Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Myth of Backradiation
#41
(08-03-2010, 05:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: Richard, yes, I agree with you that the evaporation of water and its condensation in the upper atmosphere moves a lot of heat around the atmosphere and globe and convection is also involved in that. The water from plants in wooded areas evaporates, cools the leaves and hence the local temperature is lower than an adjacent car park ("Parking Lot" in American) where the local weather station Stevenson screen is situated.

This water vapour is carried into the upper atmopshere by convection, where it cools and forms clouds. But you need a source of water than can be evaporated for this to occur.

So convection and evaporation are both important to varying degrees. If we take the example of a desert, there is little evaporation, if any, so the major cooling factors of the earths surface in the desert will be convection of heated air and radiation of IR. Thus a desert will be hotter during the day than a jungle at the same lattitude as will a wood be cooler during the day than a parking lot/ space.
(07-04-2010, 03:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote: Well well,
-snip-
Here is a chart to excite anybody!

[Image: divine.gif]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that K+T just made this diagram up. It has no references to show how these figures were derived in any scientific journal.

It is pure speculation.

Well not pure, but corrupt speculation.

Can anyone show how this diagram was derived?

It is 66 + 78 + 24 = 168; if and only if the surface emits like a blackbody, which is the first fallacy we find in T/K diagram. The surface emits 0.95, which converts those "66" into 62.7.

The second fallacy is found where we read the legend "Divine Intervention". This is where T/K demonstrated their corrupted science. They dismissed the first law of thermodynamics and created 159.3 of power flux from the nothingness. When one points out the error, they appeal to the "accumulator fallacy", i.e. the atmosphere is a better absorber than a blackbody because it absorbs 103.4% energy from the total available energy. That's pseudoscience because it places the atmosphere as a mystical subsystem which is superior to any other climate subsystem and to the most perfect blackbody, which would absorb only 100% of the energy. Nevertheless, the atmosphere is a gray body, not a blackbody, and its physical capability to absorb radiated energy is poor (0.43). Thus, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE that the atmosphere can emit more energy than it absorbs.

The third fallacy is evident. T/K added the emitted energy by the surface alone to the imaginary energy emitted by the atmosphere to obtain another imaginary cipher, 324 + 66 = 390. They cannot do that because that load of energy had already been computed for obtaining those imaginary 324 W/m^2 of power flux. In short words, Trenberth y Kiehl added the same cipher twice, i.e. 2 + 3 = 5 apples + 2 apples (???).

What Trenberth and Kiehl did do was illusory and misleading pseudoscience.
Reply
#42
(07-30-2010, 08:22 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: I think you do have back radiation from Infra Red Interacting Gasses (IRIGs) of Infra red at certain wavelengths that finds its way back to the ground but as the ground is already sufficiently hot enough to be emitting IR at those wavelengths then the ground cannot be heated further. It merely momentarily absorbs, then immediately emits the photon again. It is possible for a material to interact with IR radiation without being warmed by it.

All the IRIGs do is scatter IR throughout the lower atmosphere, not heating the ground at all.

As said above by Nasif, convection and evaporation are the major cooling mechanisms of the earths surface and I think that as these are essentially slow mechanisms, this accounts for the earths surface being tolerable for life and for the temperature remaining fairly constant between day and night.

So, I think THERE IS a "greenhouse" analogous effect but it is not due to IRIGs but the slowness of convection and evaporation. I read somewhere else that this is why cloudy nights in winter are warmer than clear nights- not due to IR but due to convection being slowed even further.

We could affect the climate, but only by massive physical changes to the earths surface that would radically alter albedo and convection/ evaporation mechanisms. Hence the urban heat island effect.

That is an interesting point about the SPEED of heat transfer from the surface going upward.

Radiation is moving near the speed of light,but conduction is much slower and convection even slower.

Thus an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere could actually increase the rate of transferring kinetic energy from the surface,by bypassing the slower heat tranfer routes of conduction and
convection.Because a little bit more of the IR is being moved further away from the surface than before,speeding up removal of kinetic energy.Before it finally collides by conduction or be intercepted by water vapor.

The slower heat transfer methods has a strong upward bias in transporting the heat energy.Thus will continue to move energy further away from the surface.
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
#43
Thank you Nasif Nahle for your comment in Post: #41 About the K+T diagram.

SST, your comments above are a point I have been trying to understand for a while now.

Radiation does indeed move at the speed of light. Convection moves, at best I think, at meters per second.

Conduction warms the air from the points of contact on the surface only. Radiation warms, albeit small quanties, of air further up the column.

Convection carries ALL warmed air upwards. This is a cooling effect. I would expect high humidity air to have an even greator effect of moving energy upwards.

My own suspicion, which I do not have the ability to prove, is the the above combined effects far exceed any so called "back radiation".
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#44
(08-03-2010, 10:57 PM)Richard111 Wrote: Thank you Nasif Nahle for your comment in Post: #41 About the K+T diagram.

SST, your comments above are a point I have been trying to understand for a while now.

Radiation does indeed move at the speed of light. Convection moves, at best I think, at meters per second.

Conduction warms the air from the points of contact on the surface only. Radiation warms, albeit small quanties, of air further up the column.

Convection carries ALL warmed air upwards. This is a cooling effect. I would expect high humidity air to have an even greator effect of moving energy upwards.

My own suspicion, which I do not have the ability to prove, is the the above combined effects far exceed any so called "back radiation".

You're welcome, Richard. What you describe on heat transfer at the boundary layer is correct. We must include Prad and induced negative absorption (some people, from AGWers way of "thought", think it only occurs in lasser pointers, hah!), which cancel the absorption of any photon of the "back radiation" or “atmosphere photon stream”. In my opinion, considering only those two quantum forces into the evaluation of heat transfer by radiation annihilates completely any idea on the warming of the surface by a mysteriously enhanced "downwelling" radiation from the atmosphere. For it could exist, the power by the “downwelling radiation”, or “back radiation” must be higher than the power by solar radiation or than the power of the surface radiation, depending on what system we are considering into our assessment. On this case, the main process of heat transfer at the boundary layer is by conduction (from the subsurface materials to the surface and by contact from the surface to the air) and by convection (the air takes thermal energy from the surface by convection and conduction, and convects it away towards other colder volumes of air).
Reply
#45
Asking an engineer about heat loss usually gets a reply alone the lines that IR is the least, then it is conduction and convection, but latent heat (vapourisation of water) is the biggest by far.
In whatever combination, conduction, convection, latent heat are orders of magnitude larger than radiation losses. They maybe slower, but they are far more massive.
A bit like trying to move the contents of a bucket of water from one end of a room to the other, IR would be using a small syringe, conduction / convection, would be using several large mugs,
whilst latent heat would be using a slightly smaller bucket to dip in and move the water with.

I have never recieved an answer yet to my question about how fast is the "greenhouse effect", Nasif answers in this thread about 0.4 of a second.
I never have seen how the so called "greenhose effect" would work from this "speed of" perspective, photons are simply too damned fast..
Surface heat absorbtion, retention, and later varying release is both big enough, and slow enough - photons simply arn't.

Nasif - Am I right in assuming the mean distance untill absorbtion is highly pressure dependent. ?
Have you plotted the average distance till absorbtion by the different gases / dust that can absorb a photon in the atmosphere, against barometric pressure. ?
Would this exclude O2 and N2 ?
I gather that the 48 metre figure for CO2 is in the troposphere, but that's quite a pressure range isn't it. ?
It would be an interesting plot, if it could be done, presumably showing the always large difference in distance between water vapour and CO2.
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
Ah, I was going to post about dust and its relative lifetime in the atmosphere but Derek's post above has interesting questions which hold my attention as well. Will await developements.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#47
(08-04-2010, 12:06 PM)Derek Wrote: Asking an engineer about heat loss usually gets a reply alone the lines that IR is the least, then it is conduction and convection, but latent heat (vapourisation of water) is the biggest by far.
In whatever combination, conduction, convection, latent heat are orders of magnitude larger than radiation losses. They maybe slower, but they are far more massive.
A bit like trying to move the contents of a bucket of water from one end of a room to the other, IR would be using a small syringe, conduction / convection, would be using several large mugs,
whilst latent heat would be using a slightly smaller bucket to dip in and move the water with.

I have never recieved an answer yet to my question about how fast is the "greenhouse effect", Nasif answers in this thread about 0.4 of a second.
I never have seen how the so called "greenhose effect" would work from this "speed of" perspective, photons are simply too damned fast..
Surface heat absorbtion, retention, and later varying release is both big enough, and slow enough - photons simply arn't.

Nasif - Am I right in assuming the mean distance untill absorbtion is highly pressure dependent. ?
Have you plotted the average distance till absorbtion by the different gases / dust that can absorb a photon in the atmosphere, against barometric pressure. ?
Would this exclude O2 and N2 ?
I gather that the 48 metre figure for CO2 is in the troposphere, but that's quite a pressure range isn't it. ?
It would be an interesting plot, if it could be done, presumably showing the always large difference in distance between water vapour and CO2.

Hi Richard111... Actually, I based the calculations on the current density of the gases comprising the atmosphere. I couldn’t compute dust because its density is highly variable and its composition quite heterogeneous. I was struggling on finding a global average, but I considered it wouldn’t be real. The latter situation obliged me to exclude the whole subsystem from my calculations. However, I have finished the mean free paths through O2 and N2 in the Troposphere and found that those gases are more efficient than the CO2 for absorbing/scattering photons. The density of those gases is the determinant factor for calculating the absorptivity and emissivity of each componenet of the atmosphere.

My preliminary results are as follows:

Thermodynamic Subsystem t cross (s) l (cm) αtot εtot
Mixed air with 4% H2Og 0.975 2078 0.62 0.62
5.3 × 10^21 g/cm^3 Dry Air 0.951 2079 0.61 0.61
3.03 x 10^-5 g/cm^3 H2Og 0.024 805 0.024 0.0237
9.182 x 10^-4 g/cm^3 N2 0.0102 1945 0.01 0.01
2.82 x 10^-4 g/cm^3 O2 0.0071 2538 0.007 0.007
7.03 x 10^-4 g/cm^3 CO2 0.0042 4701 0.0039 0.0039

Considering the partial pressure of each gas, we obtain lower magnitudes for total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide:

CO2 totabs = 0.00174 and CO2 totemiss = 0.0017, therefore, the total absorptivity of CO2 would be 0.0017 and its total emissivity would be insignificantly lower than its total absorptivity.

Something of especial interest is that the total absorptivity/total emissivity of the dry mixture of air and the mixture of air with 4% of water vapor coincide with the values obtained from the algorithm based on the partial pressures of the components of the air, which allows us to deduce that the totabs/totemiss are highly dependent on pressure and temperature. However, given that the CO2 is a poor thermal conductor (its k is almost that of a thermal insulator), its totemiss and totabs diminishes as the temperature increases.

On the other hand, I have found that the t cross of the air with water vapor, and its mean path length increase up to 975 ms because the presence of eddies and air currents (convection). I don’t remember who wrote something related to eddies and currents of air, but it was mentioned here that the air is not static. Big Grin
Reply
#48
I have repeated Nasif's post 41 on this thread on the do global energy budgets make sense thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-1.html

If I may continue further with these photon things, and the mean distance before absorbed by, whatever subject we appear to be discussing, and quite rightly.
To the best understanding I have managed to get so far,
a photon is basically a small packet of energy, of virtually no mass, emitted by everything, ie, liquids, solids, and gases, (I'm not sure about plasma..)
it is a (ONE, AND PROBABLY THE LEAST EFFECTIVE) means / natural mechanism by which things cool.
Solids (and liquids) emitt photons according to temperature, and the Planck curve (although this may need a "slight" revision - Please see Claes Johnson attachment to this post).
So, photons cover a wide range of frequencies, and all things emit at all frequencies, it is the peak frequency of emission that is "governed" by temperature.
Gases, are a bit "different" because of chemical bonds, and because they are "free" to move, change chemical bond configuration, they tend to emit at characteristic frequencies, as (confusingly) do some liguids.
There are two types of IR emissions by things, emissions from solids (peak is temp. dependent), and emissions from gases (peak at atmos. temps. is chemical bond changes "dependent"),
but liquids fall between the two, displaying some "solid" properties of IR emission, and some "gas" properties of IR emission.
Water for instance as a liguid emits at some characteristic frequencies, which (unfortunately, and very confusingly) directly overlap, are the same as (the main) CO2 gas characteristic frequency of emission.
Any atmospheric measurement of 15 micron wavelength IR (photons) is therefore a sum of water (liquid) and CO2 (gas) photon emissions.
ie,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-655.html
I am not aware that "we" are capable, or even can separate out the two sources in any IR measurement taken in the atmosphere.
There is a lot of liquid water in the atmosphere.

The above is why I am interested in the plot I have suggested.
"All" this CO2 IR "we" are so damned obsessed about, supposedly bouncing around, supposedly heating the place up, is it.
Or is it just water doing what water does.....
AND "we" are back at the missing Segelstein 1981 MS thesis AGAIN...


Attached Files
.pdf   Computational Black-Body Radiation Claes Johnson draft 2010.pdf (Size: 397 KB / Downloads: 733)
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
#49
Sorry for my mistake. I had posted about argon; however, argon is transparent to IR, so the data I had posted was incorrect.
Reply
#50
(08-06-2010, 02:55 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Sorry for my mistake. I had posted about argon; however, argon is transparent to IR, so the data I had posted was incorrect.

One of the good things about this type of forum is that you can later go back into your posts and correct as required.
A "covering note" within the "corrected" post can sometimes also help.

btw - Are O2 and N2 transparent to the photons being discussed here ?
I am under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that they are indeed transparent.
So the mean path length of a photon to absorbtion (in the atmosphere) by O2 and N2 would be infinite, is that correct.
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
#51
(08-07-2010, 12:56 AM)Derek Wrote:
(08-06-2010, 02:55 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Sorry for my mistake. I had posted about argon; however, argon is transparent to IR, so the data I had posted was incorrect.

One of the good things about this type of forum is that you can later go back into your posts and correct as required.
A "covering note" within the "corrected" post can sometimes also help.

btw - Are O2 and N2 transparent to the photons being discussed here ?
I am under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that they are indeed transparent.
So the mean path length of a photon to absorbtion (in the atmosphere) by O2 and N2 would be infinite, is that correct.

Hi... Thanks for your recommendation. I'll do as you say on further posts if I write something erroneous.

Regarding your question, N2 is also transparent to Longwave IR, but O2 is not. O2 is a poor absorber but it is better than CO2 by a small factor. According to the molar mass and density of those gases, the CO2 has a total absorptivity of 0.0042, while O2 total absorptivity is 0.007. Anyway, the water vapor is the best absorber/ scatterer of photons in the atmosphere with a total absorptivity of 0.0245.

On the other hand, when I mentioned the mean free path length in dry atmosphere, I reported <i>l</i> = 0.974, which was the product of an error on the density of the air, which I forgot to convert from g/m^3 to g/cm^3. After I fixed the error, the cipher became consistent with the remainder data, giving a magnitude for mean free path length of photons through the troposphere of 0.00974, which is much lower than the sum of the mean free path lengths of the main components of the atmosphere. The latter is due to the influence that gases which are insulators have over absorbent gases.

Anyway, my work demonstrates that the water vapor is, by far, the constituent of the Earth's atmosphere on modifying the temperature of the atmosphere. The role of CO2 is insignificant.
Reply
#52
Thank you for the clarification Nasif, how would it convert into a distance for absorbtion by O2. ?

Nasif, are you considering the plot of distance to absorbtion versus pressure I suggested.
It could be very interesting in many respects, particularly CO2 in the upper atmosphere..

Everone - The mean figure of 48 metres for mean absorbtion in the troposphere, also has an interesting effect upon the hieght of "saturation".
It has often been mentioned as about 10 metres, and would be reduced by 3 metres (if I remember correctly) if the CO2 level was doubled.
Nasif's figures (which I think are more of a ball park, if not correct figure) would throw this often given "effect" out of the window, I think.
Comments anyone.
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
#53
And you are welcome.

Here a graph on partial pressure of H2Og vs. Altitude and absorptivity: http://www.biocab.org/PpH2Og_alpha_H20g.pdf

And a graph on partial pressure of CO2 vs. Altitude and absorptivity: http://www.biocab.org/PpCO2_alphaCO2.pdf

Now they work... Sorry... Smile

I have not finished those graphs, but the calculations are complete. I have a stupid bump at 3000 m height and I don't know what the cause could be. The measurements were taken from aviation (bitacoras)registers; thus, it could be a biased measurement caused by turbulences. I don't know too much on aviation. Smile
Reply
#54
If I have got the idea of these plots, they show graphically the at least order of magnitudes (ie at least two noughts...) difference, between H2O and CO2.

I am not sure however of what is actually plotted, and have tried below to put into laymans words, what I think I see.

Am I correct in thinking that,

i) The across the bottom (Y axis) is (mean) metres to absorbtion of a photon by the gas being plotted.
(Is it also "substituting" barometric pressure)

ii) The left hand vertical axis (the first X axis) is (the blue plot line), the number of the gases molecules present per cubic centimetre,
expressed in millionth parts in the vertical atmospheric measurements plotted.
So, for example the 0.045 upper scale on the water vapour plot is 45,000 molecules of water vapour per cubic centimetre (or should that be cubic metre ?).

iii) The right hand vertical axis (the second X axis), is (the brown plot line) well, I don't know..but I think it is
the mean distance to absorbtion when the gas being plotted is at the stated actual number (in millionths as described at ii)) of parts per unit volume.

I was sort of "expecting" a plot with pressure / hieght up the vertical axis, and the mean distance to absorbtion across the horizontal axis (plotting vertically from left to right).
The brown line in the present plots.
and possibly the actual number of molecules present per unit volume on a second horizontal axis, (plotting vertically from right to left).
The blue line in the present plots.
This would presumably produce a vertical (and probably stretched) "X" shaped plot.
If the bottom axis could be made wide enough, then H20 and CO2 could be plotted "together" but
CO2 would be way to the right, and far narrower than that of H2O.
When CO2 and H20 are plotted together with pressure either vertically or horizontally, CO2 is going to be way further away than H2O,
so, CO2 can only have an effect if it happens by chance to be nearer the photons source than the nearest water molecule, highly unlikely, or at best rarely.
CO2 because of this it would seem can never be "saturated", water vapour dwarfs it in all possible realistic scenarios.
Unfortunately the CO2 saturated arguement hieght merely being reduced if CO2 level is doubled is also is put to bed by this.
There is just not enough space "underneath" water vapours "X" to allow CO2 to ever become saturated.

NB - Could the bumps be explained by the top of the troposphere (probably not), or
the limit of atmospheric convection at the time the measurements were taken, or,
maybe a downdraft at the time of measurement.

Later edit - Given the gases in question occur over a range of concentrations, at any given level (pressure),
should these also be plotted, and their (I assume) effects upon mean path length before absorbtion.
For instance, at sea level what are the upper and lower values found over the globes surface,
I would hazard a guess of from as little as 1,000 upto as high as 60,000 for water vapour.
I am guessing 30,000 (ppm) was actually plotted.
How these upper and lower figures vary with hieght I havn't a clue.
The "X" plotted would have a wider shaded area,
how it varies with hieght, and for the different gases / dust, could be very interesting,
as would how it effects mean path length to absorbtion.
I think there will be variations with hieght because,
CO2 is a relatively heavy gas, and water vapour a very light gas,
also cold effects water vapour more than CO2.
Dust and CO2 are both "washed" out of the atmosphere by liquid water and it's condensation within the atmosphere, mostly at altitude,
particularly where Nasif notes the bumps in his plots - possibly.
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
#55
(08-08-2010, 02:01 AM)Derek Wrote: If I have got the idea of these plots, they show graphically the at least order of magnitudes (ie at least two noughts...) difference, between H2O and CO2.

I am not sure however of what is actually plotted, and have tried below to put into laymans words, what I think I see.

Am I correct in thinking that,

i) The across the bottom (Y axis) is (mean) metres to absorbtion of a photon by the gas being plotted.
(Is it also "substituting" barometric pressure)

ii) The left hand vertical axis (the first X axis) is (the blue plot line), the number of the gases molecules present per cubic centimetre,
expressed in millionth parts in the vertical atmospheric measurements plotted.
So, for example the 0.045 upper scale on the water vapour plot is 45,000 molecules of water vapour per cubic centimetre (or should that be cubic metre ?).

iii) The right hand vertical axis (the second X axis), is (the brown plot line) well, I don't know..but I think it is
the mean distance to absorbtion when the gas being plotted is at the stated actual number (in millionths as described at ii)) of parts per unit volume.

I was sort of "expecting" a plot with pressure / hieght up the vertical axis, and the mean distance to absorbtion across the horizontal axis (plotting vertically from left to right).
The brown line in the present plots.
and possibly the actual number of molecules present per unit volume on a second horizontal axis, (plotting vertically from right to left).
The blue line in the present plots.
This would presumably produce a vertical (and probably stretched) "X" shaped plot.
If the bottom axis could be made wide enough, then H20 and CO2 could be plotted "together" but
CO2 would be way to the right, and far narrower than that of H2O.
When CO2 and H20 are plotted together with pressure either vertically or horizontally, CO2 is going to be way further away than H2O,
so, CO2 can only have an effect if it happens by chance to be nearer the photons source than the nearest water molecule, highly unlikely, or at best rarely.
CO2 because of this it would seem can never be "saturated", water vapour dwarfs it in all possible realistic scenarios.
Unfortunately the CO2 saturated arguement hieght merely being reduced if CO2 level is doubled is also is put to bed by this.
There is just not enough space "underneath" water vapours "X" to allow CO2 to ever become saturated.

NB - Could the bumps be explained by the top of the troposphere (probably not), or
the limit of atmospheric convection at the time the measurements were taken, or,
maybe a downdraft at the time of measurement.

Later edit - Given the gases in question occur over a range of concentrations, at any given level (pressure),
should these also be plotted, and their (I assume) effects upon mean path length before absorbtion.
For instance, at sea level what are the upper and lower values found over the globes surface,
I would hazard a guess of from as little as 1,000 upto as high as 60,000 for water vapour.
I am guessing 30,000 (ppm) was actually plotted.
How these upper and lower figures vary with hieght I havn't a clue.
The "X" plotted would have a wider shaded area,
how it varies with hieght, and for the different gases / dust, could be very interesting,
as would how it effects mean path length to absorbtion.
I think there will be variations with hieght because,
CO2 is a relatively heavy gas, and water vapour a very light gas,
also cold effects water vapour more than CO2.
Dust and CO2 are both "washed" out of the atmosphere by liquid water and it's condensation within the atmosphere, mostly at altitude,
particularly where Nasif notes the bumps in his plots - possibly.

Hi... It's me again with more news. The following graph depicts both H2Og and CO2 absorptivities.

Main "y" axis is for the mean free path length (L) in water vapor. I didn't include the path length in CO2 because, if I include L in CO2 the vertical axis would widen and absorptivity of CO2 would dissapear from the graphs:

http://www.biocab.org/Alpha_Vs._Length.jpg

And you are correct, those bumps are the upper limits for free convection where water vapor prevails as molecule and displaces dust and carbon dioxide and other molecules. Thanks a lot for the observation. Smile

Please, let me know if the graph is what you asked for. I'm working on the other variables you mention in your post.

By the way, is there any way of publishing those graphs here? Blush
Reply
#56
Thank you Nasif, the plot looks far more like I imaged it would. Smile
I think they greatly help illustrate the points you are raising.

(08-08-2010, 04:24 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: By the way, is there any way of publishing those graphs here? Blush

I use photobucket to put images in posts, ie,

[Image: NasifH2O.jpg]

[Image: NasifCO2.jpg]

[Image: NasifCO2H2O.jpg]

BUT, if you have an archive in the archive section of the forum,
I can simply upload anything you want me to there, for anyone (even guests) to download freely.
I will also always add / remove from your archive what you want to be there, all that would be needed is an email to me, or a pm.
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
You're welcome...

To All...

Here an update of the article published in Climate Realists. I have included the graph that I plotted by suggestion of Derek.

Some small gremlins were ammended on the updated version. I don't know if I'm doing it nicely, but I understand the articles cannot be corrected once they have been published in climate realists. If this behavior is incorrect, I sincerely apologize.

Edit: I found another tiny gremlin on page 4. Therefore, I have uploaded the corrected version. Confused


Attached Files
.pdf   Mean Free Path.pdf (Size: 564.97 KB / Downloads: 483)
Reply
#58
It is amazing that no-one has thought to calculate the free path and time for a photon to leave the atmosphere before!
Reply
#59
Thank you for acknowledging my suggestions Nasif, I am very pleased you took them as intended, constructively.
I still have an early version (from your site) of the paper, and it is quite different now - I hope our open discussions here helped in that.

(08-10-2010, 01:06 AM)Climate Realist Wrote: It is amazing that no-one has thought to calculate the free path and time for a photon to leave the atmosphere before!
Yes, it is similarly amazing how no one until Nasif (above) has even attempted to answer my often asked question.
How fast is, or what is the speed of, the so called "greenhouse effect". ?
I always knew the downfall was, and the reason "they" wouldn't answer is because of, the speed of photons...

Apparently it is (roughly) 0.4 of a second.....Slightly longer than I thought it would be.
AND, what effect there is, is due to water, not CO2.

It is a shame Dr. Miskolcz stopped talking to me, rather than answer that question.
It was the figure tau that got me thinking, there you go answer that.
tau gives the number of times the photon (supposedly) bounces about before escaping (approx. 1.86 Miskolczi, and nearer 2.33 NASA), and
given "they" knew the speed of photons,
the answer had to be a very, very little amount of time, probably well under a tenth of a second.

Maybe MODTRAN had "blinkered" Miskolczi's (and NASA's) thinking / analysis / view point too much.

Incidentally Nasif, as this occurs to me as I'm typing the above in response to Climate Realist.
Does your analysis also give a way of working out tau as well. ?
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
That is the whole crux of the question. Even if the greenhouse effect does exist (and I'm with Alan Siddons et al on this that the idea goes against the laws of thermodynamics) if the CO2 portion of it lasts only 0.4 second, then how can this "effect" possibly affect climate... in any way???? As soon as the sun is obscured by the cloud sets then bamn! 0.4 secs later the effect is dissipated.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  John O'Sullivan: Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth Sunsettommy 3 8,196 09-27-2011, 06:22 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Ocean Heat Content and backradiation Richard111 1 5,657 05-14-2011, 12:58 AM
Last Post: Climate Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)