|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 3, 2019 16:19:07 GMT
Nautonnier, do you believe this? I neither believe nor disbelieve I put it up for people's interest and for inquiring minds to assess. In the same way I put up the link to a position that ENSO potentially had geological (geographic?) causes. It is useful to step outside bubbles occasionally and ask why the models are accepted at all, when large affects that they predict to exist are not found by any trusted observational systems. Any other field of science would have discarded the models as falsified.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 3, 2019 19:55:53 GMT
In that case Duwayne you will be able to explain where and how the latent heat from the condensing/freezing water goes. It does NOT heat the upper troposphere as is expected from sensible heat as there is no tropospheric hot spot. While I agree that the infrared sensor output has been 'adjusted' to what the climate scientists think it should be. So the conversion is based on an assumption. However, satellite imagery DOES show infrared being radiated. Infrared does not have a temperature it is radiation. Perhaps their assumptions on the 'temperature' are based on the non-existent hot spot. Nautonnier, believe it or not, I am trying to be helpful here by responding to your request for comments. I was expecting a big thank you for pointing out that the satellite infrared imagery charts show temperature differentials, not radiation quantity differences. You ask where the latent heat goes if it's not radiated. I would expect that most of the heat gets redistributed within the confines of the earth and its atmosphere towards an equilibrium “lapse rate” temperature profile. How does this happen? Convection is key. Did you notice the 185MPH winds in hurricane Dorian? And did you notice that the rain falls out of the storm into the sea and earth in quantities of as much as 12 inches a day? Tremendous quantities of heat are released from latent heat and tremendous quantities are redistributed via convection. There’s conduction as well. Each molecule of gas collides with other molecules and exchanges heat. At 20,000 feet, each molecule collides several million times per second with neighboring molecules. If the latent heat gets redistributed, why would there be a “hot spot”? The redistribution is not instantaneous. In an area where there is an almost constant thunderstorm there would be a slightly elevated temperature which is called the "hot spot". Why is the “hot spot” not there? It’s my understanding that the balloons (radiosondes) show very slightly elevated temperatures in the areas where the hot spots were supposed to be but not up to the levels predicted. The logical conclusion is that the models over-predicted the level of global warming, particularly with respect to “feedback effects”. Hopefully that helps.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2019 1:13:43 GMT
It is well known/understood that the bias of GCM's is hot.
The main radiative gas continues to be Water Vapor. The percentage of increased radiative activity by CO2 is an extremely small percentage of the whole.
The mistake that the modelers continue to investigate is the "feedback'. That is where the models achieve the extreme warming. Empirical analysis doesn't confirm the results.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 4, 2019 4:53:24 GMT
Duwayne, how do we know that?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2019 11:45:19 GMT
In that case Duwayne you will be able to explain where and how the latent heat from the condensing/freezing water goes. It does NOT heat the upper troposphere as is expected from sensible heat as there is no tropospheric hot spot. While I agree that the infrared sensor output has been 'adjusted' to what the climate scientists think it should be. So the conversion is based on an assumption. However, satellite imagery DOES show infrared being radiated. Infrared does not have a temperature it is radiation. Perhaps their assumptions on the 'temperature' are based on the non-existent hot spot. Nautonnier, believe it or not, I am trying to be helpful here by responding to your request for comments. I was expecting a big thank you for pointing out that the satellite infrared imagery charts show temperature differentials, not radiation quantity differences. You ask where the latent heat goes if it's not radiated. I would expect that most of the heat gets redistributed within the confines of the earth and its atmosphere towards an equilibrium “lapse rate” temperature profile. How does this happen? Convection is key. Did you notice the 185MPH winds in hurricane Dorian? And did you notice that the rain falls out of the storm into the sea and earth in quantities of as much as 12 inches a day? Tremendous quantities of heat are released from latent heat and tremendous quantities are redistributed via convection. There’s conduction as well. Each molecule of gas collides with other molecules and exchanges heat. At 20,000 feet, each molecule collides several million times per second with neighboring molecules. If the latent heat gets redistributed, why would there be a “hot spot”? The redistribution is not instantaneous. In an area where there is an almost constant thunderstorm there would be a slightly elevated temperature which is called the "hot spot". Why is the “hot spot” not there? It’s my understanding that the balloons (radiosondes) show very slightly elevated temperatures in the areas where the hot spots were supposed to be but not up to the levels predicted. The logical conclusion is that the models over-predicted the level of global warming, particularly with respect to “feedback effects”. Hopefully that helps. So again - a water molecule in a droplet of water molecules ' gives up its latent heat of fusion' which has been hidden somewhere in the molecule - by collision with gas molecules hitting the outside of the droplet?? I think if there are sufficient collisions then kinetic energy will be transferred to any water molecule this is 'sensible heat' from the surrounding gas. Are we saying that water cannot freeze unless there is a way for the water molecules to provide kinetic energy to colliding gas molecule (note latent heat means that the water molecule has no kinetic energy to give away - it has latent heat someone should say where this is held but latent heat is not given away to colliding molecules. All of a sudden as temperature drops which means the number of collisions reduces a water molecule 'gives up latent heat' and becomes liquid. So how does that happen: >How does the reduction in collisions suddenly allow the water molecule to give up the latent heat to colliding molecules? Surely the collisions would heat the water as sensible heat? >How does the water molecule conceal a huge amount of energy and then suddenly release it and how is that suddenly available as kinetic energy to the 20,001st collision? >Is ALL the latent heat of state change given away to one collision? There are more areas that are all hidden in the hand waving "latent heat is released" On the rather circular reasoning of coloring of infrared by assumed temperature of originating level. > It is still infrared that is being seen - that is not temperature it is heat radiation > where is that infrared coming from - it does seem to be magically associated with the cumulonimbus clouds but what other source is there of that much infra red if not latent heat release by water molecules This is not an argument - I would really like to know
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 4, 2019 16:40:53 GMT
So again - a water molecule in a droplet of water molecules'gives up its latent heat of fusion' which has been hidden somewhere in the molecule - by collision with gas molecules hitting the outside of the droplet?? Naut, im of the understanding that only gaseous water condensing to liquid water gives off latent heat?? Once two molecules of water have formed a hydrogen bond, they are liquid....not gas.... The latent heat aspect involves the breaking/forming of the hydrogen bond.... By hydrogen bond (as explained in one of my links on sunday) we mean between water molecules. The oxygen atom in a water molecule is attracted to one of the two hydrogen atoms in neighbouring molecules. Each hydrogen atom can form 2 bonds with oxygen atoms in other molecules, one stronger than the other. In its gaseous state, there are no hydrogen bonds. Latent energy describes the energy taken or given to the surrounding environment to facilitate the construction/destruction of these bonds as water achieves a state change.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 4, 2019 18:13:04 GMT
Duwayne, how do we know that? Ratty, I used an online “Engineering Toolbox” type calculator to determine this number. This was done a while ago in response to Nautonnier’s assertion that latent heat could not be released as sensible heat because the molecules were so far apart that very few collisions occur. I no longer have the link, but it’s out there if you want to look. If you want, you can do a rough calculation yourself to see if that number makes sense. If molecules in air were 1 nanometer (1 billionth of a meter) apart and the molecules were moving at 1 meter per second you can see how there might be a collision every billionth of a second or said differently, there could be a billion collisions per second. Let’s adjust to the real world. I’m using numbers from memory so this is all subject to correction. Air molecules are an average of about 4 nanometers apart versus 1 so there might be 250 million collisions per second. Air molecules move at 500 meters per second, not 1 meter per second so there might be 500 times as many collisions or 125 billion collisions per second. This sea level number requires a lot of adjustment to reflect the fact that the molecules are a lot further apart higher in the atmosphere. Also the molecules are colder so they move slower. And the actual geometry of the molecules and their movement have to be taken into account. Thus the collisions are only a fraction of the 125 billion collisions per second, but based on the engineering calculator I used the number is still pretty big.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 5, 2019 20:58:35 GMT
Nautonnier, you still seem to have questions about satellite imagery. It is very similar in concept to Icefisher’s temperature “gun”. All objects emit a small amount of radiation. The wavelength depends on the temperature of the object. The gun reads the wavelength, converts it to a temperature using well known correlations and then shows the temperature number on the screen. A gun could be designed which receives readings from several different points and shows the temperatures of all these points simultaneously on a display. These temperatures could be displayed as colors rather than numbers. Satellite imagery is a display of many individual temperature readings from specific points over a broad geographic spectrum displayed as colors. Now I have a question for you. The weekly ENSO evolution report has a chart (several pages down) which shows the “Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Anomalies”. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf As I understand it, the orange-red areas shown on the chart indicate areas where the OLR is higher than average. The key at the bottom left says “Drier-than-average Conditions (orange/red shading)”. Why do the dry areas show higher OLR?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 7, 2019 15:48:58 GMT
Nautonnier, you still seem to have questions about satellite imagery. It is very similar in concept to Icefisher’s temperature “gun”. All objects emit a small amount of radiation. The wavelength depends on the temperature of the object. The gun reads the wavelength, converts it to a temperature using well known correlations and then shows the temperature number on the screen. A gun could be designed which receives readings from several different points and shows the temperatures of all these points simultaneously on a display. These temperatures could be displayed as colors rather than numbers. Satellite imagery is a display of many individual temperature readings from specific points over a broad geographic spectrum displayed as colors. Now I have a question for you. The weekly ENSO evolution report has a chart (several pages down) which shows the “Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Anomalies”. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf As I understand it, the orange-red areas shown on the chart indicate areas where the OLR is higher than average. The key at the bottom left says “Drier-than-average Conditions (orange/red shading)”. Why do the dry areas show higher OLR? To answer your question - it looks suspiciously like circular reasoning. We will classify this as higher radiation and also state (as an assumption) that these are drier areas. So does the orange red indicate more OLR or does it indicate drier areas or both? Drier areas tend to warm quicker and under Stefan Boltzmann that means that the thermal radiation from them increases as the fourth power. If you look at: www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band13.pdf there is a lot of information but look at the large diagram on page 2 Wisconsin is grey - but the atmosphere exists there in temperature layers while the storm in the middle of the frame is shown in 'thermal couplet'. My understanding of this is that there is a lot of outgoing infrared from the storm and the color has been layered based on the assumed temperature layers based (I assume) on the lapse rate. This allows a guess at where the cloud tops are as the infrared will be colored based on the associated lapse rate. So what is the difference between the red/black areas indicated and the same altitude layer over Wisconsin? It is that infrared is being emitted in the storm but not over Wisconsin. Where does that infrared come from if you have already said it is the same temperature as the same altitude in Wisconsin so both areas have the same temperature based emission of infrared but over the storm there is more? Personally, the assumption that altitude can be equated to an ISO lapse rate temperature in a convective storm is unsafe. A 'warm updraft' is warm in comparison to the surrounding atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 9, 2019 18:22:15 GMT
Nautonnier, you still seem to have questions about satellite imagery. It is very similar in concept to Icefisher’s temperature “gun”. All objects emit a small amount of radiation. The wavelength depends on the temperature of the object. The gun reads the wavelength, converts it to a temperature using well known correlations and then shows the temperature number on the screen. A gun could be designed which receives readings from several different points and shows the temperatures of all these points simultaneously on a display. These temperatures could be displayed as colors rather than numbers. Satellite imagery is a display of many individual temperature readings from specific points over a broad geographic spectrum displayed as colors. Now I have a question for you. The weekly ENSO evolution report has a chart (several pages down) which shows the “Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) Anomalies”. www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf As I understand it, the orange-red areas shown on the chart indicate areas where the OLR is higher than average. The key at the bottom left says “Drier-than-average Conditions (orange/red shading)”. Why do the dry areas show higher OLR? To answer your question - it looks suspiciously like circular reasoning. We will classify this as higher radiation and also state (as an assumption) that these are drier areas. So does the orange red indicate more OLR or does it indicate drier areas or both? Drier areas tend to warm quicker and under Stefan Boltzmann that means that the thermal radiation from them increases as the fourth power. If you look at: www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band13.pdf there is a lot of information but look at the large diagram on page 2 Wisconsin is grey - but the atmosphere exists there in temperature layers while the storm in the middle of the frame is shown in 'thermal couplet'. My understanding of this is that there is a lot of outgoing infrared from the storm and the color has been layered based on the assumed temperature layers based (I assume) on the lapse rate. This allows a guess at where the cloud tops are as the infrared will be colored based on the associated lapse rate. So what is the difference between the red/black areas indicated and the same altitude layer over Wisconsin? It is that infrared is being emitted in the storm but not over Wisconsin. Where does that infrared come from if you have already said it is the same temperature as the same altitude in Wisconsin so both areas have the same temperature based emission of infrared but over the storm there is more? Personally, the assumption that altitude can be equated to an ISO lapse rate temperature in a convective storm is unsafe. A 'warm updraft' is warm in comparison to the surrounding atmosphere. Nautonnier, my posts here are delayed because I don't check this website every day. There is no question that there is a greenhouse gas effect. The question is how large that effect is and what actions should be taken, if any. I’m not sure the satellite imagery is much help in that determination. I explained earlier that the imagery shows temperatures. Your question seems to be about which temperature it shows. The purpose of the satellite imagery you have posted is to show clouds and more specifically to show the height of the cloud tops which indicates the coverage area and severity of thunderstorms and hurricanes and typhoons. The colors may be selected so very high cloud tops are black, intermediate is red, low is yellow and lack of clouds is blue or grey with intermediate shading. In this instance you are not interested in the air, so they look for radiation which does not come from nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, H2O (gas) etc molecules in the air. They do this by selecting a narrow wavelength range which is outside the range of emissions from air components. The imagers select a wavelength range which “sees” radiation emitted by liquids in the air (water droplets) and solids in the air (snow,hail) and land and oceans. These sources emit radiation with wavelengths which are dependent on their temperatures, so the wave length band (examined) has to be wide enough to cover ocean temperatures to cloud top temperatures. How do you get cloud top temperatures as opposed to temperatures from cloud areas below the top? Water absorbs long wave radiation extremely effectively. So any radiation which originates at the earth’s surface or lower cloud levels is absorbed by water droplets higher in the clouds. Thus, the radiation the imager sees from above is coming from highest water droplets or if there are no clouds, from the land or ocean.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 9, 2019 19:20:32 GMT
The key to this is the sentence "CO2 is a non condensing greenhouse gas" the point being is that H2O is a condensing greenhouse gas.
Is this non radiative component of energy movement material. Go to the tropics and watch the late afternoon thunderclouds suck the heat out of the late afternoon air.
The "Iris effect" talked about by Willis E and defines why maritime tropical temperatures of both water and air is strongly buffered to 30C regardless of the CO2 being 280ppm or 600ppm. this is the cornerstone of the incorrect analysis that the coral regions of the world are likely die.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 9, 2019 19:59:38 GMT
To answer your question - it looks suspiciously like circular reasoning. We will classify this as higher radiation and also state (as an assumption) that these are drier areas. So does the orange red indicate more OLR or does it indicate drier areas or both? Drier areas tend to warm quicker and under Stefan Boltzmann that means that the thermal radiation from them increases as the fourth power. If you look at: www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/documents/ABIQuickGuide_Band13.pdf there is a lot of information but look at the large diagram on page 2 Wisconsin is grey - but the atmosphere exists there in temperature layers while the storm in the middle of the frame is shown in 'thermal couplet'. My understanding of this is that there is a lot of outgoing infrared from the storm and the color has been layered based on the assumed temperature layers based (I assume) on the lapse rate. This allows a guess at where the cloud tops are as the infrared will be colored based on the associated lapse rate. So what is the difference between the red/black areas indicated and the same altitude layer over Wisconsin? It is that infrared is being emitted in the storm but not over Wisconsin. Where does that infrared come from if you have already said it is the same temperature as the same altitude in Wisconsin so both areas have the same temperature based emission of infrared but over the storm there is more? Personally, the assumption that altitude can be equated to an ISO lapse rate temperature in a convective storm is unsafe. A 'warm updraft' is warm in comparison to the surrounding atmosphere. Nautonnier, my posts here are delayed because I don't check this website every day. There is no question that there is a greenhouse gas effect. The question is how large that effect is and what actions should be taken, if any. I’m not sure the satellite imagery is much help in that determination. I explained earlier that the imagery shows temperatures. Your question seems to be about which temperature it shows. The purpose of the satellite imagery you have posted is to show clouds and more specifically to show the height of the cloud tops which indicates the coverage area and severity of thunderstorms and hurricanes and typhoons. The colors may be selected so very high cloud tops are black, intermediate is red, low is yellow and lack of clouds is blue or grey with intermediate shading. In this instance you are not interested in the air, so they look for radiation which does not come from nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, H2O (gas) etc molecules in the air. They do this by selecting a narrow wavelength range which is outside the range of emissions from air components. The imagers select a wavelength range which “sees” radiation emitted by liquids in the air (water droplets) and solids in the air (snow,hail) and land and oceans. These sources emit radiation with wavelengths which are dependent on their temperatures, so the wave length band (examined) has to be wide enough to cover ocean temperatures to cloud top temperatures. How do you get cloud top temperatures as opposed to temperatures from cloud areas below the top? Water absorbs long wave radiation extremely effectively. So any radiation which originates at the earth’s surface or lower cloud levels is absorbed by water droplets higher in the clouds. Thus, the radiation the imager sees from above is coming from highest water droplets or if there are no clouds, from the land or ocean. I _think_ you are agreeing with me. The satellite sensor can see water vapor infrared emissions which it colors for temperature of the level/calculated The satellite cannot see water vapor infrared in other areas (in the case in point over Wisconsin) although doubtless there is water vapor there just not measurable emissions. So the satellite can see infrared from water in the storm but not from water outside the storm. QED
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Sept 9, 2019 20:25:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 10, 2019 1:10:37 GMT
Pat is a very frank Frank when he refers to modellers.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 10, 2019 20:45:05 GMT
Nautonnier, my posts here are delayed because I don't check this website every day. There is no question that there is a greenhouse gas effect. The question is how large that effect is and what actions should be taken, if any. I’m not sure the satellite imagery is much help in that determination. I explained earlier that the imagery shows temperatures. Your question seems to be about which temperature it shows. The purpose of the satellite imagery you have posted is to show clouds and more specifically to show the height of the cloud tops which indicates the coverage area and severity of thunderstorms and hurricanes and typhoons. The colors may be selected so very high cloud tops are black, intermediate is red, low is yellow and lack of clouds is blue or grey with intermediate shading. In this instance you are not interested in the air, so they look for radiation which does not come from nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, H2O (gas) etc molecules in the air. They do this by selecting a narrow wavelength range which is outside the range of emissions from air components. The imagers select a wavelength range which “sees” radiation emitted by liquids in the air (water droplets) and solids in the air (snow,hail) and land and oceans. These sources emit radiation with wavelengths which are dependent on their temperatures, so the wave length band (examined) has to be wide enough to cover ocean temperatures to cloud top temperatures. How do you get cloud top temperatures as opposed to temperatures from cloud areas below the top? Water absorbs long wave radiation extremely effectively. So any radiation which originates at the earth’s surface or lower cloud levels is absorbed by water droplets higher in the clouds. Thus, the radiation the imager sees from above is coming from highest water droplets or if there are no clouds, from the land or ocean. I _think_ you are agreeing with me. The satellite sensor can see water vapor infrared emissions which it colors for temperature of the level/calculated The satellite cannot see water vapor infrared in other areas (in the case in point over Wisconsin) although doubtless there is water vapor there just not measurable emissions. So the satellite can see infrared from water in the storm but not from water outside the storm. QED Nautonnier, we are not in agreement quite yet so I guess you could say we are still not quite on the same wavelengths. Water vapor and liquid water have distinctly different properties and this is particularly true with respect to absorption and emission of radiation. For the design of a satellite imagery unit, these are the properties that are important. 1)Certain selected wavelengths can be monitored which contain emissions from liquid water (and land) but do not contain emissions from water vapor even though water vapor is present and emitting at other wavelengths. 2)Liquid water readily absorbs all wavelengths in the long wave range. 3)The wavelength pattern of the emissions from liquid water are a function of the water temperature. Here are your statements from above and my responses which focus on point 1) above. “The satellite sensor can see water vapor infrared emissions which it colors for temperature of the level/calculated.” Response: No, the wavelengths “sensed” are selected because they do not contain water vapor emissions. “The satellite cannot see water vapor infrared in other areas (in the case in point over Wisconsin) although doubtless there is water vapor there just not measurable emissions”. Response: There are some emissions from water vapor, but emissions at that wavelength are not being sensed. The sensor is blind to water vapor emissions and emissions from nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 as well. It doesn’t see the air and its gaseous components. It just sees liquids and solids. “So the satellite can see infrared from water in the storm but not from water outside the storm.” Response: It senses the radiation from liquid water (because the sensor is tuned to see that radiation) whether it’s droplets in the storm or water in the oceans (or land). It doesn’t see water vapor.
|
|