|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 18, 2009 10:59:28 GMT
Just as the increased solar output in the late 60's didn't show up till the mid 70's. What "increased solar output in the late 60's"? Solar Cycle 20 was the weakest cycle in the second half of the 20th century. SC20 began in 1964 and ended in ~1976. Throughout that period global temperatures remained more or less flat. It's rather a problem for the solar theorists. Almost as soon as SC20 ended the late 20th century warming began. Yet throughout the strongest cycle ever recorded (i.e. SC 19) global temperatures were falling. Again, agreed. The stratosphere (the real subject of this thread) changed almost immediately as it did recently. Everyone agrees there really can be at least SOME "heat in the pipe" in the troposphere because there's interaction with the oceans. But in the tenuous, stagnant stratosphere there's just nowhere for heat to lurk undetected.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Oct 18, 2009 11:11:30 GMT
1. Water vapour is present in the stratosphere in significant quantities. What do you mean by "significant quantities"? The earth's stratosphere is, to all intents and purposes, 'dry'. If the surface warms then more water will be present in the stratosphere which will cool the stratosphereIt depends on what is causing the warming. If it is due to ghgs then the stratosphere should cool. If, on the other hand, it is due to increased solar output then the stratosphere should warm. You need to do your own reading on water in the stratosphere and find that there is significant quantities there. The significance comes from the astonishing ability of water to absorb radiation and enable stratospheric chemistry. I see also that Steve felt that 2 inches of water was not significant, whereas in fact all of outgoing emissions of significance are absorbed in 0.01mm of water. Most of us are lacking knowledge about water which is one of the reasons why the American Chemical Society sent letters of outrage to the editor of their journal who was promoting unproven ideas about the atmosphere. Lief Svaalgaard will tell you that solar output is essentially constant. As higher frequencies are observed to fall low band frequencies increase. Magnetic influences might be capable of altering chemistry since solar flares are observed to change the chemistry. Humans dont know much about their world at this point in time. Solar output is almost totally absorbed in the furthest UV area and is very significantly absorbed in the IR band also. If one falls and one rises the result will be no difference. No disrespect, but the spectral qualities of water vapor are different from liquid water: www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlThe water content of the stratosphere is quite low: ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1967)006%3C0142%3ARIOSWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 18, 2009 11:23:26 GMT
You need to do your own reading on water in the stratosphere and find that there is significant quantities there. The significance comes from the astonishing ability of water to absorb radiation and enable stratospheric chemistry. I see also that Steve felt that 2 inches of water was not significant, whereas in fact all of outgoing emissions of significance are absorbed in 0.01mm of water. Most of us are lacking knowledge about water which is one of the reasons why the American Chemical Society sent letters of outrage to the editor of their journal who was promoting unproven ideas about the atmosphere. Lief Svaalgaard will tell you that solar output is essentially constant. As higher frequencies are observed to fall low band frequencies increase. Magnetic influences might be capable of altering chemistry since solar flares are observed to change the chemistry. Humans dont know much about their world at this point in time. Solar output is almost totally absorbed in the furthest UV area and is very significantly absorbed in the IR band also. If one falls and one rises the result will be no difference. No disrespect, but the spectral qualities of water vapor are different from liquid water: www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.htmlThe water content of the stratosphere is quite low: ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1967)006%3C0142%3ARIOSWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2Experimentation will always be better than calculations which involve assumptions about nature that are not in truth reflected in what is real about nature I thought water was mainly present as ice in the stratosphere? So i agree my comments were in that respect wrong. As for the spectra of water vapour and water being different, John Tyndall showed that 97% of the radiation from water vapour produced by an oxyhydrogen flame at a temperature of 5898F is absorbed by 1mm of water at 60F. That flame is almost colourless but might also be emitting UV from the water emissions which i assume would also have warmed his thermocouple if they were present. Evidently there must be quite an overlap of the spectra. The spectra you provided implies no overlap and only has a final source of 'David Weis' with no other information about him Also water will co exist with its vapour in equilibrium. If water vapour is present there will be an amount of water also and as temperature falls there will be more water and less vapour we can reason. The atmosphere is not hot. Spectra of water vapour are produced using steam at for example 100C. Tyndall also used an electric light sufficiently hot to almost boil water to pass the radiation from the light thru that water and then thru ice with no melting observed where a thermocouple the other side of the ice was shown to indicate IR radiation passing thru the ice which you would expect from such hot incandescent source. Tyndall said he could detect no differences between water ice and vapour Tyndalls results must be saying something about the real world For example your source says 'for the same amount of ice liquid or water vapour'. What does that mean? 1mm of vapour compared to 1mm of liquid? We dont know because we dont have a reference to check. all we have is "The original figure was from David Weis. which seems to arise from the following 'private communication from David Weis' books.google.co.nz/books?id=6aTQkdvKfWgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA184#v=onepage&q=&f=false Edit: Now figured out why the weiss graph: seems so different to this: The weiss graphs entire range is from only either side of the strongest part of the water absorption from 2.5 to 3.6 micron on the graph of water only So that it only includes this part: Which means that water vapour probably absorbs this frequency in 1mm of precipitated water equivalent
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 12:10:40 GMT
1. Water vapour is present in the stratosphere in significant quantities. What do you mean by "significant quantities"? The earth's stratosphere is, to all intents and purposes, 'dry'. If the surface warms then more water will be present in the stratosphere which will cool the stratosphereIt depends on what is causing the warming. If it is due to ghgs then the stratosphere should cool. If, on the other hand, it is due to increased solar output then the stratosphere should warm. "What do you mean by "significant quantities"? The earth's stratosphere is, to all intents and purposes, 'dry'. "Actually not true. The Noctilucent Clouds or Polar Mesospheric Clouds are ice crystals way above the tropopause. So there is water up there.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 12:52:21 GMT
From this discussion there appears to be the impression that there is a nice distinct height at which there is a flat tropopause and then everything changes abruptly to stratosphere. This is not the case at all there are gravity / Kelvin waves that surge upward or along the atmospheric 'layers' sometimes these break leading to a effects like the sudden stratospheric warming and break up or reversal of the polar vortex. The stratosphere can have significant effects on the tropospheric behavior and vice versa. "The atmosphere exhibits many wavelike motions with a variety of space- and timescales ranging from slow-moving planetary scale waves to much faster and smaller gravity waves, each playing important roles in the behavior of the stratosphere. It has long been known that conditions in the stratosphere are controlled by wave driving from the troposphere, but it has been assumed that the stratosphere has little effect on the troposphere. Stratospheric variations, especially variations in the strength of the polar vortex, appear to be involved in feedback processes that in turn alter weather patterns in the troposphere. Stratospheric variations are largest during the winter season, and they are influenced by changes in solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, changes in greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, and the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Stratospheric circulation anomalies are caused mainly by wave forcing from the dense troposphere. Stochastic variations in the troposphere during northern hemispheric winter lead to high-frequency changes in the planetary wave flux upward into the stratosphere (Holton 1983).When these waves break, they deposit momentum in the stratosphere, slowing the zonal mean wind and weakening the polar vortex. The interaction of the waves with the mean flow tends to draw these zonal wind anomalies downward through the stratosphere (Andrews et al. 1987; Andrews 2000; Martin 2006)."www.springerlink.com/content/r717714347u17693/"A number of field-campaigns in the tropics have been conducted in the recent years with two different LIDAR systems at Paramaribo in Suriname (5.8 N, 55.2 W). The lidars detect particles in the atmosphere with high vertical and temporal resolution and are capable of detecting extremely thin cloud layers which frequently occur in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). Radiosonde as well as operational ECMWF analysis show that temperature anomalies caused by equatorial Kelvin waves propagate downward, well below the cold point tropopause (CPT). We find a clear correlation between the temperature anomalies introduced by these waves and the occurrence of thin cirrus in the TTL. In particular we found that extremely thin ice clouds form regularly where cold anomalies shift the tropopause to high altitudes. This finding suggests an influence of Kelvin wave activity on the dehydration in the TTL and thus on the global stratospheric water vapour concentration. " www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/8/2849/2008/acpd-8-2849-2008-print.pdf Tropopause to mesopause gravity waves in August: Measurement and modeling
"Global gravity wave distributions are retrieved from infrared emission limb soundings taken by the CRISTA instrument in August 1997 and by the SABER instrument in August 2003. The investigated altitudes cover the whole middle atmosphere from the tropopause to the mesopause. The data agree semi-quantitatively in their salient features and only small deviations due to the different meteorological conditions in the two years are observed. Of particular interest is the decrease of gravity wave activity at the top of the southern polar vortex and an accompanying shift of gravity wave activity towards the subtropics in the mesosphere. We emulate this feature by two conceptionally different models, the Warner and McIntyre spectral parameterization scheme and the GROGRAT gravity wave ray tracer. Both models indicate that saturation limits and gravity wave breaking are the governing processes in creating this structure. Also, both models can well reproduce the global distributions except for two important points: (1) convectively generated gravity waves in the northern subtropics are largely underestimated; (2) northern hemisphere high latitude activity is grossly overestimated. These points indicate that gravity wave distribution in general circulation models are not fully realistic. Refined measurements are required to constrain more realistic gravity wave source distributions."www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-4KPX93K-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1052906845&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6ae311c6a5bb8f89353afc925bdd365a
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 18, 2009 17:50:21 GMT
bernath.uwaterloo.ca/media/240.pdfWater vapour is crucial for the energy balance of the earth.2 Not only is it the most important absorber of out-going thermal radiation (greenhouse gas) but water is responsible for about 70% of the atmospheric absorption of in-coming solar radiation.156 There is a major problem in our understanding of this balance because the calculated average atmospheric absorption is about 25% (25 W m2) less than observed.156,157 Water is the obvious suspect for this ‘‘missing absorber.’’
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 18:00:45 GMT
Radiant - I agree completely - but its an uphill battle to get some people to accept the importance of water vapor and its multiple effects including its ability to carry latent heat until state changes.
Unfortunately, the 'heat only moves through the atmosphere by radiation' group do not understand this and repeatedly revert back to radiation formulae and go down rat-holes arguing about radiation minutiae. Its a gap in their logic they appear to be completely unaware of.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 20:57:36 GMT
the 'heat only moves through the atmosphere by radiation' group No such group
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 18, 2009 21:16:01 GMT
the 'heat only moves through the atmosphere by radiation' group No such group Socold Perhaps you could help raise the level of science on the board by commenting on the importance for very high altitude water transport and its recognised significance in earths climate so that those who think that there is insignificant water in the stratosphere or no water in a desert wont needless clutter the board with defences of computer simulations of global warming which then motivate other people to ridicule the models unfairly?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 19, 2009 1:05:28 GMT
the 'heat only moves through the atmosphere by radiation' group No such group I tend to agree with Radiant SoCold next time you mention 3.7WM -2 you will also provide the quantification of the hydrologic cycle. As you now say there is no 'its only radiation' group.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Nov 9, 2016 19:06:07 GMT
www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2016/atmospheric-waves-awareness.htmlThe above is a pretty good explanation on atmospheric waves, I have a feeling these might become very relevant in the northern hemisphere the next few months to understand the mechanics behind the weather. A few good points in the previous discussion too.....I don't know who is the longest running contributer to this forum, but Naut is Def in the running!!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 7, 2017 18:56:22 GMT
None of the greenhouse gases can penetrate more than a tiny distance into the freezing cold water containing trophosphere where absorptions will send the full spectrum of waters frequencies upwards and downwards equally. All of waters downwards frequencies will be absorbed in a tiny distance to be emitted upwards and downwards. The area is already freezing cold.I'm not sure this has any relevance to my question. I don't believe Magellan's plot does either - apart, that is, from showing that there has been no stratospheric cooling in the past few years. Let's try again: If the current low solar activity (and the associated drop in UV output) really is a significant driver in the earth's climate shouldn't it be evident in the stratospheric temperatures, i.e. shouldn't the stratosphere be cooling? Not quite yet from what I have read. Wait for another 3-4 years and you will see the influence from the drop in UV and the low solar activity. Just as the increased solar output in the late 60's didn't show up till the mid 70's. Dya feel this holds true Sig?? Digging around looking at the emerging P Vortex and watching the subdued strat temps. Came across this.... reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/the-arctic-stratosphere-so-cold-today/Edit: it appears I do this every year...🤔
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 7, 2017 20:43:26 GMT
Not quite yet from what I have read. Wait for another 3-4 years and you will see the influence from the drop in UV and the low solar activity. Just as the increased solar output in the late 60's didn't show up till the mid 70's. Dya feel this holds true Sig?? Digging around looking at the emerging P Vortex and watching the subdued strat temps. Came across this.... reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/the-arctic-stratosphere-so-cold-today/Edit: it appears I do this every year...🤔 A very apt URL .... "....so-cold-today/...."
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 7, 2017 22:30:36 GMT
[ Snip ]A very apt URL .... "....so-cold-today/...." Where is SoCold today, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 7, 2017 22:44:34 GMT
[ Snip ]A very apt URL .... "....so-cold-today/...." Where is SoCold today, I wonder? Not been here for 18 months or so...
|
|