy is concentrated by the pressure - even if the total energy of the mass of air remains the same. But if you take air at -60 and warm it then it is still very cold at say -40 when it reaches the frozen sea. It is a well known scientific fact that nitrogen and oxygen and argon which is 99% of the atmosphere cannot emitt ir radiation and do not absorb it Excited warm nitrogen that is able to reach the higher atmosphere can only be cooled by contact with colder molecules and if it is not cooled it rises higher unless some air current directs it back to the surface. if some molecules are going up some are being forced down. Oxygen in the higher atmosphere is warmed by absorbing UV and a small amount of green light and microwave radiation Ozone absorbs also to create heat. The upper atmosphere absorbs all the harmful stuff that the lower atmosphere does not receive and it reemits it and transfers it to other gases via conduction. The heat rises because warm gases are less dense. Lower down in the atmosphere water cools the atmosphere. Eventually high in the atmosphere it is so cold that nearly all water exits the air and forms ice which must move lower in the atmosphere since it is so dense. The tropopause is the area where significant water vapour is absent and temperatures begin rising as the heat rises and has no easy method of being cooled Deep space can be absolute zero and the high atmosphere show a warm signature because there is no easy way to remove the heat as excitation in the molecules created by solar absorption of the uv and light. On the other hand the high atmophere is so thin it makes no significant difference to the temperatures lower down just as a 3000 degree 2.5V light bulb has no significant ability to warm us when we are freezing in a tent at night - in both cases the intensity of radiation is more or less insignificant. At ground level there are zillions of warm molecules emitting IR to increase the temperature of a mass of mercury faster than it can radiate to space. I am pretty sure that if you placed a mercury thermometer very very high in the 'warm' night atmosphere it would radiate energy to space faster than it could be warmed by the few hot molecules around it
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 9, 2009 22:56:14 GMT
Warm air holds more moisture than colder air. When the air is already very cold if you cool it more it must become dryer by forming ice that descends out of the air. Very cold air has almost no ability to hold water as a gas. Warm dry air can still hold moisture when colder without it leaving the air because relatively it is still warm. I am assuming the slightly colder santa anna air that leaves the plateau is warmed partly by the hot surface as it descends along the surface to sea level and also it warms because higher pressure air is measured as being warmer as the energy is concentrated by the pressure - even if the total energy of the mass of air remains the same. But if you take air at -60 and warm it then it is still very cold at say -40 when it reaches the frozen sea. You are just dancing around the topic. It probably is nice moist air coming in off the ocean in antarctica but it is a big continent and may not always. In Los Angeles the air is coming off what we call the "high desert". Its not at all moist. It is a well known scientific fact that nitrogen and oxygen and argon which is 99% of the atmosphere cannot emitt ir radiation and do not absorb it Source please! We are aware it does not have "special" spectral absorption properties but all objects radiate and all objects absorb as efficiently as they radiate. Now it may not be efficient absorption and radiation. . . .but it doesn't need to be because what it lacks in efficiency it makes up for in quantity. Excited warm nitrogen that is able to reach the higher atmosphere can only be cooled by contact with colder molecules. So the theoretical hot oxygen gas in deep space is destined to stay hot forever? And the cold oxygen approaching the sun stays cold when its still six inches above the surface of the sun? LOL! I have to see that to believe it. Deep space can be absolute zero and the high atmosphere very warm because there is no easy way to remove the heat created by solar absorption of the uv and light. That tells me absolutely nothing. Its like you believe it but you can't explain it. How about some numbers?
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 9, 2009 23:08:49 GMT
Warm air holds more moisture than colder air. When the air is already very cold if you cool it more it must become dryer by forming ice that descends out of the air. Very cold air has almost no ability to hold water as a gas. Warm dry air can still hold moisture when colder without it leaving the air because relatively it is still warm. I am assuming the slightly colder santa anna air that leaves the plateau is warmed partly by the hot surface as it descends along the surface to sea level and also it warms because higher pressure air is measured as being warmer as the energy is concentrated by the pressure - even if the total energy of the mass of air remains the same. But if you take air at -60 and warm it then it is still very cold at say -40 when it reaches the frozen sea. You are just dancing around the topic. It probably is nice moist air coming in off the ocean in antarctica but it is a big continent and may not always. In Los Angeles the air is coming off what we call the "high desert". Its not at all moist. Source please! We are aware it does not have "special" spectral absorption properties but all objects radiate and all objects absorb as efficiently as they radiate. Now it may not be efficient absorption and radiation. . . .but it doesn't need to be because what it lacks in efficiency it makes up for in quantity. So the theoretical hot oxygen gas in deep space is destined to stay hot forever? And the cold oxygen approaching the sun stays cold when its still six inches above the surface of the sun? LOL! I have to see that to believe it. Deep space can be absolute zero and the high atmosphere very warm because there is no easy way to remove the heat created by solar absorption of the uv and light. That tells me absolutely nothing. Its like you believe it but you can't explain it. How about some numbers? Oxygen does not significantly emit IR radiation at ordinary temperatures. But sure if you heat it to 7000 degrees it will be different Source please! We are aware it does not have "special" spectral absorption properties but all objects radiate and all objects absorb as efficiently as they radiate. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=780&page=16#29794solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=780&page=17#30174Paper after paper will tell you that nitrogen and oxygen do not significantly emit ir radiation at ordinary temperatures. At night the warm oxygen emits a pale green glow visible at the horizon apparently and also emits microwave radiation that is bothersome to astronomers who observe space at those wavelengths but these are relative tiny influences compared to solar heating The issue here is relative influences. Nitrogen is more inert. Argon is an inert gas. These are unusual gases. I am not sure where you are going with the moist catabatic winds. Another factor is that air with water vapour is less dense and rises. If the water vapour precipitates then the dryer denser air wants to descend relative to the more moist air around it. By some process i cant understand yet the Santa Anna high desert air obtains a lower relative humidity as it descends - possibily the more humid air rises and causes the dryer air to descend in a continual process after the initial creation of high pressure in the upper valleys. My point about catabatic winds was more of an observation of something that happens in greenland and antarctica rather than it being any more than that. Dry surface air in Antartica is much more cold than air 200-300 metres higher, and since it is known that water in the air is associated with more radiation and dry air is associated with less radiation, there must be some kind of event happening there and i wanted to see if i could understand it. It made sense to me. Cooler (denser) drier (denser) heavy air moves down slope. Warmer and probably moister air replaces it. Santa Anna winds dry on the way up there and on the way down from wiki. I am doing my best to be helpful to you and you are telling me i am dancing and avoiding something
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 13, 2009 0:02:56 GMT
The givens are: 1. ALL substances emit and absorb thermal energy (also called blackbody radiation) - this is a fundamental property of matter. 2. Emittance and absorptivity are two sides of the same equation. (This is a fundamental thermodynamic fact)
3. Thermal energy is a result of molecular and atomic motion, and has ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH to do with absorption spectra. Thermal energy is emittance and absorption over a continuous range of frequencies, whereas spectra are discrete lines at specific frequencies.
4. Gases emit an almost perfect thermal (blackbody) curve, but their emissivity (absorptivity) is less than 1, and they are therefore termed "grey bodies"
5. There is a huge amount of confusion amongst those who don't understand, and who rely on authorities that also don't understand. (This also is an obvious fundamental truth!!)
5. Spectral lines can be extremely intense, and are a completely different process to thermal radiation, and an order of magnitude (or more) stronger than thermal. Hence, when comparing spectral lines with background radiation, it is entirely true to refer to gases which do not have spectral lines as "not absorbing" IR, but that is only true in the context of spectroscopy, and is a huge oversimplification. What is really meant is that oxygen and Nitrogen do not have any visible absorption over the background thermal radiation - but they participate in that background thermal radiation and emit & absorb like every other substance.
6. It is extremely difficult to measure background thermal radiation due to the fact that EVERYTHING is radiating thermal energy, whereas spectral lines stand out like a sore thumb. To measure the effect from O2 & N2, we would need a cryogenic tube several kms long filled with dry O2 & N2 at a warmer temperature (minus GHGases), with cryogenic measuring equipment at one end, and an ideal BB radiator at whatever temperature we wanted at the other. The gas in the tube, (in contact with the cryogenic surface, would also need to be warmed to the correct temperature.) Such an apparatus is next to impossible to create!
7. At the top of the atmosphere, the IR thermal radiation can be measured from the Earth. But we cannot tell how much of that thermal radiation has been absorbed & re-emitted by the intervening gas - the reason is that the thermal curves have the same shape!! Only the GHG can be seen in their narrow spectra. Thus, the greenhouse effect of Oxygen and Nitrogen cannot be directly measured.
8. 99.964% of the DRY Atmosphere is made up of non GH gases (mainly O2, N2 and Argon).
9. The thermal power is the Area under the thermal curve, of which the area under the spectral lines of CO2 and CH4 is very small.
10. Apart from water and clouds, the bulk of the IR optical density in the atmosphere is caused by non Greenhouse gases. This has been estimated at around 65%. (debatable) The other 35% is caused by the GH gases, nearly all water. The GH gases do indeed have a major contribution to the overall optical density. As we move across the thermal band for a particular temperature, there will be a grey optical depth over most of the band, with narrow optically black lines where molecules have absorption spectra. When temperature changes, the band moves, but the spectral lines do not. Thus, IF the narrow bands caused nearly all the thermal absorption, the emissivity would extremely sensitive to temperature. The paper I linked in the first post in this thread shows that it is not. Ergo, the bulk of the greenhouse effect is caused by non-greenhouse gases, which was long recognized until the population needed to be re-educated!
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Oct 13, 2009 0:49:49 GMT
Question for radiant: In one of your posts you said air is heated by contact with the surface? If the earth is 7/10ths ocean and only 3/10th land ... I guess I'm confused. I thought the oceans were absorbing all that heat. How much of the air can possibly be heated by contact with the surface? So the water in a pool gets heated by magic? I always thought the sun heated it.
My actual question is " what kind of evidence will it take to admit that co2 is not the dominant player in atmospheric warming?"
From what I can tell co2 is a lagging indicator, and not a leading. It would be interesting to see if there isn't a flip flop and say that an increase in co2 is usually before a dramatic drop in temps and that should be the reason for banning co2.
The AWG crowd remains me of the logic in the old Soviet Union. The real evidence, however, won't go away. You can spin a story only so far. When a nuclear plant catches on fires and spreads radiation all over, it's hard to explain that away. We've had colder weather when the sun was quiet and warmer when it was active. That is not going away. Hooting and hollering about co2 being the main cause of warming when the sun was very active looks like poor science ( well it is poor science ). In fact, the sun had longer periods of being active since the fifties were there were double peaks in sunspot activity. I wasn't surprised that temps were warmer, and I won't be surprised when temps fall when the sun turns quiet. What will happen to your credibility when that happens? Will that be your legacy?
|
|