Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eureka …Revisited. (The untold “discovery”)
#1
Some may recall this "old" piece of mine, I have forgotten to repost after the old forum went.
Later edit - Bathroom "window" now corrected / updated
- my apologies if any confusion was on my part inadvertently caused.


Eureka …Revisited.
(The man servant's untold story and “discovery”)


The door slammed shut. The running footsteps, and the shrill almost manic vocal repetitions of,
“Eureka” "Eureka", "Eureka" faded away into the distance.
John (the man servant) was left bemused, stood almost rooted to the floor
still holding the towel his master was supposed to be wrapped in.
Then it happened, the small, but reassuringly solid clunk of
the recently fitted automated locking system latching into place.
He was locked in the bathroom.

Archy (John being “the” trusted servant was allowed to call him such) had left the building.
Archimedes, as everyone knew him, continued, on his now infamous journey, stark naked, screaming "Eureka"
all the way to the King’s palace, to tell the king of his realization.
Much fame, and no doubt riches then fell Archimedes way.
But back at home the trusted and now forgotten man servant
was just realizing the predicament he was in.

Archimedes was no ordinary man. He had built much to his own specifications
that the real reasoning behind was not obvious to most.
The locking system being a sort of exception, it’s purpose was obvious.
“They” may break in but the doors are all locked upon the master leaving the house, so only one room could be burgled.
It sort of made sense, “they” got something, and Archy did not loose everything.
Crime is probably the oldest “profession” after all.
John had been there at “the” moment of Archie’s realization, his feet had got very wet after all.
His first thought naturally enough being “Where’s the mop and bucket”,
Archie’s athletic leap, and departure had left him somewhat aghast though.
I suspect that John realized the brainwave Archy had just had, he was the trusted one for good reason.
He was trustworthy and had a good brain. He was also well aware of
much that Archy was working on, and of his masters lines of thought.

Did he know about the reasoning behind the “peculiar” bathroom design. Almost certainly, it was also “obvious” as well really.
The room was roughly 10 feet tall (1*), and the “bath” was relatively too large for the room.
It covered a little more than 70 percent of the floor area (2*), and
was a strange, irregular shape, a collection of inter connected “pools” as such.
The depth of the bath Archy had also been very specific about, it had to be roughly 2 foot 5 inches deep. (3*).
The ceiling was also peculiar. You could not see it, it was hidden by a veil that made the ceiling invisible….
He never did say how that was achieved.
The important thing was that the ceiling included a window, if it was shut no heat escaped, if it was open, heat escaped.
The more open the window, the more heat escaped, and the less open the window then less heat escaped.
Up to this point John had “understood” the bathroom design, but
there were other “things” John did not understand about the design.
The bath never actually drained, it remained permanently “full”,
there was a flow through the bath, it was not stagnant.
John had never fathomed how that particular aspect worked but, it worked.
There were hot water taps in various places, that Archy used to alter, they seemed to be fed from the bath itself
as the bath never actually overflowed, but how again John did not know.
There were also cold water taps. Archy used to alter these to get the bath’s temperature just right, for a bath, but
he was obviously doing something else as well. John again was not too sure how,
but thought it might be something to do with the room’s temperature.
The invisible ceiling, John knew it was invisible, and the sun shone through it, and warmed the bath, and the remaining floor,
but quite how, again he was not sure.
The invisible window was controlled by a lever near the doorway, it had a graduated scale (4*) on it.
This scale of opening was also unusual, it read “Point 00 %” upto “Point 06 %” as the window supposedly “closed”.
Point 00 %” apparently was not actually completely open, more like ajar if you like and
you could not push the lever all the way to “Point 06 %”, “Point 04 %” was as far as it would go.
Archy had said in time he’d work on that and “Point 06 %” may eventually be possible, he thought, but
did not actually know if the window could (supposedly) be “shut that much”.
There was also an interesting note on the window's scale placed at about, or just below "Point 02 %", it read,
"Level at which below plants die off".
John knew Archy had had much trouble with this "window", and Archy himself was not sure if "Point 06 %" was actually more open or closed.
In a fit of fustration one day Archy had declared "Point 06 %" is more shut, and that's that.
(Neither Archy or John even suspected that the scale for the window HAS been upto "Point 4 %", and more.
- TEN times (and more) than their windows scale. I suspect the window if they had known this, would of been redesigned / scrapped)
John thought privately to himself Archy regretted such an arbitrary "decision", he knew Archy had no measurements from which to decide,
just some thought experiments that he tried to pass off (usually completely successfully) to others as "real".
John had always meant to discuss this with Archy, but for some reason he had never quite got around to it (again), someday maybe he would, or maybe not.
He remembered the last time he had tried to raise the subject area, Archy had flown off into a rage, and called him many rude and unneccesary names.
Archy had even questioned (in his rage) John's intelligence, parentage, and much more John knew to be irrelevant to the matter.

This all left John in a bit of a sticky situation, getting sticker as well it was damned hot in the bathroom, nearer a sauna really.
John did not like saunas…
First of all he had to get cooler. So he pushed the lever as far as it would go towards “Point 00 %” ie open,
it did not seem to do much at all. So he pushed it the other way,
obviously it’s “wrong” to go towards “Point 06 %” but he tried it all the same.
He sat back and waited, not a lot happened, it just seemed to get warmer as it had been
although it might have been slightly less fast, but not to any great degree.
John himself did not know if the "window" was more open or closed, or even if it had an effect he could feel.
John felt increasingly uncomfortable though, as the steam from the hot bath seemed to make the room and the air less and less bearable.
John became increasingly worried, it was getting hotter, the “window” was not having the desired for effect, or seemingly any effect really.
What should he do.
He was beginning to get weaker, and increasingly he began to panic.
The locked door stubbornly refused to open,
he spent a lot of energy trying to open the window, without any effect.
Should he block the sunlight coming in, no impossible.
He was stumped.
He sat down, adopted the pose that philosophers like to adopt in Greek statues and
tried to clear his mind to think clearly.
He had to think afresh, he’d obviously missed something, but what.

He needed a cool drink so turned a cold water tap on, and because he was a bit stressed,
(and the bath wouldn’t overflow anyway) left it running whilst he enjoyed a long cool drink of water.
Several minutes passed, then he noticed the bath getting colder, and the room began to cool as well. Rapidly.
EUREKA, use the bath to control the room’s temperature……..

Archy got the public accolades for his water displacement but,
really the forgotten servant made THE discovery, because of the bathroom design.
It still works today, you can easily control your own bathroom’s temperature using bathwater.
Obviously really, that’s why central heating systems use water in radiators.
Water carries so much heat (and cold) energy.
Control the water temperature and you control the room’s temperature.
Archie’s bathroom was like a small version of the planet, and proves
bath (ocean) temperature controls the room’s (planet’s) temperature, not the other way round.

Now if John had looked under the bath, would there have been numerous small fires heating the bath from below, (5*)
now that might effect room temperature that he was not aware of.
And was Archy aware of this “other” heat source…most definitely not.

(1*) = Troposhere between 8 to 14.5 miles high.

(2*) = Oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface.

(3*) = The world’s oceans are on average 2.3 to 2.46 miles deep.

(4*) = Atmospheric concentration of CO2, percent.

(5*) = The recently announced / discovered, (but not really accepted yet), 4th Class of volcanoes

Later edit - Thread to date added as a word document, August 2010.
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
#2
Continueing on the same lines of thought as I tried to describe above,
elsewhere recently I have posted the below to little reaction.
I feel it worth posting here on an open forum.

We should not be asking how much warmer the greenhouse effect is keeping the planet, but
how much cooler the troposphere, because it is a refrigerant, is keeping the surface of the water planet earth.

To get to the "end point" described above, only a simple bathroom simile is needed.
Imagine a hot bath (oceans warmed by the sun) in a bathroom (floor of bathroom is the planet's surface)
with a warmed floor (land surface also heated by solar input).
The bath and the floor release heat to the atmosphere within the bathroom.
Conduction / convection and latent heat mostly, and a little radiation.
The bathroom walls "contain" the heat in the atmosphere in the bathroom
(as does the lower gravity [reduces convection and conduction at altitude] in the real planet's atmosphere)
by stopping conduction and convection, and consequently latent heat movements to the outside world (space) also.

The bathroom walls cool mostly by reduced conduction and radiation
(just like the upper lower pressure atmosphere of the planet - but heat loses to space HAVE to be by radiation only).
Increasing or lowering gases that can radiate heat in the upper atmosphere
can only increase or decrease the atmosphere's ability to loose heat to space.
So the rate at which the walls can loose heat + how much heat they recieve from within
is the determining factor of the overall temperature of the bathroom's walls (planet viewed by satelite), but
inside the bathroom the rate of heat release by the bath and floor
(which is a far greater rate than the rate the walls can lose heat at)
determines the bathroom atmospheres temperature.
The atmosphere in the bathroom acts as a refrigerant, moving heat from the surface (bath and floor)
to the eventual point of loss from the system (bathroom walls).

The planet works (as I see it at present) in a very similar way,
I am suggesting it can more realistically thought of as if it has three principle layers, or "components".

1) the (heat in zone / layer) surface (land and ocean) is heated mostly by the sun, and a little geothermal input.

2) The (refrigerant zone / layer) tropopshere moves this released heat, and
speeds up the surface's heat release (mostly by latent heat movements),
to the upper troposphere, because of convection powered by gravity.

3) Above (heat loss to space zone / layer) the troposphere reduced gravity means less convection, and
lower pressure also means less conduction,
so radiation losses to space become dominant, or the only means of loss to space.


Without the refrigerant properties of the troposphere layer the lower atmosphere would be a lot warmer, (ie no convection, just diffusion / conduction)
so the troposphere and it's refrigerant properties
(by various mechanisms most notably the convection of latent heat of H2O),
cools the planet's surface. How much though. ?
Just like at the back of a fridge, it will all depend upon
how much the cooling upper atmosphere can loose or rather radiate heat to space.
Increased so called GHG's in the upper atmosphere can only increase the cooling ability / potential of the 3) zone / layer.

The balance between heat in, heat released by the surface, heat moved within the atmosphere, and
heat lost to space is the resulting chaos known as global mean temperature.

GWS forum addition - I have tried above to describe an approach to
think about global climate and the planet as three very different layers.
The boundary between the earth's surface and the troposphere is clear enough, but
the "boundary" between the troposphere and the radiate loss to space atmospheric layer 3) in the approach is more difficult.
There is no distinct "boundary", it is more of a "zone".
The troposphere is capable of, and does, move a lot more heat than the 3) layer can radiate to space,
this is partly because of the "restrictions" of physics, 3) can only radiate according to it's temperature.
But the earth must also as an object of a certain temperature radiate a certain amount to space.
Where layer 3) does not radiate enough (most of the time I would suggest) for the planet's temperature radiation is also lost from 2) to space, so
the planet radiates the amount it should, by various mechanisms.
I think this is what Miskolczi's works show, in the upper troposphere and 3) zones.
I am not so sure Miskolczi's works are so applicable in the lower troposphere, and particularly at the earth's surface as,
he does not seem to mention or account for in any realistic manner surface heat retention and (varying) later release.

So far this leaves an obvious problem fpr my "explantion" way of thinking,
if the troposphere transports more heat up than can be radiated to space for the planet's temperature,
what happens to this excess heat in the upper troposphere ?
It probably slows convection to my mind, so slowing the upward transport of heat.

I would also look at the surface boundary with the troposphere in a somewhat different manner than most.

i) Rain rains down cold, cooling the surface. Reducing the amount of heat to be "lost to space".
This is not accounted for by any explanation I have seen as of yet anywhere.

ii) "Back radiation" does exist, but it cools the surface (it is absorbed relatively - like every other form of heat movement / flow we can see / observe).
This again completely alters "everything" that I have not seen even vaguely discussed / attempted anywhere yet.

iii) Latent heat released in the upper atmosphere warms it, so reducing convection.
This is a natural "shut off" valve. Under a cloudy sky at night the reduced convection is felt at ground level by
the heat and moist released by the cooling earth's surface "hanging around" for longer,
so the night is warmer and "muggier" than it would be without the presence of the clouds.
Again, this is something I have not seen anywhere else either mentioned or discussed.
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
#3
Hi All,
I hesitate to add this, but I will.
Below is a first "schematic" Mark 1 version of what the above has lead me to.
I am continuing to work on it, and it has already developed to what I think is a considerable extent.
I may end up making a powerpoint presentation from it, both a long winded, and very "in short" versions, but first I have to finish the complete version.

Changes so far are, most notably
a) making a latent heat "loop" in the troposphere. Includes moving convection to the left of LH rising, and warmer or colder rain to the right "downside" of the "LH loop".
b) Svensmark effect contributing to cloud nuclei.
c) Latent heat -> condensation -> cloud nuclei -> clouds -> warmer or colder rain / precipitation.
d) Another "input" added to solar and geothermal, warm blooded life. Contributes to latent and sensible heat.
e) "back radiation" arrow reduced "raised" to just below cloud level.

So, here is the Mark 1 (out of date) version of the "schematic" I am describing changes to so far.
[Image: DerekMark1schematic.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
#4
Hi All,
Firstly in response to a comment I have recieved regarding the fact that the "window" in the fable is a bit hard to understand.
Well, err, yes, that's the whole point. When you look into AGW "explanations" of "the closing window" (or thickening blanket if you prefer)
it all does get very hard to understand what "they" are saying.
That said, hopefully I have sort of covered the bases, but it may take a couple of minutes / reads to digest it.

Ok, back to what is now the Mark 2 version. Firstly though three "qualifiers".

1) Given MODTRAN is not actually measurements, then I am not going to use actual figures,
these always give rise to side tracks anyway regarding their reliability, rather than trying to think about and discuss the subject at hand..
AND, what is the point in giving a figure for something that varies constantly, on many different time scales, for numerous reasons..
(I have tried to show this on the last slide by including a "variability bar" on the latent heat movement arrows
- which looks a bit like an IPCC "error bar" but it is not, I hope this does not cause confusion.
These "variability bars" should be added to virtually all the arrows to varying extents.)

Putting figures to the arrows would (mostly) be about as much use as giving the average speed travelled by a car over 15 years, for the mileage it accumulated over the 15 years.
ie, none. The car patently was not driven at a constant speed, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for the last 15 years.
So, what use would knowing that speed in metres per second "average" be to anybody. !

2) Two people above most others have greatly influenced my approach I try to describe on this thread.
Firstly Terry Oldberg's comments in this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-609.html
In short, Terry explained that measurements of IR in the atmosphere have no actual direction, it is an intensity of IR that is measured.
The IR could be travelling in any (360 degrees x 360 degrees) direction.
Commonly the radiation is simply "given" directions, but that is all, there are simply "given" directions.
What Terry does not directly mention though is how far does the radiation travel.
Nasif Nahle on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-794.html
and in his archive,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-877.html
has directly tackled this question when he looks at the distance of the mean free path of a photon emitted in the atmosphere.
In short it is generally / mostly / almost completely, only a few millimetres before the photon will be absorbed by water, in one form or another.
What happens "then" is not really covered by anyone at present. This is what I try to address here.
For example, Dr. Miskoczi mentions tau in relation to photon movements, between Dr. Miskolczi and NASA there are disagreements about
the exact figure for tau, but it is "apparently" somewhere between 1.86, and 2.33.
What does a tau figure of about 2 mean. ?
It means (as I understand) a photon emitted at the earth's surface will be absorbed and re-emitted about twice before it escapes to space.
The implication that is commonly attributed to this is that the photon travels a long way between being emitted and absorbed, because
this only happens twice before the photon escapes to space.
BUT - What if the photon was converted to another heat / energy form when first absorbed. It could be transported a long way vertically (and laterally) before being re-emitted.
tau does not neccesarily "mean" photons travel a long way, but tau does imply it.
Nasif Nahle's work suggests that the photon must change into something else (sensible or latent heat) to be transported most of the way up (and across) through the atmosphere,
and then be re-emitted, before escaping to space.

3) This maybe my suggestions death nail but, if Nasif Nahle is correct regarding the mean free path of a photon, how does incoming solar radiation reach the earth's surface. ?
I do not know if this is even vaguely correct but I will suggest that because it is of far higher energy (a large proportion of incoming) solar radiation can penetrate the earth's atmosphere to earth's surface,
seemingly to different "rules" than apply to the far lower energy (temperature) of photons emitted within earth's climate system.

I will try to use different widths of arrows to try to compare what is descibed.
This is not particularly useful in all honesty, as almost all the arrows are constantly varying, and not neccesarily in a regular or predictable manner.
BUT, the relative widths of the arrows does provide a starting point for further thinking / discussions hopefully.
That is my only aim, in all honesty, further discussions.
So, with that in mind I have tried to start describing a suggestion that does not include IR movements within the lower atmosphere, usually referred to as the troposphere. (refrigerant zone).
Obviously most of the inputs into the system are radiation from the Sun, and almost all losses to space from our planet's climate system have to be by IR,
BUT, does that neccesarily mean movements within the atmosphere have to also mostly be by IR?
Well, no actually.

Anyway, here are the latest Mark 2 (incomplete) versions of the 5 slides I am working on.
Positively intended comments / suggestions gratefully recieved, which does not neccesarily mean you have to either agree with, or even like my "suggestions".
(I will add / replace the surface heating / retension (2) and final, combined (5) slides asap. -Later edit - now done.)
Slide 3) also "updated".

1) Inputs.
[Image: 1Mark2incompletInputs.jpg]

2) Surface heating / retention, and varying later release.
[Image: Mk22-2small.jpg]


3) The atmosphere as a "refrigerant". Latent heat of water vapourisation "loop".
[Image: 3Mark2-2incompleteHeattransportwithin.jpg]

4) Outputs
[Image: 4Mark2incompleteOutputs.jpg]

5) Combined / overal view, suggestion for further discussion.
[Image: Mk25-3small.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
#5
Hi All
So, is the above the first attempt by anyone to try to describe global climate WITHOUT "internal" IR movements being THE dominant force.
I think so.

I will work offline tidying up the above diagrams, so I can shrink them to a more manageable size whilst keeping clarity.

In the meantime, I will add here an "essay plan" I put in the private discussion area,
as I think it will almost all be used in the "long winded" version of the above series of slides.
The order will obviously have to change of the areas mentioned in the essay plan.

Any comments / suggestions / additions / not explained areas, please let me know, or simply ask questions.
Thanks in advance
Derek.

Essay Plan.

Original title, to be changed probably.
A (climate science) Cannonball run.

Standing in a field "thought" experiment.
Comparing the heat loss you would (and do) experience (if stood naked in a field) by
radiation,
conduction / convection, including wind, and then
including latent heat.

Flame / gravity - Alan Siddons paper.
Heated gas / liquid -> Gravity = flow.
(without gravity there is no convection, merely conduction / diffusion)

Back to basics of heat loss.
Cooling cannonball (illustrated thought experiment)
radiation, images comparing
conduction / convection
latent heat (water spray on cooling cannonball) - clouds, heat pipes.

Earth / black body - grey body.
There is no such thing as a "black body", earth is not a "grey body" either.
Radiation discussion, is it "all positive", or "relatively absorbed" (posts with mostly harmless),
continue with Richard111 posts / examples in this thread (quotes only), aTV - snip this thread, Roy Spencer's blog - virginia thread.

Surface heating / heat retention / emission / conduction / flows.
Moon paper Alan Siddons.

My expanded bath and bathroom simile.
Eureka... Revisited. thread
Three layer view of global climate.
i) Surface heating, and heat retention, with varying later release of absorbed heat - land and oceans.

ii) Lower atmosphere, troposphere mainly, acts as a refrigerant,
actually moves far more heat up and down than can be lost by iii),
so "greenhouse effect" null and void.

iii) Upper atmosphere mostly radiates overall as an object of a certain temperature - it has to, that's the laws of physics.
Important exceptions GHG's increase radiative ability, but this seems to be self regulating, ie, Miskolczi. Overall balance is maintained, so laws of physics are obeyed.

Radiation main factor in and out, but minor factor inbetween.
Heat retention / flow / conduction and convection, AND the latent heat of vapourisation of water first.
A hot water bottle warmed up each day, keeps your bed warm, warmer than it would otherwise be, from a local "viewpoint", if it is big and slow enough.
Clouds DO act as a "blanket" by reducing convection (upper warmed first by LH release during condensation that forms the clouds),
just like how a greenhouse ACTUALLY does work, by stopping convection.
Are earth's land and oceans big enough, warmed daily (although constantly at a planetary level) enough, and slow enough
at releasing the received heat to have such a global effect....Yup.

First heat retention must be studied (quantified as much as possible from all mechanisms, not JUST radiation) and
(if the earth were a football, the atmosphere would be a "fluid" layer the thickness of a layer of clingfilm.
(O2 also warms atmosphere at higher incoming radiation frequencies),
H2O, and to a vastly lesser extent CO2 act as refrigerants, aiding cooling, NOT warming in the lower atmosphere,
higher up H2O, and "GHG's" aid cooling by radiation to space,
then see if there is any room left for a "greenhouse effect".
My daily water jacket plot, Stephen Wilde's Hot water bottle hypothesis - same thing, different time scales / (oceanic) cycles / (solar) phases.
Must note David Dilley's (ebook) lunar cycles / tides - varying strength / location - effect upon oceanic cycles.

Back radiation - problems with idea, does it exist - no.
Section / threads at GWS forum.
List / short explanation of some of major "issues".
NASA diagrams - old and new - NASA simply added greenhouse effect - NOT by measurements.

Observations so far suggest there will be no "space" left for much of a "greenhouse effect"
once heat retention is taken seriously into account.
Unsurprisingly there is no "thickening blanket" or "roof" due to man's activities (namely releasing CO2) to planet earth's atmosphere,
just as many have observed and suspected.


Useful / possible links -

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-659.html
GWS forum - Alan Siddons Archive

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07...-body.html
Professor (of applied mathematics) Claes Johnson - A cold body can not heat a warm body.

http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/06...rator.html
Professor (of applied mathematics) Claes Johnson - The atmosphere as a refrigerator.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-...mer-still/
Dr. Roy Spencer's blog / thread - Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25804
Canada Free Press article - Rocket Scientists Need NOT Apply
by Joseph A Olson.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/345-2/
Jeff Id's blog, The Air Vent thread - Snip This Real Climate

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EP...RClark.pdf
A Null Hypothesis For CO2
Roy Clark

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-675.html
GWS forum - Derek Alker Archive

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-609.html
GWS forum - Global energy budgets thread.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-855.html
GWS forum - Eureka... Revisited thread.

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warmin...Heat_Pipes
Robert Clemenzi - A Discussion of Heat (including atmospheric heat pipes)

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...um-68.html
GWS forum - What About Back-Radiation? section.

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-674.html
GWS forum - Dr. Jonathan Drake Archive

http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate
Dr. Jonathan Drake's Blog - Questioning Climate.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index2.html
Water Structure and Science
Martin Chaplin BSc PhD CChem FRSC Emeritus Professor of Applied Science London South Bank University.
and,
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
Water Absorption Spectrum
and,
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/anmlies.html
Anomalous properties of water

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
#6
I think I will have to include this / these points as well.

The unresolved controversies of AGW "science" and,
mainstream "climate skepticism".


At present there are many and confusing discussions and debates going on regarding
the science of climatology, it's paradigm, and the projected future of the planet, and
consequently the future of the human race.
It all gets rather heated, emotional, and not a little blinkered frequently.
In short, it does seem to be losing track of itself.

There do seem to be though two main "teams", or views, namely
the (very well funded, and organised) "consensus" AGW modelling and science "team", and
the mainstream skeptics of this "AGW science" "team".

There is however a third "team" emerging (and in some respects has always been there).
A "team" that suggests the AGW science is wrong in very basic ways and misconceptions,
that the mainstream skeptics "team" appear to accept without question.
Neither of the "skeptics" "teams" are at all organised, neither have an agreed set of "things" agreed upon by all.
Some members of the skeptics "teams" overlap both "teams", and
there is (frequently) strong disagreements between the skeptics "teams" members.

If I was to describe myself as a member of any of the above "teams", which could be listed as,
1) The consensus AGW science and modelling Team.
2) The mainstream skeptics Team.
3) The radical skeptics Team.
then I am firmly in the third "team".
I was originally a true believer of the consensus team's AGW science.
I became skeptical of that science, but now I have moved through that "teams" views to
the more radical "third" "teams" view / understanding.

I will try to list some of the unresolved controversies between the skeptics "teams",
as this is probably the best way to explain my position / understanding at present and,
of my "position" within the "third" team.

1 - Is "space" cold, or is "space" temperature "neutral" ?
Space is often portrayed and described as very, very cold, just above absolute zero.
This gives the impression that the warm planet earth is in an enourmous deep freezer called "space".
Earth must therefore be losing it's heat to cold space, the planet needs insulating from this cold of space.

I ask how can nothing have a temperature?
Yes, in space an object can radiate all it's heat down to almost absolute zero, but,
that is not the same thing as space being cold.
Space is temperature neutral, would be a better description.
Objects in space radiate according to their temperature,
not to some percieved temperature difference between the object and space's supposed "temperature" of near absolute zero.
It is possible to be very hot, or very cold in "space", "space" does not know, or care,
nothing can not have a temperature.

2 - Is thermal radiation all positive(ly absorbed) or, "relatively absorbed" ?
An object recieving thermal radiation absorbs the radiation and adds it to itself, therefore the object gets warmer.

Radiation is viewed as all positive, which it is compared to absolute zero. No one disputes that.
Any object emits IR in a Planck curve, which will have a peak frequency that is determined by the objects temperature (energy level).

I ask does recieved radiation (if from a cooler object) raise the energy level of the receiving hotter object?
It would seem reasonable to expect the object to cool slightly, more than it would of done on it's own.
ie, the object would absorb the IR relatively.
I have previously described the difference in these two views of radiation absorbtion by the following example.

Two objects, one hotter than the other.
I will use W/m2 emissions of two objects of 100W/m2 and 90W/m2.
IF radiation is all positive, then ,
energy from the hotter body (100) has left that body – it therefore cools down.
The smaller amount of energy from the cooler body (90) cannot fully replace that lost energy; it just slows the rate of cooling.
ie, -100 +90 = net -10W/m2.
On it’s own the hotter object would cool at a faster rate of -100 = net -100

Or,
IF radiation is relatively absorbed then,
the cooler recieved radiation by the hotter object will cool the hotter body faster.
ie, The surface of the object is 100 and it absorbs radiation at 90, so cooling it (not replacing lost energy) by a difference of -10.
This must be added to the -100, so the object cools at -100 and -10 = net -110W/m2.
On it’s own the hotter object would cool relatively slower to the two object example. ie, net -100

In my everyday life the relatively absorbed viewpoint seems a more realistic view point.

3 - The (assumed as proven) logarithmic effect of
increasing CO2 upon the atmosphere's temperature,
but not actually shown as of yet.

I raised this issue in this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-832.html

The actual effect of CO2 within the open, real, mixed atmosphere upon temperature has never, and can not be measured.

Plots like the plot David Archibald produced have been used by almost everyone to show
increasing CO2 levels within the atmosphere has (and quantify) a logarithmic effect upon temperature increase.
But, as I ask, what "atmosphere" was the CO2 effect measured within ?
Are the measurements in a closed system, within an at present unknown "atmosphere", or void
directly applicable (and be shown to be) to the real, open, mixed atmosphere?

4 - Do we know what the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 actually is, and
are we accurately measuring any changes in
the global concentrations of atmospheric CO2 concentration ?

These are questions I asked on this thread,
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-702.html

I'll not repeat here much that is on that thread, suffice it to say I believe the answer to both the above two questions is no.
Other questions also arise in regard of this subject area.

What was the level of so called pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2 levels?
Zbigniew Jaworowski most notably questioned the method used to obtain
the frequently quoted / used figure of 275ppm for a pre-industrial level of CO2.
He suggested, quite convincingly the figure using the data they should of used would be 331ppm.
All in all, I do not see how a constant level is justified at all for the pre-industrial period.
CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere have always, and will always vary for numerous reasons.
Some of these reasons which we are aware of, and many we are not aware of,
nor the complex ways they do, and have reacted / changed with and against each other.
I doubt any of the natural sinks and sources has ever been accurately quantified, nor will they ever be.
Well, not for a long time yet anyways.

CO2 levels, natural sinks and sources, human emissions of, are all guess work,
and a lot of that guess work is very obviously biased / manipulated.

5 - Are global temperature records accurate and reliable, presently, and
in the past record they depict?

I am going to be brief on this one, climategate has answered this question beyond any reasonable doubt,
with a resounding NO, not in either respect.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

However, what does surprise me is the obvious disconnect between the 1930s temperature record, and
the 1990s temperature record as presently depicted by all the major records, ie, GISS, HADcrut, et al.
By all reasonable accounts the 1930s was just about as warm as the 1990s, but
no one seems to pick up on this obvious problem with all the global temperature records. ?
In itself it is an obvious reason to throw out all the present global temperature "metrics",
they are not what they purport to be, in any way, beyond any reasonable doubt.

6 - Are almost all other global metrics as unreliable, distorted and, biased
as the present CO2 and temperature global metrics?

Ozone has always been seasonal..

Methane mythology for another completely distorted example.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-590.html

------------------------------
OK, that's enough for the time being, I'll no doubt add more later.
And probably change the order of the points.
including
back radiation, (but in my view that directly relates back to point 2 above.) if it exists,
what does it do, http://nov47.com/bacr.html
KT budgets. - complete invented bunkum, AND invented, incorrect, inept mathematics used. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800
W/m2 figures as used in K/T budgets - imaginary, meaningless, guessed at annual figures / averages expressed as per second amounts.
I think W/m2 is the wrong way to look at the subjecy anyways, it helps create the wrong impression of what and how is "moving",
it also helps conceal / misrepresent (underrepresent mostly) large movements.
HITRAN, MODRAN are not measurements, computer guesswork,
Black body (imaginary, does not exist)- regolith effect (undeniably real, but largely ignored / dismissed).
http://climatology.suite101.com/article....gas-theory
Greenhouse effect - There isn't one plain and simple.
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
#7
The space is a cold place. The density of the whole space is variable, from 0.001 atoms/cm^3 to 1000 atoms/cm^3 (standardized values); therefore, the temperature of the space is low. Our conventional thermometers with alcohol or mercury in their bulbs would be wrecked by the coldness of the space. 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.
Reply
#8
As I understand things (and I am probably wrong) the sparsely spaced particles will have a temperature,
but the space in between them will not have a temperature. Because it is nothing.

The above is the basis for the very confusing vertical temperature profiles, where
with altitude (eg, ionosphere) temperature (supposedly) rises to something ridiculous like 1,200 degrees centigrade.
Maybe one or two particles within a unit volume of space are at that temperature,
because the particles are very small, and have just absorbed some solar radiaition, but the "rest" ain't.
The "rest" don't have a temperature.
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
#9
(08-25-2010, 11:23 AM)Derek Wrote: As I understand things (and I am probably wrong) the sparsely spaced particles will have a temperature,
but the space in between them will not have a temperature. Because it is nothing.

The above is the basis for the very confusing vertical temperature profiles, where
with altitude (eg, ionosphere) temperature (supposedly) rises to something ridiculous like 1,200 degrees centigrade.
Maybe one or two particles within a unit volume of space are at that temperature,
because the particles are very small, and have just absorbed some solar radiaition, but the "rest" ain't.
The "rest" don't have a temperature.

I agree with you, Derek. Void space has not temperature because it lacks particles. The density of matter in those almost-void spaces of 0.001 atom/cm^3, which makes 1 atom/m^3, only applies to the interstellar space into the Milky Way. What the density is in the intergalactic space, at those regions that are far from the galactic halos? I have thought about what the conditions out from the bubble of our universe would be, but every output from my mind on this respect is pure speculation.
Reply
#10
Nasif, my mind simply boggles at that type of greater scale/s to be honest.

However, to continue with this line of thought "closer to home".
(Noting I should of used the words mesosphere / thermospshere / exosphere, rather than ionosphere I used in post 8.)
I do not like this type of temperature profile,
[Image: 091221temp.jpg]

For exactly the reasons we mention above.
It seems to me that the temperature of the particles is plotted, which is at best confusing.
I would also suspect that there is a change from thermometre readings to "particle temperatures" with hieght in the profile.
But where and how this is done, I have not a clue.
Is it a sudden, or gradual "transision", between the two measurement types, if it happens, I simply do not know.

I wonder if a joules per unit volume (ie Kilo joules per cubic metre) would be a better way to plot such profiles. ?
This would give a very different profile shape, far more (presumably) like what a thermometre would actually read.
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
#11
Yes, a profile of energy density would be by far better than the average temperature profile at different heights. It would describe realistically the energy state of the atmosphere. If you wish, I could try making some calculations and see if the results can be illustrated graphically.
Reply
#12
A very valid point. It would be interesting to see an energy density chart of the atmosphere.

For example, at sea level and 1 bar pressure and temperature of 15C molecular density is 2.5469 x 10^25 but at 7,000 meters density is already down to half, 1.2269 x 10^25 molecules, pressure is just over 0.4 bar and temperature is about -30C.

CO2 at -30C won't be radiating much of anything and we are still way below the tropopause.

I've been trying to push myself into drawing a CO2 mass graph but can't decide on how big to make the atmospheric column. Just a one square meter column gives such small numbers.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#13
(08-26-2010, 09:05 AM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Yes, a profile of energy density would be by far better than the average temperature profile at different heights.
It would describe realistically the energy state of the atmosphere.
If you wish, I could try making some calculations and see if the results can be illustrated graphically.

If you could I and many, many others would be very interested, please Nasif.

One small point, I was thinking in terms of energy contained per cubic metre, or cubic centimetre.
I am not sure what is meant by "energy density".
AND,
Would such a figure be able to be used for the arrows in my earlier slides I am developing.
I really detest the commonly used W/m2 figures, I think they grossly mislead / confuse.

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
#14
(08-26-2010, 01:21 PM)Derek Wrote:
(08-26-2010, 09:05 AM)Nasif Nahle Wrote: Yes, a profile of energy density would be by far better than the average temperature profile at different heights.
It would describe realistically the energy state of the atmosphere.
If you wish, I could try making some calculations and see if the results can be illustrated graphically.

If you could I and many, many others would be very interested, please Nasif.

One small point, I was thinking in terms of energy contained per cubic metre, or cubic centimetre.
I am not sure what is meant by "energy density".
AND,
Would such a figure be able to be used for the arrows in my earlier slides I am developing.
I really detest the commonly used W/m2 figures, I think they grossly mislead / confuse.

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.
Reply
#15
To say I'm waiting with baited breath, is as big an understatement as I could make.
But, wait I shall, please take your time Nasif.

In the mean time I'll look up what dilucidate means. Smile
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
#16
(08-26-2010, 01:54 PM)Derek Wrote: To say I'm waiting with baited breath, is as big an understatement as I could make.
But, wait I shall, please take your time Nasif.

In the mean time I'll look up what dilucidate means. Smile

Heh! "Dilucidate" means "to explain". ---I knew that word didn't exist in English--- Blush
Reply
#17
Elucidate really, dilucidate is a "plural" term, I took it as quite a compliment, thank you.
I was only trying to be humerous Nasif.
(The word does exist in English dictionaries, ie, dilucidate it is just not commonly used)
Yup, the use of a Wiki reference / link is also intended to be humerous, even Wiki sometimes gets things right...

Apologies my humour did not come across as intended.
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
#18
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.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#19
Quote:1 - Is "space" cold, or is "space" temperature "neutral" ?


Quote:Precise measurements of cosmic background radiation are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation. The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K, thus the spectrum peaks in the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.9 mm wavelength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_micr..._radiation
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply
#20
Derek,

Please excuse my presenting the following in question form, however referring to your post #10:

Is the graph you show the average temperature profile?
If so, what would the day and night versions look like?
Is temperature the correct metric?
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

What temperature is it at between 320 km and 350 km according to the graph?

I believe you (Derek) already know the answers but I'm trying to encourage lateral and inquisitive thinking.
"Correlation is NOT Causation"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere Sunsettommy 0 7,623 03-27-2013, 11:27 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Greenland revisited.. Derek 9 12,291 01-10-2010, 06:40 AM
Last Post: Derek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)