|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 23, 2016 4:14:44 GMT
One of the perils of learning is it seems that each stone turned over exposes a query below. AMEN! to that. Under each stone lies a quarry of queries.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 4:51:23 GMT
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. My mistake. When you added the complexity of expanding on item 3, I missed the simpler answer. Please try to keep it simpler for me in future. Age is against me these days.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 23, 2016 7:59:33 GMT
Under each stone lies a quarry of queries. A new collective noun. English keeps on evolving .....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 14:44:16 GMT
Physics is not as hard as you are making it out to be. Other things being equal, evaporation of water cannot increase unless the water becomes hotter. Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation. Where did you get that idea from? Andrew. It is simple physics. Think about your parameters. You are a smart feller. Sigurdur, We have now established you agree (apparently) cold water evaporates less than warmer water? So can you explain this quote for me please? >>Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 23, 2016 14:56:16 GMT
Other things being equal is the key phrase Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 23, 2016 19:22:17 GMT
Other things being equal is the key phrase Andrew. Sigurdur, I am not a mind reader. What are you talking about? Do you now agree with me or is there still a disagreement? Please keep the answer simple so I can understand it. >>>>Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation. What are you saying in that text? Physics is not as hard as you are making it out to be. Other things being equal, evaporation of water cannot increase unless the water becomes hotter. Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Sept 23, 2016 22:31:10 GMT
Duwayne Thanks for the summary, some points I would add: * Any land surface that is warmed will of course increase its radiation of infrared (heat) by the 4th power (Stefan/Boltzmann) meaning that there is a negative feedback * 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 * CO2 is a radiative gas whereas N2 and O2 are not. Any heat that is transferred to CO2 molecules once the energy is at sufficient level will (may) result in the radiation of that heat as infrared. (The qualifier there is due to arguments on whether CO2 actually absorbs or scatters infrared photons and whether that in the time the CO2 is excited whether that is in a form that can be transferred to/from kinetic energy by collision) **** Convection any air that is warmed due to collision with 'excited' CO2 molecules will expand (Avogadro and Charles) this will result in convection and the reduction in pressure will result in a drop in temperature (Charles Law) [Effectively, the number of gas molecules in the same volume at a lower pressure is lower therefore the average kinetic energy of the volume will reduce. Hope all that makes sense *** One would have thought with the importance of these issues to the AGW hypothesis that there would be many experiments that demonstrate these effects. Yet people still refer back to the primitive Arrhenius experiments. That makes me think that nobody wants to see the results of modern experiments. Nautonnier, your additions to the description of your theory are noted. Is it accurate to say that a key component of your theory is that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect on the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2016 0:16:28 GMT
Duwayne Thanks for the summary, some points I would add: * Any land surface that is warmed will of course increase its radiation of infrared (heat) by the 4th power (Stefan/Boltzmann) meaning that there is a negative feedback * 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 * CO2 is a radiative gas whereas N2 and O2 are not. Any heat that is transferred to CO2 molecules once the energy is at sufficient level will (may) result in the radiation of that heat as infrared. (The qualifier there is due to arguments on whether CO2 actually absorbs or scatters infrared photons and whether that in the time the CO2 is excited whether that is in a form that can be transferred to/from kinetic energy by collision) **** Convection any air that is warmed due to collision with 'excited' CO2 molecules will expand (Avogadro and Charles) this will result in convection and the reduction in pressure will result in a drop in temperature (Charles Law) [Effectively, the number of gas molecules in the same volume at a lower pressure is lower therefore the average kinetic energy of the volume will reduce. Hope all that makes sense *** One would have thought with the importance of these issues to the AGW hypothesis that there would be many experiments that demonstrate these effects. Yet people still refer back to the primitive Arrhenius experiments. That makes me think that nobody wants to see the results of modern experiments. Nautonnier, your additions to the description of your theory are noted. Is it accurate to say that a key component of your theory is that photons striking the oceans will have a cooling effect on the oceans? " Key component" may be overstating it, as convection and the speed of exit of a photon even if it bagatelles around the atmosphere a hundred times is still less than 100th of a second. However, infrared radiation onto a water surface will only excite the surface molecules causing them to evaporate taking with them the latent heat of evaporation. I would think that this is an extremely simple experiment to carry out. As with many others the reason it has not been carried out (or perhaps not published) is that the results would run counter to the narrative of 'boiling oceans'. After all if downwelling infrared from CO2 scattering doesn't warm the oceans what is left is the Sun; and we have been assured that the Sun is an unvarying constant (give or take a watt or two per square meter over a solar cycle.)
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 1:14:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 24, 2016 2:51:36 GMT
Good find Ratty. Increasing cloudiness over US southern Great Plains location from 1996-2010. From climate4you.com, global monthly cloud cover from 1996-2010 shows the same general trend (2 different areas of course), while cloud cover for the previous decade was down by 4 percent. How many watts per m2 does that add to the warming during that twenty-five year period? WELL LOOK AT THIS! Someone at NOAA(?) is getting gutsy ... looking to get their peepee whacked. Temperature goes up as cloud cover goes down. Salute. We should send a letter of appreciation. As has been argued elsewhere on this web site, the amount of direct solar radiation received in the Equatorial regions presumably is important for both the global sea surface temperature and the global air temperature. In this context, the amount of tropical clouds is likely to represent an important control on the amount of direct solar radiation reaching the planet surface near Equator, from where the heat might be at least partly redistributed to more extensive parts of the planet surface by ocean currents and advecting air masses. The diagram above lends empirical support to this inference. The period until around year 2000 was characterised by generally increasing global air temperature and decreasing tropical total cloud cover. Following 2000, the stable or even slightly decreasing global surface air temperatures associates with a small increase in total tropical cloud cover.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 24, 2016 3:07:40 GMT
A feel a new graph coming on ...... Speaking of watts, he's on second.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2016 12:57:58 GMT
Andrew: "Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation."
put a lid on the jar 1/2 filled with water. That creates an environment of all other items being equal except temperature.
That jar is going to have water in it for eons.
You defined the parameter in one of your earlier statements.
In climate, the parameters are always changing and there are no lids.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 15:11:04 GMT
Andrew: "Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation." put a lid on the jar 1/2 filled with water. That creates an environment of all other items being equal except temperature. That jar is going to have water in it for eons. You defined the parameter in one of your earlier statements. In climate, the parameters are always changing and there are no lids. So you were just totally wasting my time and doing what you always do in these threads where you butt in and contribute nothing
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 24, 2016 15:15:59 GMT
Andrew: "Other things being equal, the temp of the water won't increase or decrease the rate of evaporation." put a lid on the jar 1/2 filled with water. That creates an environment of all other items being equal except temperature. That jar is going to have water in it for eons. You defined the parameter in one of your earlier statements. In climate, the parameters are always changing and there are no lids. Idiot. Psychological "projection"?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 24, 2016 15:33:35 GMT
Psychological "projection"? Nautonnier if you think heating can cause cooling you are in no position to dispense psychological advise to me.
|
|