Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eureka …Revisited. (The untold “discovery”)
#21
Thank you Questioning Climate, and you've succeeded in trying to encourage lateral and inquisitive thinking.

(08-27-2010, 02:21 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote: Please excuse my presenting the following in question form, however referring to your post #10:

1) Is the graph you show the average temperature profile?
2) If so, what would the day and night versions look like?
3) Is temperature the correct metric?
4) If you went to 500 km, opened the door and held a mercury thermometer out, what temperature would it read?

Maybe this will help explain what I'm getting at:
Quote:The International Space Station is in a LEO [Low Earth Orbit] that varies from
319.6 km (199 mi) to 346.9 km (216 mi) above the Earth's surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Interesting questions, particularly the second one.
My answers in very short quick form.
1) I believe "they" think so.
2) Good, no great point, I hadn't thought about that.
3) Nope, I / "we" here seem to suggest energy per unit volume would be a better metric.
4) The astronauts should be cooking, shouldn't they....

NB - Richard111, I will go read, and come back on your link soon. Another great link.
(08-27-2010, 10:22 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Don't know if you have seen this Derek. It was Posted by Jeff Id on February 2, 2010

The Power Behind Hurricanes and Tornadoes

He is talking about the power of condensation and a paper by Dr. Anastassia Makarieva. Worth a quick look I think.
How this tyes into global climate I cannot even start to think but it is a sure thing that hurricanes and tornadoes are symptoms of specific climate conditions.

Re my Post #12 above; I will try and run up a table for CO2 mass up a one square kilometer column.
I look forward to your table, will it also include "normal" variations, a sort of upper and lower variability bar. ?
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
#22
(08-25-2010, 09:16 AM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Our solar system is a “high” density bubble in the space, on both energy density and matter density;
however, the average density of space is low, 1 hydrogen atom/cm^3.

The attached may be of interest.
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
#23
(08-26-2010, 01:38 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Dear Derek and All... I think we've discovered the real cause of the "greenhouse" effect. Give me few hours to dilucidate it... Just few hours. Big Grin

Addendum: Energy Density is the amount of energy in a given volume of matter or space. I'm calculating it per cubic meter of the mixture of air.

Any news yet Nasif ?

btw - Richard111's tAV link,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02...tornadoes/
raises some interesting questions and points.
I am going through it slowly at present, but I think at the moment,
it just describes the mechanisms in more detail.
I note in particular the description of temperature, that seems to agree with our expressed concerns here regarding the atmospheric temperature profiles as plotted at present.

The reduction in pressure that accompanies condensation described in the tAV thread is very dramatic, and more dramatic than I realised.
Is this at least partly the "power consumption" being used by the mechansims to transport (ie "powering" the work done) the convected energy / heat forms.
Would lowered (below the lapse rate) pressure aloft due to condensation cause gravity in the atmosphere below to induce further convection ? (to restore the laspe rate to what it should be)

Would "our" unit volume have to be corrected for altitude. ie, instead of vertical lines that delimit the unit volume,
should the lines originate from, and be paralllel to the vanishing point, ie the centre of the planet.
The unit volume would therefore be increasing with greater altitude.

Furthermore would a correction for the potential energy induced by gravity also have to be added.
This would decrease with altitude, I think.

Depending on the corrections used, would this plot a "h" shape, possibly slanted to the left, vertically.
This would be because far more energy / heat is transported up and down in the troposphere than can be lost to space.
The suggested, possibly "h" shaped plot at any altitude being the sum of all energy / heat, not an indicator of which way/s it was travelling in.

If so, is the flat (horizontal) line of the "h" shape where the "greenhouse effect" idea came from.
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
#24
I feel it is of central importance to the subject area to repeat here some of the more pertinent posts from this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-832.html
Questioning the logarithmic effect of CO2.

A better understanding of MODTRAN and what it actually is,
is (I am certain) a prerequisite to a better understanding of the present situation and "discussions" within "climate science"...


Post 20
Hi All,
I have had a day "off" today, a long drive, and some pleasant family visits. Smile Heart Shy
However, long motorway cruises, on my own (the dog in the back of the car does not count Big Grin ), leaves me time to "ponder".

A very old phrase came to mind, namely,
"X" is more than the sum of it's parts.
This can also be, as we all know care of lives experiences,
"X" is less than the sum of it's parts.
It's a phrase we all know.

In a complex natural system however, "we" have all also "learnt" that,
"X" can have no relationship at all to the sum of it's parts,
because of other relationships not shown in the individual components of the complex natural system, however they are "summed" together.

Somewhere just past Preston this hit me. I forget the exact, and somewhat (admittedly) coloquial wording.
But, boy, did it hit me, and specifically with regard to this thread.

HITRAN are individual, in a closed system, isolated measurements,
MODTRAN are "summed" HITRAN measurements with various assumptions added.
The logarithmic effect of CO2 within the atmosphere upon temperature is derived from MODTRAN.
"X" (log. effect of CO2 upon temp within the atmos.) is merely some varient of,
1 - "X" is more than a sum of it's parts.
or,
2 - "X" is less than the some of it's parts.
"X" can not be (if AGW is to stand a chance of being right),
3 - "X" can have no relationship at all to the sum of it's parts, because
of other relationships not shown in the individual components of the complex natural system, however they are "summed" together.

Because "we" do not know, not with any certainty, but to any reliable degree whatsoever,
the various natural relationships of the various components in the open, real, mixed atmosphere.
So...
The question that this thread has moved towards, ie, Has it been shown that the MODTRAN measurements (and assumptions)
apply to the real, open, and mixed atmosphere, is not merely academic, it is absolutely central, crucial infact.

At this point it is obvious (to me at least), that, "we" ie, MODTRAN can not have
all the natural relationships quantified, understood, or even known about yet.
So, MODTRAN is educated guesses, at best (does this remind anyone of the "Do Global Energy Budegets make sense" thread..).
How does MODTRAN stack up against reality ?
Simply, MODTRAN does not "stack up", not from a climate science point of view.
CO2 has no proven effect upon temperature in the real, open, mixed atmosphere. It is that simple.
MODTRAN says CO2 does have an effect upon temperature.

MODTRAN does not (from a global temperature point of view) seem (except for distinct and very time scale limited "cherry picking") to apply to the real, open, mixed atmosphere.
AND, there is no proof (whatsoever - otherwise we would of heard about it by now....) that it does.

Unsurprisingly, there are many major examples to back the idea up that MODTRAN does not apply to the real, open, mixed atmosphere, some examples follow.
CO2 levels seem to follow temperature, not lead it.
(This implies temps. effect CO2 levels, not the other way around.)
Engineers state quite plainly that IR is the smallest form of heat loss, conduction and convection is next,
and commonly, latent heat (of vapourisation of water) is by far the largest, by at least an order of magnitude.
(AGW is constantly obsessed with IR, to the seemingly "exclusion" of latent heat in particular
- MODTRAN (pro AGW) assumptions possibly..)
How does / would (is it even possible) MODTRAN deal with latent heat in the first place ???

MODTRAN used to derive the logarithmic effect of CO2 upon atmospheric temperature from a very basic level, is patently and very, very seriously flawed.
This is obvious. So, why has it not been questioned vigourously before ???
Even mild questioning SHOULD of made it obvious MODTRAN needed proving to actually apply to the real, mixed, open atmosphere.
The "question" is not if the logarithmic effect of CO2 has been "questioned", but
how the heck has it survived intact the "questioning" so far.
Alan Siddons says that most "skeptics" are simply not skeptical enough.
I have to agree.

This thread is reminding me of,
the missing hot spot in the upper troposphere "basic AGW issue",
(it ain't there)
the assumed, modelled, but not shown, positive water vapour feedback mechanism "basic AGW issue",
(does not exist)
the admitted as invented modelling cooling factors "basic AGW issue",
(key words here are "ADMITTED AS INVENTED" by UK Met Office in 1999)
the greenhouse effect upon the moon "basic AGW issue",
(AGW effectively denies surface heat retention, and varying later release)
"back radiation from clouds warms the earth's surface "basic AGW issue"
(How can a cooler thing (at quite a distance) warm a warmer thing - impossible)
the all radiation is positive "basic AGW issue".
(it is supposedly different to all other forms of heat flow we can observe)
etc, etc, etc, etc.

It is all hocus pocus, politically correct and beneficial, make believe.
AGW is based upon beliefs, as is the MODTRAN assumed logarithmic effect of CO2 upon atmospheric temperature.
None are what we have actually, verifiably, empirically observed, and that makes AGW a religion. Full stop.


------------------------------------
Post 23
Regarding MODTRAN (4) software -

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/library/facts...sp?id=7915
Excerpts,

MODTRAN - MODerate spectral resolution atmospheric TRANSsmittance algorithm and computer model

Access to MODTRAN4 requires that a new Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) be signed and a fee paid.


Military, model, algorithms, none disclosure.
Alarm bells ringing anyone ?

I would also note the use of words and phrases like,

" It remains the state-of-the-art "

" development of MODTRAN was driven by a need for higher spectral resolution and greater accuracy than that provided by the LOWTRAN "

" The current release is MODTRAN4, version 3.1. This version number connotes the additions of
some errata and new physics since MODTRAN4 was first patented and released.
"

" now having a physical meaning. "

" permit more accurate calculation of molecular absorption "

" The updated Rayleigh scattering algorithm models the spectral dependence of the depolarization factor, and
the refractivity (equal to one minus the real part of the index of refraction)
now varies not only with water density but also with CO2 partial pressure.
"


------------------------------------
Post 24
I originally started this thread because of a comment Mike Davis posted, he commented that
the David Archibald plots of the log effect of CO2 are very questionable. I asked him to expand upon this, but he has not to date.
Having been well aware of the importance of the David Archibald, (and the IPCC's version) plot of the effect,
I decided to delve (as best I can) a little myself, and this thread is the result.

In the end MODTRAN is a model, that's all, a "climate model".
The user can play with the model, to get the results..
Once you have access to and know about what MODTRAN does you can not divulge it - none disclosure "agreement".
This does not appear to me to be open or good science,
certainly you can not apply the scientific method to the results derived from, or including MODTRAN.

The "model" is now MODTRAN 4 version 3.1. Earlier versions were apparently very poor.
Earlier versions were so inferior, the latest model now boasts in some respects " having a physical meaning. "
" New physics added "......
Which version did David Archibald (and the IPCC) use. ?
Would the present version give the same results. ?

We describe GCMs as GIGO (garbage in garbage out), but just look at MODTRAN it's at best not very good.
It is to all intents and purposes a virtual reality. A bit like Gran Turismo on the playstation really,
yeah it has some of the cars in a vaguely realistic manner,
but the bigger picture, the scenery, well, just don't go there..
But it is the basis of so, so much, not just the log. effect of CO2.
It is the "physics" of climate models, and all those pro AGW "thought" experiments, and the global energy budgets, to name just a few.

Way back in the dark ages, when the flat earth dogma refused to die,
it was thought that the earth was flat and it rested upon a turtles back.
Some tried to argue it was sixteen turtles as if this gave the discussions more creedance...
Now we have a flat earth society, it is AGW, and their "turtle" is MODTRAN.

What also occurs to me is that almost all the main mainstream skeptics I can think of,
all, quote and use MODTRAN........
I have said before they only seem to quibble the figures, not argue the physics,
well, they never question MODTRAN do they. Why ?

To me this smacks of the oldest trick in the book, control both sides of the debate.
The main skeptics are reliant upon MODTRAN, anyone who isn't isn't worth listening to.
So, the debate is only between MODTRAN proponents - is it any wonder they only quibble the figures.......

It is a mistery to me (given the above it isn't really) why there has not been a MODTRAN debate.
In fact it is a traversty, that the debate has not happened, it must of,
and it must still be going.....
I havn't heard of it though, have you ?

------------------------------

In respect of the (or any) log effect of CO2 upon temp. within the atmosphere and MODTRAN,
I will leave the last word to Dr. Jonathan Drake.

(08-29-2010, 12:35 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote: It is not possible to ascertain from the model output whether the absolute values are correct or that the underlying physics is valid.
All that can be said is the programmed law yields a logarithmic response and on the basis of that MODTRAN law,
atmospheric CO2 is presently well away from the high sensitivity region.

Later edit - Questioning_Climate has also sent me the below plot for this thread.
The plot has been done using the below linked to online version of MODTRAN.
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/doc....orig.html
In the text following the plot Questioning_Climate explains what he has plotted.

[Image: MODTRANJD.jpg]

" I changed the ground temperatures and plotted the lot out, see attached.
You will see that the sensitivity of OG IR is 3.4W/m2/K, but for a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm it is -2.8W/m2.
This means doubling would produce 0.82°C rise! They’ll claim feedbacks no doubt.

It uses 1976 US std Atmosphere and default ground temperature (15°C).
It is a crude model too but nonetheless they use it or its cousin.

280ppm to 400ppm is 1.44W/m2 which should be 0.42°C!
That is about 2/3 of the mean ocean temperature change each year.
"

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
#25
Thank you to Questioning Climate for sending me this link.

http://ftp.ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_D...Temp/AIAA/

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
#26
Hi All,
Firstly my apologies as this thread may now appear a bit confusing and covering too many subject areas.
I do admit that it is a bit disorganised, and possibly should be several threads,
but there is a "whole" we should try to always keep in mind.
Overall, although probably it is very difficult to see at first I think the thread so far does keep the "whole" in view.

From the "are there any reliable global climate related metrics at present" view point of the "whole",
yet again this subject area has been raised recently at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/en...de-part-2/
Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 2)
August 20, 2010
Anthony Watts


Yet again, for the umpteenth time, on the umpteenth blog / forum, the same people going around and around
in not seemingly, but patently obviously, ever decreasing circles on the same "old" subject.
Give it up, Ferdy is guessing, and we all know it.
Just because Ferdy can seemingly convincingly argue black is white when required, does not make him right,
nor give his position credence. Most people sussed this long, long ago.
CO2 global metrics are at best guesses, and probably completely wrong, see Beck, one of them has to be completely wrong, if not both.
(Personally I feel Beck is far, far nearer the truth than Engelbeen.)
Ferdy simply refuses to consider he is wrong.
Why does Ferdy not even entertain the thought he is wrong, well, that is another question.

This thread though at WUWT is at first glance far, far more interesting, and has seemingly considerable potential,
well, at first glance it does..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/18/so...incidence/
Solar-Terrestrial Coincidence?
August18, 2010
Anthony Watts


Seemingly a description of how it is possible that surface heat retention (oceanic phases / wind) can remove and later release at varying rates solar input,
in such a way as to exaggerate the, weak according to AGW, solar "variability".
A good start, at least partially on the right tracks, AND the addition of earth's temp changes effecting Length Of Day (LOD),
an excellant including of the obvious, often overlooked fourth dimension to all this - TIME.
The seeming "strength" of this approach is that it does not mention MODTRAN / AGW physics much at all.
But this I feel is it's actual weakness, and why it will be buried, inevitably.
The approach ignores, or does not deal with MODTRAN, or the approachs effect upon MODTRAN, or how the approach is effected by MODTRAN,
as any approach inevitably WILL HAVE TO DO.

How the approach first thinks about solar inputs, is at best limited, and incomplete.
But the main sticking point will be surface heat retention. This is because "if" the surface does retain, and later at varying rates release heat,
then MODTRAN / AGW model projections will not be able to cope with it.
The time, or speed of the greenhouse effect, no that has never been mentioned,
and that will be avoided any almost an cost. CO2 "residence time", again a no, no..
Why. ?
If at a later point in time the oceans release a lot of heat, then the world warms, more than it should of for the solar input at the time.
The "physics" of MODTRAN and GCMs would retain and amplify this heat...(invented cooling factors to the [timely] rescue please..)
"Inevitably" higher CO2 levels (due to man's activities) would further increase this warming, soon the GCMs / AGW theory has to run away and burn the earth to death.
Unfortunately for "them" the earth has throughout it's history infact released loads of heat from the oceans on varying time scales,
AND at far, far higher than today atmospheric CO2 levels, so far the earth's climate has not run away.
"We" all know this to be true, otherwise we would not be here today, our planet would, if MODTRAN / GCMs are anything like correct,
of already been "toasted" perfectly naturally....

"They" sussed this a bit back, when trying to say the heat had gone into the oceans
"they" gave this up, not because Segalstein and others showed it could not of got into the oceans,
but because the climate models / MODTRAN could not deal with it's later varying release back into the atmosphere.
It would simply send the "physics" and "radiative transfers" haywire, making a correct mockery of the models and MODTRAN.

So, any approach that tries to suggest surface heat retention / varying later release will be buried, ignored, summarily dismissed whether
the approach raises the questions of MODTRAN / GCMs directly, or not, because "they" know MODTRAN / GCMs can not answer such questions.

In this thread - post 3 this quote would seem to sum things up rather nicely...

Why did this happen? “He was,” a colleague says, “a bit immature in the area of political science.”
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
#27
Hi All,
As I am trying to build up a sort of (my) complete overview on this thread,
I really should cover climate past and future.
Well, below is a diagramatic start as such.

Footnote - I have thought about "developing" the "variability tubes" to have a second variable.
The tubes could show one variable by length, and a second (related linearly) variable by width.
But I have shyed away from that idea for the moment.

[Image: Slide1.jpg]

[Image: Slide2.jpg]
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
#28
Hi All,
Unfortunately my break from work ends today, so it's back to intermittent me I'm afraid..
AND a slowing down in the project this thread has become.
(it's a project that's going to last for a long long time for me..)
But before I "go" two points I'd like to throw in...

1) Yesterday I had a "day off", and went to visit family members.
Whilst visiting a family member's home some council workmen came to their house to replace a misted up double glazed window pane.
Given todays PC world, I was outside having a cigarette whilst this was happening.
One of the workmen informed me that the vacuum had gone in the unit.
My quizzical look to him at this statement of his, brought a further justification from him that,
he had visited a double glazing factory and seen them sucking out the air before sealing the double glazing unit.

I waited a couple of minutes, then I enquired, if double glazing units are "full" of a vacuum,
how come the window panes arn't bent in by the 33 pounds per square inch of air pressure. ?
He answered that because of the vacuum you can hit the middle of a window pane with something heavy and it won't break,
but if you use a centre punch in the corner it does break, proving there's a vacuum.
I replied, that all that proves is the pane is more rigidly supported at the edges, especially the corners, than in the middle, he had confused different things.
This stumped him.

I continued, that the panes trapped an amount of air, and this acted as a shock absorber to impacts, so
a double glazing unit spreads the load (at least partially) of the impact between the two panes, because
it is filled with something (that acts as a very, very good shock absorber), presumably, dry air.
A single glass pane would have to compress the air of the room (at least), if the door was closed and air tight (they arn't),
so a sinlge glass pane is less "supported" and apparently breaks a lot easier than a double glazed unit of glass.

The workman agreed that double glazing units must be filled with something, probably dry air, and he had been "bull-dunged" at the double glazing factory.

Today it occurs to me that the above also shows far more.
Firstly to illustrate one bar atmospheric pressure.
33 pounds per square inch is one bar atmospheric pressure, we don't feel this as we are completely surrounded by it.
But, we can image it, take a square inch plate of let's say 8mm thick aluminium.
Place this square inch on the palm of your hand.
Now balance 15 1 kilo bags of sugar on the square inch plate of aluminium.
33 pounds divided by 2.2 (2.2 pounds equals a kilo) = 15 Kilo bags of sugar.

That's a lot of pressure, we simply do not "feel", but it is there, undoubtedly.
This pressure diminishes with hieght from the earths surface as the gravitational pull of earth diminishes.
It is quite an effect, between the earth's surface to space.
This is the underlying cause of the dry lapse rate.
It is reasonably easy to quantify it.

The wet adiabatic lapse rate includes water and latent heat movements,
so the consideration / question should not be the wet rate, but the difference between the wet and dry rates.
That I think / sugeest will quickly lead to a view that is quite close to my third plot ie,
"3) The atmosphere as a "refrigerant". Latent heat of water vapourisation "loop". " in post 4 on this thread.

"We" generally seem to overlook the dry lapse rate because we are so "immersed" in it.
This is also commensurate with myself, and I think most people, in overlooking, not realising, not knowing of, and not really understanding,
the effects upon pressure the condensation of water vapour has.
Both actually seem to fit in with, and strengthen, the view I have been trying to describe so far on this thread however.


2) My suggested "variability bars" and "variability tubes".
I think the "variability" bar is a good idea, which could use different statistical figures for upper and lower bars.
1 to 3 standard deviation upper and lowers, for instance, incorporating therefore the often omitted "inconvenient outliers",
or just plain old actual numerical upper and lower figures. Depending on the time / scale, variable being represented
by such a variability bar. Which is very similar, in appearance, to the IPCC's "favourite" error bars.

[Image: Variabilitytubediagramatic.jpg]

The "Variability tube" is more complicated as it assumes a linear relationship, at a quick glance.
For illustration purposes however a variability tube could easily be (diagramtically) used to show / test that relations between two named and quantifed variables are or are not linear.
So, in a reverse logic sort of way the "variability tube" could be very useful,
to test if relationships between two given variables are infact linear.
In climate science this could be quite an "interesting" test of assumed linear relationships between (quite a few actually) variables....

I am going to try to plot some variability tubes for temperature in degrees celcius (length) and
atmospheric CO2 concentration in ppm (hieght), using different time / climate periods.
For example a variability tube for temp / CO2 in the present interglacial, the last ice age, and
other interglacials and ice ages, if I can find reliable figures.
Will the tubes follow (or rather show diagrammatically) the linear assumption, as so often touted at present, between temp and CO2. ?


NB - A more local "issue" is raising it's head for me at the moment.
Dog owners to be put on a tight leash?

Oldham Council web page in this regard,
http://www.oldham.gov.uk/dog_control_order_consultation

Being as how I'm a proud (rescued) rottweiler owner, that uses my local park twice daily.
(a very friendly, sociable, and loyal dog / breed, if ever I've met one - although frequently misrepresented / stereotyped as a dog breed),
I have to say something.

It may, just may, open a few new doors - who knows, it's worth a try..
Reply
#29
Okay, lots of reading above but I am still lost. I thought the graph from Q_C in Post #24 above might help solve my problem but no luck.

Here is my problem; a very slightly increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increasing "forcing" that can be measured in watts per square meter. HOW?

The "heat trapping" portion of the longwave IR radiation band can only penetrate a few meters of the atmosphere. Whatever "backradiation" occurs can only be at the temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere above that level does not see any of this "heat trapping" longwave IR so cannot take part in any "forcing" of the surface.

Humidity can change from well below 1000ppmv to above 40000ppmv in a matter of hours yet does not appear to provide a "forcing" Huh

Non of these "forcings", not one, can penetrate ocean water to even one millimeter in depth. Only direct sunlight can warm the oceans and 70% of the planet is water covered. Longwave IR down through the atmosphere can only "warm" dry land, any water and the IR becomes latent heat in the water vapour. Thus thermometers on dry land, specifically carparks, airports and meteorological office roofs are used to record "global" temperatures. Why are there no thermometers out at sea? If there are any, where is the data?
[/rant]
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#30
Few hours became days, but finally I have a graph wherein I compared density of energy with sensible heat flow. Notice the blue area reveals the maximum altitude where the "greenhouse" effect takes place. My conclusion is that the increase of sensible heat flux along the decrease of the density of energy is the real cause of warming of the atmosphere. Something very important is that the "greenhouse" effect cannot go beyond 1700 m above the surface, so the reliable interpretation is that it is the presence of energy in transit what produces the warming of the atmosphere more than the energy stored in the system. Consider that the calculations were made from the data recorded in a clear day. It would be interesting to calculate the energy stored by the water vapor. The carbon dioxide is not a candidate because it only keeps the aborbed thermal energy by 20 +- 5 microseconds.

Please, let me know your observations.


Attached Files
.jpg   Density of Energy.jpg (Size: 80.44 KB / Downloads: 15)
Reply
#31
Thank you Nasif, I certainly was waiting patiently.

One immediate question springs to mind, re the cubic metre used.
As gravity is one of the main "things" we are looking at, should the "unit" of volume be,
yes a metre deep throughout the profile, but should the width of the "metre" grow appropriately with altitude.
I ask this, because with increasing altitude there would be more, and more atmosphere missed, or left out.
Or am I just confusing myself in that there are more cubic metres per "level" of increasing altitude.

Regarding the plot you have provided, does the pink shaded area show the "zone of emission". ?

AND, yes a plot of a wet atmosphere would be very, very interesting, and far more relevant presumably.
I think I can already begin to imagine the shape roughly.
A big bulge (or "h" shape) at the top of the troposhere presumably, just below / overlapping the pink shaded area of this plot.

Finally, for the time being, have I missed why the greenhouse effect can not go beyond 1700 metres, I may have missed the explanation / reason being given. ?



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
#32
(09-03-2010, 01:09 AM)Richard111 Wrote: Here is my problem; a very slightly increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increasing "forcing" that can be measured in watts per square meter. HOW?

The "physics" of MODTRAN in the climate models, I believe is the "HOW?"
Mostly by Hansen's assumed [and imagined / no proof for whatsoever] water vapour postive feedback mechanism,
to the best of my understanding to date.

I have tried previously to describe this centrally important to AGW assumption in this piece,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-309.html
Hence the title,
" The one assumption of the
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory”
(or, so called Man made climate change)
modeling you should understand.
The 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2,
and 1 tenth per doubling thereafter assumption
"
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
#33
Thank you Nasif, I certainly was waiting patiently.

You're welcome! Yes, you certainly were very patient; I apologize. Big Grin

One immediate question springs to mind, re the cubic metre used.
As gravity is one of the main "things" we are looking at, should the "unit" of volume be, yes a metre deep throughout the profile, but should the width of the "metre" grow appropriately with altitude. I ask this, because with increasing altitude there would be more, and more atmosphere missed, or left out. Or am I just confusing myself in that there are more cubic metres per "level" of increasing altitude.


I solved the question by calculating the Grashof Number for horizontal systems, which makes use of gravity, buoyancy and viscosity. Therefore, the graph shows the energy transferred into each cubic meter of dry air at different altitudes. For example, at 1000 meters of altitude the energy density is 70000 Joules that are being transferred through each cubic meter of air at the same altitude.

The same explanation answers Richard’s question about “how” is it that a two-dimensional system can emit or absorb energy. Actually, the expression “W/m^2” says nothing about the amount of energy contained by a three-dimensional system, but only the amount of energy exchanged between two systems through a given area, which is somehow misleading because it refers only to the flow of energy, not the content of energy, i.e. The system A gives 100 W through an area of one square meter, and the system B absorbs 50 W through an area of one square meter; but… How much energy the system A has? How much energy the system B has?

Regarding the plot you have provided, does the pink shaded area show the "zone of emission". ?

Yes, it represents the zone of emission. Out from that zone, emission and absorption decreases until almost zero. The clue is water vapor. I hope to finish the content of energy of water vapor alone in the atmosphere by the next week. Smile

AND, yes a plot of a wet atmosphere would be very, very interesting, and far more relevant presumably.
I think I can already begin to imagine the shape roughly.
A big bulge (or "h" shape) at the top of the troposhere presumably, just below / overlapping the pink shaded area of this plot.


Yes, it would be something like an inverted parabole, but I'm speculating.

Finally, for the time being, have I missed why the greenhouse effect can not go beyond 1700 metres, I may have missed the explanation / reason being given)

Indeed, the warmhouse (or greenhouse) effect cannot go beyond ~1700 meters of altitude. The reason is that both the energy density and the flux of sensible heat fall sharply from the mark 1700 m upwards. That’s the real cause of the warmhouse effect. Otherwise, Titan would not have gaseous methane and Mars would not have gaseous CO2.
Reply
#34
And thank you Nasif, especially for the clarifications on Derek's questions. I had wondered about the cubic meter "size" with altitude but when projected on a drawing board (I was a draughtsman for a while) it did not seem very relevant compared to the decrease in molecular density with altitude. The 1700 meter figure is barely 10% of the troposphere in the equitorial regions which are mostly over the oceans. It is certainly keeping my aged mind exercised. Cool
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#35
(09-03-2010, 04:21 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: You're welcome! Yes, you certainly were very patient; I apologize. Big Grin

No need to apologize whatsoever Nasif, the plot is well worth having waiting for, and thank you for the considered replies.
This is all very interesting, beneficial, informative, and thought provoking.

Looking over the image, a couple of other "things", that may follow on from each other, and
your earlier mean free path of photons distances paper, occur to me.

Firstly the altitude the plot goes up to, is "relatively" low, 8,000 meters (26,250 feet - roughly).
Does this demonstrate "we" are only really interested in the troposphere. ?
Because above this there is very little left, apart from presumably out going IR.
- but that does not appear to be shown. ?
ie, above this level there would be a level of out going IR W/m2 commensurate with earth's mean temperature as an "object in space".

Am I "reading" what is plotted incorrectly, possibly what you have plotted is the expected value, and
the expected value should be used to be compared to empirical measurements, with regard to the differences between expected and measured levels, or values.
I will continue "assuming" I have read the plots correctly, because if I have read the plots incorrectly in this respect, it makes little difference to some of the following points.

Does the plot show the earth is not a black body, or even a grey body. ?
A black body should emit an amount of IR according to it's temperature (energy level) from it's surface.
But where is earth's "surface" in this context. The earth's surface (land / oceans) is not the black body surface, because
it is under the atmospheric "ocean" that exhibits both liquid and gaseous properties.
Niether is the earth's land / ocean surface smooth, and it has "volume".

There again, there is no distinct boundary (ie black or grey body "surface") in the upper troposphere, but more a zone of emission /transition.
The earth would seem at it's land / ocean "surface" to emit too much IR for it's "object in space" temperature
(most out going IR emitted at the earth's land / ocean surface could not possibly by any account / does not, directly escape to space),
and the upper troposphere is (apparently - please see post 10 in this thread, 8 kilometres altitude approximately minus 40 degrees celcius)) too cold
to emit enough IR for earth's object in space temperature.
How then, does earth emit the correct amount of IR to space for it's "object in space" (approximately 15 degrees celcius) temperature. ?

Am I correct in reading into the plot that the higher W/m2 figures lower down in the profile, must mean that
the photons are quickly absorbed as your mean path paper earlier on this thread suggests / shows.
Otherwise the W/m2 figure would have to increase (sum - at least partially), not diminish as rapidly as they appear to with altitude.
Should there be an ever growing "divergence" between the lines plotted, according to AGW. ?

Also, the separation of the lines in the plot, does this depict the "size" of the energy being transported within the atmosphere other than by the influence / effect of gravity.
In a "dry" plot as you have kindly provided above, this is presumably mostly sensible heat by conduction / convection.
I am left somewhat bemused though in regard to your previous explanation,
Nasif Nahle Wrote:Indeed, the warmhouse (or greenhouse) effect cannot go beyond ~1700 meters of altitude.
The reason is that both the energy density and the flux of sensible heat fall sharply from the mark 1700 m upwards.
This seems to imply (if I have understood it correctly) that convection of sensible heat is mostly limited to under 1700 meters (5,600 feet - roughly). ?

I would further speculate (well, state the blooming obvious really) that there will be a far bigger difference, and differences in shapes, between the lines in a "wet" plot.

In short, for earth to obey the laws of physics,
ie a body has to emit IR according to it's temperature (energy level),
then it has to disobey the AGW "hypothesis, specifically in regard to photons.
Which, if I have understood correctly, is the logical outcome of your mean free path of a photon paper.

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
#36
Hi All,
I can not manage to find a generally agreed (global) temp AND (global) CO2 reconstruction over "x" (read any number) of years.
I'd like to have more than 50,000 years, more like the last 500,000 years,
but since AR2 there does not seem to be any.
Even over very short (climate wise) time scales it appears no such generally agreed reconstruction exists.
For instance, over a couple of thousand years or less do "we" accept the Hockey Stick, or Craig Loehle. ?
But these do not include CO2, so do we also have to decide between Vostock, MLO, and Beck. ?

I am tempted to ask, is there even a "science" of paleoclimatology any longer. ?

In the mean time, whilst my seemingly fruitless search continues,
I have tried to plot some temperature variability bars for the Holocene,
using the Greenland ice core derived temperature for central Greenland reconstruction I have used previously.
It must be noted that there are genuine concerns regarding ice cores and any reconstructions derived from them.
In short, we may be able to glean very little of any actual use from ice cores, but that said and noted,
I will work on the assumption the greenland ice core does offer some sort of reasonable base / approximation.
Ice core concerns, and concerns regarding the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 records have been discussed in some depth on this thread.
Below is the "result" - I think it does actually show what "we" should be concerned about...
and that, as of yet, has not been attempted to be plotted.

[Image: Holocenetempvariabilitybar.jpg]

later addition - From the above, which shows the "construction" of the variability bars, it is possible to present them diagramatically.
[Image: Slide3.jpg]

I then grouped these "together", so I could paste them, and then scale them to a plot covering the full Greenland ice core record.
(Please note I used a plot of one measurement per century of the greenland data - so removing some "extemes")

[Image: Slide4.jpg]

I was then able to "construct" the temp variability bar for
the part of the last ice age covered by the greenland ice core temperature reconstruction.
I then "regrouped" all the bars and pasted them to another sheet,
so I could present them all diagramatically, "to scale" with each other for comparison.

[Image: Slide5.jpg]

The above is what I would like to do with a global temp and CO2 reconstruction for the past several climatic periods, but as global "variability tubes" of temp and CO2.
Any one proxy is simply not worth doing, I might as well look at a couple of trees somewhere or other, then claim it's globally relevant...
That said, the above does illustrate much that is to the best of my understanding up to present, so in some respects it is useful.

I would first note the range of the HADcrut record, just about a degree centigrade.
The Holocene appears to have had a range nearer four degrees centigrade.
The last ice age may have had a temperature range of more than twenty one degrees centigrade.
So, obviously we must look at longer time scales than a mere couple of hundred years at best.
I'd like to compare previously similar climatic periods (interglacials) to the present one, to see if we can get any clues.
I simply can not see how a mere hundred, or two, or even a thousand years can tell us anything at all useful.

I would also observe from the above that, from these data sets it appears that,
interglacials are far warmer and far more stable climate periods than ice ages.
Historically speaking this seems to be the case, and there is no reason I am aware of, this will not be the case going forwards.

Other sources indicate strongly that interglacials are far, far shorter than ice ages, usually by a factor of about 10,
(interglacials approx 11 to 18 thousand years, ice ages being about 100 to 125 thousand years in duration).
The earth at present is about 11,500 years into it's present interglacial.

Unusually for me, because I was banned in a mere three (or was it four - I can't remember which) posts from "their" forum a couple of years ago,
I will include an image from the British Antarctic Survey, from the IPCC's 1990 AR2 report.
(Please excuse the notes on the below images, I have "borrowed" them from my GHSP slideshow)

[Image: Slide064.jpg]

I think now the mid 1990s into the early (at least) 20-teens will be remembered as paleoclimatologies "lost years",
because of the AGW agenda, and the politicisation by the few of such an important science subject area.
ie,

[Image: Slide136.jpg]

[Image: Slide137.jpg]

"We" will only go forward I would suggest, when "we" first go back to Lamb 1965,
and literally start afresh.
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
#37
Hi All,
It seems I have asked a question no one wants to answer..
I have asked it at,
Comment from: Derek November 13th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/10...l#comments

and,
Derek said November 14, 2010 at 3:35 am
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11...ment-40612

and,
Derek | November 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm | Reply
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/15/open-thread-111510/

Heck, I've even put it on the forum here as well (post 41).
11-14-2010, 02:32 PM
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...age-3.html

To date not a reply anywhere. ???

Maybe I'll try CS next....:lol:

Given the traffic at Dr. Curry's blog I find it rather surprising on such a busy thread,
I don't think there was anything wrong with my wording of the question or it's "tone".
Unless I'm missing something - such as the world going into denial - literally.

I'll repeat my post at Dr. Curry's blog here.

" Could someone please explain to me (understandably) why
a thermal image of a greenhouse shows it radiating more than it’s surroundings. ?
(I know the greenhouse radiates more because it is warmer than it’s surroundings, but
it is supposed to trap radiation, yet (somewhat inconveniently) greenhouses, as far as I’m aware, radiate according to the Planck curve)
I thought a greenhouse was supposed to “trap” radiation.
Is Plancks law wrong, surely not.

So, would the better question be. Why are the greenhouses surroundings so much cooler than the greenhouse, although
the surroundings do not actually “trap” radiation, they do appear to be radiating far less than the greenhouse.. ?
What then is cooling the surroundings. ?

I am assuming the best explanation would be because the surroundings are cooled by something far more powerful than radiation looses,
namely conduction and convection of sensible and latent heat.

A greenhouse “works” because it reduces conduction and convection to it’s surroundings.
It would appear reasonable to say observation of a thermal image of a greenhouse and it’s surroundings indicates that
conduction and convection (of sensible and latent heat) is far more powerful than radiation looses, and
is responsible for cooling the surroundings mostly.
Is this a correct series of assumptions, or rather statements of the blitheringly obvious.

I too am bored with the way “climate discussions” seem to be either circular, or descend into mud slinging.
Maybe, just maybe, present discussions are discussing the wrong “things”..
"


I think it maybe way past the time this thread was "stickied"..

Angel
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
#38
Update
- I have had a "nibble" to "the question" (see above post) at the closed CS group.
Nothing worth reporting back here as such, but a "nibble" (which in itself is noteworthy) all the same.
Rolleyes

I will report back here if anything substantive happens.
Nowt anywhere else I'm aware of to "the question".
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
#39
January 2011 UPDATE.

Because of the pdf that no one seemed to want to understand on this thread at the air vent blog.
Jeff Id replied to a post of mine on another thread....not that "they" are trying to confuse / split / divide / obfuscate you understand...

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01...xperiment/

I said,

In particular I would note how no one has actually challenged my interpretation of what a thermal image of a greenhouse AND it’s surroundings actually shows.


Jeff replied,

" I think that every technically adept person agreed with you, although they may have misunderstood my description. Greenhouse is a misnomer. "

Jeff got beaten up at WUWT with his "paraphrasing" of me, rather than voice that
the "technically adept" actually agreed with my question / simile / view of the misnomer that is "greenhouse effect" "theory".

NB - For "theory" please read - unproven hypothesis,
that many now have shown as incorrect at so many levels that it can not possibly be true.
The "theory" has failed in any reasonable view of the overall state of our knowledge, and so
AGW pseudo science has fallen with it, in any reasonable terms.

The politics of the situation that "AGW science" has now inevitably found itself in however are not reasonable.
Therein lies the cause of whatever happens in relation to "AGW science" in 2011.
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


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere Sunsettommy 0 7,341 03-27-2013, 11:27 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Greenland revisited.. Derek 9 11,841 01-10-2010, 06:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)