Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
#41
Way to go Derek! Fame calls. Big Grin
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#42
Naaah, but thank you Richard111, I have said before you have helped me tremendously,
and make significant contributions to our discussions.
I view it overall as a collective effort, not mine, (if any) fame is therefore shared.

I'll give it a week or so, and then I'd better update the original piece / essay, as a new updated attachment to the first post in this thread.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#43
We might also point out that the Climate Realist article links back to here, too.

May increase the board's traffic?
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#44
Excellent. It is way past time Derek had some of his work publicised through some of the bigger blogs.

Congratulations Derek.
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#45
Thank you Q_C.

BTW - I been "tweeted" as well.
http://twitter.com/hervellaes

Although I havn't got around to (or my head around) "tweeting" yet.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#46
Hello and thank you all for this forum. It is a high quality one.

Derek, Twitter is basically an information amplifier or a giant modern Babel Tower (or maybe a spontaneous and democratic sort of UN). In my opinion, it gives more emphasis to information than Facebook, which I think is more social (family, friends). It is very easy to use and if you link the forum address in the profile, I´m sure that traffic to GWS will increase. Just follow, read, publish, unfollow...

For lurkers: there´s a new way for "following" people by listing them in a not public list. Maybe those occult followers don´t know that the counter goes up without showing anybody new following you. There are very good Twitter users that send you a message telling every kind of drop and add you get. Just follow them; it´s free.

Cheers!
Ni cien conejos hacen un caballo, ni cien conjeturas una evidencia (F. Dostoyevski)
Reply
#47
(04-26-2010, 06:15 AM)strogoff Wrote: Hello and thank you all for this forum. It is a high quality one.

Derek, Twitter is basically an information amplifier or a giant modern Babel Tower (or maybe a spontaneous and democratic sort of UN). In my opinion, it gives more emphasis to information than Facebook, which I think is more social (family, friends). It is very easy to use and if you link the forum address in the profile, I´m sure that traffic to GWS will increase. Just follow, read, publish, unfollow...

For lurkers: there´s a new way for "following" people by listing them in a not public list. Maybe those occult followers don´t know that the counter goes up without showing anybody new following you. There are very good Twitter users that send you a message telling every kind of drop and add you get. Just follow them; it´s free.

Cheers!

Welcome to GWS!

It appears that your suggestion about TWITTER is worth considering.The Moderators will huddle on this soon and see what we can do about it.

Thanks for the suggestion and of your warm compliments to the forum.

Big Grin
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#48
This business about global heat budgets... Just had a thought. If insolation is 1,366W/m^2 and global albedo is in the order of 30%, then we should calculate that albedo for the sunlit side only. No albedo on the dark side.

Then total insolation on the sunlit side of the planet is 956.2W/m^2, divide by 4 and we get 239.05W/m^2

That is the amount of heat entering the atmosphere. Rather less than the "official" value.

pi R squared = area of disk, 4pi R squared = area of sphere.

I put all that together and get "Eh! What!"??? I must be wrong.

I just checked, my incoming figure almost exactly equals the OUTGOING figure in Post: #1 Smile
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#49
Richard111, I just pop in to write I will rewrite and add to the piece some time soon,
along very similar lines as to the present version, but with additions due to the various comments / suggestions so far recieved.
So far, I want to add a couple of sections though, firstly after the view point used section,
I want to add a time scale section. Basically K/T budgets use 1 year figures (guesstimates or modelling answers mostly), expressed as joules per second figures.
Yet all the processes the diagrams attempt to describe / depict vary on far different time scales, most not at all similar from year to year,
for reasons we do not fully understand and that mostly the figures used can not describe or take account of.
solar variations of output intensity / frequency, are known to vary on 11 (and some strongly suggest 22) year "cycles".
Oceanic currents and phases are both seasonal and alter on upto 10,000s of year cycles, we do not understand at all at present.
If as seems very likely oceans do remove and return heat to the climate system on far longer time scales than merely a year, and far shorter for example every day,
how can the K/T diagrams take this known, or at least intuitively obvious variability into account.?
Quite simply, they can not.

I'd also like to add a later section (in the second half of the presnt version) regarding what IR measurements actually measure,
but I am not sure on this one at all at present.
None of the descriptions of what a measurement of IR is make sense to me at present,
they seem to be IR intensities rather than (directional) flows......


Now Richard111 you throw in your above thought / calculation.
I'll repeat the K/T plot to help visualise your point.
[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

If I have understood correctly you are saying that where the diagram shows 341.3 incoming solar input, minus 101.9 reflected = 239.4

You get a solar input of 239.05.

I am not sure what your point is.?
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#50
Umm.. Ooo.. Ah.. Yes, my figures DO agree with the incoming energy.

I must have lost track with my convoluted thinking. Senior moments, tcha! Blush

I am still completely bemused by absorption, thermalisation and back radiation. I cannot see how surface IR radiation at the specified bands for CO2 and H2O can penetrate up more than a few hundred meters. This also applies to clouds. When the cloudbase is higher than 1,000 meters, the CO2 and H2O below will absorb their respective bandwidths so preventing those energy bands reaching the surface. Looks like double counting is occuring. Remember the cloud has the same radiation characteristics as a body of water. Lots of energy does reach the surface but not that at CO2 and H2O bands. Is this taken into account?

Once thermalisation has occurred, that energy is now held in the O2 and N2 gasses and can only be transported up. Little to no radiation from the air itself so it seems to me any radiative cooling of the air is because of the GHGs and particulate matter therein apart from normal expansion and pressure drop with altitude.

To summarise my understanding, "greenhouse" gasses do indeed warm the atmosphere near the surface but they cool the atmosphere above a few hundred meters. Some of the "cooling radiation" is directed towards the surface but is mostly blocked by the lower layers.

Back to my everlasting questions, how much energy is thermalised by CO2 and H2O, and, as H2O can vary hourly, why are there no figures to account for this changing "heating" affect in the air? I am not talking about the water transport effect, just the pure "greenhouse" effect of H2O molecules in the air. Lots of talk about CO2, well H2O can do exactly the same only more so.

That's about it from me, any more is just pie in the sky. Rolleyes
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#51
Richard111, before you go, which I hope you DO NOT.
Please see this that Strogoff has just send me.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0...10-11.html

Title,
Adiabatic Theory predicts slight cooling from Doubled CO2.

Excerpt,
" Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
leads to the cooling, and not to warming of climate,


longer excerpt,
" Russian physicists OG Sorokhtin, GV Chilingar, and LF Khilyuk noted in their book
Global warming and global cooling. Evolution of climate on earth.
Developments in Earth & Environmental Sciences (Elsevier 2007)
that conventional greenhouse theory is not based on sound physical derivation,
with most calculations and predictions based on intuitive models using numerous poorly defined parameters
and unproven positive feedback forcing from CO2.
Most conventional interpretations and models, such as those of the IPCC,
consider only one component of heat transfer- radiation- to create a
flat earth radiation budget of the atmosphere, ocean, and land masses, and
do not adequately address the impact of e.g. convection and circulation on a rotating sphere.
In contrast, the Sorokhtin et al adiabatic theory considers earth as an open, dissipative system
that can be described by non-linear equations of mathematical physics, taking into account
the formation of stable thermodynamic structures in each compartment, between compartments, and
ruled by strong negative feedbacks (e.g. convection, water cycles, clouds).
They devised a model based on well-established relationships among physical fields describing
the mass and heat transfer in the atmosphere and subsequently published the paper
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 in Energy Sources,
Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects (2008),
"
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#52
Will have a look tomorrow. Need shuteye now.

I have been trying to read this paper for the last two hours or so. I am now more than ever convinced that ANY global energy budget is crap.

The spectroscopy of water vapour: Experiment, theory and applications

They are still learning what water vapour can do!
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#53
Yee, goodness me Richard111, that's heavy going.
Here's another I have come across.

http://www.climatephysics.com/PDFs/Chili...%20CO2.pdf
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
G. V. CHILINGAR,1 L. F. KHILYUK,1, and
O. G. SOROKHTIN 2

1 Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
2 Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Abstract
The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere.
Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that
increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in
cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#54
Thanks for the link Derek. I will find out if it confirms my own suspiscions of GH effect on the adiabatic lapse rate as I have posted previously.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#55
It also occurs to me that possibly Dr. Miskolczi's tau = 1.87 agrees with the general thrust of the above paper.
My reasoning is, IF tau is 1.87,
(the number of times a photon emitted at the earth's surface is reflected back to the earth's surface before
it escapes to space, expressed as a globally averaged figure),
then, as a photon travels at the speed of light, this ain't a very long time....It's almost instantly.
If radiative cooling was dominant then the cooling rate would be dominated by the earth's surface emisivity rate (ie how fast it radiates heat).
This patently is not the case, so radiative cooling is but a minor player overall.

Also if CO2 reaches saturation levels at a very low hieght (several metres) then there is a tau of more than 1 straight away..
Yet we know so much more supposedly gets reflected back from higher in the atmosphere, tau should be a far larger figure. ?
Why is tau so small, possibly because a lot of energy is released for the first time as radiation higher up in the atmosphere (ie, H2O latent heat releases),
so lowering the apparent tau figure as measured....
tau itself, being such a small figure, and the speed of photons seem to disprove the greenhouse effect.

If the above holds, then O2 and N2 are insulating the earth, and water in it's various forms, and energies of changes of state,
is moving vast amounts of energy (heat) around and increasing the rate of energy (heat) loss from the earth's surface higher up in the atmosphere.
CO2 "mimicks" some of water's properties (aids cooling), but is nowhere near as powerful, so
overall is not really worth considering, as everything else in all respects dwarfs CO2 effects.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#56
I decided to ask Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD his opinion on the subject.
He has very kindly, and completely replied at,
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS
ON EARTH'S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD,
CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS
THE SUN

by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
3/27/10. Cor. 4/17/10.
(downloadable pdf version titled SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING
is attached to the bottom of this post. It is a,
I MUST PRINT OFF AND DIGEST)


I will repeat my question and his reply in total below.

Derek wrote:
1003291346

Hello Dr. Glassman,

Can I first say yet another piece up to your usual very high standard.

Question - Is it possible to have a downloadable pdf version please.

[RSJ: {Rev. 4/25/10. A downloadable pdf is now available as a feature article in the CrossFit Journal in the category, Rest Day/Theory:

http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glas...ticleTitle

[{End rev 4/25/10}]

Also you might like to visit / consider the main points of this post / thread concerning the K/T Global energy budgets.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-609.html

I would very much value your opinions regarding the heat flow / radiation intensity possible (I think actual) confusion, misrepresentation.

[RSJ: My reaction to your symbols K/T and K-T was to try to distinguish them. I decided both mean Kiehl & Trenberth. That's OK, but they look very much like Boltzmann constant, K, and absolute Temperature, T, found together as in the dimensionless quantity hν/KT.

[I would rely on the K&T original paper to criticize their work. They present a model for the "Earth's annual global mean energy budget" based on a balance of radiation transfer. It was the latest in a century of effort in climatology, and perhaps the first to incorporate satellite data. It comprises three nodes, extraterrestrial, atmosphere, and Earth's surface, and two heat paths, long wave and short wave. The atmosphere is interesting because it is the domain of climatology. IPCC's manufactured crisis is unlimited in its ecological consequences, but all derived from the single climate parameter of surface temperature. From that standpoint, the atmosphere is a complex, superfluous node. The atmosphere is necessary to express the outgoing longwave radiation from the surface by blackbody radiation, and because radiation measured by satellites originates at the top of the atmosphere and clouds, and not just the surface.

[K&T balanced each node. To do so, radiation alone was insufficient. They were obliged to add thermals and evapotranspiration fluxes between Earth's surface and the atmosphere. You criticize their model for being a hybrid of heat and radiation, but that doesn't bother me. K&T's diagram is not a climate model, only a radiation budget that could inform any type of climate model. Also, I would include radiation as a normal form of heat in any thermodynamic model.

[I don't like the back radiation model at all in this application. It is a mesoparameter concept out of place in a macroparameter (thermodynamic) problem (reserving the microparameter view for condensation, and molecular vibrations and quantum dynamics.) Thermodynamics is a statistical science, about bulk forms, closed systems, and the limiting state of equilibrium. The macroparameters of thermodynamics are generally not even observable, such as the concept of global averages for surface temperature and albedo, parameters expressed directly or indirectly in the K&T diagram.

[The Second Law is about averages, or net fluxes. It says the net flux is from the warmer body to the colder, and neither that there is no back radiation, nor that the back radiation might not be the larger flux for a brief time. If you break a flux into its upstream and downstream components, or measure the flux in too short a time period, you move outside the field of thermodynamics and its laws, which may be the reason quantum dynamics is not thermodynamic. In K&T, the outgoing longwave radiation and the incoming back radiation form an internal loop that could be replaced by the net, long wave radiation flux at the surface, a thermodynamic parameter, with no effect on the budget but for the need or desire to show the blackbody radiation effect intact.

[In K&T, back radiation is highly idealized, treating the atmosphere as a lumped parameter, when back radiation is distributed throughout the atmosphere. K&T show an atmospheric window, which is a composite region in the absorption spectrum for the atmosphere. Absorption spectra are end-to-end models, whether for the entire atmosphere or convenient layers of it. The total absorption can be treated as an end-to-end impedance to heat, supporting a temperature drop from the surface to deep space according to Fourier's principles, the heat analog of Ohm's Law. These considerations tend to transmute K&T's radiation budgeting into climate modeling.

[K&T's model is solid science, as far as it has gone, and hard to avoid in climate modeling. Even for SGW, in which short and long term climate is governed by the Sun, the K&T model requires modification to account for the climate's amplifying effect. Figure 13, above. K&T also has no place for the tapped delay line effect because it does not model the ocean as a separate process. K&T's budget is a mean, static boundary condition, not a dynamic model with feedback. It does not represent the carbon or hydrological cycle, including the decomposition of the greenhouse gases.

[These considerations are at the core of the art of modeling, where simplicity or Occam's Razor rules. The global average surface temperature can be any specific value for an infinity of atmospheric parameter states, those of temperature lapse rate, gas concentrations, or cloud cover. By not adhering to the minimum necessary elements, the modeling problem explodes. For example, trying to get the lapse rate right in the troposphere and stratosphere is an exercise in futility because there is no unique lapse rate for surface temperature. Lapse rate is an irrelevant parameter. So, too, are the parameters you add in your fourth figure. This is far too much detail for a thermodynamic problem.

[K&T's budget is an annual average, covering seasonal and diurnal variations. They encompass the latter by the factor of 4, the ratio of Earth's intercepting disk to its total surface area, applied between TSI and insolation at the top of the atmosphere. Your point with your day night figure was to conclude, "A massive transport of heat must be happening from the day side to the night side of the constantly rotating water planet Earth." I would observe that the heat released is longwave radiation, and operates day and night at different rates, which you might want to compute. I would argue that you need to compute the heat flux, and not just rely on surface temperature differences, on Earth or the Moon, for your conclusions. Divide Earth's surface into its parts by mass and heat capacity, and you should find that the diurnal variability in surface air temperature or dry surfraces is relatively unimportant on climate scales.

[The ocean rules. The atmosphere is a thin byproduct of the ocean. As you say, "water planet Earth".]

Furthermore in regard to the K/T budgets, do you have an opinion regarding the

1) possible massive under representation / missing latent heat movements by water vapourisation, and

2) cold movements downward in the atmosphere by rain / hail / snow, etc.

[RSJ: No, I don't. The reason is I've concentrated on the thermodynamic problem of global warming and not the regional, mesoparameter problems that lead to locally induced space and time variability. I knew immediately on reading the IPCC Reports that unavoidable principles of science laid untouched, so I took the problem on top-down.]

Later edit - Dr. Glassman replies in one of the comments to Steve Short,
" [RSJ: Your observations and best fit models tend to support studies that say surface reflectivity is around 25% of Bond albedo. There is an eclipsing effect, too, and I assume this is appropriately taken into account in these models. However, these are warm state effects, where the greenhouse effect is in operation, but regulated by cloud albedo. Now let surface albedo range above 0.9 or so and you have a recipe for the glacial state. The climate will be dry and cloudless, and Earth will be locked into its cold state with no significant greenhouse effect. These observations account for the brief stability and maximum temperature in the warm state, and the profound stability in the cold state.] "

WOW, just wow, that makes so much sense.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#57
Hi All,
Some of you may have noticed I have added a Dr. Miskolczi archive today.

Incidentally - I would also like to add a Richard S Courtney archive as well, I'll have to email him, ASAP.

I particularly am struck by the overall approach of Dr. Miskolczi's works, because
he looks at the atmosphere / greenhouse effect overall, or as "one".
He does not go into the specific processes as such, but the overall effect.
In the end my overview is that his works show that the so called greenhouse effect varies over time,
apparently within upper and lower limits.
These upper and lower limits he does not try to explain, but "merely" quantify.

I sometimes think of Dr. Miskolczi's tau figure (in a "simily" sort of way) as a sort of atmospheric "heat capacity".
The higher the number the more heat is retained for longer, the lower the number the quicker heat is lost.
So, a high tau figure means an interglacial, and a low tau figure results in a glacial period.
This line of thinking would tie in with Dr. Glassman's suggestions above, AND the Svensmark effect.
Dr. Glassman seems to explain how the mechanism works with clouds, and
Svensmark proves the mechanism for the solar influence upon cloud formation, and levels of coverage as effected by solar activity.

So, that would be the sun, oceans, and water vapour (OK, OK, clouds) driving climate.
My signsture is pretty close really.

Unfortunately it means I would have to look again, or rethink my recent stated position regarding is all radiation positive.
This would be because as tau is effecting global temperature it must be pretty dependent upon clouds "back radiation"..
Apparently "science of doom" is at present involved in a very relevant discussion in this regard,
Radiation Basics and the Imaginary Second Law of Thermodynamics
so, I'll have to read through the above thread as well..

Today I'm baby sitting two Rottweilers, so I maybe some time.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#58
Derek, this paper may give you food for thought:

Adiabatic Theory predicts slight cooling from Doubled CO2

Here is the bit I thought might interest you: (pg 4 of the paper, pg 5 of the pdf)

Quote:It is noteworthy that in Eq. (10) the solar constant S is divided by 4 because the area of Earth’s disk insolation is 4 times lower than the total illuminated area of Earth. Equation (10) is valid only if the axis of rotation of planet is strictly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, i.e., the angle of precession (angle) is equal to zero.
The angle of inclination of equatorial plane to the ecliptic plane is not equal to zero and is changing in time. Therefore, each of the Earth’s polar regions is insolated during half a year only. In another half a year, it is deprived of the influx of solar energy. When one polar region is insolated, the other is situated in the shadow of Earth’s body and does not receive the solar energy. The rest of Earth’s surface receives its portion of solar energy on a regular basis and, consequently, Eq. (10) is valid for calculation of temperature of air. Therefore, in computing the average temperature of “inclined” planet at high latitudes (polar regions), one needs to divide the solar constant by 2 (not by 4). In addition, one has to take into consideration the spherical shape of polar region. As a result, the solar constant in Eq. (10) has to be divided by a number N, which lies between 2 and 4. Taking all of the above into consideration and assuming that the precession angle is relatively small, one can derive the following equation for the distribution of average temperature in troposphere:
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#59
Thank you Richard111, it does indeed give much food for thought,
I have already reposted your link in another thread where it is also extremely relevant.
ie, Post 16
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-709.html

I'll spend some time reading it through ASAP.
Initial "thought" - Milankovich.

The paper was already saved on my desktop........
I had not got round to reading it yet. Blush
I think I found it just before the start of my last shift....
Work does get in the way so.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#60
Seems like physicists have a sense of humour, have a look at:

"hv" by Gilbert Stead

On reading through explanations this sentence rather threw me:
The specific heat is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of a solid by one degree.

Why, because I started thinking about the volume of a gram of GAS compared to the volume of a solid and how there is much, much, more room for the molecules of a GH gas to indulge in vibrational/kinetical jiggery pokery as opposed to molecules locked in place in a solid.

I think I can see how a gas would need LESS energy to reach a state equivalent to a given temperature but when the GH gas is mixed with other gases and there is no structure physically connecting the molecules, kinetic transfere of energy must be quite slow compared to kinetic heat flow through a solid.

I am told radiative cooling is proportional to surface area, more surface, more cooling. So a solitary molecule, to my mind, has an almost infinite surface area and will radiate excess energy tout de sweety.

So it looks like, to me, that radiative warming of DRY ATMOSPHERE by greenhouse gases is hardly more than wishful thinking.

Once the humidity exceeds the dew point we get water droplets and enter a whole new ball park. Must stop here as this just goes on and on.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming Sunsettommy 0 3,947 07-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Kiehl/Trenberth/et al Global Energy Budget blouis79 12 18,009 10-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)