Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some (hopefully) useful climate science related similes
#1
Later addition - I will add a pdf version of this thread to this post,
the pdf will be periodically updated as new posts are added, and,
the pdf title will include a month / date stamp as such.


Hi All,
I have often found that thinking about "something" in a way one can relate to easily helps when considering climate science.
This is not new, and I am not saying it is, but here are a few I have come up with.

The relative sizes, and distance apart of the Sun and the Earth.

[Image: Beachballpeadistanceapartsimile.jpg]

How to calculate the above.
Sun's diameter = 1,392,000 km
Earth's diameter = (Mean radius 6,371.0 km) 12,742 km
Distance between Sun and Earth = about 150 million kilometers

Therefore, if the sun's diameter = 1 meter,
Distance = 150,000,000 kilometers divided by 1,392,000 km = 107.76 meters
and,
Earth's size = 12,742 km divided by 1,392,000 km = 0.00915 of a meter, or 9.15mm.

How "deep" is earth's atmosphere?
I first heard the simile that,
if earth were a football, then the atmosphere is a layer of clingfilm upon the football,
on a BBC documentary, but it is an important "scale" most are unaware of.

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1.htm
Excerpt.
Earth has a radius of some 6400 km. Ninety-nine percent of the earth's atmosphere is contained within a layer approximately 50 km thick.
Life on earth inhabits a layer no more than 9 km thick,


If the earth were scaled to the size of a football (of 1 foot, or 25.4 centimeters in diameter),
how "thick" is the earth's atmosphere?

So, 12,742 kms compared to 50 kms at the scale of a football equals;
50 divided by 12,742 = 0.003924,
25.4 times 0.003924 = 0.0996696 mm (or, 99.6696 Microns)

Clingfilm is apparently 12.5 microns thick.
12.5 microns converts to 0.0125 Millimeters.
So, 99.9% of the atmosphere is nearly 8 times thicker than a layer of clingfilm at this scale.

If however we only consider the first 9 kms of the atmosphere, within which all life exists upon earth, then,
9 divided by 12,742 = 0.000706325 (*25.4) = 0.01794 mm, or, 17.94 Microns.
So, all life on planet earth is contained within a layer that is (nearly) half as thick again as a layer of clingfilm at this scale.

The planet's weather is almost entirely contained within the troposphere (where 80% of the atmosphere is).
The stratosphere above contains another 19.9% of the atmosphere, but,
Very little weather occurs in the stratosphere.
So, as far as weather is concerned the relevant "thickness" is the first (on average) 11 kms of the planet's atmosphere.
At the earth is represented as a football scale this converts to an atmospheric layer 0.0219mm, or, 21.9 Microns thick.
This is nearly twice as thick as the BBC's clingfilm atmospheric layer.

Maybe the BBC did not want to use Degradable Poop Scoop Bags
which are, 22 Micron Thick.

For my simile though the football is more realistically wrapped in a degradable poop scoop bag,
as sold by Mutts Butts dot com.
:lol:
Try forgetting that.


Attached Files
.pdf   Some useful climate science related similes - Derek_May 2011..pdf (Size: 649.18 KB / Downloads: 900)
Reply
#2
Hi All,
I have also put together some descriptions of my own over time,
for instance,
the below regarding thinking about, and explaining why, a greenhouse is warmer than it's surroundings..

Later addition - I have found some thermal images that should help with the below simile.

[Image: what-is-infrared-radiationhothousejpeg.jpg] and, [Image: greenhouse2jpeg.jpg]
................................................................As near as I can find to a "greenhouse"..


What does a thermal image of a greenhouse actually show?

Could someone please explain to me (understandably) why
a thermal image of a greenhouse shows it radiating more than it’s surroundings,
yet the surroundings are cooler than the greenhouse?

I know a greenhouse radiates more because it is warmer than it’s surroundings,
but the greenhouse is explained (by AGW) as being warmer BECAUSE IT SUPPOSEDLY (partially) TRAPS INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION,
which because the greenhouse IS radiating more, the greenhouse is patently not doing.
Plainly, greenhouses (somewhat inconveniently), radiate according to the Planck curve.
According to AGW "explanations" a greenhouse is supposed to “trap” radiation.
Is Plancks law wrong???

So, would the question arising from what does a thermal image of a greenhouse and it's surroundings show be;
Why are the greenhouses surroundings so much cooler than the greenhouse,
for the same solar input received.
This question I will try to answer as follows;
The surroundings of a greenhouse do not “trap” radiation (neither does the greenhouse, as shown above), yet,
the surroundings do appear to be radiating far less than the greenhouse for the same solar input received.. ?
It is immediately apparent that whatever is cooling the surroundings is far more powerful than radiation losses from the greenhouse, AND
that it is not radiation doing most of the cooling
(otherwise the higher radiating greenhouse would be cooler than it’s surroundings).

If one opened the doors and windows in the greenhouse, especially on a breezy day,
the greenhouse would soon reduce it’s temperature to that of it’s surroundings.
Logically the temperature difference was removed from the greenhouse to the surroundings or aloft by air.
Air transporting sensible, and latent heat (of water vapourisation), I would suggest.

When the doors and windows are closed it logically follows that the increase in temperature inside the greenhouse is due to
the reduced transport of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation) from inside the greenhouse to the surroundings.
Obviously even with the doors and windows of the greenhouse shut, some conduction and convection at the greenhouse glass surfaces occurs, and
this explains why a greenhouse remains warmer than it’s surroundings for some time after sunset.

A greenhouse “works” (ie, it is warmer than it's surroundings) because
it reduces conduction and convection from inside itself to it’s surroundings.
It would appear reasonable to say observation of a thermal image of a greenhouse and it’s surroundings proves that
conduction and convection (of sensible and latent heat) are far more powerful (by at least an order of magnitude) than radiation losses, and
that conduction and convection of sensible and latent heat is responsible for cooling the surroundings mostly.

Is this a correct series of assumptions, or rather just statements of the blitheringly obvious.
The blithering obvious that AGW pseudo science has HAD to misrepresent,
to protect itself from simple, undeniable, observation, that
AGW is indeed based on the false premise of a "greenhouse effect" that
does not represent that which we can observe, and produce thermal images of, what actually happens in the real world.



I have also "vandalized" the odd image here and there..

[Image: OstrichAGW.jpg]

[Image: mt-erebus.jpg]

BTW - That is an Emperor penguin, Emperor penguins are ONLY found in Antarctica...
Reply
#3
Heck, I helped fund a newspaper advert that went out in the locality of the CRU.
To no response...

[Image: Hansadvert-reduced.jpg]


Attached Files
.pdf   Hans Schreuder newspaper advert.pdf (Size: 547.63 KB / Downloads: 382)
Reply
#4
Hi All,
I did not intend using other peoples similes or analogies on this thread, BUT,
this is simply too good not to.

Joe Olsen,
used the following analogy to illustrate thermal mass in the below interview.
Slaying the Sky Dragon author on Dennis Miller Show, see what was said!
Interview of Joseph Olson, live on the DMZ
the Dennis Miller radio program
March 10, 2011 includes a full transcript.


Paraphrased excerpts, to highlight Joe Olsen's three main points.
Which are,
"There are three things about global warming that are glaring errors,
1) thermal mass,
2) infrared transmission and
3) CO2 toxicity.
"

1) Thermal mass.
" Joe Olsen: what humans have done is put twenty-eight giga-tons…
that’s tons with nine-zeroes behind it…of carbon dioxide in the air.
Carbon dioxide is a three-atom molecule…it’s like nano-dust.
"

" Joe Olsen: The twenty-eight giga-tons means less than three cubic miles on a planet with
two-hundred-and-fifty-nine trillion cubic miles of molten rock…or three-hundred-and-ten million cubic miles of ocean.
So basically, the carbon dioxide is the ball bearing and the planet is the swimming pool.
"

" Joe Olsen: You can take a red-hot ball bearing and drop it in a swimming pool and
they’re both going to reach the same temperature rather quickly as a function of specific heat, mass and difference in temperature.
But I guarantee you, the ball bearing will not warm the pool up much…
"

In a private communication Joe Olsen continues,
" in this case the ball bearing is CO2 and it is NOT red hot "


2) Infrared transmission.
" Joe Olsen: But what they don’t tell you is the infrared radiation is electromagnetic, it travels at the speed of light, so
this energy is leaving the earth at a hundred-and-eighty-six-thousand miles per second.
It bumps into some carbon dioxide molecules, but the lapse time that it stays in each carbon dioxide molecule…is less than a billionth of a second.
So, by the time you bump into a few of them on the way out? You’ve slowed that energy down by twenty milliseconds.
"
It should be noted that the delay time of 20 milliseconds that it takes surface emitted photons of energy at earth's surface to escape to space,
was further refined to less than 5 milliseconds.
This is because of the slight frequency shift from absorption/emission, which when taken into account
(after several "impacts" lasting a billionth of a second each), the IR is outside of the CO2 "capture" range.


3) CO2 toxicity.
" Joe Olsen: CO2 is plant food. Below three-hundred parts-per-million, plants atrophy,
below two-hundred-and-fifty parts-per-million, they die.
We currently have three-hundred-and-ninety parts-per-million…
so that’s very near a minimal level.


"Joe Olsen: we exhale forty-thousand parts-per-million (carbon dioxide). "

" Joe Olsen: It’s absurd. You’re in buildings all the time with (air containing) two-thousand parts-per-million CO2. "
Sunlight + CO2 + H20 + photosynthesis = plants / plankton = the base of this planet's food chains, on land and in the oceans.
Life dies, decomposes, becomes dirt, and ultimately is recycled back into the atmosphere.
This is (a partial and simplified description of) the carbon cycle, which is to all intents and purposes the Life cycle on planet earth.

CO2 is one of four basic building blocks of almost all life on this planet,
two of the other 3 are H2O and photosynthesis.
The last required building block for life on this planet is the energy supplied by the sun to the planet as sunlight to power photosynthesis.

Atmospheric CO2 level = 0.04%, we breath out 4% CO2.
Or, Atmospheric CO2 level = 400 parts per million, we breath out 40,000 parts per million CO2.

Optimum level for plants of atmospheric CO2 is up to 20,000ppm, or 2%,
no wonder gardeners talk to their plants.......They are literally feeding them.
More CO2 plants grow better.
Sugars are complex hydrocarbons. Made by nature from carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, by photosynthesis,
to make possible, and sustain virtually all life on this planet.

I have also attached this from Joe Olsen, which includes this quote,
" Oil is a renewable resource and man‟s harvesting of this resource,
may be of actual benefit to the eco-system.
"


Attached Files
.pdf   Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste Joe Olsen.pdf (Size: 60.93 KB / Downloads: 323)
Reply
#5
[Image: changeofstate-Derek.jpg]

My version of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phase_change_-_en.svg
because the Wiki figure would not let me copy and paste it....
Reply
#6
The (naked) cooling cannonball "thought experiment".

Imagine a heated cannonball placed upon a stick,
by what mechanisms does it cool, and
what are the (comparative) rates of cooling for the different mechanisms?

There are only three mechanisms by which the cannonball can cool.
1) Emission of thermal infra red radiation commonly abbreviated to IR.
2) By conduction and then convection of sensible (actual) heat to a cooler surrounding atmosphere.
3) By removal of latent heat (heat is energy in transit) from the cannonballs surface by the heat or energy in transit required
to enable the change of state from liquid to gas, namely, vapourisation of water, and then convection of the lighter air that contains more water vapour than the surrounding air.
This is known as the latent heat of water vapourisation*.

Commonly you will see the above list as only 2 mechanisms,
namely, 1) radiation and 2) conduction and convection.
This IS incomplete, and seemingly deliberately conceals, or rather misdirects us away from,
THE main mechanism we should be aware of
- the convection of the latent heat of water vapourisation.

This "thought experiment" will hopefully illustrate this, the largest, and commonly overlooked, missed, or seemingly ignored, yet most important mechanism. Latent heat losses, with specific regard to the planet we live on and it's climate.
Which is a planet that 71% of it's surface area is covered by ocean, a crucial fact "we" landlubbers easily overlook..

Radiation, conduction and latent heat happen BEFORE convection.
In point of actual FACT conduction and latent heat CAUSE convection.
Without convection both reduce and would effectively stop (diffusion ONLY), but
that does not mean convection is anything other than a (positive) catalyst to more conduction and latent heat losses.
This is very well illustrated and proven beyond reasonable doubt by Alan Siddon's Learning by candlelight paper,
which I hope people are familiar with.
ie, post 4 in this thread at the GWS forum.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-659.html

For our thought experiment, firstly imagine "our" hot cannonball in a vacuum.

1) Radiation losses are very little – Your hand, even if a small distance away (ie a couple of feet), can not feel much at all,
especially as the distance the hand is from the cannonball is increased (increasing circumference).

Now, "we" move our cannonball into a dry atmosphere (containing little or no water vapour), and place it upon a fine pointed (and insulated) stick.

2) Conduction and then convection of the heated air.
This is graphically illustrated by the differences in the (dry) air temperature felt at same distance at different positions around the cannonball by our hand.
Over or above the cannonball is the hottest by a long way.
Simply, the air in contact with the warmer cannonball is heated, as heat always flows from hot to cold, this is the 2nd Law of thermodynamics in action.
After the air is heated it expands and becomes comparatively lighter than the surrounding air, so it rises, or rather convects.
Therefore the most heated air (hottest) is felt directly above the cannonball by your hand.
(Obviously reversed for an object cooler than the atmosphere - where underneath is where it is coldest)

3) If a fine spray of water, or a damp cloth (sprayed as required to keep it damp) is placed upon one side of cannonball.
This side cools very quickly, steam will be seen to rise, if the cannonball is hot enough.
A hand placed above, or anywhere else around the cannonball does not notice much difference in temperature to conduction and the resulting convection of sensible only heat as described in 2 above, but,
the cannonball does cools far, far more rapidly.
Vast amounts of heat (energy in transit), compared to the emission of thermal radiation (IR) cooling alone, or
conduction and convection losses of sensible heat within a dry atmosphere (which would include thermally emitted IR losses),
are being removed from the cannonball "invisibly" by the formation of water vapour.
(It's why we sweat when we are too hot..)

Water vapour will condense at altitude, releasing the "invisible" latent heat it has transported
in the change of state from water (liquid) to water vapour (gas), when it condenses aloft and forms clouds as fluid water again.
If the change of state of latent heat losses from the warmer object occur when water vapourises within a gravity field then
is surface tension of the fluid that is vapourising to be included in the energy removed from the vapourising fluids surface, but
not to be included when the resulting gas recondenses at altitude?
If this is the case, where does that energy go, presumably into the potential energy of the recondensed fluid with it's altitude.

Would or should the energy required to overcome surface tension be included for vapourisation of a "fluid" from a damp object?
If not, does this mean the vapour will condense at a lower altitude than vapour that has had to overcome surface tension?
I do not know, but at present the question of the amount of energy required to overcome surface tension is given little attention, yet
it must make a large difference to the calculations of the amount of energy moved by latent heat from one place to another.
It would seem that most calculations at present just assume the same amount of energy is released aloft when the gas condenses to a liquid again, as it takes to vapourise the water at earth's surface.
This can not be true. Water is heavy, and at altitude it must have a lot of potential energy.

A version of this experiment can be done in a field (preferably a remote field) by anyone.
If one stood naked in the middle of a field on a warm, still, sunny day.
Note how much heat one is losing by radiating… Not a lot.

If one then got a friend to turn on a large (preferably industrial sized fan aimed at you)
Note how much heat you would be losing, by conduction and the resulting convection.

Then if one got the friend to then spray you with body temp water, or
throw buckets of body temp water over you (a bit like sweating really, albeit rather profusely).
Repeat, with large industrial sized fan aimed at you.
Very soon you would feel very,very much colder, and if male, not a little embarrassed…

In short,
1) Emission of thermal radiation (IR) cooling losses.
Objects cool (very) slowly by thermal radiation (IR) emission alone.
This is the operating principle of a thermos flask.
Do not confuse the fact that radiation itself moves at the speed of light, it is very fast,
BUT that does not effect the amount of energy / heat the object can emit,
which is governed by the objects temperature, NOT the speed that emitted radiation travels at.
A "photon" being emitted by the fluid contained in a thermos flask at the earth's surface may well escape to space in less than 20 milliseconds,
BUT that does not mean the thermos cools any faster.
It simply means any emitted thermal radiation (IR) potentially can travel a long, long way, at great speed. A speed of 186,000 miles per second,
if it is unimpeded by anything else on it's journey - which is very unlikely....

2) Conduction and Convection cooling losses to a dry atmosphere
Conduction and the resulting gravity powered convection in an atmosphere within a gravitational field is far more powerful.
When air directly in contact with a warmer object is heated by conduction of heat, from the warmer object,
as dictated by the 2nd Law of therodynamics, then the air expands. The expanded air is lighter than the surrounding air, so in a gravity field it has to rise, or rather convect.
This means that colder and denser air replaces the air that has convected, and this is then warmed, which results in more convection, untill the object is no warmer than the surrounding air.
(Please see Alan Siddon's "Learning by candlelight" paper attached to post 4 in this thread)

3) The latent heat of water vapourisation cooling losses
Heat / energy moved by the latent heat of water vapourisation and later condensation,
(remembering water vapour being lighter than air, also enhances / causes convection in an atmosphere within a gravity field)
is vastly larger by at least an order of magnitude than 1) and probably also 2) combined
under most circumstances / conditions at the earth's surface.

The above should leave one in no doubt that IR plays little part within our atmospheres "heat budget", it simply is not powerful enough.
This is also evidenced (and is it's main point really) in the "What does a thermal image of a greenhouse and it's surroundings show" simile in Post 2 of this thread.

To put it as succinctly as possible,, radiation, conduction and latent heat are all losses from the objects surface.
Convection of sensible and latent heat ONLY happens AFTER the fact of heat loss from the object.

Therefore the three forms of heat transfer from the objects surface are,
radiation, conduction and latent heat losses.
They are not radiation, conduction and convection as is currently taught.

Conduction and convection of sensible (actual) heat is far more important, overall than IR losses,
but the "mother" of it all is undoubtedly the latent heat movements associated with the vapourisation and condensation of water.
Therefore, on the water planet earth, at it's surface, the three forms of heat transfer in order of importance MUST BE,
1) Latent heat losses (which causes convection).
2) Conduction (which causes convection).
3) Radiation (which may enhance / cause convection).
This is the reverse of what we are currently taught, and that is widely "accepted", yet,
simple, everyday observations as shown in this peice show us that this is the actual reality of the planet that we live on, and it's climate.

Water is THE ONLY atmospheric constituent that undergoes changes of state under normal atmospheric conditions.
Because of this PHYSICAL FACT alone, water IS therefore, patently, and obviously,
THE DOMINANT FORCE WITHIN OUR PLANET'S CLIMATE SYSTEM.


* = The stricter "physics" definitions of evaporation and vapourisation are somewhat different to the common usage of the terms.
Evaporation and vapourisation are often used interchangeably, but are infact different "terms".
In the common usage meaning of evaporation it implies that evaporation happens when water boils, but
vapourisation can happen at any temperature between 0C and 100C for water.
The net effect is the same, fluid water becomes a gas, water vapour,
it is just that vapourisation does not imply the water is at, or close to 100C, as evaporation does imply to many people.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I just do not "get" the "maths" of climate science. Derek 1 6,017 01-05-2011, 03:30 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)