|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 7, 2019 4:12:53 GMT
This been done before?? 🤔 Does the B in Bazmd stand for Bary? I think that variants of the orbital periods of the planets have been done in various ways several times. It all comes down to the 'wobble' of the Sun due to the orbit of the Sun around the barycenter rather than the heliocentric idea of a stationary Sun with tides. I would be interested in the transit of the barycenter through the Sun or well outside the Sun and its effect on the rotation/momentum/inertia of the layers of the Sun as they are moving prograde or retrogade against the orbit around the barycenter. Just a graph of solar activity against the distance of the barycenter from the Solar center would be interesting. If the prograde/retrograde could be added that would be a plus ;-)
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 20, 2019 5:58:49 GMT
Cloud Cover in Columbia, Missouri Continues to Increase (2012-2019) It is low cloud cover that regulates world temperature Missouriboy and we are already seeing increase in low clouds (along with record amounts of precipitation taking place) throughout the world under this first phase of global cooling under the Sun's quiescent cycle.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 26, 2019 13:12:55 GMT
This is really a sign things are staying cool.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 28, 2019 7:47:52 GMT
This is really a sign things are staying cool. Certainly a small taste of it. At this point in time though this might not be anymore of a glitch in the LIA recovery than say the period at the end of the 19th century and first decade of the 20th century. If one looks closely at ocean uptake figures there is a lot of uncertainty but what is clear is deep ocean uptake if probably a process that takes more than a thousand years and the surface ocean (mixing zone) adjustment is a process believed to take 10 or more years. With solarcycle 23 averaging higher than the 300 year solar record it would have a small warming influence contributing to a flagging warming occurring over the past 17 years since its maximum in 2001. Faced with a second lower than average solar cycle we may well over the next 12 to 15 years see some significant cooling set in. Of course that will depend upon whether net atmosphere forcing is plus or minus and how much a continuing LIA recovery tends to offset it. Cooling should be very gradual unless one of those observed sudden cooling events occur, which also might be an oceanic thing akin to what is frequently seen in lakes (annually in most lakes to some degree) with sudden water overturnings. Besides the huge uncertainties surrounding all that and climate models that completely ignore uncertainty; I see as a huge uncertainty of Modtran-based CO2 forcing being a surface forcing. Not many scientists are questioning the primary pre-feedback sensitivity figure for CO2. But my experience suggests that Modtran operates on a basis of trailer trash insulation concepts. . . .where disreputable marketing in the past preyed upon the less fortunate with suggested great insulation values of plastering your ceilings with aluminum foil to reflect the heat back into your living space when its cold outside. Standards for insulation have since changed making such marketing appeals fraudulent. Yet the concept is being reinvented for climate science. The important take away is no solid uninsulated surface between you and the sky on a cold night is going to slow heat loss. It will rate zero insulation the same as a single glazed window. The only reason heat loss slowing occurs in the earth's greenhouse effect is because convection is stopped at the edge of space and does not continue into space as it does on the outside of a home window. That fact explains why the atmosphere emits 199watts of power to space out of 398 watts being emitted from the surface (give or take some for surface emissions, the atmospheric window, and uncertainty of the emissivity of the surface and several other uncertainties in all the radiation budgets that are typically quite large) Modtran is likely the wrong surface pre-feedback sensitivity for CO2 because quite simply its a total system sensitivity calculation and not a surface sensitivity. . . .where upon I invoke Nautonnier's famous saying that heat in the atmosphere is heat on its way to space. And indeed that should be the case. Its much of what Dr. Lindzen talks of in his iris theory. CO2 only gets one swing at the ball. Therefore what the atmosphere absorbs of CO2 as a light beam travels through it isn't necessarily what the surface sees of it. What you see in the greenhouse effect is essentially 200watts being emitted by the atmosphere, exactly what you would expect from a single pane of glass. placed above the earth's surface instead of an atmosphere. And you get a greenhouse effect from it because convection isn't on the space side of the glass taking another 200watts like with a single pane of glass. Of course this analysis doesn't explain the greenhouse effect. There is more to come on this topic. But thinking the problem through is really harmed by the lack of experimental data regarding just about every parameter one has to wrestle with. Emissivity and its prominence in the Stefan-Boltzmann (SB) equations is probably the biggest problem. The standard for net radiation being the difference between two SB equations means that emissivity has no role in determining the expected temperature of the earth. Yet climate science without explanation believes it does increasing the greenhouse effect essentially using the negative feedback of water vapor formed clouds and snowfall to create most of the albedo effect. So not only is climate science hiding negative feedback from the water cycle its using that missing feedback to increase the potency of greenhouse effect and by extension the potency of CO2 pre-feedback sensitivity. Dr. William Happer apparently agrees with that setting the greenhouse effect at 9.5C instead of the IPCC 33C. I have been saying thats the case for quite a few years. There must be some doubt about how the SB equations apply to planets but climate science seems too resistant to talk about anything they can't completely explain lest it seed doubt. And that doubt is exactly what the citizens of this planet should demand in their deliberations over what to do about anything. This is why its not the role for science to recommend policy but instead to simply inform policy. And we are paying an awful lot of scientists to do that job and they aren't producing. That's thats the problem that needs the most fixing and dang if I don't know how to make that happen! Hmmm, divert climate funds of anybody not producing to building that "racist" wall to rationalize immigration? Gee why not?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 31, 2019 18:14:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 31, 2019 20:29:20 GMT
Logic is abandoned at Wonderland's doorstep.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 31, 2019 23:54:26 GMT
Icefisher: "There is more to come on this topic."
C'mon Ice. What do you have up your sleeve?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 3:59:42 GMT
Icefisher: " There is more to come on this topic." C'mon Ice. What do you have up your sleeve? Its coming along! Its really hard to avoid turning it into an exceptionally long super boring read. If I had a handle on all the physical processes involved it would be easy. Typically I find myself trying to create two lines of reasonings as the matter really doesn't matter to the outcome as both lines of reasoning are wrong for different reasons. 1. How hot would a thin pieces of blackened and polished sheet metal get if hung outside of a space craft oriented perpendicular to the sun? I have down what the answer is on the surface of the earth as its all in basic engineering. Those space studies though are a bit harder to get ones hands on. 2. Gas laws state that temperature and pressure and volume are proportionally related. So here is a mind twister. As air rises it cools proportionally with altitude and drop in pressure. Say for example using simple math if temperature is 2 and pressure is 2 when you move the air up to pressure 1 temperature should be 1. Now while it sits here lets say it cools by half. Pressure has not changed its still 1 but now the temperature is .5. So now the convective loop comes in and move the air back to the surface so pressure is now 2 again. But the temperature is now 1 having also doubled. Yet only enough radiation was emitted to change the temperature by .5, and now after completely the convective cycle a total of 1 has been emitted. You hear how energy isn't lost by changing the pressure. Instead it converts from kinetic energy into potential energy. So how can that be. Potential energy can't emit radiation yet its being lost in the process. I am sure there must be answer to this and its just my lack of physics education that is fouling me up. As the only other logical choice would be I died 12 years ago and simply living in a personal self designed hell where scientists are screwing with me. Anyway those two questions haunt me constantly. If I could get an answer to them it would help my concentration on finishing the story/book/shortstory/article I am working on. I will apologize in advance if that gives anybody else a headache.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 2, 2019 5:33:41 GMT
For number 2 you need to consider the number of molecules in the volume of gas. If you keep the number of molecules the same and the volume the same then the pressure is the same. If the volume is at a higher altitude and is uncontained then the number of molecules is less so the total amount of kinetic energy of those molecules has reduced because there are less molecules but that reduced number of molecules have also more potential energy with altitude. If the altitude of that uncontained volume is reduced the number of molecules increases as the pressure increases, therefore the total kinetic energy (the sum of each molecule's kinetic energy) in that volume also increases. This is why Avogadro's hypothesis is so important.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Aug 2, 2019 6:46:54 GMT
Ice, take heart from knowing the scientists are screwing with themselves too. On almost any blog where the physics of climate is discussed, you only have to read the comments to understand what I mean. Unfortunately, I am of absolutely no help to you because I don't understand ** the {incredibly complex} physics, interactions and relationships that are involved. ** and I'm far too old to start learning BUT, I can continue to ask about your progress if that would help. PS: Could you distil your conundrum and ask people like Judith Curry, Roy Spencer etc directly? Maybe even Dr Rex Fleming ( rex@rexfleming.com) who has recently 'come out'.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 7:16:30 GMT
For number 2 you need to consider the number of molecules in the volume of gas. If you keep the number of molecules the same and the volume the same then the pressure is the same. If the volume is at a higher altitude and is uncontained then the number of molecules is less so the total amount of kinetic energy of those molecules has reduced because there are less molecules but that reduced number of molecules have also more potential energy with altitude. If the altitude of that uncontained volume is reduced the number of molecules increases as the pressure increases, therefore the total kinetic energy (the sum of each molecule's kinetic energy) in that volume also increases. This is why Avogadro's hypothesis is so important. I think but am not sure if I already considered that. I realize the volume changes. But the volume shrinks again when the volume of air falls. If no energy is lost by radiation to space. This volume could go up and down in the atmosphere without losing any energy. so this volume could yoyo in the atmosphere warming and cooling the same, expanding and contracting the same as long as no energy is lost by some other means like radiation. But if at top of the atmosphere it loses energy by radiation then falls; the proportionality of the warming on the fall would seem to mandate including some of the potential energy as I outlined in the equations I sent in reply to Ratty. But the question is how was the potential energy lost. I am thinking those laws are idealized for an insulated container but its puzzling. I remember charging scuba tanks. They would get hot filling them up so you had to soak them in a barrel of water to aid the cooling while filling them to 2000psi. Inside the tank the gas is for all intents and purposes cooling evenly because of diffusion. So is cooling synonymous for all practical purposes with falling in a gas? And warming synonymous for all practical purposes with rising? If that's the case then the mainstream GHE is fukt as the entire mainstream theory rests on a resistance to convection. See also the addition I added to question 1. Forgot to put the most important experiment in the space ship.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 7:17:57 GMT
then there is question one. I said a sheet of metal only. I should have added you also need a space ship window with an atmosphere on one side and the ability to measure the temperature of the window on both sides of the window. In window technology you have two equal streams of energy being emitted from the walls inside of a room toward a window to outdoors. I have checked myself the theory with an IR detector. The window temperature on both sides of the window is almost exactly half way between the indoor and outdoor temperature. When 40 outside and 70 on the inside the window is going to be approximately 55degrees on both sides. Obviously it floated there being directed to by the two streams of energy. Simple math. Inside the energy stream is 1watt per radiation and 1 watt per convection. The window rejects half of each and assume a temperature exactly enough to cool the room with no resistance with two outside streams leaving at .5 each, equaling the necessary 1 resistance value.
If the wind is blowing outside then the .5 convection will rise and the window will cool drawing more heat from inside through the window even though the lower of the temperature is decreasing outside loss of radiation.
So window designs need to know something about wind conditions.
Anyway back to the window without wind. Add a second layer of glass and that outside stream of .5 is again halved, the two panes of glass set up a condition that could only be overridden by 4 equal means of losing heat. But because there are only two, dual pane glass creates insulation.
However, the atmosphere is not a solid thus the original 1 value convection simply runs from the surface right to the top of the atmosphere and what the radiation does is meaningless until it gets to that space interface where convection can take heat no further. Enter the need for the space ship window experiment to wrap up the whole story. If indeed only 1/2 the radiation of the surface can depart from this location you have a greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases, but looking at NASA radiation budgets it doesn't look like you are going to get more. Unless you close that first atmosphere surface window thats almost all not in the CO2 range, thus the need for this trailer trash insulation theory that is blown apart by common home building technology of windows.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 2, 2019 7:59:37 GMT
For number 2 you need to consider the number of molecules in the volume of gas. If you keep the number of molecules the same and the volume the same then the pressure is the same. If the volume is at a higher altitude and is uncontained then the number of molecules is less so the total amount of kinetic energy of those molecules has reduced because there are less molecules but that reduced number of molecules have also more potential energy with altitude. If the altitude of that uncontained volume is reduced the number of molecules increases as the pressure increases, therefore the total kinetic energy (the sum of each molecule's kinetic energy) in that volume also increases. This is why Avogadro's hypothesis is so important. I think but am not sure if I already considered that. I realize the volume changes. But the volume shrinks again when the volume of air falls. If no energy is lost by radiation to space. This volume could go up and down in the atmosphere without losing any energy. so this volume could yoyo in the atmosphere warming and cooling the same, expanding and contracting the same as long as no energy is lost by some other means like radiation. But if at top of the atmosphere it loses energy by radiation then falls; the proportionality of the warming on the fall would seem to mandate including some of the potential energy as I outlined in the equations I sent in reply to Ratty. But the question is how was the potential energy lost. I am thinking those laws are idealized for an insulated container but its puzzling. I remember charging scuba tanks. They would get hot filling them up so you had to soak them in a barrel of water to aid the cooling while filling them to 2000psi. Inside the tank the gas is for all intents and purposes cooling evenly because of diffusion. So is cooling synonymous for all practical purposes with falling in a gas? And warming synonymous for all practical purposes with rising? If that's the case then the mainstream GHE is fukt as the entire mainstream theory rests on a resistance to convection. See also the addition I added to question 1. Forgot to put the most important experiment in the space ship. If you allow all to vary volume increase with pressure drop then there is no change in temperature. The volume remains the same as you rise in altitude so the number of molecules in the volume reduces (pressure reducing with altitude) so the total kinetic energy reduces without reducing the kinetic energy of an individual molecule.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2019 8:00:07 GMT
Ice, take heart from knowing the scientists are screwing with themselves too. On almost any blog where the physics of climate is discussed, you only have to read the comments to understand what I mean. Unfortunately, I am of absolutely no help to you because I don't understand ** the {incredibly complex} physics, interactions and relationships that are involved. ** and I'm far too old to start learning BUT, I can continue to ask about your progress if that would help. PS: Could you distil your conundrum and ask people like Judith Curry, Roy Spencer etc directly? Maybe even Dr Rex Fleming ( rex@rexfleming.com) who has recently 'come out'. well I am planning a surprise ending to all this. Dr. Curry liked the ending and was encouraging on that, but criticized how I laid into the mainstream theory. She said she would like to help but didn't have time to go into it. I am still wrestling with how far to go.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 2, 2019 14:35:13 GMT
Icefisher: " There is more to come on this topic." C'mon Ice. What do you have up your sleeve? Its coming along! Its really hard to avoid turning it into an exceptionally long super boring read. If I had a handle on all the physical processes involved it would be easy. Typically I find myself trying to create two lines of reasonings as the matter really doesn't matter to the outcome as both lines of reasoning are wrong for different reasons. 1. How hot would a thin pieces of blackened and polished sheet metal get if hung outside of a space craft oriented perpendicular to the sun? I have down what the answer is on the surface of the earth as its all in basic engineering. Those space studies though are a bit harder to get ones hands on. 2. Gas laws state that temperature and pressure and volume are proportionally related. So here is a mind twister. As air rises it cools proportionally with altitude and drop in pressure. Say for example using simple math if temperature is 2 and pressure is 2 when you move the air up to pressure 1 temperature should be 1. Now while it sits here lets say it cools by half. Pressure has not changed its still 1 but now the temperature is .5. So now the convective loop comes in and move the air back to the surface so pressure is now 2 again. But the temperature is now 1 having also doubled. Yet only enough radiation was emitted to change the temperature by .5, and now after completely the convective cycle a total of 1 has been emitted. You hear how energy isn't lost by changing the pressure. Instead it converts from kinetic energy into potential energy. So how can that be. Potential energy can't emit radiation yet its being lost in the process. I am sure there must be answer to this and its just my lack of physics education that is fouling me up. As the only other logical choice would be I died 12 years ago and simply living in a personal self designed hell where scientists are screwing with me. Anyway those two questions haunt me constantly. If I could get an answer to them it would help my concentration on finishing the story/book/shortstory/article I am working on. I will apologize in advance if that gives anybody else a headache. Icefisher, against my better judgment, I’m going to respond to your question number 1. We’ll see how it goes. Assuming the metal pieces are connected to the spacecraft by a non-conductive material, convection and conduction play no role. With radiation (incoming and outgoing) being the only determinant of the temperature, the Stefan-Boltzmann laws can be used. It’s easy to find a calculation of earth’s temperature with no atmosphere using Stefan-Boltzmann. The calculation could be adjusted to estimate the temperature of a metal piece in space. If the metal pieces are not the same distance from the sun as the earth then an adjustment is required. If the albedo is different, then an adjustment is required. Since the metal pieces are flat rather than spherical an adjustment is required. A flat circular flat object with the same circumference as a sphere will have half the surface area of a sphere. This will not affect the incoming radiation amount since a circular flat piece perpendicular to the sun will receive the same amount of radiation energy as a sphere of the same circumference. But because of the area difference the outgoing emissions at any given temperature will only be half as much. This means the temperature will need to be higher in order to emit enough radiation energy to offset the incoming radiation.
|
|