|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 18, 2009 13:49:40 GMT
Socold: "The GCMs show the planet warming up and the hydrological cycle increasing, so evidentially speeding up the hydrological cycle doesn't necessitate low warming from a doubling of co2.
Furthermore are you suggesting that doubling co2 speeds up the global hydrological cycle? If so then you seem to be saying doubling co2 does have a significant effect on climate afterall."SoCold - I was asking you to quantify the size of the energy transfer to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle - you repeatedly say the GCMs have this information - great - tell us what it is from your expertise in GCMs. What expertize in GCMs? I can't quantify those numbers because I have never worked with a GCM or GCM results nor do I understand the workings of the hydrological cycle. I won't find this because I am not running any calculation. The models do and they don't find this. Whether any heat is transported by the hydrological cycle to the tropopause is a quesiton in itself. Also radiation from Earth into space crosses the tropopause but isn't from the tropopause. OK - SoCold - I'll take that as a 'Don't know' Perhaps Steve or glc have an idea of the quantification of the hydrologic cycle heat transport to the tropopause. This would be a good exercise for this board - the energy transport capacity is huge. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 18, 2009 14:30:00 GMT
socold writes "Science doesn't demand every result is observed or measured."
I never said "science", I said "physics". Maybe I ought to have added to my original post that whatever the 3.7 wm-2 means, and I dont really know what it means, the one thing that is certain, is that it is not a measure of radiative forcing as defined by the IPCC in Chapter 6 of the TAR.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 14:55:55 GMT
socold writes "Science doesn't demand every result is observed or measured." I never said "science", I said "physics". Physics doesn't demand it either. The IPCC give radiative forcing from doubling co2 to be about 3.7wm-2 |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 18, 2009 15:20:46 GMT
3.7wm-2 folklore, support for any constant must be proven. Planck's Constant proven, 3.7wm-2 a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 18, 2009 15:41:09 GMT
3.7wm-2 folklore, support for any constant must be proven. Planck's Constant proven, 3.7wm-2 a guess. if a 1kg ball of radius 0.5m is propelled at 10m/s from a cannon on a flat surface at a 40 degree angle, how far will it travel? Obviously you don't have to measure this, you can calculate it to reasonable accuracy. And the result would not be a "constant", it would simply be the result of the calculation. Whether that constitutes "proof" or not is beside the point. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2009 15:56:04 GMT
You have the wrong end of the stick. Convection will have a climatological mean. If a 3.7wm-2 energy imbalance occurs then that mean must shift significantly to have any chance of solving that imbalance. So you must be proposing that doubling co2 alters the climatological mean of convection? I am not proposing anything Socold. The CO2 effect may already be completely saturated as far as surface temperatures are concerned. If they are not, its very unlikely that 3.7 watts will actually get applied to surface temperatures instead of getting bled off either entirely or to some extent to other IR frequencies through partial the opaqueness and conduction to other gasses in the atmosphere. To the extent that is true there is no need for the convection mean to change. And if there is a need one should note that there is a huge shift in day to day ground emission rates far and away beyond 3.7watts you are rambling on about convection rates we see exceeding that every day. Why don't you go measure this by turning on a 10 watt bulb in your bathroom and then imagine that your bathroom ceiling was about 15km high and the bulb was on the ceiling and then bask in its warmth. LOL! You'd probably need binoculars to see the light and the temperature change would be immeasurable. Bottom line is 3.7watts is a pittance measured against day to day reality. And that assumes the models are right which I give a snowball's chance in hell knowing how the green machine operates. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 18, 2009 15:58:20 GMT
In a vacuum the calculations will match. There is no question about the forces involved. The experiments can and have been done. Ballistic galvanometers and all. The cannon ball tends to make the friction small but the vacuum takes it to zero. There are not equivalent experiments to get to the 3.7 number.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2009 15:58:55 GMT
The IPCC give radiative forcing from doubling co2 to be about 3.7wm-2 The IPCC claims to be a political agency Socold. You have said they don't do science. The process for arriving at the 3.7watts/m2 for a political body is to use all the known science and calculate it after discounting all unknowns. And of course the IPCC is the arbiter on what is known and what is not known instead of experimental proof. Which of course exactly mirrors how a GCM works too. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2009 16:17:05 GMT
socold writes "Science doesn't demand every result is observed or measured." I never said "science", I said "physics". Physics doesn't demand it either. Physics does demand it. What doesn't demand it is physicists. The progression of science would be slow if we demanded every result is observed or measured, thus we skip steps and rely on hunches and statistics. However, that is no way to manage a world. A world is better managed listening to the actual needs of people as that is the only thing that tells you if you are doing the right thing. If the right thing becomes "no change" via the use of science to cast doubt on the future, the needs of the people is ignored. Its the functional equivalent of telling the people "They have no bread so let them eat cake". |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 18, 2009 16:46:14 GMT
icefisher writes "Physics does demand it. What doesn't demand it is physicists. The progression of science would be slow if we demanded every result is observed or measured, thus we skip steps and rely on hunches and statistics."
I agree with your first statement. However, I interpret the second part differently. The way physics works, is that we get some hard data. We postulate a theory to explain this data. We use "hunches and statistics" to help us design the next experiment. This next experiment then gives us some more data, which either confirms or challenges the original theory. And that is the way we make progress.
There is a definite role for theoretcial physics. This is to help us design the next experiment. Theoretical physics never "proves"
anything; only hard, measured, independently replicated, experimental data can provide proof in physics. Just think of what has happened to string theory, and why the world has spent billions of dollars on the collider at CERN labs. Does the Higgs bosun, the God particle, which theory suggests is real, exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 18, 2009 17:07:26 GMT
And the idea that we can't alter climate with our emissions because we are small and climate is big is wrong if our emissions can increase cloud albedo by 5% Once skeptics realize the idea that doubling co2 has an insignificant effect is a fallacy and that doubling co2 has a substantial effect on climate, then that's one less barrier to accepting it's influence on temperature. And there you go doing EXACTLY what I was complaining about...losing track of concepts. WE TOLD YOU that the environment would adapt like that! That means we literally said it would affect the climate...we're just saying that the impact on TEMPERATURE (only one aspect of the climate system) will not be in direct proportion to what would be expected from the 3.7 watt increase. Now if you disagree with this assessment...perhaps you should take it up with the ultimate authority on the matter (who seems to agree with the luke warmers more than you)...the atmosphere. BTW, your "once skeptics realize" speech is a logical fallacy...and most feedbacks in nature tend to stay in nodes that make them negative. This agrees more with the skeptics and lukewarmers. |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 18, 2009 17:23:12 GMT
Socold: "The GCMs show the planet
I won't find this because I am not running any calculation. The models do and they don't find this. Whether any heat is transported by the hydrological cycle to the tropopause is a quesiton in itself. Also radiation from Earth into space crosses the tropopause but isn't from the tropopause.
Clueless The IR paths to space are: 1. The 10 micron IR window. (surface) 2. Mosture in the lower troposphere (5km) 3. The cloud tops. (>5KM) 4. CO2 at the stratopause (50 KM) Heat flow in the troposphere is dominated by convection |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Oct 18, 2009 18:20:27 GMT
socold writes "The IPCC give radiative forcing from doubling co2 to be about 3.7wm-2"
Sometimes I despair. The discussion over the last few days has established :-
1. The 3.7 wm-2 is estimated using radiative transfer models.
2. Radiative transfer models deal with real situations in the atmosphere.
3. The definition of radiative forcing in IPCC TAR Chapter 6 is a purely hypothetical sitution.
4. I can see no logic that explains why radiative transfer models, which deal with real situations, can estimate radiative forcing, which is based on a hypothetical situation. However, I can be wrong.
So 5. Where is the reference that proves that radiative transfer models can estimate a value for radiative forcing, as defined by the IPCC in Chapter 6 of the TAR?
I wonder how many more times I need to ask this question, before someone actually addresses it and gives me an answer. I suspect the reference does not exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Oct 18, 2009 18:25:44 GMT
3.7wm-2 folklore, support for any constant must be proven. Planck's Constant proven, 3.7wm-2 a guess. if a 1kg ball of radius 0.5m is propelled at 10m/s from a cannon on a flat surface at a 40 degree angle, how far will it travel? Obviously you don't have to measure this, you can calculate it to reasonable accuracy. Actually, not, at least in this case. But even an inappropriate example can be instructive. Add to these parameters: differences in elevation, wind, atmospheric pressure, humidity and the Coriolis Effect, among others. Once upon a time, a very large computer was designed and built to consider all these parameters. Its output was to be Ballistic Tables. Once upon a time, I stood inside this very large computer, beside the console. It was idle. Therein lies the rub. I was told it had a problem. It didn't work reliably. So what is the point here? The lesson I take away is that one may have what one believes to be a complete set of parameters, the equations to match, and a machine to run the calculations. And still get the wrong answer if you miss a piece of the problem. The missing piece here? The speed of light (actually, the speed of signals in wire). The machine was so large that electrical signals did not have enough time to travel from their origin to electronic (switching?) circuits at the far reaches of the machine. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 18, 2009 18:57:01 GMT
The IR paths to space are: 1. The 10 micron IR window. (surface) Where actually is this 10 micron IR window? It appears it does not exist at sea level and has to be found on mountains or in antarctica www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/Windows/irwindows.htmlThe atmosphere itself radiates strongly in the infrared, often putting out more infrared light than the object in space being observed. This atmospheric infrared emission peaks at a wavelength of about 10 microns |
|
