|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 6, 2016 1:36:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 6, 2016 2:49:58 GMT
At the rate since 1930, my lot in Florida should be above water for another 1820 years. I can live with that!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 6, 2016 3:06:51 GMT
King Canute rises again.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 6, 2016 5:05:42 GMT
Nautonnier said 4th Jan
[CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this.
This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. ]
If a CO2 molecule gains heat from N2 or O2 molecules by collision, the other molecules must cool.
If that heat is radiated away, the containing area of the gas container would cool.
Sounds like a First Law violation to me!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 6, 2016 19:07:21 GMT
If a CO2 molecule gains heat from N2 or O2 molecules by collision, the other molecules must cool. If that heat is radiated away, the containing area of the gas container would cool. Sounds like a First Law violation to me! What is the mystery?? We will expect the body of gas to cool because it is cooling by radiation leaving the body of gas. without radiation in or out it is effectively insulated unless it gains or loses heat by conduction
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 6, 2016 22:36:41 GMT
CO2 is a radiative gas. N2 and O2 are not radiative gases. If a mixture of N2 and O2 is at (say) 15C it will not radiate heat. Add CO2 to that mixture and the CO2 molecules will start radiating heat gained through collisions with N2 and O2 molecules. It does not need to have IR from the ground to do this. This would be an extremely simple experiment to set up but nobody seems to want to do it. My hypothesis is that the effect of CO2 is a net cooling. Atmospheric temperature lapse rate is solely due to pressure changes with altitude following Charles' Law. The wet lapse rate is the same change due to pressure mediated by the latent heat of water. The 'green house effect' is an illusion based on a misunderstanding of the gas laws and radiative physics and oversimplifications that remove convection from the equations to 'simplify' them. Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. Andrew, as I recall, the climate scientists say increasing CO2 heats the troposphere more than the surface. Do you have a reference which shows the opposite?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 7, 2016 1:55:03 GMT
Duwanye: CO2 is SUPPOSE to heat the troposphere more than the surface, according to climate scientists. HOWEVER, it is very observable that it is NOT heating the troposphere.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 7, 2016 1:59:04 GMT
"The cause of the rise in atmospheric pCO2 over the last deglaciation has been a puzzle since its discovery in the early 1980s. It is widely believed to be related to changes in carbon storage in the deep ocean, but the exact mechanisms responsible for releasing CO2 from the deep-ocean reservoir, including the role of ocean density stratification, remains an open question. Here we reconstruct changes in the intermediate-deep density gradient in the South Atlantic across the last deglaciation and find evidence of an early deglacial chemical destratification and a late deglacial density destratification These results suggest that other mechanisms, besides deep-ocean density destratification, were responsible for the ocean–atmosphere transfer of carbon over the deglacial period." www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/01/02/1511252113
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 7, 2016 6:33:28 GMT
Without radiative gases the atmosphere would be much hotter and the surface much colder. CO2 cools the atmosphere and warms the surface. Andrew, as I recall, the climate scientists say increasing CO2 heats the troposphere more than the surface. Do you have a reference which shows the opposite? We are talking about different things and in any case it is a bit hard to wrap your mind around the idea anyway. If there are no greenhouse gases then the so called 'effective temperature' is at the surface. As you add greenhouse gases then the same colder 'effective temperature' moves into the atmosphere and then higher and higher in the atmosphere as more gas is added while at the same time it becomes warmer and warmer lower down. Currently the theoretical 'effective temperature' is about 33,000 feet or something like that. By definition, this means the lower temperature that would be present at the surface without greenhouse gases is now higher in the atmosphere at 33,000 feet With or without greenhouse gases the atmosphere nearer the surface is heated or cooled by the surface, so the atmosphere nearer the surface is always going to be influenced by the surface, but higher in the atmosphere, without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere does not have a very effective way to cool so will become very hot far from the surface. So if you take todays situation and today add more greenhouse gas the effective temperature moves to be at a higher altitude in the trophosphere and all temperatures below that altitude are higher than the effective temperature. That is what the theory tells us. Appparently that is not happening as CO2 concentration rises suggesting C02 rising has no significant influence. If you consider what the earth could be like with a much reduced amount of greenhouse gas - ie no water on earth, then at 33,000 feet, since something like a quarter of the suns energy heats the atmosphere directly, there is no way it would be -11C at 33,000 feet in the summer. Today the surface is warmer because the atmosphere considered as one body is cooler, and heat from the atmosphere that returns to the surface is often recycled between the atmosphere and surface before it can escape to space.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 7, 2016 21:28:14 GMT
Andrew, as I recall, the climate scientists say increasing CO2 heats the troposphere more than the surface. Do you have a reference which shows the opposite? We are talking about different things and in any case it is a bit hard to wrap your mind around the idea anyway. If there are no greenhouse gases then the so called 'effective temperature' is at the surface. As you add greenhouse gases then the same colder 'effective temperature' moves into the atmosphere and then higher and higher in the atmosphere as more gas is added while at the same time it becomes warmer and warmer lower down. Currently the theoretical 'effective temperature' is about 33,000 feet or something like that. By definition, this means the lower temperature that would be present at the surface without greenhouse gases is now higher in the atmosphere at 33,000 feet With or without greenhouse gases the atmosphere nearer the surface is heated or cooled by the surface, so the atmosphere nearer the surface is always going to be influenced by the surface, but higher in the atmosphere, without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere does not have a very effective way to cool so will become very hot far from the surface. So if you take todays situation and today add more greenhouse gas the effective temperature moves to be at a higher altitude in the trophosphere and all temperatures below that altitude are higher than the effective temperature. That is what the theory tells us. Appparently that is not happening as CO2 concentration rises suggesting C02 rising has no significant influence. If you consider what the earth could be like with a much reduced amount of greenhouse gas - ie no water on earth, then at 33,000 feet, since something like a quarter of the suns energy heats the atmosphere directly, there is no way it would be -11C at 33,000 feet in the summer. Today the surface is warmer because the atmosphere considered as one body is cooler, and heat from the atmosphere that returns to the surface is often recycled between the atmosphere and surface before it can escape to space. Assuming by "effective temperature" you mean a greenhouse effect of 33degC or 255K. Then the effective temperature is not found at 33,000 feet. You appear to have deduced that by using the dry lapse rate of 1degC each 1000 feet. The appropriate value to use is the ELR of 1.95degC per 1000 feet, which equates to about 16,700 feet. . . .give or take a bit more than a 1000 feet to account for the accepted error margin for the average surface temperature of the planet. Because the temperature record tends to favor locations subject to the UHI effect, the greenhouse effect is probably closer to 35degC which would put the effective temperature height about right where it should be at 500mb, making the near surface temperature an artifact of the average potential energy converted to heat as the cause of the greenhouse effect. For this reason its been impossible to discard gravity, as opposed to greenhouse gases, as the sole cause of the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 7, 2016 22:59:39 GMT
Duwanye: CO2 is SUPPOSE to heat the troposphere more than the surface, according to climate scientists. HOWEVER, it is very observable that it is NOT heating the troposphere. Sigurdur, I'm with you. A few years back, the climate scientists talked about the rapidly warming atmosphere (perhaps 20% faster than the surface) and wrote that a "hot spot" was certain to have developed by now and this would confirm to the skeptics that their greenhouse gas theories were fact. None of this has happened as predicted. I'm sure Socold will remember these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 8, 2016 6:18:27 GMT
We are talking about different things and in any case it is a bit hard to wrap your mind around the idea anyway. If there are no greenhouse gases then the so called 'effective temperature' is at the surface. As you add greenhouse gases then the same colder 'effective temperature' moves into the atmosphere and then higher and higher in the atmosphere as more gas is added while at the same time it becomes warmer and warmer lower down. Currently the theoretical 'effective temperature' is about 33,000 feet or something like that. By definition, this means the lower temperature that would be present at the surface without greenhouse gases is now higher in the atmosphere at 33,000 feet With or without greenhouse gases the atmosphere nearer the surface is heated or cooled by the surface, so the atmosphere nearer the surface is always going to be influenced by the surface, but higher in the atmosphere, without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere does not have a very effective way to cool so will become very hot far from the surface. So if you take todays situation and today add more greenhouse gas the effective temperature moves to be at a higher altitude in the trophosphere and all temperatures below that altitude are higher than the effective temperature. That is what the theory tells us. Appparently that is not happening as CO2 concentration rises suggesting C02 rising has no significant influence. If you consider what the earth could be like with a much reduced amount of greenhouse gas - ie no water on earth, then at 33,000 feet, since something like a quarter of the suns energy heats the atmosphere directly, there is no way it would be -11C at 33,000 feet in the summer. Today the surface is warmer because the atmosphere considered as one body is cooler, and heat from the atmosphere that returns to the surface is often recycled between the atmosphere and surface before it can escape to space. Assuming by "effective temperature" you mean a greenhouse effect of 33degC or 255K. Then the effective temperature is not found at 33,000 feet. You appear to have deduced that by using the dry lapse rate of 1degC each 1000 feet. The appropriate value to use is the ELR of 1.95degC per 1000 feet, which equates to about 16,700 feet. . . .give or take a bit more than a 1000 feet to account for the accepted error margin for the average surface temperature of the planet. Because the temperature record tends to favor locations subject to the UHI effect, the greenhouse effect is probably closer to 35degC which would put the effective temperature height about right where it should be at 500mb, making the near surface temperature an artifact of the average potential energy converted to heat as the cause of the greenhouse effect. For this reason its been impossible to discard gravity, as opposed to greenhouse gases, as the sole cause of the greenhouse effect. What i was talking about appears to have very little to do with a lapse rate. In a very much simplified theoretical model of earth where the atmosphere is divided into an infinite number of layers then before green house gases are considered the ground surface layer is the only layer that is radiating all of the earths received energy to space. However, once you begin considering green house gases then at some height an atmospheric layer can be found that radiates the same amount of energy as the ground surface would do without greenhouse gases. This, at altitude atmospheric surface layer, can then only be the same temperature as the earths ground surface would be without greenhouse gases. The point I was trying to make was that in the troposphere CO2 will cause cooling by radiating heat energy gained from collisions O2 and N2 cannot do this. At any point in the radiating atmosphere any part that is cooled by radiation causes warming of another part. More radiators regardless of where they are positioned will cause more warming to be experienced. If you began with a warm brick in space and then added more bricks further and further out from that brick that are surrounding that brick then the interior brick becomes progressively more insulated from the coldness of space by the addition of each brick. Even the outer most brick is caused to be warmer by the presence of the other bricks. The addition of the outermost brick causes the next outermost brick to be warmer and then that extra warmth is transferred all the way to the innner most brick. In a similar manner if we add more insulation to a warm brick in space each piece of insulation that is added causes the outermost parts of the insulation to be warmer and causes also the very outermost insulation to be warmer than the temperature of space. Even so all parts of the insulation are directly involved in cooling the brick
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 8, 2016 8:27:25 GMT
Assuming by "effective temperature" you mean a greenhouse effect of 33degC or 255K. Then the effective temperature is not found at 33,000 feet. You appear to have deduced that by using the dry lapse rate of 1degC each 1000 feet. The appropriate value to use is the ELR of 1.95degC per 1000 feet, which equates to about 16,700 feet. . . .give or take a bit more than a 1000 feet to account for the accepted error margin for the average surface temperature of the planet. Because the temperature record tends to favor locations subject to the UHI effect, the greenhouse effect is probably closer to 35degC which would put the effective temperature height about right where it should be at 500mb, making the near surface temperature an artifact of the average potential energy converted to heat as the cause of the greenhouse effect. For this reason its been impossible to discard gravity, as opposed to greenhouse gases, as the sole cause of the greenhouse effect. What i was talking about appears to have very little to do with a lapse rate. In a theoretical model of earth where the atmosphere is divided into an infinite number of layers then before green house gases are considered the ground surface layer is the only layer that is radiating all of the earths received energy to space. However, once you begin considering green house gases then at some height an atmospheric layer can be found that radiates the same amount of energy as the ground surface would do without greenhouse gases. This, at altitude atmospheric surface layer, can then only be the same temperature as the earths ground surface would be without greenhouse gases. Explaining the details of what you believe and how you believe imaginary worlds would operate does not change the fact that on average you find the expected temperature of the surface at approximately 500mb or approximately 18,000 feet, not the 33,000 feet you suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 8, 2016 10:02:43 GMT
What i was talking about appears to have very little to do with a lapse rate. In a theoretical model of earth where the atmosphere is divided into an infinite number of layers then before green house gases are considered the ground surface layer is the only layer that is radiating all of the earths received energy to space. However, once you begin considering green house gases then at some height an atmospheric layer can be found that radiates the same amount of energy as the ground surface would do without greenhouse gases. This, at altitude atmospheric surface layer, can then only be the same temperature as the earths ground surface would be without greenhouse gases. Explaining the details of what you believe and how you believe imaginary worlds would operate does not change the fact that on average you find the expected temperature of the surface at approximately 500mb or approximately 18,000 feet, not the 33,000 feet you suggested. It seems to me you tend to believe you are the possessor of facts while others only have imaginations.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 8, 2016 13:14:17 GMT
The O2 and N2 in the troposphere cannot radiate or absorb infrared heat energy. If you put a small amount of CO2 into that mixture then the troposphere will start radiating infrared, as CO2 molecules radiate energy that was gained through collision with N2 and O2 molecules there may be some heating of CO2 molecules by infrared from other CO2 molecules but in most cases the heat radiates to space. If it goes to the surface it will increase evaporation on water (around 75% of the surface) which will also result eventually in IR radiation to space. If it hits a solid surface that surface will radiate again but at a higher rate (Boltzmann)and the IR may get intercepted by CO2 but more than likely go to space. IR energy travels at the speed of light - so there will be very little delay even if it bounces around a few times.
Yes there may be other things in space that get warmed by the IR leaving earth - but we are concerned about the troposphere.
|
|