|
Post by Andrew on Sept 22, 2016 17:16:13 GMT
The body of water is not being heated. Only a few microns in can water be heated via infrared in the CO2 bandwidth. The few microns then evaporates, taking the warmth with it. Does the rate of evaporation take more heat than the CO2 bandwidth adds? Measurements show that it does at approx 10 degrees N. How many millionths of a meter did you have in mind exactly?
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 22, 2016 17:42:14 GMT
[ Snip ] Ratty, I read the article you referenced until I came to this sentence. “In particular, it (the anthropogenic warming theory) assumes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs exclusively by radiation.” That to me is a strawman argument which is pretty easy to rebut. I haven’t read anything from any scientist who believes that the heat transfer in atmosphere occurs exclusively by radiation. Ratty, if you can find one who does, that would be interesting. On the other hand scientists do believe that radiation is the only way to transfer heat into and away from the earth’s atmosphere (into and from space). Radiation into and out of the earth’s atmosphere plays a major role in global temperatures. Greenhouse gases play a significant role in that transfer. Duwayne, I've been an interested onlooker in the whole debate for over twenty years but I have no scientific background and - at 71 - may have insufficient time left to build up an understanding. EDIT: If you neglect the straw man, do you think the paper has any merit? PS: The title and use of language ** may suggest a hidden agenda? ** "Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities ..... " Ratty, the authors’ agenda isn’t hidden. It’s in the open. Technical papers rarely contain this level of emotion. And people this emotional sometimes fudge the results. And that’s why I wasn’t interested in reading the paper. Nevertheless, at your request I read the paper once through. I’ll give you my view but I’m not going to enter into lengthy follow-up discussions. The authors seem to accept the overall greenhouse gas effect as far as it goes but they believe there is an adiabatic effect that needs to be added. This effect in their estimation would mean that the atmosphere would cool when CO2 is added. That could be true as far as their analysis goes. Maybe it helps explain why the “hot spot” in the atmosphere that was predicted by the modelers hasn’t happened. And maybe it explains why the atmosphere hasn’t warmed 1.2 times faster than the earth’s surface as predicted. But then you need to go the next step. To make the physicists happy somehow the same amount of photon power must be emitted from the earth into space as comes in from the sun. If the atmosphere cools then there is reduced photon “pumping power”. So the temperature of the earth’s surface would logically need to increase to replace the lost pumping power. And if the earth’s surface temperature increases…… As I read it they are limiting their analysis to the atmosphere. I can’t say for sure whether that analysis is accurate but it may be. But in my opinion, in order to draw conclusions about global warming the analysis needs to be extended.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2016 17:51:25 GMT
The body of water is not being heated. Only a few microns in can water be heated via infrared in the CO2 bandwidth. The few microns then evaporates, taking the warmth with it. Does the rate of evaporation take more heat than the CO2 bandwidth adds? Measurements show that it does at approx 10 degrees N. How many millionths of a meter did you have in mind exactly? 2-3 microns.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2016 17:57:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2016 19:09:40 GMT
Duwayne Thanks for the summary, some points I would add: * Any vegetation that is heated will increase its rate of transpiration effectively cooling the plant (like the swamp cooler) the energy then being carried away as latent heat in the evaporated water molecules This is a huge issue. This summer driving around Oregon there was a heatwave. The temps in the Willamette Valley cities was hitting 106f. But drive out into the forests the air temps would drop into the high 80's and quickly get hot again when driving through relatively short breaks in the trees. This issue particularly with deforestation occurring the greatest effect in cities and at airports is undoubtedly has an effect on average temperature of the globe in a minor way but on the station network from which the temperature in the trees is estimated has a far bigger impact. Near as I can tell the deforestation piece has a disportionate impact. the Sierra Club claims that 100sq miles of forest has been lost every day since 2000. Figuring land area makes up 30% of the globe .4% of the surface of the land has been deforested since 2000. Thats a percentage the equivalent of doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere for a one degree effect. It does not seem implausible that the effect of deforestation on the worlds station network isn't at least that much.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2016 19:50:49 GMT
Nope In reference to boiling water, no matter how much additional heat you apply to the water, the temperature of the water will not rise above 212F, the boiling point. I suggest you read about the vapour pressure of water or ask your extension program to explain why water evaporates more when it is warmer. Perhaps you should read again what I wrote. I tried to keep it simple for you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2016 19:53:34 GMT
As I read it they are limiting their analysis to the atmosphere. I can’t say for sure whether that analysis is accurate but it may be. But in my opinion, in order to draw conclusions about global warming the analysis needs to be extended. Well that attitude is clearly held by Dr Judith Curry but in a far broader extent than I think you may have intended above. If you follow her blog Climate Etc she is a reformed warmist and is not the main proponent of uncertainty in climate science. As a top climate physicist with a solid CV. curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.htmlHer conclusion is the analysis must be extended into all the key areas surrounding greenhouse issue. She is now regarded as one of the leading skeptics and it has cost her dearly for being honest. Currently she says she is working in the area of cloud microphysics, suggesting she may have been impressed by some of the cloud variability theories. One has to lack an open mind to not recognize the failure of the Woods Experiment, the failure of dozens of "CO2 is the main instrument of climate variability" models funded at the cost of billions that have all failed in bulk to bracket observations. Obviously groupthink/consensus is not working well. . . .and Curry seems to be one of the few willing to say that.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2016 19:53:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2016 20:04:36 GMT
It does appear that the under standing of h2o and it's energy state in relation to non visible light and it's transition between states is poorly quantified by current climate science.
I'm sure if there was a satisfactory 'consensus' on this subject out there.....there would be no need for this extended conversation.
Kudos to all those here who attempt to pull back the veneer and unravel the unexplored knots of knowledge that certainly need unraveling!!!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2016 20:13:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2016 20:17:15 GMT
Nope In reference to boiling water, no matter how much additional heat you apply to the water, the temperature of the water will not rise above 212F, the boiling point. I suggest you read about the vapour pressure of water or ask your extension program to explain why water evaporates more when it is warmer. Water has more energy at higher temps and this excitability leads to more evaporation. But this is limited by the humidity of the gas it is moving vapour to...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2016 20:46:58 GMT
It is UV that is providing the heating.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Sept 22, 2016 20:50:55 GMT
It is UV that is providing the heating. Always suspected so. ..but ya know, the more I learn, the more I know little ;-)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 22, 2016 21:00:42 GMT
One of the perils of learning is it seems that each stone turned over exposes a query below.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 23, 2016 2:22:48 GMT
One of the perils of learning is it seems that each stone turned over exposes a query below. AMEN! to that.
|
|