|
Post by socold on Mar 29, 2009 23:28:54 GMT
3.4.2 is about water vapour.
Water vapor levels cannot be increased beyond saturation point, which is dependant on temperature. If humans increase water vapor levels, by say leaving the shower running and the window open, it will condense outside in the cooler air.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 30, 2009 0:06:19 GMT
socold I know that the sign for feed back of clouds is something that you have showed a measure of ambivalence, as water vapor and clouds are not the thrust of your many arguments, but here is a link that you might follow. www.drroyspencer.com/2009/03/set-phasers-on-stun/I do not know what you think of Dr. Spencer but his credentials and accomplishments in the area of climate science in my estimation exceed most of the people who comment here. I also know how rigidly you stick to your opinions and further do not expect to hear any other response other than the CO2 did it and we are all doomed, in spite of the cooling oceans and the cooling atmosphere. I further suggest that Dr. Willie Soon might shed so light on the subject but I am sure that is beyond the real of possibility as it is not based on CO2. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 30, 2009 7:34:44 GMT
This post is purely for information: Atmospheric Effects on Incoming Solar Radiationwww.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.htmlText with this diagram: Figure 7f-5 describes the modification of solar radiation by atmospheric and surface processes for the whole Earth over a period of one year. Of all the sunlight that passes through the atmosphere annually, only 51% is available at the Earth's surface to do work. This energy is used to heat the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere, melt and evaporate water, and run photosynthesis in plants. Of the other 49%, 4% is reflected back to space by the Earth's surface, 26% is scattered or reflected to space by clouds and atmospheric particles, and 19% is absorbed by atmospheric gases, particles, and clouds. Then we have: Diagram of Earth's energy budget. Credit: Image courtesy NASA's ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) program.asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.htmlSee Also marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html#resh
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 30, 2009 7:57:02 GMT
In the above diagrams: So of the 51% of solar energy warming the Earth surface (the diagram relates to an annual average) we have (23+7)=30% carried up by conduction & convection, 6% transmitted directly out to space from surface radiation, and the final 15% as surface radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere & clouds before being radiated out to space. 15/51 =29.4% of the energy radiated from the Earth's surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. 70.6% of the energy heats the atmosphere by other means. Of the 29.4%, a tiny portion will be in the absorption band of CO2. (This information, provided by NASA, doesn't support the standard "greenhouse" diagrams.) There is blackbody calculator here: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html#c1Incoming solar radiation (approx %) as hitting the Earth's atmosphere: UV, X-rays: 7% Visible: 47% Infrared: 46% 2.7% of this IR encompasses the CO2 absorption bands (only a tiny portion will match the bands themselves) and only 1% is in the range 4 to 20 microns- the IR band of the black body spectrum of the Earth. - only the 4.3 & 15 micron bands for CO2 match the Earth BB peak. Of the visible light, a good portion will be reflected, the rest will pass through the atmosphere. A lot of IR is absorbed by the atmosphere, but a good portion (the 'Near' IR) reaches the Earth's surface. The re-radiation from the Earth shifts the wavelength much longer - to 'thermal' IR. Note:The magnitude of the Earth curve has been magnified 500,000 times marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/josh/black_body.htmlI hope this is informative.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 30, 2009 13:29:56 GMT
" Glass blocks IR but also slightly blocks the visible spectrum. " Um, only if you're looking at the world through rose colored glasses. Or some other color. Or if the glass is dirty. I think if you can't see the glass, it's not blocking the visible spectrum to any significant degree. Depends upon what you call significant. The finest clearest glass only transmits or reflects about 98% of visible light, absorbing about 2 or 3%. Cheap glass liked used in a residence only transmits about 92%. . . .the rest is absorbed and heats the glass. You can observe the color of glass by looking at the edges. Most glass has a green hue, though some are brown or grey. Sunglasses block 30 to 90% of the light. . . .most blocking 75% or more.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 30, 2009 15:00:00 GMT
socold, are you suggesting that water vapor in the atmosphere is at saturation?
This would mean that every point on earth had a relative humidity of 100%.
Living in the desert, I am quite grateful that this is not the case.
Yesterday it was 30% here, in the summer it is usually around 10%. And being hotter, the air could hold more water than cooler locales.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 30, 2009 15:23:26 GMT
[/img] Diagram of Earth's energy budget. Credit: Image courtesy NASA's ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) program.asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.htmlSee Also marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html#resh[/quote] The 16% incoming radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere and 15% outgoing radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere is showing the balance of blocking energy both ways. So is CO2 radiation blocking amount to a net zero influence on climate? Heck with NASA's own energy balance diagram it appears to be a cooling influence. No doubt those percentages vary greatly between the tropics and the desert. The desert blocking probably is down in the single digits and the tropics well above the 15%/16% figures. So where again is the greenhouse theory?
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 30, 2009 16:56:35 GMT
Another question, since some of our AGW posters have pointed out that the CO2 effect is higher in the atmosphere, is the radiation that is remitted down then absorbed by water which re-emits 50% of that upward at some lower frequency.
But surely this is not too complex to quantify. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Mar 30, 2009 21:16:55 GMT
Fargo saved by global cooling! Tulsa snowfall shatters 1926 record – Roofs collapse in western Oklahoma - 29 Mar 09 Record low temperatures in nine states - 27 Mar 09 Snowfall records smashed in ten states - 27 Mar 09 Another major storm – potential blizzard - 28 Mar 09 The snow just keeps coming, day after day after day Expect another 2 feet in the Cascades today - 28 Mar 09 Global Cooling Under-Reported, Says SPPI 40 Low temp records broken across Western Canada - 12 Mar 09 Slap-in-the-face-winter isn’t over yet - 1 Mar 09 www.iceagenow.com/
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 21:48:47 GMT
In the above diagrams: So of the 51% of solar energy warming the Earth surface (the diagram relates to an annual average) we have (23+7)=30% carried up by conduction & convection, 6% transmitted directly out to space from surface radiation, and the final 15% as surface radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere & clouds before being radiated out to space. 15/51 =29.4% of the energy radiated from the Earth's surface is absorbed by the atmosphere. 70.6% of the energy heats the atmosphere by other means. Of the 29.4%, a tiny portion will be in the absorption band of CO2. (This information, provided by NASA, doesn't support the standard "greenhouse" diagrams.) It's 100% compatible with it. It's just a different way of showing the same energy budget diagram I have already posted. You disagreed with that one...
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 21:51:50 GMT
[/img] Diagram of Earth's energy budget. Credit: Image courtesy NASA's ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) program.asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/ASDerbe.htmlSee Also marine.rutgers.edu/mrs/education/class/yuri/erb.html#resh[/quote] The 16% incoming radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere and 15% outgoing radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere is showing the balance of blocking energy both ways.[/QUOTE] Both contribute to warming the Earth. If you remove the 15% outgoing radiation, there is less energy absorbed by the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 21:55:54 GMT
Another question, since some of our AGW posters have pointed out that the CO2 effect is higher in the atmosphere, is the radiation that is remitted down then absorbed by water which re-emits 50% of that upward at some lower frequency. But surely this is not too complex to quantify. ;-) If you want to quantify more detailed aspects including multiple layers at various pressures with different absorption spectrums for each gas and convection then you begin to reach moderately complex modelling territory which is beyond anyone on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 30, 2009 22:10:13 GMT
The 16% incoming radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere and 15% outgoing radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere is showing the balance of blocking energy both ways. Both contribute to warming the Earth. If you remove the 15% outgoing radiation, there is less energy absorbed by the atmosphere. The diagram does not show an atmosphere to ground connection from atmosphere absorbed radiation socold. The 51% absorbed by the ground, plus the 16% absorbed by the atmosphere, plus the 3% absorbed by clouds equals the 70% being radiated back to space. When are you going to answer that diurnal tropic desert conumdrum?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2009 23:14:16 GMT
Both contribute to warming the Earth. If you remove the 15% outgoing radiation, there is less energy absorbed by the atmosphere. The diagram does not show an atmosphere to ground connection from atmosphere absorbed radiation socold. Because it shows the net flow in and out of the atmosphere rather than internal transfers in both directions. If the atmosphere didn't absorb IR the "% radiated directly from space from earth" would be far higher and the "% radiated to space from clouds and atmosphere" would be near zero. It makes a big difference where the IR is emitted from because temperature drops with height in the atmosphere. If 100% comes from the surface you need a 15C average surface temperature to emit 390wm-2 If 100% comes from the atmosphere and clouds, you need 15C average atmosphere and cloud temperature to emit 390wm-2. If the atmosphere and cloud temperature has to be 15C then the surface has to be warmer than 15C. Where?
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Mar 31, 2009 2:22:12 GMT
{I think he's referring to post #441}
socold, are you suggesting that water vapor in the atmosphere is at saturation?
This would mean that every point on earth had a relative humidity of 100%.
Living in the desert, I am quite grateful that this is not the case.
Yesterday it was 30% here, in the summer it is usually around 10%. And being hotter, the air could hold more water than cooler locales.
|
|