The Earth Without GreenHouse Gases
I M @ good guy
Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
Without GreenHouse Gases means no water
either, so most of the surface would be rock, maybe
with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
would have a downdraft. But much of the surface
would be just hot in sunlight with convection.
Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
would be warmed by the sun, and would have
very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
This dispells the parroted myth that the
Earth would have temperatures like the moon
without GreenHouse Gases.
It might be interesting to determine if
there would be any lapse rate at all, since
warm air rises, and there would be less or
no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
Any surface magma or lava would cause
the air to warm more, and much of the surface
might be rather warm without the oceans to
cool the molten rock.
Of course there would be no hydrocarbons,
so there would be no hydrocarbon life, although
the air temperatures would definitely be warmer
than in some regions where Eskimo make their
home.
Since there would be no clouds, the energy
reaching the surface would be much greater.
Is anybody willing to guess what the air
temperature would be at noon, or at sunrise?
The lack of a discussion of some aspect
of this conjecture and the almost word for word
statements about "The GreenHouse Effect
warms the Earth about 33 degrees, without it,
the Earth would not support life" shows that
far too many people simply do not think for
themselves.
The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
would be quite warm, possibly having an
average temperature warmer than at present.
Will Hand
Will
--
Tom P
published 1986, discusses this on page 4.
Tom P
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>
>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse Gases and
>> attempt some math?
>>
>>
>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water either, so most of
>> the surface would be rock, maybe
>> with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
>>
>> The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
>> have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
>> would have a downdraft. But much of the surface would be just hot
>> in sunlight with convection.
>>
>>
>> Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
>> would be warmed by the sun, and would have
>> very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
>> of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
>> This dispells the parroted myth that the
>> Earth would have temperatures like the moon
>> without GreenHouse Gases.
>>
>> It might be interesting to determine if
>> there would be any lapse rate at all, since
>> warm air rises, and there would be less or
>> no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
>>
Wrong. Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
adiabatic+lapse+rate.
Graham P Davis
> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
> GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
Svante Arrhenius. And he did it over a century ago.
If I remember correctly, I think he worked out that the average temperature
of the Earth would be -40 with no CO2. Of course, he also worked out the
rise in global temperatures associated with increases in CO2. He was not too
worried about humans increasing the amount of CO2 and the consequent GW as
he believed the rate of increase would be too slow and would allow for
absorption by the oceans. I think he didn't believe a doubling of CO2 would
happen for 3,000 years.
--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."
Yokel
news:MPG.254369d51...@news.x-privat.org...
| Leonard Pulver Sr. wrote
| >
| > Tom P wrote
| > > Wrong. Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
| > > adiabatic+lapse+rate.
| > >
| >
flower?
| >
| >
| > A flower?
| >
| > If you go down to Willow Farm...
|
|
| Lyrics by Peter Gabriel, and rythmn in 4:4 time.
|
Which raises the question. Did the greenhouse gases come before or after
Genesis?
--
- Yokel -
"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.
I M @ good guy
And?
If he said anything that doesn't support AGW,
would you say so?
What this boils down to, is how many "scientists"
are willing to say nothing and allow the myth that "without
GreenHouse Gases the Earth would be 33 degrees colder"
to continue.
And if that myth is exposed, what will happen to
some of the other gossip and rumors?
I ask again, how many care nothing about truth
in science, and are willing to just ignore the error in
the parroted gossip about all the moderation of the
atmospheric temperatures of Earth being the result
of GreenHouse Gases.
How many parrots don't even understand the
physics?
Harry King
wrote:
> "Leonard Pulver Sr." <last_thin...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:MPG.254369d51...@news.x-privat.org...
Jesus inhaled before he exhaled.
So, there you go.
I M @ good guy
>Tom P wrote:
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>
>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse Gases and
>>> attempt some math?
>>>
>>>
>>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water either, so most of
>>> the surface would be rock, maybe
>>> with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
>>>
>>> The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
>>> have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
>>> would have a downdraft. But much of the surface would be just hot
>>> in sunlight with convection.
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
>>> would be warmed by the sun, and would have
>>> very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
>>> of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
>>> This dispells the parroted myth that the
>>> Earth would have temperatures like the moon
>>> without GreenHouse Gases.
>>>
>>> It might be interesting to determine if
>>> there would be any lapse rate at all, since
>>> warm air rises, and there would be less or
>>> no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
>
>Wrong.
What do you mean , wrong, I said it would
be interesting to determine, obviously there would
be a temperature gradient due to cooling by expansion,
but as more warmer air rises, thermal energy would
be added, possibly causing an inversion.
>Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
>adiabatic+lapse+rate.
Why do you think a discussion of existing atmosphere
physics would apply to an N2 and O2 atmosphere without
GreenHouse Gases?
I'm sorry to say, that is the reason for the gossip
spreading the myth, everybody is afraid to use their
brain, why rock the boat, it is easier to just agree and
fit in with the crowd, no matter how clueless they are.
Amazon has some at low cost, but I seriously
doubt if it would be worth my waiting for it, applied
physics rarely goes into detail on hypothetical
situations.
An Earth without either hydrogen or carbon
would be so totally different, there has to be a
reason to think about it, and AGW or even the
increasing CO2 concentration demands every
possible study of what greenhouse theory is
all about.
The N2 and the O2 atmosphere is such
a huge heat sink, it is what retains the heat of
the sun for days at a time, while GHGs can
radiate far too fast with very little storage ability.
The situation is so bad, I have to wonder
what the required courses are for a climate degree,
it seems to me many if not most geologists are
at odds with a lot of the alarmism.
You seem to thrive on it.
Last Post
> The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
> would be quite warm, possibly having an
> average temperature warmer than at present.
•• Without CO2 it would be a barren desert
Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
to Life on Earth From Wikipedia
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants
produce organic compounds and oxygen from
carbon dioxide and water.
Photosynthesis is a process that converts carbon
dioxide into organic compounds, especially
sugars, using the energy from sunlight.
Photosynthesis occurs in plants, algae, and many
species of bacteria. All use water and carbon
dioxide as initial substrates and release oxygen as
a waste product.
Carbon occupies a special place on the periodic
table of elements and has the unique ability to
form chains with other carbon atoms. Those
bonds give it the unique ability to store large
amounts of energy in its bonds, and to release that
energy, in a relatively stable, controllable way.
From these chains of carbon, plants form energy-
containing carbohydrates, such as sugar and oils,
and structural carbohydrates called cellulose,
which gives plants their rigidity and allows them
to grow tall without falling over. Heterotrophic
organisms, such as animals, depend on those
organic compounds. Therefore, photosynthesis
is crucially important for life on Earth. As well as
maintaining the normal level of oxygen in the
atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the
ultimate source of the energy in their food.
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm
Last Post
•• I have not read "Houghton" but you never
seem to get it right so the the answer to the
proposition must be very simple and it is:—
•• The globe would be a barren desert. <GG>
Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
to Life on Earth - Wikipedia
I M @ good guy
<last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>On Oct 17, 12:05 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>
>> The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
>> would be quite warm, possibly having an
>> average temperature warmer than at present.
>
>•• Without CO2 it would be a barren desert
A nonsensical statement, obviously without
water or carbon, life as we know it would not exist,
that isn't the issue in atmospheric physics.
> Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
> to Life on Earth From Wikipedia
Life has nothing to do with gas temperatures.
> Photosynthesis is the process by which plants
> produce organic compounds and oxygen from
> carbon dioxide and water.
No kidding, the text from wiki does not apply here.
Can you find a reference that addresses
the temperature that an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would have?
>– –
>Either way short term or long term the data
>doesn't support man made global warming?
>
>short term
>http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
>long term
>http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm
Did you read what I wrote, if GHGs are what cool
the atmosphere, could that mean more GHGs will cool
the atmosphere more?
This not only doesn't support AGW, it questions
if higher CO2 concentrations might cause a slow drift
into an ice age.
Note that the last four ice ages came on slowly,
and the warmups were sudden and swift.
That is not a way CO2 could ever work.
James
I don't understand how this planet's makeup could avoid having greenhouse gases.
Leonard
On 10/17/09 6:24 PM, in article sggkd59lo57b97thn...@4ax.com,
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:57:22 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
> <last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 17, 12:05�am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> � � � � � The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
>>> would be quite warm, possibly having an
>>> average temperature warmer than at present.
>>
>> �� Without CO2 it would be a barren desert
>
>
> A nonsensical statement, obviously without
> water or carbon, life as we know it would not exist,
> that isn't the issue in atmospheric physics.
�� In otherwords atmospheric physics has no
connection with reality. How stupid can you get?
>
>
>> Why Carbon Dioxide is Absolutely Essential
>> to Life on Earth From Wikipedia
>
>
> Life has nothing to do with gas temperatures.
�� Maybe but gas temperatures have a great deal
with life
>
>
>> Photosynthesis is the process by which plants
>> produce organic compounds and oxygen from
>> carbon dioxide and water.
>
>
> No kidding, the text from wiki does not apply here.
�� I can give you other texts but they all are
connected with reality. unlike you.
�� The proposition was a world "without greenhouse
gasses" so where does " the temperature an N2
and O2 atmosphere" fit in?
���
Tom P
Because the physics applies not just to planet earth but any other
planet including the planets in our solar system and hypothetical
planets that don't even exist.
Tom P
written in 1986, long before AGW became a political issue.
> What this boils down to, is how many "scientists"
> are willing to say nothing and allow the myth that "without
> GreenHouse Gases the Earth would be 33 degrees colder"
> to continue.
>
> And if that myth is exposed, what will happen to
> some of the other gossip and rumors?
>
>
> I ask again, how many care nothing about truth
> in science, and are willing to just ignore the error in
> the parroted gossip about all the moderation of the
> atmospheric temperatures of Earth being the result
> of GreenHouse Gases.
>
> How many parrots don't even understand the
> physics?
>
>
Your problem is that you are locked in to an intuitive but mistaken
concept of how the physics works. This is understandable, because we
have no experience of living on a planet without greenhouse gases, so
the idea that such a planet would have a dramatically different climate
is hard to grasp intuitively. Our experience of the world teaches us to
expect things to happen in a certain way, for example that a feather
will fall slower than a stone when we let go of it. The idea that a
feather will fall like a stone in a vacuum is something that is outside
our experience, and hard to imagine. Equally, the idea that a planet
that looks much the same as ours with a perfectly breathable atmosphere
should be 30�c colder is hard to imagine, but does not make it any less
realistic.
T.
Tom P
>
>
> On 10/17/09 6:24 PM, in article sggkd59lo57b97thn...@4ax.com,
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:57:22 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
>> <last...@primus.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 12:05 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
>>>> would be quite warm, possibly having an
>>>> average temperature warmer than at present.
>>
>> A nonsensical statement, obviously without
>> water or carbon, life as we know it would not exist,
>> that isn't the issue in atmospheric physics.
>
> connection with reality. How stupid can you get?
>>
Atmospheric physics describes the atmospheres of other planets, not just
the earth.
Tom P
Well, there is the theory of Snowball Earth. This supposes that the
earth at one time had no CO2 in the atmosphere and that all the water
was locked into a solid coat of ice. In this situation, the temperature
would drop to around -20�c, freezing any H2O out of the atmosphere and
creating an essential GHG-free atmosphere. This would then be the
scenario that IMAGG has problems understanding.
I M @ good guy
Hypotheticals do not need to fit a real planet,
if there was no hydrogen and no carbon, that would
be the situation.
There may be lots of carbon dust falling from
space, so that would have to not be happening,
and without carbon, there could be no limestone,
but all rock could be sand stone, so the hypothetical
is possible.
Do you see that even though there would be
cooling of convecting air by expansion, as more
heat moves upward, the upper atmosphere could
warm more than lower down without LWIR?
The types of responses this is getting are
really telling of the state of original thought, way
too much is just copy cat work.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
The sun would heat the rocks, and the rocks
would heat the air, and the warm air would rise, do
you know any physics at all?
And this begs the question, could more CO2
cause cooling instead of warming, completely the
opposite of AGW.
leona...@gmail.com
On Oct 17, 7:36 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> Leonard wrote:
>
> > On 10/17/09 6:24 PM, in article sggkd59lo57b97thn6eef9i2332ggqm...@4ax.com,
> > "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 14:57:22 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
> >> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 17, 12:05 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> >>>> The Earth without GreenHouse Gases
> >>>> would be quite warm, possibly having an
> >>>> average temperature warmer than at present.
> >>> €€ Without CO2 it would be a barren desert
>
> >> A nonsensical statement, obviously without
> >> water or carbon, life as we know it would not exist,
> >> that isn't the issue in atmospheric physics.
>
> > €€ In otherwords atmospheric physics has no
> > connection with reality. How stupid can you get?
>
> Atmospheric physics describes the atmospheres of other planets, not just
> the earth.
•• But we only live on earth and why do you think
the subject is "The Earth Without GreenHouse
Gases"? Stick with the subject stupid.
•• If you want to discuss "atmospheric physics"
start a new thread on a suitable subject and do
it on sci.physics. It is off topic on SE.
I M @ good guy
Well, if the discussion is about GreenHouse Gases
and the greenhouse effect, it would not apply to the
hypothetical Earth without Greenhouse Gases.
Baron_Mind
>
> On Oct 17, 7:36 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
---
>>> In otherwords atmospheric physics has no
>>> connection with reality. How stupid can you get?
>>
>> Atmospheric physics describes the atmospheres of other planets,
>> not just the earth.
>
> But we only live on earth
Apparently, you don't..
> Stick with the subject stupid.
You first, Leotard..
> If you want to discuss "atmospheric physics"
That won't be including you, will it?
--I have strong doubts that you'd be able to comprehend the subject..
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:18:27 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
> >I M @ good guy wrote:
•• ROTFLMAO
– –
I M @ good guy
Do you think I got too basic in that response
to Tom, I didn't know if he considers water vapor
to be a GHG, you know, the AGW people seem
to think CEE-OH-TWO is the major GHG.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
haven't read the IPCC report, or any of the other literature about
climate change - in the current regime CO2 induced warming is a forcing,
and H20 induced warming is a feedback. If I recall correctly the
greenhouse effect due to water vapour is the major contributor to the
climate sensitivity being near 3, rather than near 1.
Oh, and your response wasn't too basic - it was too wrong. You can't
deny physics that is independent of the presence of greenhouse gases
just because you assert that the discussion is about greenhouse gases.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
I M @ good guy
I have read them, they do not discuss any hypothetical
situation for the purpose of understanding what warms the
Earth and moderates the extreme temperatures seen on
the moon.
If I am discussing a hypothetical Earth without GHGs
why would I bother reading about an Earth with GHGs?
>If I recall correctly the
>greenhouse effect due to water vapour is the major contributor to the
>climate sensitivity being near 3, rather than near 1.
There is no water vapor on a hypothetical Earth
with no GHGs, water vapor is a GHG in concentration
many times that of CO2 and has a LW bandwidth much
wider than CO2.
>Oh, and your response wasn't too basic - it was too wrong.
How so?
>You can't
>deny physics that is independent of the presence of greenhouse gases
>just because you assert that the discussion is about greenhouse gases.
I dismiss the discussion of GHGs when discussing a
hypothetical Earth without GHGs.
See the subject line, "The Earth Without GreenHouse Gases"?
N2 and O2, as the only atmospheric gases considered
in an Earth Without GreenHouse Gases, are not able to
radiate much in any of the longwave frequencies at the
temperatures found in the troposphere or stratosphere.
That means they are warmed by the hot rocks
in daylight and convect upward where they stay warm
all night.
This means the Earth's atmosphere would be
warmer without GHGs than with, dispelling the myth
that the Earth would be 30 degrees colder if there
were no CO2 and no GHGs.
So is the entire AGW premise false? Is the
environment in danger of heating up from additional
CO2? If GHGs are what cool the atmosphere,
more GHGs should cool the atmosphere more.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:09:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
><{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <7khld5d71281og47i...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>>guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "leona...@gmail.com"
>>><leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 17, 7:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:18:27 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>>> >I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:18:24 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Tom P wrote:
>>>>> >>>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse
>>>>> >>>>>
So you don't look like an idiot when you claim that people don't think
that H20 is a major greenhouse gas.
However, from the non-sequiturial nature of your response, I presume
that you are just trolling.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
I M @ good guy
<{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I don't claim that, it is apparent though that the major
emphasis in AGW is on CO2 since water vapor is not being
added to the atmosphere.
>However, from the non-sequiturial nature of your response, I presume
>that you are just trolling.
No, try to follow this, an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would be heated by hot rocks in sunlight, so an Earth
without GHGs would be warmer than the present
Earth.
GHGs cool the atmosphere by LWIR radiation,
so in view of the fact that an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would be warmer than the present Earth's atmosphere,
adding more of the gases that cool the atmosphere
should cool the atmosphere more than at present.
Tom P
Boyle's Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. If your idea of
original thinking is to ignore fundamental physics then good luck and
goodbye.
I M @ good guy
You really miss the point, an N2 and O2 atmosphere
would absorb a lot of heat from the hot rocks of the surface,
much more than the air or the GHGs do at present because
there would be no water/oceans, and no clouds.
And an N2 and O2 atmosphere would not radiate
much if any at all at the temperatures in the atmosphere.
That takes care of Stephan-Boltzmann , all you
did is display an inability to think physical processes
through, I sure hope nobody has to pay you to do
original work in science.
As far as Boyle's law goes, the only containment
on the atmosphere is gravity, so small volumes of hot
air can rise and expand, but if they are still warmer than
ambient at the new altitude, they rise and expand more.
So there is no set temperature to be found at a
given altitude, the entire atmosphere could/would warm
up, expand some, but it could be warmer at all altitudes.
This is the unfortunate thing about applying well
known laws to new situations, they may or may not
apply.
I only wish somebody that can think for them
self and who is not afraid of getting chewed out or
fired if the recite the truth in science would help me
explain this in terminology typical of atmospherics.
The whole object of the exercise is to show
that GHGs re-distribute energy, but do not trap
energy, and actually radiate more than they
absorb else the convection energy would not
be removed from the atmosphere.
Also, it may be imperative to have the facts
about what can cause an ice age, if it is more
CO2, then reducing CO2 is still needed, even
more than to head off warming, and conserving
all forms of energy is even more important.
It seems the AGW alarmists have taken
sides along other lines than reason, and attack
anybody that does not stupidly follow the party
line.
I haven't seen so much reciting the same
canned buzz phrases since the whole class
had to recite the Gettysburg Address.
Bill Ward
Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have considered
the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a planet with a non-
radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What fundamental physics
do you think Ima is ignoring?
Bill Ward
I think convection would enforce something close to an adiabatic lapse
rate.
leona...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:35:23 +0200, Tom P wrote:
> > I M @ good guy wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I M @ good guy wrote:
> >>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse Gases
> >>>> and attempt some math?
>
> >>>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water
> >>>> either, so most of the surface would be rock, maybe with fine sand
> >>>> due to the N2 and O2 winds.
•• The principal greenhouse gasses are water and CO2
Without water and CO2 the planet is DEAD
Nothing else matters.
– –
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?"
see below
http://pcl.physics.uwo.ca/science/gravitywaves/
A Short Primer on Gravity Waves
leona...@gmail.com
{$new...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <7khld5d71281og47ioamvhuap03416j...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
> guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>
>
> > Do you think I got too basic in that response
> >to Tom, I didn't know if he considers water vapor
> >to be a GHG, you know, the AGW people seem
> >to think CEE-OH-TWO is the major GHG.
>
> In the light of this blatantly inaccurate statement I presume that you
> haven't read the IPCC report, or any of the other literature about
> climate change - in the current regime CO2 induced warming is a forcing,
> and H20 induced warming is a feedback. If I recall correctly the
> greenhouse effect due to water vapour is the major contributor to the
> climate sensitivity being near 3, rather than near 1.
>
•• I guess you are not up to the recent IPCC event
where the icons of the '07 report (Hadley's
Briffa and Penn State's Mann have been shot
down in cherry picking flames. Copenhagen
has no basis for proceeding. But the UN's
fascist bureaucrats will play dumb as usual.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:40:34 -0400, I M @ good guy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:35:23 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>
> >>I M @ good guy wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~folkins/acp-6-1.pdf
"Convective damping of buoyancy anomalies and its effect on lapse
rates in the tropical lower troposphere
I. Folkins
Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5, Canada
Received: 29 July 2005 – Published in Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.: 23
August 2005
Revised: 17 November 2005 – Accepted: 26 November 2005 – Published: 2
January 2006"
I M @ good guy
There would be adiabatic cooling with convection,
but what happens to the thermal energy that is carried
upward?
What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
inversion?
No doubt there is some connection between the
kinetic energy of molecules and temperature, so there
probably has to be a lower temperature in less dense
air, but since warm air rises, if the energy can't be
disposed of, what happens?
All this is a non-issue though, the important thing
is to correct the mis-impression that it is GHGs that make
the Earth warmer than the moon, it is not, it is having an
atmosphere that makes the Earth warmer than the moon,
it doesn't matter much what kind of atmosphere.
The amount of parroting is a horrible disgrace for
any scientific discipline, nothing like it ever happened
before, the closest things I can think of is witchcraft,
ghosts, and pyramid clubs.
And there is no excuse for not testing nitrogen,
dry nitrogen is readily available, so is oxygen, water
and CO2.
And most of the effort is being made by well
meaning people, believing every news story no
matter how outlandish the claims.
What impresses me is the number of geologists
who don't see a remarkable aspect to local warming
and cooling. Maybe elaboration on how to tell
the difference in tree rings between moist years and
warm years would help me, as it is, I have very little
faith in the manipulated data, I know there have not
been many all-time high temperature records broken
recently, and I don't see how warmer minimum temps
could be harmful.
What a bucket of worms, so much money being
spent on studies and not enough on alternate energy
machines.
[no new response below]
Bill Ward
It would be carried poleward, where the surface T is lower, conducted to
the surface at night, and radiated to space the next day. Absence of
GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
redistribution of energy.
> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
> inversion?
Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
>
> No doubt there is some connection between the
> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
> so there probably has to be
> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if the
> energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and the
tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere. The convective winds must
come down to the surface somewhere to replace the warmer rising air.
> All this is a non-issue though, the important thing
> is to correct the mis-impression that it is GHGs that make the Earth
> warmer than the moon, it is not, it is having an atmosphere that makes
> the Earth warmer than the moon, it doesn't matter much what kind of
> atmosphere.
I tend to agree it'll be hotter, but because the peak surface temperature
will be lower. Remember the T^4 radiation relation. Reducing the max T
will have a lot more effect than increasing the min T the same amount.
> The amount of parroting is a horrible disgrace for
> any scientific discipline, nothing like it ever happened before, the
> closest things I can think of is witchcraft, ghosts, and pyramid clubs.
It's not science, it's just normal human behavior. Those people have
always been around.
>
> And there is no excuse for not testing nitrogen,
> dry nitrogen is readily available, so is oxygen, water and CO2.
What kind of test?
> And most of the effort is being made by well
> meaning people, believing every news story no matter how outlandish the
> claims.
>
> What impresses me is the number of geologists
> who don't see a remarkable aspect to local warming and cooling.
> Maybe elaboration on how to tell the difference in tree rings between
> moist years and warm years would help me, as it is, I have very little
> faith in the manipulated data, I know there have not been many all-time
> high temperature records broken recently, and I don't see how warmer
> minimum temps could be harmful.
>
> What a bucket of worms, so much money being
> spent on studies and not enough on alternate energy machines.
Well, we've used gravity in hydroelectric, and the EM force in chemical
fuels, so the only ones left we know about are the strong force and the
weak force. AFAIK, no one has a clue about the weak force, so nuclear is
about the only way to go.
The first people to tame fire probably had the same problem as the people
who want to build nukes now - ignorant people are afraid of the unknown,
and there are always people who use ignorance to advance their own
agenda. Nothing ever really changes.
>
>
> [no new response below]
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:" What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?"
well, if you discount your denial of facts, nothing, but if you factor
in what you ignore, lots.....
I M @ good guy
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
Come on Bill, energy from equator convected upward,
travels 6,000 miles, and all radiated the next day?
I think you let that guy a few months ago convince
you (what was his name) that the N2 and O2 atmosphere
would not heat much.
Along with the air warming and expanding (it also
expands before it stops convecting), there has to be air
contracting as it radiates.
How could all this happen from all latitudes at the
same time?
> Absence of
>GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
>redistribution of energy.
Wind speeds would probably be much greater all
over, but that in itself means greater pressure gradients,
but there could be high level stratification where a layer
did not enjoin in the high level poleward streaming,
>> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
>> inversion?
>
>Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
>there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
Part of the character of the stratosphere is the O3
creation which would still exist, possibly disturbed by
convective circulation, but adding to the heat energy.
>> No doubt there is some connection between the
>> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
>
>That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
Maybe not as clear cut as it seems, in air,
the speed of sound is a function of temperature,
because sound can only travel through air at
the speed of the molecules.
In high winds, and convective flow, there
would be variations in relative energy.
>> so there probably has to be
>> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if the
>> energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
>
>It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
There is not a chance that all the air in the atmosphere
could come down to contact the ground or intermix with air
that has come into contact with the ground.
Add that the tendency of cooler air to stay closer
to the ground than warmer air, and the dynamics becomes
complex, so that whatever energy does not get absorbed
by the surface and radiated away each day causes the
atmosphere to warm more.
It may be easy to work this out for a day or so,
but if the atmosphere continues to warm, there might
be stronger stratification (did I say a number of stratospheres?).
>Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and the
>tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere.
It is really the atmosphere we are talking about,
as in AGW or any climate science, thinking of the air
temperature a meter or so above the ground as the
temperature of the "surface", is a mistake.
If the air is warmer than the coldest part of
the rock surface, then the rock surface might get
warmer each day.
>The convective winds must
>come down to the surface somewhere to replace the warmer rising air.
But they don't need to make contact with the
rock surface, which is about what would be needed
to cool the air.
There is just no way to arrive at a solution
where the N2 and O2 atmosphere would have
an average temperature cooler than we have
now, which is why I say the GHGs cool the
atmosphere, and that it is cooler now than if
there were NO GHGs.
>> All this is a non-issue though, the important thing
>> is to correct the mis-impression that it is GHGs that make the Earth
>> warmer than the moon, it is not, it is having an atmosphere that makes
>> the Earth warmer than the moon, it doesn't matter much what kind of
>> atmosphere.
>
>I tend to agree it'll be hotter, but because the peak surface temperature
>will be lower. Remember the T^4 radiation relation. Reducing the max T
>will have a lot more effect than increasing the min T the same amount.
The temperature of the rock surface doesn't
seem to be an issue other than to the extent it
affects the temperature of the air.
Just like now, an asphalt surface in Las Vegas
is a lot hotter than a swamp surface in Arkansas.
Which should be a part of the study of atmospheric
physics, flying a radiation sensor over an asphalt surface
and a variety of surfaces should give interesting data at
different altitudes, especially if it is compared to the
air temperature at those altitudes.
>> The amount of parroting is a horrible disgrace for
>> any scientific discipline, nothing like it ever happened before, the
>> closest things I can think of is witchcraft, ghosts, and pyramid clubs.
>
>It's not science, it's just normal human behavior. Those people have
>always been around.
It seems "those people" includes a large
percentage of the population, even scientists,
who are trained to use something other than
gossip to obtain data.
>> And there is no excuse for not testing nitrogen,
>> dry nitrogen is readily available, so is oxygen, water and CO2.
>
>What kind of test?
Comparison of the exact radiation at different
pressures and temperatures.
>> And most of the effort is being made by well
>> meaning people, believing every news story no matter how outlandish the
>> claims.
>>
>> What impresses me is the number of geologists
>> who don't see a remarkable aspect to local warming and cooling.
>> Maybe elaboration on how to tell the difference in tree rings between
>> moist years and warm years would help me, as it is, I have very little
>> faith in the manipulated data, I know there have not been many all-time
>> high temperature records broken recently, and I don't see how warmer
>> minimum temps could be harmful.
>>
>> What a bucket of worms, so much money being
>> spent on studies and not enough on alternate energy machines.
>
>Well, we've used gravity in hydroelectric, and the EM force in chemical
>fuels, so the only ones left we know about are the strong force and the
>weak force. AFAIK, no one has a clue about the weak force, so nuclear is
>about the only way to go.
We need more local low-differential-temperature
machines to get energy on site from the difference
between ground water and evaporative cooled air
or water.
Even medium depth geothermal should be
a big priority, with some kind of funding other
than profit loans to drill the wells.
>The first people to tame fire probably had the same problem as the people
>who want to build nukes now - ignorant people are afraid of the unknown,
>and there are always people who use ignorance to advance their own
>agenda. Nothing ever really changes.
They didn't have to worry about funding the
essential infrastructure to extract energy.
Any suggestion that a move to burning mature
wood for energy is insane, and probably not economical
if the wood has to be transported far.
My concern has always been to enable both
small individually owned alternate energy production
and commercial scale for those that want to buy it.
Some balance between the little guy, big
business, and government has to be maintained.
Too much of the AGW discussion leaves
out the little guy.
Bill Ward
Mea culpa. Strike "the next day". I screwed up in editing and left part
of an earlier thought.
>
> I think you let that guy a few months ago convince
> you (what was his name) that the N2 and O2 atmosphere would not heat
> much.
Nah, nobody never convinces me of nuthin. Ask around.
> Along with the air warming and expanding (it also
> expands before it stops convecting), there has to be air contracting as
> it radiates.
The air can't radiate, remember? That only happens at the surface, which
is why cooler, denser air has to replace the warmed air.
> How could all this happen from all latitudes at the
> same time?
Parallel processing.
>> Absence of
>>GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
>>redistribution of energy.
>
>
> Wind speeds would probably be much greater all
> over, but that in itself means greater pressure gradients, but there
> could be high level stratification where a layer did not enjoin in the
> high level poleward streaming,
>
>
>>> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
>>> inversion?
>>
>>Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
>>there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
>
>
> Part of the character of the stratosphere is the O3
> creation which would still exist, possibly disturbed by convective
> circulation, but adding to the heat energy.
O3 is a GHG. Are you changing the rules?
>>> No doubt there is some connection between the
>>> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
>>
>>That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
>
>
> Maybe not as clear cut as it seems, in air,
> the speed of sound is a function of temperature, because sound can only
> travel through air at the speed of the molecules.
>
> In high winds, and convective flow, there
> would be variations in relative energy.
>
>>> so there probably has to be
>>> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if
>>> the energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
Adiabatic cooling.
>>It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
>
> There is not a chance that all the air in the atmosphere
> could come down to contact the ground or intermix with air that has come
> into contact with the ground.
Why not? What's keeping it?
> Add that the tendency of cooler air to stay closer
> to the ground than warmer air, and the dynamics becomes complex, so that
> whatever energy does not get absorbed by the surface and radiated away
> each day causes the atmosphere to warm more.
>
> It may be easy to work this out for a day or so,
> but if the atmosphere continues to warm, there might be stronger
> stratification (did I say a number of stratospheres?).
It can only warm or cool at the surface, so convection is the only game
in town. Why would it stratify?
>>Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and
>>the tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere.
>
> It is really the atmosphere we are talking about,
> as in AGW or any climate science, thinking of the air temperature a
> meter or so above the ground as the temperature of the "surface", is a
> mistake.
>
> If the air is warmer than the coldest part of
> the rock surface, then the rock surface might get warmer each day.
Think "equilibrium".
>>The convective winds must
>>come down to the surface somewhere to replace the warmer rising air.
>
> But they don't need to make contact with the
> rock surface, which is about what would be needed to cool the air.
>
> There is just no way to arrive at a solution
> where the N2 and O2 atmosphere would have an average temperature cooler
> than we have now, which is why I say the GHGs cool the atmosphere, and
> that it is cooler now than if there were NO GHGs.
>
>>> All this is a non-issue though, the important thing
>>> is to correct the mis-impression that it is GHGs that make the Earth
>>> warmer than the moon, it is not, it is having an atmosphere that makes
>>> the Earth warmer than the moon, it doesn't matter much what kind of
>>> atmosphere.
>>
>>I tend to agree it'll be hotter, but because the peak surface
>>temperature will be lower. Remember the T^4 radiation relation.
>>Reducing the max T will have a lot more effect than increasing the min T
>>the same amount.
>
>
> The temperature of the rock surface doesn't
> seem to be an issue other than to the extent it affects the temperature
> of the air.
Since, by definition, that's the only way the atmosphere can gain or lose
heat, it would seem a quite important issue.
> Just like now, an asphalt surface in Las Vegas
> is a lot hotter than a swamp surface in Arkansas.
Evaporation might be part of that difference.
> Which should be a part of the study of atmospheric
> physics, flying a radiation sensor over an asphalt surface and a variety
> of surfaces should give interesting data at different altitudes,
> especially if it is compared to the air temperature at those altitudes.
>
>>> The amount of parroting is a horrible disgrace for
>>> any scientific discipline, nothing like it ever happened before, the
>>> closest things I can think of is witchcraft, ghosts, and pyramid
>>> clubs.
>>
>>It's not science, it's just normal human behavior. Those people have
>>always been around.
>
> It seems "those people" includes a large
> percentage of the population, even scientists, who are trained to use
> something other than gossip to obtain data.
Training doesn't guarantee that they can, or are willing to do science.
>
>>> And there is no excuse for not testing nitrogen,
>>> dry nitrogen is readily available, so is oxygen, water and CO2.
>>
>>What kind of test?
>
>
> Comparison of the exact radiation at different
> pressures and temperatures.
I think real science has that pretty well explained. The theory works
OK. It's invalid assumptions that cause the trouble.
>>> And most of the effort is being made by well
>>> meaning people, believing every news story no matter how outlandish
>>> the claims.
>>>
>>> What impresses me is the number of geologists
>>> who don't see a remarkable aspect to local warming and cooling. Maybe
>>> elaboration on how to tell the difference in tree rings between moist
>>> years and warm years would help me, as it is, I have very little faith
>>> in the manipulated data, I know there have not been many all-time high
>>> temperature records broken recently, and I don't see how warmer
>>> minimum temps could be harmful.
>>>
>>> What a bucket of worms, so much money being
>>> spent on studies and not enough on alternate energy machines.
>>
>>Well, we've used gravity in hydroelectric, and the EM force in chemical
>>fuels, so the only ones left we know about are the strong force and the
>>weak force. AFAIK, no one has a clue about the weak force, so nuclear is
>>about the only way to go.
>
> We need more local low-differential-temperature
> machines to get energy on site from the difference between ground water
> and evaporative cooled air or water.
There's not much energy there, compared to what we're accustomed to using.
> Even medium depth geothermal should be
> a big priority, with some kind of funding other than profit loans to
> drill the wells.
>
>>The first people to tame fire probably had the same problem as the
>>people who want to build nukes now - ignorant people are afraid of the
>>unknown, and there are always people who use ignorance to advance their
>>own agenda. Nothing ever really changes.
>
>
> They didn't have to worry about funding the
> essential infrastructure to extract energy.
>
> Any suggestion that a move to burning mature
> wood for energy is insane, and probably not economical if the wood has
> to be transported far.
Well, there's your infrastructure. It probably wasn't cheap at the time.
> My concern has always been to enable both
> small individually owned alternate energy production and commercial
> scale for those that want to buy it.
What do you think is stopping that? Maybe it's just not economically
possible.
>
> Some balance between the little guy, big
> business, and government has to be maintained.
> Too much of the AGW discussion leaves
> out the little guy.
I'm a free market guy. I'd like the little guy to be free to become a
big guy without government interference. People try harder if they can
keep what they earn and have the opportunity to grow.
I M @ good guy
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> it radiates. (typo, should be "cools")
>
>The air can't radiate, remember?
Sorry, I meant cools (add correction above).
>That only happens at the surface, which
>is why cooler, denser air has to replace the warmed air.
The warmed air doesn't want to come down
to the surface, and the cooler denser air wants to
stay near the surface.
The hilly terrain helps, but only up the
altitude of the hilltop.
>> How could all this happen from all latitudes at the
>> same time?
>
>Parallel processing.
Not all going to the poles.
>>> Absence of
>>>GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
>>>redistribution of energy.
>>
>>
>> Wind speeds would probably be much greater all
>> over, but that in itself means greater pressure gradients, but there
>> could be high level stratification where a layer did not enjoin in the
>> high level poleward streaming,
>>
>>
>>>> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
>>>> inversion?
>>>
>>>Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
>>>there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
>>
>>
>> Part of the character of the stratosphere is the O3
>> creation which would still exist, possibly disturbed by convective
>> circulation, but adding to the heat energy.
>
>O3 is a GHG. Are you changing the rules?
No, we can't prevent O3 from being created, but
it is a minor GHG, and should stay high up.
>>>> No doubt there is some connection between the
>>>> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
>>>
>>>That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
>>
>>
>> Maybe not as clear cut as it seems, in air,
>> the speed of sound is a function of temperature, because sound can only
>> travel through air at the speed of the molecules.
>>
>> In high winds, and convective flow, there
>> would be variations in relative energy.
>>
>>>> so there probably has to be
>>>> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if
>>>> the energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
>
>Adiabatic cooling.
That doesn't remove energy, so as the atmosphere
absorbs energy from contact with the surface, somehow,
some place, the atmosphere has to get warmer, and the
total atmosphere has to gain thermal energy.
>>>It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
>>
>> There is not a chance that all the air in the atmosphere
>> could come down to contact the ground or intermix with air that has come
>> into contact with the ground.
>
>Why not? What's keeping it?
Buoyancy. And "all" the air is a big quantity,
and it takes time to circulate miles of air across a
surface.
>> Add that the tendency of cooler air to stay closer
>> to the ground than warmer air, and the dynamics becomes complex, so that
>> whatever energy does not get absorbed by the surface and radiated away
>> each day causes the atmosphere to warm more.
>>
>> It may be easy to work this out for a day or so,
>> but if the atmosphere continues to warm, there might be stronger
>> stratification (did I say a number of stratospheres?).
>
>It can only warm or cool at the surface, so convection is the only game
>in town. Why would it stratify?
Because it can only warm or cool at the surface.
If the atmosphere absorbs any thermal energy
from the sun warmed surface, the atmosphere gets
warmer, and there is no limit to warming if there is
nothing to radiate the heat away or a surface in
constant contact.
>>>Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and
>>>the tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere.
>>
>> It is really the atmosphere we are talking about,
>> as in AGW or any climate science, thinking of the air temperature a
>> meter or so above the ground as the temperature of the "surface", is a
>> mistake.
>>
>> If the air is warmer than the coldest part of
>> the rock surface, then the rock surface might get warmer each day.
>
>Think "equilibrium".
Which means the surface has to be radiating more
than if there was no atmosphere.
>>>The convective winds must
>>>come down to the surface somewhere to replace the warmer rising air.
>>
>> But they don't need to make contact with the
>> rock surface, which is about what would be needed to cool the air.
>>
>> There is just no way to arrive at a solution
>> where the N2 and O2 atmosphere would have an average temperature cooler
>> than we have now, which is why I say the GHGs cool the atmosphere, and
>> that it is cooler now than if there were NO GHGs.
>>
>>>> All this is a non-issue though, the important thing
>>>> is to correct the mis-impression that it is GHGs that make the Earth
>>>> warmer than the moon, it is not, it is having an atmosphere that makes
>>>> the Earth warmer than the moon, it doesn't matter much what kind of
>>>> atmosphere.
>>>
>>>I tend to agree it'll be hotter, but because the peak surface
>>>temperature will be lower. Remember the T^4 radiation relation.
>>>Reducing the max T will have a lot more effect than increasing the min T
>>>the same amount.
>>
>>
>> The temperature of the rock surface doesn't
>> seem to be an issue other than to the extent it affects the temperature
>> of the air.
>
>Since, by definition, that's the only way the atmosphere can gain or lose
>heat, it would seem a quite important issue.
I meant in comparison to AGW where all the
action seems to be centered around the surface
receiving energy from the sun and then receiving
about the same amount back from the atmosphere.
>> Just like now, an asphalt surface in Las Vegas
>> is a lot hotter than a swamp surface in Arkansas.
>
>Evaporation might be part of that difference.
It is most of the difference.
>> Which should be a part of the study of atmospheric
>> physics, flying a radiation sensor over an asphalt surface and a variety
>> of surfaces should give interesting data at different altitudes,
>> especially if it is compared to the air temperature at those altitudes.
>>
>>>> The amount of parroting is a horrible disgrace for
>>>> any scientific discipline, nothing like it ever happened before, the
>>>> closest things I can think of is witchcraft, ghosts, and pyramid
>>>> clubs.
>>>
>>>It's not science, it's just normal human behavior. Those people have
>>>always been around.
>>
>> It seems "those people" includes a large
>> percentage of the population, even scientists, who are trained to use
>> something other than gossip to obtain data.
>
>Training doesn't guarantee that they can, or are willing to do science.
If they get paid for doing science, doesn't a
supervisor make sure they do?
>>>> And there is no excuse for not testing nitrogen,
>>>> dry nitrogen is readily available, so is oxygen, water and CO2.
>>>
>>>What kind of test?
>>
>>
>> Comparison of the exact radiation at different
>> pressures and temperatures.
>
>I think real science has that pretty well explained. The theory works
>OK. It's invalid assumptions that cause the trouble.
I agree, the place to begin is with an atmosphere
that does not radiate, then add the GHGs one at a time.
A.M. seems to be doing that, but seems to start
with an atmosphere that can't absorb by convection
without GHGs, and GHGs are not needed for conduction
or convection.
I have been wondering where the premise he
uses in the math obtains the numbers, maybe by
taking the difference in mean temperatures of
the Earth and the moon, and proportioning the
various GHGs?
>>>> And most of the effort is being made by well
>>>> meaning people, believing every news story no matter how outlandish
>>>> the claims.
>>>>
>>>> What impresses me is the number of geologists
>>>> who don't see a remarkable aspect to local warming and cooling. Maybe
>>>> elaboration on how to tell the difference in tree rings between moist
>>>> years and warm years would help me, as it is, I have very little faith
>>>> in the manipulated data, I know there have not been many all-time high
>>>> temperature records broken recently, and I don't see how warmer
>>>> minimum temps could be harmful.
>>>>
>>>> What a bucket of worms, so much money being
>>>> spent on studies and not enough on alternate energy machines.
>>>
>>>Well, we've used gravity in hydroelectric, and the EM force in chemical
>>>fuels, so the only ones left we know about are the strong force and the
>>>weak force. AFAIK, no one has a clue about the weak force, so nuclear is
>>>about the only way to go.
>>
>> We need more local low-differential-temperature
>> machines to get energy on site from the difference between ground water
>> and evaporative cooled air or water.
>
>There's not much energy there, compared to what we're accustomed to using.
Right, but a house doesn't need much, and your
"not much energy there" appears to ignore that energy
is the difference in temperature, so even cold air can
provide energy in conjunction with geothermal.
>> Even medium depth geothermal should be
>> a big priority, with some kind of funding other than profit loans to
>> drill the wells.
>>
>>>The first people to tame fire probably had the same problem as the
>>>people who want to build nukes now - ignorant people are afraid of the
>>>unknown, and there are always people who use ignorance to advance their
>>>own agenda. Nothing ever really changes.
>>
>>
>> They didn't have to worry about funding the
>> essential infrastructure to extract energy.
>>
>> Any suggestion that a move to burning mature
>> wood for energy is insane, and probably not economical if the wood has
>> to be transported far.
>
>Well, there's your infrastructure. It probably wasn't cheap at the time.
And it only became possible where there was
trees, and then coal only became affordable near
mines and near railroads or waterways.
>> My concern has always been to enable both
>> small individually owned alternate energy production and commercial
>> scale for those that want to buy it.
>
>What do you think is stopping that? Maybe it's just not economically
>possible.
It is where there is enough land, like rooftops
or even south facing walls have plenty of area for
passive solar.
>> Some balance between the little guy, big
>> business, and government has to be maintained.
>> Too much of the AGW discussion leaves
>> out the little guy.
>
>I'm a free market guy. I'd like the little guy to be free to become a
>big guy without government interference. People try harder if they can
>keep what they earn and have the opportunity to grow.
It sounds like "I won't raise taxes on anybody
earning less than $150,000" means we are headed
back in the direction where rates went to 90 percent.
While GHG cooling of the atmosphere is a much
bigger problem than GHG warming, the same measures
need to be taken, and only alternate energy and a lot
of conservation will help.
But the science needs to be right, starting
with the correct concepts, and GreenHouse Theory
is not correct.
GHGs do not trap energy, they do not warm
the atmosphere, they cool the atmosphere.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
GHGs do not trap energy, they do not warm the atmosphere, they cool
the atmosphere."
they transfer energy, but you did not show the "green house theory" as
in correct, what just took place in this thread between you and bill
was once again a long winded discussion all intended to work around a
concept you dont like....
Paul Hyett
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in uk.sci.weather :
>On Oct 18, 3:47 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:35:23 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>> > I M @ good guy wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:43:48 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>> >>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse Gases
>> >>>> and attempt some math?
>>
>> >>>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water
>> >>>> either, so most of the surface would be rock, maybe with fine sand
>> >>>> due to the N2 and O2 winds.
>
>•• The principal greenhouse gasses are water and CO2
> Without water and CO2 the planet is DEAD
> Nothing else matters.
On a subject relating to this thread, does anyone here watch 'Life After
People' on the History Channel? They ought to do an episode on the
climate effects ensuing after people disappeared.
ISTM that the our excess CO2 would rapidly be absorbed by the return of
rampant vegetation - reversing GW within a few decades, and perhaps even
plunging Earth into the next ice-age prematurely.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)
Dawlish
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Leonard; junk science, strangely, is not an arbiter. It's a blog with
an agenda. If I were you, I wouldn't set a great deal of store by it.
It just strikes me as odd that so many climate scientists don't come
to the same conclusion, looking at the same data. Now why could that
be?
Bill Ward
I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches surface
with a lower temperature than where it originated. Think of Hadley
cells. Then it will be reheated, rise and continue redistributing heat
poleward. As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
there will be convection to even it out.
>>>> Absence of
>>>>GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
>>>>redistribution of energy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wind speeds would probably be much greater all
>>> over, but that in itself means greater pressure gradients, but there
>>> could be high level stratification where a layer did not enjoin in the
>>> high level poleward streaming,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
>>>>> inversion?
>>>>
>>>>Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
>>>>there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
>>>
>>>
>>> Part of the character of the stratosphere is the O3
>>> creation which would still exist, possibly disturbed by convective
>>> circulation, but adding to the heat energy.
>>
>>O3 is a GHG. Are you changing the rules?
> No, we can't prevent O3 from being created, but
> it is a minor GHG, and should stay high up.
Then you have a radiating atmosphere, don't you?
>>>>> No doubt there is some connection between the
>>>>> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
>>>>
>>>>That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe not as clear cut as it seems, in air,
>>> the speed of sound is a function of temperature, because sound can
>>> only travel through air at the speed of the molecules.
>>>
>>> In high winds, and convective flow, there
>>> would be variations in relative energy.
>>>
>>>>> so there probably has to be
>>>>> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if
>>>>> the energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
>>
>>Adiabatic cooling.
>
> That doesn't remove energy, so as the atmosphere
> absorbs energy from contact with the surface, somehow, some place, the
> atmosphere has to get warmer, and the total atmosphere has to gain
> thermal energy.
Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
surface as it's gaining.
>>>>It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
>>>
>>> There is not a chance that all the air in the atmosphere
>>> could come down to contact the ground or intermix with air that has
>>> come into contact with the ground.
>>
>>Why not? What's keeping it?
>
> Buoyancy. And "all" the air is a big quantity,
> and it takes time to circulate miles of air across a surface.
Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
>>> Add that the tendency of cooler air to stay closer
>>> to the ground than warmer air, and the dynamics becomes complex, so
>>> that whatever energy does not get absorbed by the surface and radiated
>>> away each day causes the atmosphere to warm more.
>>>
>>> It may be easy to work this out for a day or so,
>>> but if the atmosphere continues to warm, there might be stronger
>>> stratification (did I say a number of stratospheres?).
>>
>>It can only warm or cool at the surface, so convection is the only game
>>in town. Why would it stratify?
>
>
> Because it can only warm or cool at the surface.
>
> If the atmosphere absorbs any thermal energy
> from the sun warmed surface, the atmosphere gets warmer, and there is no
> limit to warming if there is nothing to radiate the heat away or a
> surface in constant contact.
There's always a limit. It can't get hotter than the star that's
illuminating it, for example.
>>>>Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and
>>>>the tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere.
>>>
>>> It is really the atmosphere we are talking about,
>>> as in AGW or any climate science, thinking of the air temperature a
>>> meter or so above the ground as the temperature of the "surface", is
>>> a mistake.
>>>
>>> If the air is warmer than the coldest part of
>>> the rock surface, then the rock surface might get warmer each day.
>>
>>Think "equilibrium".
>
> Which means the surface has to be radiating more
> than if there was no atmosphere.
If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
Apparently not.
I was thinking of earlier, when the women and kids had to forage for
firewood while the men hunted. That probably had a sizable cost both in
time and in loss to predators. Having the energy was worth enough to
them that they paid the cost, though.
>>> My concern has always been to enable both
>>> small individually owned alternate energy production and commercial
>>> scale for those that want to buy it.
>>
>>What do you think is stopping that? Maybe it's just not economically
>>possible.
>
> It is where there is enough land, like rooftops
> or even south facing walls have plenty of area for passive solar.
Then why aren't people doing it?
>>> Some balance between the little guy, big
>>> business, and government has to be maintained.
>>> Too much of the AGW discussion leaves
>>> out the little guy.
>>
>>I'm a free market guy. I'd like the little guy to be free to become a
>>big guy without government interference. People try harder if they can
>>keep what they earn and have the opportunity to grow.
>
> It sounds like "I won't raise taxes on anybody
> earning less than $150,000" means we are headed back in the direction
> where rates went to 90 percent.
Not for long.
I M @ good guy
<vidc...@invalid83261.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 at 13:08:51, "leona...@gmail.com"
><leona...@gmail.com> wrote in uk.sci.weather :
>
>>On Oct 18, 3:47 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:35:23 +0200, Tom P wrote:
>>> > I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:43:48 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> >>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse Gases
>>> >>>> and attempt some math?
>>>
>>> >>>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water
>>> >>>> either, so most of the surface would be rock, maybe with fine sand
>>> >>>> due to the N2 and O2 winds.
>>
>>•• The principal greenhouse gasses are water and CO2
>> Without water and CO2 the planet is DEAD
>> Nothing else matters.
>
>On a subject relating to this thread, does anyone here watch 'Life After
>People' on the History Channel? They ought to do an episode on the
>climate effects ensuing after people disappeared.
Does anybody actually believe that man will
become extinct? That is funny.
>ISTM that the our excess CO2 would rapidly be absorbed by the return of
>rampant vegetation - reversing GW within a few decades, and perhaps even
>plunging Earth into the next ice-age prematurely.
Except that vegetation only holds the carbon
for a little while, then puts it back in the atmosphere.
The idea that a less CO2 would cause an
ice age is funny too.
I M @ good guy
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
Why would warm air come down because the
surface is cooler?
>Think of Hadley
>cells. Then it will be reheated, rise and continue redistributing heat
>poleward.
Do you mean when the next daylight heats the
surface? The atmosphere would be moderating
both the heating and the cooling of the surface to
some extent, but the air would have to be warmer
than the mean of the surface temperature.
>As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
>there will be convection to even it out.
If the atmosphere doesn't radiate, cool air would
only originate at the surface, remove all O2 and replace
it with N2 if necessary.
>>>>> Absence of
>>>>>GHG's doesn't mean absence of convective winds and the resulting
>>>>>redistribution of energy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wind speeds would probably be much greater all
>>>> over, but that in itself means greater pressure gradients, but there
>>>> could be high level stratification where a layer did not enjoin in the
>>>> high level poleward streaming,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What happens in the existing atmosphere with an
>>>>>> inversion?
>>>>>
>>>>>Convection eventually wins, except in the stratosphere. I don't think
>>>>>there'd be much of a stratosphere without GHG's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Part of the character of the stratosphere is the O3
>>>> creation which would still exist, possibly disturbed by convective
>>>> circulation, but adding to the heat energy.
>>>
>>>O3 is a GHG. Are you changing the rules?
>
>> No, we can't prevent O3 from being created, but
>> it is a minor GHG, and should stay high up.
>
>Then you have a radiating atmosphere, don't you?
I don't think it would be enough to change much,
but just thinking of N2 might be a better option.
>>>>>> No doubt there is some connection between the
>>>>>> kinetic energy of molecules and temperature,
>>>>>
>>>>>That's an understatement if I ever saw one. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not as clear cut as it seems, in air,
>>>> the speed of sound is a function of temperature, because sound can
>>>> only travel through air at the speed of the molecules.
>>>>
>>>> In high winds, and convective flow, there
>>>> would be variations in relative energy.
>>>>
>>>>>> so there probably has to be
>>>>>> a lower temperature in less dense air, but since warm air rises, if
>>>>>> the energy can't be disposed of, what happens?
>>>
>>>Adiabatic cooling.
>>
>> That doesn't remove energy, so as the atmosphere
>> absorbs energy from contact with the surface, somehow, some place, the
>> atmosphere has to get warmer, and the total atmosphere has to gain
>> thermal energy.
>
>Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
>surface as it's gaining.
For the atmosphere, equilibrium might be almost
the maximum temperature of the surface, in fact, can
an atmospheric temperature even warmer than the
surface without an atmosphere be ruled out?
The entire biosphere might warm until the
surface is radiating as much energy as it receives
from the sun.
>>>>>It comes down where the surface is cooler, and gives up its energy.
>>>>
>>>> There is not a chance that all the air in the atmosphere
>>>> could come down to contact the ground or intermix with air that has
>>>> come into contact with the ground.
>>>
>>>Why not? What's keeping it?
>>
>> Buoyancy. And "all" the air is a big quantity,
>> and it takes time to circulate miles of air across a surface.
>
>Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
>both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
>down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
Not if there is nothing cooling the air higher up,
I don't think you are getting into this Bill, there is no
cooler air, an atmosphere without GHGs has to get
hot, real hot, GHGs are the only thing that cools
the atmosphere.
>>>> Add that the tendency of cooler air to stay closer
>>>> to the ground than warmer air, and the dynamics becomes complex, so
>>>> that whatever energy does not get absorbed by the surface and radiated
>>>> away each day causes the atmosphere to warm more.
>>>>
>>>> It may be easy to work this out for a day or so,
>>>> but if the atmosphere continues to warm, there might be stronger
>>>> stratification (did I say a number of stratospheres?).
>>>
>>>It can only warm or cool at the surface, so convection is the only game
>>>in town. Why would it stratify?
>>
>>
>> Because it can only warm or cool at the surface.
>>
>> If the atmosphere absorbs any thermal energy
>> from the sun warmed surface, the atmosphere gets warmer, and there is no
>> limit to warming if there is nothing to radiate the heat away or a
>> surface in constant contact.
>
>There's always a limit. It can't get hotter than the star that's
>illuminating it, for example.
Will you settle for something in between the
moon and the sun?
>>>>>Eventually there'll be an equilibrium, where the poles are warmer and
>>>>>the tropics are cooler than without an atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>> It is really the atmosphere we are talking about,
>>>> as in AGW or any climate science, thinking of the air temperature a
>>>> meter or so above the ground as the temperature of the "surface", is
>>>> a mistake.
>>>>
>>>> If the air is warmer than the coldest part of
>>>> the rock surface, then the rock surface might get warmer each day.
>>>
>>>Think "equilibrium".
>>
>> Which means the surface has to be radiating more
>> than if there was no atmosphere.
>
>If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't
radiate.
Thermal transfer by conduction and convection
is limited in time, while every molecule of GHG can be
radiating at the same time.
The mass of the atmosphere is in the equation
here, the surface warms in daylight a few centimeters,
while the mass of the atmosphere may be a hundred
times that.
Any cooling of the air would be much slower
than that of the surface, and the warmer air would
warm the surface some, preventing the minimum
that would be reached without a non-radiating
atmosphere.
GreenHouse Gas Theory must start with the
correct assumption of the temperature of an N2
atmosphere before any further assumption is made,
Stewart Robert Hinsley
guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>
> The entire biosphere might warm until the surface is
>radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>
a biosphere - people have calculated how warm the surface would be if
the surface was radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
The figure calculated is rather lower than the temperature observed on
the planet - the difference is the greenhouse effect.
Now, your hypothetical plant, lacking greenhouse gases, clouds, oceans,
ice caps and vegetation, would also have a different albedo, so it would
have a third temperature - one not particularly relevant to your
unsupported claim that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:48:08 -0500, Bill Ward
> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches surface
>> with a lower temperature than where it originated.
>
> Why would warm air come down because the
> surface is cooler?
Atoms that hit the cold polar surface lose energy on average and so they
cool. They then take energy off the gas atoms that they are in collision
with and so the cold surface gains energy from the gas above it. The
cooler gas is denser leading to a higher column pressure and so you have
the driving force for Hadley cell circulation from cold poles with high
pressure cool air at ground level to an equatorial low with warm air rising.
>
>> Think of Hadley
>> cells. Then it will be reheated, rise and continue redistributing heat
>> poleward.
>
> Do you mean when the next daylight heats the
> surface? The atmosphere would be moderating
> both the heating and the cooling of the surface to
> some extent, but the air would have to be warmer
> than the mean of the surface temperature.
No. The air at the poles would be warmer than the surface but the air at
the equator would be cooler than the surface. The air is inert ie
transparent wrt absorbing solar radiation if you ignore greenhouse
gasses. It just gets to work as a heat transfer medium with the kinetic
energy of its molecules. You could simplify to an argon atmosphere to
avoid having to consider vibrational energy in the diatomic bonds.
>> As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
>> there will be convection to even it out.
>
> If the atmosphere doesn't radiate, cool air would
> only originate at the surface, remove all O2 and replace
> it with N2 if necessary.
Cool air at the surface near the poles will have a higher pressure.
>> Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
>> surface as it's gaining.
>
>
> For the atmosphere, equilibrium might be almost
> the maximum temperature of the surface, in fact, can
> an atmospheric temperature even warmer than the
> surface without an atmosphere be ruled out?
How is the atmosphere going to get its energy if not from collisions
with the surface or other gas molecules if it is transparent to the
incident radiation (which is implicit in the no greenhouse gasses).
>> Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
>> both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
>> down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
>
> Not if there is nothing cooling the air higher up,
> I don't think you are getting into this Bill, there is no
> cooler air, an atmosphere without GHGs has to get
> hot, real hot, GHGs are the only thing that cools
> the atmosphere.
This is total garbage.
An ideal gas atmosphere would run just like a heat pump driven by the
temperature difference from pole to equator. The gas forming the working
fluid carrying heat from the hotter to the colder region.
>> If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>> radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
>
> Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
> have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't
> radiate.
Worst case the maximum surface temperature cannot be higher than in a
vacuum (where there are only radiative losses). An inert atmosphere
allows additional cooling mechanisms of convection and conduction.
> GreenHouse Gas Theory must start with the
> correct assumption of the temperature of an N2
> atmosphere before any further assumption is made,
It is your assumptions that are hopelessly wrong.
Regards,
Martin Brown
I M @ good guy
<{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <tsdod55fpc2qq9brf...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>
>> The entire biosphere might warm until the surface is
>>radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>
>Apart from the little matter that your hypothetical planet doesn't have
>a biosphere
Right, I should not have used bio to describe the
entirety of the planet and atmosphere.
> - people have calculated how warm the surface would be if
>the surface was radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
With an N2 atmosphere?
>The figure calculated is rather lower than the temperature observed on
>the planet - the difference is the greenhouse effect.
Hogwash, all the "33 degree" stuff is the difference
between the mean temperatures of the Earth and moon,
meaning no atmospheric gases of any kind.
How can so many people get on a train on
the wrong track?
>Now, your hypothetical plant, lacking greenhouse gases, clouds, oceans,
>ice caps and vegetation, would also have a different albedo, so it would
>have a third temperature - one not particularly relevant to your
>unsupported claim that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
Right, it would be the color of lava, and quite porous
probably, making the surface a good absorber.
So instead of warrantless allegations, do you
have anything scientific to offer?
The thing is in having a huge heat sink in the
N2, as much as in several meters of rock surface,
that can only be cooled when it is dark and the
surface is cooler than the N2, with very little N2
in contact with the surface at any one time.
You can probably do a little better if you try,
there may be something I have not considered,
maybe the winds would be strong enough to
circulate the N2 into contact with the rock surface,
but that isn't likely.
I M @ good guy
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:48:08 -0500, Bill Ward
>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches surface
>>> with a lower temperature than where it originated.
>>
>> Why would warm air come down because the
>> surface is cooler?
>
>Atoms that hit the cold polar surface lose energy on average and so they
>cool. They then take energy off the gas atoms that they are in collision
>with and so the cold surface gains energy from the gas above it. The
>cooler gas is denser leading to a higher column pressure and so you have
>the driving force for Hadley cell circulation from cold poles with high
>pressure cool air at ground level to an equatorial low with warm air rising.
Fine, what part of the warm air is going to make the
6000 mile trip and make contact with the surface?
>>> Think of Hadley
>>> cells. Then it will be reheated, rise and continue redistributing heat
>>> poleward.
>>
>> Do you mean when the next daylight heats the
>> surface? The atmosphere would be moderating
>> both the heating and the cooling of the surface to
>> some extent, but the air would have to be warmer
>> than the mean of the surface temperature.
>
>No. The air at the poles would be warmer than the surface but the air at
>the equator would be cooler than the surface.
In daylight, yes, but when the surface is cool,
the upper air would not be rushing down.
>The air is inert ie
>transparent wrt absorbing solar radiation if you ignore greenhouse
>gasses. It just gets to work as a heat transfer medium with the kinetic
>energy of its molecules. You could simplify to an argon atmosphere to
>avoid having to consider vibrational energy in the diatomic bonds.
Why, does N2 radiate a little?
>>> As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
>>> there will be convection to even it out.
>>
>> If the atmosphere doesn't radiate, cool air would
>> only originate at the surface, remove all O2 and replace
>> it with N2 if necessary.
>
>Cool air at the surface near the poles will have a higher pressure.
And greater density, which doesn't seem to
enhance circulation.
>>> Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
>>> surface as it's gaining.
>>
>>
>> For the atmosphere, equilibrium might be almost
>> the maximum temperature of the surface, in fact, can
>> an atmospheric temperature even warmer than the
>> surface without an atmosphere be ruled out?
>
>How is the atmosphere going to get its energy if not from collisions
>with the surface or other gas molecules if it is transparent to the
>incident radiation (which is implicit in the no greenhouse gasses).
Of course it is from collisions, but warm air rises.
>>> Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
>>> both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
>>> down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
>>
>> Not if there is nothing cooling the air higher up,
>> I don't think you are getting into this Bill, there is no
>> cooler air, an atmosphere without GHGs has to get
>> hot, real hot, GHGs are the only thing that cools
>> the atmosphere.
>
>This is total garbage.
Sorry it doesn't conform to the 33 degree myth.
>An ideal gas atmosphere would run just like a heat pump driven by the
>temperature difference from pole to equator. The gas forming the working
>fluid carrying heat from the hotter to the colder region.
That doesn't mean the temperatures would
be like the moon.
I say again, the 33 degrees is for an Earth
without an atmosphere. Please provide a reference
to a discussion of an Earth with a non-radiating atmosphere
if you know of one.
>>> If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>>> radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
>>
>> Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
>> have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't
>> radiate.
>
>Worst case the maximum surface temperature cannot be higher than in a
>vacuum (where there are only radiative losses). An inert atmosphere
>allows additional cooling mechanisms of convection and conduction.
Cooling to what, the surface that heats the atmosphere
by conduction and convection?
Obviously there would be a maximum temperature,
but it would not be 33 degrees colder than at present.
>> GreenHouse Gas Theory must start with the
>> correct assumption of the temperature of an N2
>> atmosphere before any further assumption is made,
>
>It is your assumptions that are hopelessly wrong.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
temperatures that are not way below normal and
maybe I can support the agenda.
But not while I am shivering and paying a
big utility bill to heat 500 square feet.
Dawlish
> Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
> temperatures that are not way below normal and
> maybe I can support the agenda.
There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
doesn't actually count.
You won't believe this, of course, because you don't give any credence
to NOAAs temperature record (or anyone else's, for that matter), as
they don't use the same physics as you do, or the same base points
from which to measure temperature anomalies. Odd that you know so much
better than so many other meteorologists, climatologists and
physicists.
Leonard
On 10/19/09 8:44 AM, in article
d2b82ffb-b396-4b80...@p4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Dawlish"
<pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 1:01�pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> � � � � � Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
>> temperatures that are not way below normal and
>> maybe I can support the agenda.
>
> There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
> average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
> happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
> however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
> doesn't actually count.
� Sorry Bud, there has been a whole
string of them over the past decade.
� Your 120 year 0.7�C gain has been
erased redoubled in spades.
Hadley, GISS/NASA, NOAA do
not release real data. Everything is vetted by the
political bosses to meet the policy figures.
� �
Either way short term or long term the data
doesn't support man made global warming?
short term
Dawlish
>
> <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 1:01 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> >> Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
> >> temperatures that are not way below normal and
> >> maybe I can support the agenda.
>
> > There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
> > average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
> > happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
> > however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
> > doesn't actually count.
>
> € Sorry Bud, there has been a whole
> string of them over the past decade.
>
> € Your 120 year 0.7°C gain has been
> erased redoubled in spades.
> Hadley, GISS/NASA, NOAA do
> not release real data. Everything is vetted by the
> political bosses to meet the policy figures.
>
>
> Either way short term or long term the data
> doesn't support man made global warming?
>
> long termhttp://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l
> .htm
I see; it's all a political conspiracy then eh?
Bill Ward
> I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:48:08 -0500, Bill Ward
>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches
>>> surface with a lower temperature than where it originated.
>>
>> Why would warm air come down because the
>> surface is cooler?
>
> Atoms that hit the cold polar surface lose energy on average and so they
> cool. They then take energy off the gas atoms that they are in collision
> with and so the cold surface gains energy from the gas above it. The
> cooler gas is denser leading to a higher column pressure and so you have
> the driving force for Hadley cell circulation from cold poles with high
> pressure cool air at ground level to an equatorial low with warm air
> rising.
Bingo. Thanks for the expanded explanation. Sometimes I assume too much
and get too terse. Your description was much clearer.
Excellent description. The released mechanical energy causes the winds
that move the air through the cycle.
>>> If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>>> radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming
>>> SW.
>>
>> Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
>> have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't radiate.
>
> Worst case the maximum surface temperature cannot be higher than in a
> vacuum (where there are only radiative losses). An inert atmosphere
> allows additional cooling mechanisms of convection and conduction.
>
>> GreenHouse Gas Theory must start with the
>> correct assumption of the temperature of an N2 atmosphere before any
>> further assumption is made,
>
> It is your assumptions that are hopelessly wrong.
Good post, Martin. I believe your explanations are much clearer than
mine, and closer to the level Ima needs, so if it's OK with you, I'm
hereby turning the thread over to you.
Thanks, and good luck.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Odd that they use the bizarre premise that the
Earth without GHGs would be like the moon, when it
is the atmosphere that makes the big difference, not
the GHGs.
Won't there be surprise if they find out that an
atmosphere of N2 would be warmer than present?
There are some references that do correctly
state that it is an Earth without any atmosphere at
all that would have temperatures like the moon.
The "second atmosphere" may have been
warm because of nitrogen, even with lower solar
input and about the same GHGs.
I find it very odd that the weather stations
selected to use in the data base seem different
since 1988, and the claim that the dryness that
causes UHI has little effect is bizarre.
Maybe a balance in management people
at all agencies would lead to more confidence
in the numbers, my confidence is in the geology
records, which definitely show it was a couple
of degrees warmer 8 to 10 thousand years ago.
Bill Ward
I think that's one thing Ima's got right. GHGs do cool the atmosphere by
transducing thermal energy into LWIR and radiating it off the planet.
That doesn't necessarily mean they cool the surface, as the radiating
altitude will be shifted up to somewhere in the atmosphere, leaving the
surface in higher pressure, warmer air.
But it has to be GHGs that radiate the atmospheric energy off-planet, by
definition.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Learn what "conspiracy" means, it has nothing
to do with personal agendas or cluelessness.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know exactly what "conspiracy" means and I now know exactly how much
it must affect every single thing that you write about climate
science. That's what happens to conspiracists. The conspiracy that
they see, but no-one else sees (save fellow conspiracists) takes over
their lives. I actually pity that, good guy. I genuinely feel sorry
for you, but it's not worth talking further with you about climate
science. A conspiracist's mind is as sealed shut as it is possible for
a mind to be.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
A very telling statement, I am willing to discuss
climate science, you are not, thanks for demonstrating
what a closed mind is.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:54:09 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
And gravity is a repulsive force, and like charges of electricity
attract.
OK, Bill, what universe are you and I describing?
I M @ good guy
You are right about gravity, but wrong about
electricity.
Now go back to the one-liners, and use the
word "liar" a dozen or so times a day.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> writes
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:54:09 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
>
>> In message <tsdod55fpc2qq9brf...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>> guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>>
>>> The entire biosphere might warm until the surface is
>>>radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>>>
>> Apart from the little matter that your hypothetical planet doesn't have
>> a biosphere - people have calculated how warm the surface would be if
>> the surface was radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>> The figure calculated is rather lower than the temperature observed on
>> the planet - the difference is the greenhouse effect.
>>
>> Now, your hypothetical plant, lacking greenhouse gases, clouds, oceans,
>> ice caps and vegetation, would also have a different albedo, so it would
>> have a third temperature - one not particularly relevant to your
>> unsupported claim that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
>
>I think that's one thing Ima's got right. GHGs do cool the atmosphere by
>transducing thermal energy into LWIR and radiating it off the planet.
That's the grain of truth. At high altitude, where the atmosphere has a
clear view of space, greenhouse gases radiate energy to space and cool
that part of the atmosphere. Hence stratospheric cooling, but
tropospheric and surface warning. Of course it's the surface conditions
that matter most to us.
>
>That doesn't necessarily mean they cool the surface, as the radiating
>altitude will be shifted up to somewhere in the atmosphere, leaving the
>surface in higher pressure, warmer air.
>
>But it has to be GHGs that radiate the atmospheric energy off-planet, by
>definition.
>
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Stewart Robert Hinsley
guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:44:54 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Oct 19, 1:01�pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>
>>> � � � � � Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
>>> temperatures that are not way below normal and
>>> maybe I can support the agenda.
>>
>>There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
>>average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
>>happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
>>however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
>>doesn't actually count.
>>
>>You won't believe this, of course, because you don't give any credence
>>to NOAAs temperature record (or anyone else's, for that matter), as
>>they don't use the same physics as you do, or the same base points
>>from which to measure temperature anomalies. Odd that you know so much
>>better than so many other meteorologists, climatologists and
>>physicists.
>
>
> Odd that they use the bizarre premise that the
>Earth without GHGs would be like the moon, when it
>is the atmosphere that makes the big difference, not
>the GHGs.
Do you have any evidence that anyone uses that premise, except for
yourself? (In this thread people have been telling you that the
atmosphere would transfer heat from the equator to the poles, but you've
been denying that. You've also been arguing that the surface would heat
until the energy radiated equalled the incoming solar radiation - that
boils down to assuming that the atmosphere makes no difference.)
>
> Won't there be surprise if they find out that an
>atmosphere of N2 would be warmer than present?
>
> There are some references that do correctly
>state that it is an Earth without any atmosphere at
>all that would have temperatures like the moon.
Correctly? The properties of an atmosphere-less Earth aren't easy to
predict, but unless crustal differentiation on the Earth is suppressed
in some manner the Earth's surface will have a different (and greater)
albedo than the moon, and therefore would have a lower mean temperature.
>
> The "second atmosphere" may have been
>warm because of nitrogen, even with lower solar
>input and about the same GHGs.
>
>
> I find it very odd that the weather stations
>selected to use in the data base seem different
>since 1988, and the claim that the dryness that
>causes UHI has little effect is bizarre.
>
> Maybe a balance in management people
>at all agencies would lead to more confidence
>in the numbers, my confidence is in the geology
>records, which definitely show it was a couple
>of degrees warmer 8 to 10 thousand years ago.
>
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
I M @ good guy
<{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <W_WdnYuQYfnEMUHX...@giganews.com>, Bill Ward
><bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> writes
>>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:54:09 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tsdod55fpc2qq9brf...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>>> guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>>>
>>>> The entire biosphere might warm until the surface is
>>>>radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>>>>
>>> Apart from the little matter that your hypothetical planet doesn't have
>>> a biosphere - people have calculated how warm the surface would be if
>>> the surface was radiating as much energy as it receives from the sun.
>>> The figure calculated is rather lower than the temperature observed on
>>> the planet - the difference is the greenhouse effect.
>>>
>>> Now, your hypothetical plant, lacking greenhouse gases, clouds, oceans,
>>> ice caps and vegetation, would also have a different albedo, so it would
>>> have a third temperature - one not particularly relevant to your
>>> unsupported claim that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
>>
>>I think that's one thing Ima's got right. GHGs do cool the atmosphere by
>>transducing thermal energy into LWIR and radiating it off the planet.
>
>That's the grain of truth.
Why the reluctance? "The grain of truth"?
What proportion of the total energy budget
do you think goes from the surface to space, and
what proportion goes from the atmosphere to space?
>At high altitude, where the atmosphere has a
>clear view of space, greenhouse gases radiate energy to space and cool
>that part of the atmosphere.
And what cools the rest of the atmosphere?
>Hence stratospheric cooling, but
>tropospheric and surface warning.
There isn't much water there, is there?
>Of course it's the surface conditions
>that matter most to us.
Atmospheric physics isn't about what
matters to us, but what should matter to us is
getting the physics right, no matter what they
are, and nothing is more basic than the cooling
of the atmosphere because N2 and O2 do not
radiate much LWIR.
>>That doesn't necessarily mean they cool the surface, as the radiating
>>altitude will be shifted up to somewhere in the atmosphere, leaving the
>>surface in higher pressure, warmer air.
Bill participated in a discussion about this
with a marine physicist a year ago or so, and
they both felt that conduction was enough to
cool the N2 in a strictly N2 atmosphere.
My interest is more in heat exchangers,
and I do not think it is possible to get enough
N2 in contact with the rock surface to cool
the N2 after it is warmed by the surface in
daytime.
>>But it has to be GHGs that radiate the atmospheric energy off-planet, by
>>definition.
Unless somebody knows of some
other really spooky process that nobody
knows about.
While I do not appreciate how the atmosphere
can radiate even half as much as the sun downward,
it is clear that the thermal energy in the atmosphere
and from the surface is re-distributed within the
entire biosphere, but that is not what my contention
is about.
And understanding of the physics of LWIR
in planetary atmospheric physics is important in
other ways besides just making man comfortable.
Is it possible LWIR can both cool and warm
the atmosphere? Yes, but other things do warm
the atmosphere also.
And LWIR must remove the thermal energy
from the atmosphere from all causes, and that is
the added understanding.
The hysteria over CO2 at this point in time
is unwarranted, at least in comparison to other
problems with energy sources and the cost
and availability.
At some point an ever increasing CO2
concentration would become a problem, but
the possibility of that problem being either
warming or cooling is something a person
with an open mind should think about.
Both warming and cooling present
problems, more ice and cold temperatures
seems to me to be more of a problem than
less ice, sea level rise and Hawaiian climate.
There have been ice ages, just the
build up of ice with increased reflection can
snowball.
But there is nothing about CO2 or even
the better GHG, water vapor, that could cause
the sudden and swift warming at the end of
an ice age.
For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2
as a major factor in climate science to be much
too simplistic, even misplaced and silly.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:" What fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?"
Oscillations in a fluid, hint, hint....
Dawlish
> For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
> to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2
> as a major factor in climate science to be much
> too simplistic, even misplaced and silly.- Hide quoted text -
No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
hysteria". I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you cannot
split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
schema and you can't explain why - which is why you'll resort to
anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always
is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
not going the way they *know* that they should.
Bill Ward
> On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
>> to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in climate
>> science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and silly.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>
> No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
> very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you when
> you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2 hysteria".
> I did say it drives everything you post on here and all through your
> talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you cannot split yourself
> from your need to press home your driver.
>
> Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
> schema
What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem to
believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
predictable. In view of the amount of resources that have been spent by
"experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure to do
so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
> and you can't explain why
It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents to
make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way, explaining
their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data that seems not
to support it. When you've done that, then there can be a discussion of
the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question the points of
disagreement. Until you can precisely state your hypothesis, with a
simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to
discuss.
> - which is why you'll resort to
> anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
> that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
> writings. Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course. It always is
> from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are not
> going the way they *know* that they should.
You are clearly projecting your own inability to explain when things are
not going the way you *know* that they should. Your models don't predict
future climate. It's likely no model can ever do so, since climate is
chaotic.
Hiding behind a strawman argument won't help. You need to make your
case, not expect others to comment on a hypothesis and mechanism you can
neither define nor defend.
The conspiracy aspect of the issue goes to the motives behind the
hypothesis, not the science.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course models predict future climate. It's their accuracy and their
amount of possible error that you are referring to.
As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
governments for reasons that only he knows. There is no strawman
there. There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on
the other thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories
like that and if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument
when things get difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A
very reasonable standpoint, don't you think?
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:59:39 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:48:08 -0500, Bill Ward
>>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches surface
>>>> with a lower temperature than where it originated.
>>> Why would warm air come down because the
>>> surface is cooler?
>> Atoms that hit the cold polar surface lose energy on average and so they
>> cool. They then take energy off the gas atoms that they are in collision
>> with and so the cold surface gains energy from the gas above it. The
>> cooler gas is denser leading to a higher column pressure and so you have
>> the driving force for Hadley cell circulation from cold poles with high
>> pressure cool air at ground level to an equatorial low with warm air rising.
>
> Fine, what part of the warm air is going to make the
> 6000 mile trip and make contact with the surface?
Most of it. The warm air at the equator will rise and have a local
equilibrium temperature determined by the dry adiabatic lapse rate. It
cannot radiate to the sky so it can only lose heat to the cold sink at
the poles and the side of the Earth facing away from the sun.
The principle effect of having an atmosphere assuming the planet still
rotates every 24 hours is to average out some of the diurnal temperature
variation.
>> No. The air at the poles would be warmer than the surface but the air at
>> the equator would be cooler than the surface.
>
> In daylight, yes, but when the surface is cool,
> the upper air would not be rushing down.
What are you talking about? It doesn't have to "rush" down. The pressure
gradients drive the movement of the gasses in an atmosphere.
>> The air is inert ie
>> transparent wrt absorbing solar radiation if you ignore greenhouse
>> gasses. It just gets to work as a heat transfer medium with the kinetic
>> energy of its molecules. You could simplify to an argon atmosphere to
>> avoid having to consider vibrational energy in the diatomic bonds.
>
> Why, does N2 radiate a little?
Diatomic molecules have more degrees of freedom. The N2 triple bond is
so strong though that absorbtion bands are up in the vacuum uv. eg
http://adc.astro.umd.edu/cgi-bin/adc/cat.pl?/journal_tables/A+AS/128/361/
>
>>>> As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
>>>> there will be convection to even it out.
>>> If the atmosphere doesn't radiate, cool air would
>>> only originate at the surface, remove all O2 and replace
>>> it with N2 if necessary.
>> Cool air at the surface near the poles will have a higher pressure.
>
> And greater density, which doesn't seem to
> enhance circulation.
Nonsense. The air will attempt to move along the pressure gradient. It
will be frustrated in that by conservation of angular momentum or
Coriolis force if you prefer.
>>>> Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
>>>> surface as it's gaining.
>>>
>>> For the atmosphere, equilibrium might be almost
>>> the maximum temperature of the surface, in fact, can
>>> an atmospheric temperature even warmer than the
>>> surface without an atmosphere be ruled out?
>> How is the atmosphere going to get its energy if not from collisions
>> with the surface or other gas molecules if it is transparent to the
>> incident radiation (which is implicit in the no greenhouse gasses).
>
> Of course it is from collisions, but warm air rises.
More nonsense. Warm air rising must cool as it expands to match the
local column pressure that is determined by the equilibrium lapse rate.
>>>> Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
>>>> both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
>>>> down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
>>> Not if there is nothing cooling the air higher up,
>>> I don't think you are getting into this Bill, there is no
>>> cooler air, an atmosphere without GHGs has to get
>>> hot, real hot, GHGs are the only thing that cools
>>> the atmosphere.
>> This is total garbage.
>
> Sorry it doesn't conform to the 33 degree myth.
Your ideas do not conform to the known laws of physics.
>> An ideal gas atmosphere would run just like a heat pump driven by the
>> temperature difference from pole to equator. The gas forming the working
>> fluid carrying heat from the hotter to the colder region.
>
> That doesn't mean the temperatures would
> be like the moon.
>
> I say again, the 33 degrees is for an Earth
> without an atmosphere. Please provide a reference
> to a discussion of an Earth with a non-radiating atmosphere
> if you know of one.
OK. It is time to illustrate the point with a very simple model.
Disk world has two identical sides one sun facing at normal incidence
and the side facing away. Heat can conduct through it slowly so that
with the one surface permanently illuminated the global average
temperature is T. The hot side is T+x the cold side is T-x.
The radiation laws mean that radiative heat loss is A((T+x)^4 + (T-x)^4)
Which simplifies to A(T^4 + 6x^2T^2 + x^4)
If you introduce an atmosphere which allows better heat transfer from
the hot side of the disk to the cool side then the temperature
differential x must decrease. If x decreases to x' then the thermal
losses of the system also decrease and so the equilibrium temperature T'
rises until the rate of heat loss once again balances the incoming
radiation.
A spherical planet would require somewhat nasty integrals over areas and
geometrical factors but the basic result would remain unchanged. Because
of the Stephan-Boltzmann radiation law if you added an inert ideal
atmosphere to the moon it would improve overall thermal conductivity and
decrease the overall temperature difference between the hottest and
coldest parts. That is sufficient to warm the planet slightly although
by nowhere near as much as making the atmosphere opaque to outgoing LW
thermal radiation.
>
>>>> If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>>>> radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
>>> Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
>>> have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't
>>> radiate.
>> Worst case the maximum surface temperature cannot be higher than in a
>> vacuum (where there are only radiative losses). An inert atmosphere
>> allows additional cooling mechanisms of convection and conduction.
>
> Cooling to what, the surface that heats the atmosphere
> by conduction and convection?
You are clueless.
Regards,
Martin Brown
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>> For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
>> to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2
>> as a major factor in climate science to be much
>> too simplistic, even misplaced and silly.- Hide quoted text -
>
>No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy,
Stop putting words in peoples mouths, I consider
the hysteria to be nothing more than a gossip fad, by
people who are looking for something to be a part of,
to feel good about, to "belong" to something.
But that doesn't change the fact that speculators,
charlatans and leftists are involved.
Conspiracy requires parties to plan and
scheme to commit a crime or fraud, so stop using
the word unless you have good evidence.
>which is a
>very different thing.
Ask a lawyer.
>At least be honest about what is driving you
>when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
>hysteria".
When whackos say it will cause a big kill off,
that is an extreme of hysteria.
>I did say it drives everything you post on here and all
>through your talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs,
Apparently you don't know physics when you
see it, I seek truth and understanding, apparently you
are protecting what you know to be questionable.
>you cannot
>split yourself from your need to press home your driver.
Like a number of nutcases here, you talk more
about the person than the science, what are you doing here?
>Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
>schema and you can't explain why
I don't really care about global temperatures, and
that is what shows how silly the CO2 hysteria is, global
temperatures go up and down every month, who cares.
>- which is why you'll resort to
>anything, including a proposal of a conspiracy of global proportions,
No science in your response, bug off.
>that no-one but you and a few friends are aware of, to justify your
>writings.
I have no friends.
>Abuse will be your vary last bastion, of course.
Not hardly, when I see people mouthing
like you, I just press the delete key, that is the
extent of my abuse, you won't even know it.
>It always
>is from those that haven't the capability to explain when things are
>not going the way they *know* that they should.
Which must be what caused your rant.
Buy an EV and be green.
I M @ good guy
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:59:39 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:48:08 -0500, Bill Ward
>>>> <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I said "poleward". The air will come down as soon as it reaches surface
>>>>> with a lower temperature than where it originated.
>>>> Why would warm air come down because the
>>>> surface is cooler?
>>>
>>> Atoms that hit the cold polar surface lose energy on average and so they
>>> cool. They then take energy off the gas atoms that they are in collision
>>> with and so the cold surface gains energy from the gas above it. The
>>> cooler gas is denser leading to a higher column pressure and so you have
>>> the driving force for Hadley cell circulation from cold poles with high
>>> pressure cool air at ground level to an equatorial low with warm air rising.
>>
>> Fine, what part of the warm air is going to make the
>> 6000 mile trip and make contact with the surface?
>
>Most of it. The warm air at the equator will rise and have a local
>equilibrium temperature determined by the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
I feel that GHGs normalize the lapse rate, and
without them, there can be a less perfect gradient.
By rising air doesn't mean air has to descent
any place in particular, warm air might actually have
more buoyancy over the poles and cold air than it
has over the tropics.
Things like this require thought and logic, the
situation is different without a means to radiate.
>It cannot radiate to the sky so it can only lose heat to the cold sink at
>the poles and the side of the Earth facing away from the sun.
But only by contact, and it would take a well controlled
air handler to direct all parcels down across the surface.
>The principle effect of having an atmosphere assuming the planet still
>rotates every 24 hours is to average out some of the diurnal temperature
>variation.
That is my point, that an Earth with an atmosphere
is what moderates the temperatures, the GHGs do have
a role in distribution, but do not have the mass to hold
much thermal energy.
CO2 with only one molecule for each 2000 of N2
and 500 of O2 has to go through a lot of absorbing and
collisions to raise the temperature of the N2 and O2,
and it is in the N2 and O2 that any heat is stored to
hold the temperature from changing so much between
day and night.
>>> No. The air at the poles would be warmer than the surface but the air at
>>> the equator would be cooler than the surface.
>>
>> In daylight, yes, but when the surface is cool,
>> the upper air would not be rushing down.
>
>What are you talking about? It doesn't have to "rush" down. The pressure
>gradients drive the movement of the gasses in an atmosphere.
And the warm air stays warm without GHGs, there
is no good way to describe this, as adiabatic cooling
does not remove energy.
I said "rush" because there is only 12 hours before
another heating period (which is another thing different
than the moon the rotation period).
>>> The air is inert ie
>>> transparent wrt absorbing solar radiation if you ignore greenhouse
>>> gasses. It just gets to work as a heat transfer medium with the kinetic
>>> energy of its molecules. You could simplify to an argon atmosphere to
>>> avoid having to consider vibrational energy in the diatomic bonds.
>>
>> Why, does N2 radiate a little?
>
>Diatomic molecules have more degrees of freedom. The N2 triple bond is
>so strong though that absorbtion bands are up in the vacuum uv. eg
>
>http://adc.astro.umd.edu/cgi-bin/adc/cat.pl?/journal_tables/A+AS/128/361/
And isn't the emission bands there also?
With warm air rising after contact with the warm
surface, I see no driver to take it back down to the
surface, and any air cooled by contact with the surface
at night will want to stay as low as possible.
There just isn't any driver for two-way circulation.
>>>>> As long as parts of the surface are at different temperatures,
>>>>> there will be convection to even it out.
>>>> If the atmosphere doesn't radiate, cool air would
>>>> only originate at the surface, remove all O2 and replace
>>>> it with N2 if necessary.
>>>
>>> Cool air at the surface near the poles will have a higher pressure.
>>
>> And greater density, which doesn't seem to
>> enhance circulation.
>
>Nonsense. The air will attempt to move along the pressure gradient. It
>will be frustrated in that by conservation of angular momentum or
>Coriolis force if you prefer.
The pressure gradient is a function of gravity,
not temperature, and since the stratosphere has
an inverse lapse rate, I am not convinced the
troposphere would have the same temperature
gradient as with GHGs.
>>>>> Not at equilibrium. It will heat until it's losing as much heat to the
>>>>> surface as it's gaining.
>>>>
>>>> For the atmosphere, equilibrium might be almost
>>>> the maximum temperature of the surface, in fact, can
>>>> an atmospheric temperature even warmer than the
>>>> surface without an atmosphere be ruled out?
>
>>> How is the atmosphere going to get its energy if not from collisions
>>> with the surface or other gas molecules if it is transparent to the
>>> incident radiation (which is implicit in the no greenhouse gasses).
>>
>> Of course it is from collisions, but warm air rises.
>
>More nonsense. Warm air rising must cool as it expands to match the
>local column pressure that is determined by the equilibrium lapse rate.
It must expand, but it doesn't lose energy. the
expansion is simply the result of not as much downward
pressure from above.
>>>>> Where does the air that's convecting upward come from? Convection works
>>>>> both ways - when warm air goes up, somewhere there's cooler air going
>>>>> down. Conservation of mass and all that stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Not if there is nothing cooling the air higher up,
>>>> I don't think you are getting into this Bill, there is no
>>>> cooler air, an atmosphere without GHGs has to get
>>>> hot, real hot, GHGs are the only thing that cools
>>>> the atmosphere.
>>> This is total garbage.
>>
>> Sorry it doesn't conform to the 33 degree myth.
>
>Your ideas do not conform to the known laws of physics.
I beg to disagree.
I didn't say how much, but I suspect that a
large part of the 33 degrees is from the atmosphere
and not the GHGs, that is the only point.
>>>>> If the atmosphere can't radiate, doesn't that mean the surface has to
>>>>> radiate all the energy it absorbs? That depends only on the incoming SW.
>>>> Yes, but both the atmosphere and the surface
>>>> have to get pretty warm for that if the air doesn't
>>>> radiate.
>>>
>>> Worst case the maximum surface temperature cannot be higher than in a
>>> vacuum (where there are only radiative losses). An inert atmosphere
>>> allows additional cooling mechanisms of convection and conduction.
>>
>> Cooling to what, the surface that heats the atmosphere
>> by conduction and convection?
>
>You are clueless.
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
I don't see your participation as a discussion of the
science as much as a defense of an agenda.
A number of factors other than GHGs moderate
the swing in temperature between night and day, the
rotation period give less time for heating and less
time for cooling, the size of the Earth and the wind
speeds restricted by the speed of sound, which once
the medium is established as air, is related to temperature,
so wind speeds can't be much different than now.
So any retention of heat not only slows the
changes in temperatures, but also moves the average
temperature higher.
And that is why I say the GHGs cool the atmosphere,
and I ask, if GHGs cool the atmosphere, will more GHGs,
more CO2, cool the atmosphere more?
Tom P
>
>
> On 10/19/09 8:44 AM, in article
> d2b82ffb-b396-4b80...@p4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Dawlish"
> <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 19, 1:01 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to rock the boat, give me a month of
>>> temperatures that are not way below normal and
>>> maybe I can support the agenda.
>> There hasn't been a month of global temperatures that has been below
>> average, never mind "way below normal" for >30 years. Whatever has
>> happened in the UK, of course, doesn't count on that global scale, so
>> however warm, or cold, you feel it may be in your neck of the woods
>> doesn't actually count.
>
> string of them over the past decade.
>
> erased redoubled in spades.
> Hadley, GISS/NASA, NOAA do
> not release real data. Everything is vetted by the
> political bosses to meet the policy figures.
>
> Either way short term or long term the data
> doesn't support man made global warming?
>
> short term
> http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
Have you analyzed that short term data that you quote? I mean
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
?
The linear regression of all the samples shows a positive trend, around
0.1-0.2�C per decade from 1970 to present.
> long term
> http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l
> .htm
>
Error 404.
T.
Bill Ward
You could say the same about a Ouija board. I claim a model in which the
accuracy is no better than a random guess is no better than a scary mask
on a witch doctor.
> As to ima; he believes that AGW is a conspiracy, cooked up by
> governments for reasons that only he knows.
There are a lot of people who can see obvious conflicts of interest in
governments redistributing wealth by raising taxes on the basis of a
bogus "emergency". Blindness to the obvious is not a survival trait.
> There is no strawman there.
> There is simply fact, out of ima's own writing. Scroll back on the other
> thread and have a look. If he wishes to propose theories like that
Specifically what theory are you talking about? His gedanken experiment
considering a transparent atmosphere?
> and
> if he wishes to provide abuse as a means of argument when things get
> difficult, he's likely to find opposition from me. A very reasonable
> standpoint, don't you think?
Not to me. It looks to me like you were trying to intimidate him. I
don't always agree with him, but I have seen no "abuse" from him. Go
back and read your posts, pretending they were directed at yourself, and
see what you think.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
> > On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> >> For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
> >> to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in climate
> >> science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and silly.- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> > No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
> > very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you when
> > you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2 hysteria".
> > I did say it drives everything you post on here and all through your
> > talk about a hypothetical planet without GHGs, you cannot split yourself
> > from your need to press home your driver.
>
> > Unfortunately, global temperature just aren't fitting your denialist
> > schema
>
> What "denialist schema" are you talking about? Most skeptics seem to
> believe the climate system is not sufficiently understood to be
> predictable.
Some other things in science not completely understood: quantum
mechanics, evolution, the Big Bang. But they are real and they work.
>In view of the amount of resources that have been spent by
> "experts" on trying to predict the climate, and the obvious failure to do
> so, it seems a completely justifiable position.
>
> Why, other than to erect a strawman argument, would you expect the side
> that holds climate is currently unpredictable to make predictions?
>
> > and you can't explain why
>
> It's not up to skeptics to explain anything. It's up to proponents to
> make their case for CO2 induced GW in a clear, convincing way, explaining
> their logic, the data they think supports it, and the data that seems not
> to support it.
And science doesn't depend upon yahoos like you consenting to it. If
you didn't think quantum mechanics were real, would the sun cease to
work? If you didn't believe in the Big Bang, would galaxies stop
flying away from each other? If you didn't believe in evolution,
would fossils disappear?
>When you've done that, then there can be a discussion of
> the merits of the hypothesis, and skeptics can question the points of
> disagreement. Until you can precisely state your hypothesis, with a
> simple, lucid explanation of the mechanisms involved, there's nothing to
> discuss.
Explain how an electron goes through a pair of slits and makes an
interference pattern.
erschro...@gmail.com
Sure, the Glen Beckists and Rush Limbaughites of the world. The same
ones who now think the flu vaccine puts a microchip in you for gov't
tracking.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
"stupid" Bill? Not the nicest of epithets to call me when the
questions I posed couldn't be answered. And that from someone who says
this:" I don't need anybody's support, I develop physics concepts as I
need them". Mind-bogglingly dismissive. Not much respect in that for
scientists then?
And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
you are in a very small minority there with that view. You can thus
expect to criticise without any explanation of why you feel the
science is wrong (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint
on that one would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any
of the difficult questions that could be put to them about their
beliefs). I'm afraid not.
The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
other than CO2 is driving temperature rises. That's why so many
climate scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those
rises and why I feel >90% sure that is the case. It's up to the
sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
asked to explain their standpoint, why some of the more extreme are
happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>On Oct 20, 7:49 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:02:25 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> > On Oct 20, 10:45 am, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:21 -0700, Dawlish wrote:
>> >> > On Oct 20, 2:24 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> For this reason, I consider the CO2 hysteria
>> >> >> to be unwarranted, and the emphasis on CO2 as a major factor in
>> >> >> climate science to be much too simplistic, even misplaced and
>> >> >> silly.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > No. You actually consider it to be a political conspiracy, which is a
>> >> > very different thing. At least be honest about what is driving you
>> >> > when you post in this newsgroup about what you consider to be "CO2
>> >> > hysteria".
Why did that one paragraph ring your bell,
I haven't looked much before for support for my
skepticism, but the first link I found just now is
far more verbal than I have been;
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
I am not a parrot, I have patents, but you are wrong
about "respect for scientists", it is their useful work that I
respect, and I research it thoroughly.
AGW is not science in any sense of the word,
it is a gossip fad, period, made so every time an
alarmist says, "it is warmer than ever before".
>And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see
>few of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid
>you are in a very small minority there with that view. You can thus
>expect to criticise without any explanation of why you feel the
>science is wrong (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint
>on that one would allow that and absolve denialists from answering any
>of the difficult questions that could be put to them about their
>beliefs). I'm afraid not.
>
>The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
>longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
>other than CO2 is driving temperature rises. That's why so many
>climate scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those
>rises and why I feel >90% sure that is the case. It's up to the
>sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
>If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
>That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
>asked to explain their standpoint, why some of the more extreme are
>happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
>driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm
>out of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is
>stupid (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
You are way off base unloading on Bill, he and
Alan actually think CO2 has some effect on climate,
I haven't named those I consider to be AGW nutcases
very often, they know who they are, they mostly use
one line retorts, and some use language unacceptable
in mixed company.
If you want sincere discussion of Global Warming,
fine, if you want to chew out anybody that is skeptical
of the calamity the computer models predict, forget it,
join the delete message writers.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Whatever", basically. Yuo can't answer simple questions about recent
temperatures and you wish to redefine physics. Ok, but no-one is
listening. Me neither.
Bill Ward
Better get a thicker skin if you think being called "stupid" is abuse.
Are you new here? Maybe you should think about the questions you asked.
> And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
> of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
> in a very small minority there with that view.
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
> You can thus expect to
> criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
> (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
> allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
> questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
> not.
>
> The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
> longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
> other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
> That's why so many climate
> scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
> why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
> It's up to the
> sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
> If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
> That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
> asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
> why some of the more extreme are
> happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
> driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
> of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
> (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
All you'd need"
to do is convince bill with evidence he refuses to see, from
information sources he wont read, and oh yeah, one more thing anybody
who disagrees with him is held to a much higher standard than he holds
himself, thats it, whats so wrong with that?
Dawlish
> All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
> of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
> derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying
> the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trends Bill. Trends over time. Present day warm outcomes, despite
several cold forcings acting together. Factor in sceptical theories
(and there are many) and see that they are not producing the expected
results. Keep an open mind to the possibility that the majority is
wrong - as the IPCC did in its last report - but leave the extremists
and the terminally arrogant to their musings; but let them know from
time to time just how wrong they probably (note the word probably)
are. Attempts to patronise are a little poor, wouldn't you say, from
such a knowledgeable man of science? You don't post "here" generally.
Your interventions are mainly derived from cross posts from other
newsgroups and your interest "here" stems from that; not an interest
in weather. That's fine and dandy, but attempts at patronisation are
highly unlikely to deter me. You decided to step into this on behalf
of someone whose main driver appears to be the overturn of a global GW
conspiracy and that is your choice.
> That's why so many climate
> scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
> why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
>And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
Good grief! They are all wrong and you know better because you have
more knowledge than they do. Now where have I heard that before ?
Timothy Casey
news:t9fid5lavschv8k4l...@4ax.com...
>
> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
> GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
.
Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
gas.
.
Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
.
Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prim...@timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Timothy Casey
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:56:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
> <{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <0sjld5lgs8tloag9i...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>>guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:09:04 +0100, Stewart Robert Hinsley
>>><{$news$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <7khld5d71281og47i...@4ax.com>, "I M @ good
>>>>guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>>>>>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "leona...@gmail.com"
>>>>><leona...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Oct 17, 7:56 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 01:18:27 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:18:24 +0200, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd>
>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>> Tom P wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>> I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without GreenHouse
>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Without GreenHouse Gases means no water either,
>>>>>>> >>>>>so most of
>>>>>>> >>>>> the surface would be rock, maybe
>>>>>>> >>>>> with fine sand due to the N2 and O2 winds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> The hill and mountain sides in sunlight would
>>>>>>> >>>>> have a considerable updraft, and those in the shade
>>>>>>> >>>>> would have a downdraft. But much of the surface would
>>>>>>> >>>>>be just hot
>>>>>>> >>>>> in sunlight with convection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> Obviously, OBVIOUSLY, the atmosphere
>>>>>>> >>>>> would be warmed by the sun, and would have
>>>>>>> >>>>> very little cooling, mainly on the shaded sides
>>>>>>> >>>>> of slopes and those where the sun never shines.
>>>>>>> >>>>> This dispells the parroted myth that the
>>>>>>> >>>>> Earth would have temperatures like the moon
>>>>>>> >>>>> without GreenHouse Gases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>> It might be interesting to determine if
>>>>>>> >>>>> there would be any lapse rate at all, since
>>>>>>> >>>>> warm air rises, and there would be less or
>>>>>>> >>>>> no cooling in the upper atmosphere.
>>>>>>> >>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> What do you mean , wrong, I said it would
>>>>>>> >> be interesting to determine, obviously there would
>>>>>>> >> be a temperature gradient due to cooling by expansion,
>>>>>>> >> but as more warmer air rises, thermal energy would
>>>>>>> >> be added, possibly causing an inversion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>> Read up any textbook on atmospheric physics, or google
>>>>>>> >>> adiabatic+lapse+rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Why do you think a discussion of existing atmosphere
>>>>>>> >> physics would apply to an N2 and O2 atmosphere without
>>>>>>> >> GreenHouse Gases?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Because the physics applies not just to planet earth but any other
>>>>>>> >planet including the planets in our solar system and hypothetical
>>>>>>> >planets that don't even exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, if the discussion is about GreenHouse Gases
>>>>>>> and the greenhouse effect, it would not apply to the
>>>>>>> hypothetical Earth without Greenhouse Gases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>•• ROTFLMAO
>>>>>>
>>>>>>– –
>>>>>>Either way short term or long term the data
>>>>>>doesn't support man made global warming?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>to Tom, I didn't know if he considers water vapor
>>>>>to be a GHG, you know, the AGW people seem
>>>>>to think CEE-OH-TWO is the major GHG.
>>>>>
>>>>In the light of this blatantly inaccurate statement I presume that you
>>>>haven't read the IPCC report, or any of the other literature about
>>>>climate change - in the current regime CO2 induced warming is a forcing,
>>>>and H20 induced warming is a feedback.
>>>
>>> I have read them, they do not discuss any hypothetical
>>>situation for the purpose of understanding what warms the
>>>Earth and moderates the extreme temperatures seen on
>>>the moon.
>>>
>>> If I am discussing a hypothetical Earth without GHGs
>>>why would I bother reading about an Earth with GHGs?
>>
>>So you don't look like an idiot when you claim that people don't think
>>that H20 is a major greenhouse gas.
>
> I don't claim that, it is apparent though that the major
> emphasis in AGW is on CO2 since water vapor is not being
> added to the atmosphere.
>
>>However, from the non-sequiturial nature of your response, I presume
>>that you are just trolling.
>
> No, try to follow this, an N2 and O2 atmosphere
> would be heated by hot rocks in sunlight, so an Earth
> without GHGs would be warmer than the present
> Earth.
>
> GHGs cool the atmosphere by LWIR radiation,
[SNIP]
.
Ah, more so by thermal contact conduction at the tropopause. This is perhaps
why refrigerants are now counted amongst GHGs.
.
So far I don't see any math, and I don't think we will if, as I suspect,
greenhouse gases are not defined in terms of a quantifiable and measurable
thermodynamic greenhouse property. Even the expanding earthers (plate
tectonics deniers) are more adventurous when it comes to a little
mathemajicka.
.
For those of you who have difficulty reading, the OP is asking for someone
to prove the existence of the greenhouse property of gases by defining it
with a thermodynamic equation. Hardly surprising given that greenhouse is
putatively the subject of the science of thermodynamics and science is about
evidence, not interpretation or reputation. Of course, if you can't provide
a verifiable definition, you've got no right to claim the assertion is
scientific (because doing so would be dishonest given that science is the
study of physically *verifiable* evidence).
.
Until we see some science, I would suggest it is misleading to assert GHGs
are more than a myth - especially if the myth is the one based on a
conjecture debunked 100 years ago by the Wood Experiment.
Timothy Casey
"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c13b408a-7153-46e2...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
>> short termhttp://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
>> long termhttp://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm- Hide quoted
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>an agenda. If I were you, I wouldn't set a great deal of store by it.
.
Irrelevant ad hominem coprolite.
What has that got to do with what the evidence shows?
.
Look again at the evidence (without evading the evidence by attacking the
person presenting it):
short term:
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
long term
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005l.htm
.
This data is all-important - and the satellite temps have a much
lower margin for error, which in the case of instrument data
exceeds the amount of claimed variation. The satellite data,
error range and all, plots entirely inside the range of instrumental
error (plus or minus 1.3 degrees K) so criticism raises such clich�s
as "Those living in greenhouses" oops I mean "...glasshouses" - but I
presume you get the picture.
.
>It just strikes me as odd that so many climate scientists don't come
>to the same conclusion, looking at the same data. Now why could that
>be?
.
Would that be the same reason so many "scientists" supported eugenics 100
years ago?
It is amazing what government funding and propagandised prestige can do.
.
What strikes me is how everyone here is evading the OPs question - something
the eugenics loonies used to do too. What's the problem? Cat got your
keyboards? Can anyone answer the original question and prove that greenhouse
gases actually exist by defining the greenhouse property in terms of a
single thermodynamic equation - or am I to assume that the greenhouse
property of a gas is a hoax.
Timothy Casey
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbX...@giganews.com...
[SNIP]
> Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have considered
> the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a planet with a non-
> radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What fundamental physics
> do you think Ima is ignoring?
Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material capable
of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will absorb and
reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident radiation.
Bill Ward
> On Oct 20, 10:05 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation
>> of the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature,
>> derive a quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be
>> clarifying the issue. Until then, you're just muddying the water. -
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Trends Bill. Trends over time. Present day warm outcomes, despite
> several cold forcings acting together. Factor in sceptical theories (and
> there are many) and see that they are not producing the expected
> results. Keep an open mind to the possibility that the majority is wrong
> - as the IPCC did in its last report - but leave the extremists and the
> terminally arrogant to their musings; but let them know from time to
> time just how wrong they probably (note the word probably) are. Attempts
> to patronise are a little poor, wouldn't you say, from such a
> knowledgeable man of science? You don't post "here" generally. Your
> interventions are mainly derived from cross posts from other newsgroups
> and your interest "here" stems from that; not an interest in weather.
> That's fine and dandy, but attempts at patronisation are highly unlikely
> to deter me. You decided to step into this on behalf of someone whose
> main driver appears to be the overturn of a global GW conspiracy and
> that is your choice.
That's a rambling, incoherent, mind-reading dodge, not any kind of
explanation of a hypothetical mechanism. It's a good demonstration of
trying to muddy the water to hide your deficiencies. How do you expect
anyone to take you seriously if you don't even understand enough to
explain what the position is that you're trying to defend?
Your rant tells us far more about you than it does me. Those are your
thoughts you're describing, not mine. It's called "projection".
>> That's why so many climate
>> scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises
>> and why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
>
>>And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
>
> Good grief! They are all wrong and you know better because you have more
> knowledge than they do.
No, as you said (and snipped), they are going by feelings, not by data.
That's not science, it's theology. If you believe because you are told,
without understanding, you have faith. If you insist on trying to
convince others you are right, but can't explain why, you are simply
annoying, and unlikely to convince anyone.
> Now where have I heard that before ?
Maybe it's here, in the context you silently snipped from my preceding
post:
<begin reinsertion of snippage>
[Dawlish]
> And as for your own standpoint of denialists (or sceptics, but I see few
> of those around here) not having to explain anything, I'm afraid you are
> in a very small minority there with that view.
[Bill]
You don't get around much do you? That's the default position in real
science. If you claim you're in contact with ET, you have to prove it, I
don't have to prove you didn't. If you claim to be able to predict
climate, the same principle holds.
> You can thus expect to
> criticise without any explanation of why you feel the science is wrong
How would I criticize without explaining errors I see in the proffered
explanation? Ad hominem attacks? I think you've got the positions
reversed, as that seems to be almost exclusively the AGWer fallback
position. (Attacks on Al Gore excepted.)
> (not that you personally do that, but your standpoint on that one would
> allow that and absolve denialists from answering any of the difficult
> questions that could be put to them about their beliefs). I'm afraid
> not.
>
> The outcomes in terms of global temperatures, either short-term, or
> longer term, are stacked against the people who feel something else,
> other than CO2 is driving temperature rises.
Feelings are for religion. Science is data driven.
> That's why so many climate
> scientists accept that CO2 is likely to be the driver of those rises and
> why I feel >90% sure that is the case.
And why I don't think they are scientists at all, but theologians.
> It's up to the
> sceptics/denialists to provide arguments to change the majority mind.
How do you influence people who rely on feelings instead of logic? Write
a folk song?
> If they can't (and they aren't) no one with influence listens to them.
True, only those who are capable of understanding can really listen.
> That's probably why they feel "intimidated" when they are forthrightly
> asked to explain their standpoint,
I would substitute the word "frustrated" for "intimidated". I think
you're projecting again. You expected to intimidate and it didn't work.
> why some of the more extreme are
> happy to advocate a "global conspiracy" to explain why GW is not being
> driven by CO2 and why some turn to name-calling and abuse to squirm out
> of answering the questions asked of them. Now that really is stupid
> (directed at the concept, not the person, of course).
All you'd need to do is offer a clear, coherent, defensible explanation of
the mechanism by which you think CO2 raises surface temperature, derive a
quantitative estimate of the magnitude, and you'd be clarifying the issue.
Until then, you're just muddying the water.
<end reinsertion>
Trying to distort meaning by snipping never works. It's too easy to
reinsert the context you're trying to ignore. And it makes you look
desperate.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's incredibly difficult to make any sense of your post. It rambles.
Sorry to say that, but it does. A couple of things stick out.
Desperate? Not me Bill. Not with that weight of evidence supporting
my position and the sceptical science not adding up. There's no need.
Neither is there any "projection". Just a feeling that I'm being
talked at by someone who *may* have an over-inflated opinion of the
worth of his own science. Just a feeling that one, but the leap to the
defence of a self-confessed GW conspiracist-believer strikes me as
odd.
Anyway, please feel free to return to the discussion with ima on the
hypothetical question of a world without CO2. I'm sure there'll be a
rejoinder from you, but I'll dip out here if you don't mind. There are
two questions on another thread that you might like to support ima in
answering, however.
Bill Ward
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:P9udnTwc_Pl07UbX...@giganews.com... [SNIP]
>> Gedanken experiments can be useful. Einstein was said to have
>> considered the behavior of light in an accelerating elevator, so a
>> planet with a non- radiating atmosphere doesn't seem so far out. What
>> fundamental physics do you think Ima is ignoring?
> .
> Kirchhoff's Law for a start. Unless we are talking about a material
> capable of making a perfect white-body; all gases (no exceptions) will
> absorb and reradiate to some degree in the presence of incident
> radiation.
Well, it's a gedanken experiment. I think it's legitimate to assume a
gas that is perfectly transparent. It's not as far out as a relativistic
elevator, after all.
In the real world, the absorbance depends on frequency. For all
practical purposes, most atmospheric gases don't absorb enough LWIR to
make a significant difference in the surface T. H2O clearly does, the
issue is whether CO2 does, and what the heating mechanism would be.
I don't think the spectra of the gases is seriously in question, it's the
hypothesized mechanism that, AFAIK, has not been adequately explained.
Welcome to the group. Fasten your seat belt.
I M @ good guy
<sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>news:t9fid5lavschv8k4l...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
>> GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
>.
>Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
>thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
>conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
>gas.
There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
hypothetical Earth without them.
>.
>Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
>gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
>gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
>differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
seems to deny.
>.
>Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
>pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
>which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
>concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
>.
Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
to cool.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
guy" <I...@good.guy> writes
>On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:24:17 +1100, "Timothy Casey"
><sixth-pri...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
>
>>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>>news:t9fid5lavschv8k4l...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Who has the gumption to discuss the Earth without
>>> GreenHouse Gases and attempt some math?
>>.
>>Without an equation relating this "greenhouse" property of a gas to the
>>thermodynamic properties of the real world (such as heat capacity, thermal
>>conductance, emissivity, etc), there can be no such thing as a greenhouse
>>gas.
>
> There are GreenHouse Gases that absorb and
>emit LWIR energy, I accept that, my above question
>doesn't relate to greenhouse gases, it is about a
>hypothetical Earth without them.
>
>>.
>>Of course, I'd be intrigued if anyone can prove the existence of greenhouse
>>gases by deriving the equation that quantifies the greenhouse property of a
>>gas with respect to its thermodynamic properties without neglecting the
>>differences between kinetic heat and electromagnetic heat.
>
> So would I, but any atmospheric gas would be
>warmed by contact with the warm surface being warmed
>by the sun, that is what I claim, but most of the AGW talk
>seems to deny.
Yet another strawman.
>
>>.
>>Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
>>pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
>>which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
>>concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
>>.
>
> Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
>radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
>to cool.
>
The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the
source of the heating of the atmosphere.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
I M @ good guy
Do you understand that a pure N2 atmosphere
would be warmed by the warm rocks heated by the
sun in daylight (an atmosphere with NO GHGs!)
How is that a strawman, strawman?
>>>Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
>>>pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
>>>which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
>>>concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
>>>.
>>
>> Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
>>radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
>>to cool.
>
>The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the
>source of the heating of the atmosphere.
You are ignoring the fact that sunlight warms rocks,
only the rocks heat an atmosphere with NO GHGs.
Please try to comprehend what you read, if I
am not precise enough about "a pure N2 atmosphere",
let me know.
Most of the surface of the Earth would be
volcanic rock if there never had been any water
on Earth, and most volcanic rock is rather dark
in color, and the porosity causes it to be very
good at absorbing almost any em wavelength.
Stewart Robert Hinsley
The strawman is that you claim by people deny this.
>
>>>>Science is about evidence, not interpretation. One of the most important
>>>>pillars of science is testability. Therefore, without a definition upon
>>>>which a property testing experiment can be defined and conducted, the whole
>>>>concept of "greenhouse" gases is pseudoscientific poppycock.
>>>>.
>>>
>>> Maybe not, without something absorbing and/or
>>>radiating LWIR to space the atmosphere has no way
>>>to cool.
>>
>>The elephant in the room that you're ignoring is the temperature of the
>>source of the heating of the atmosphere.
>
> You are ignoring the fact that sunlight warms rocks,
You do love your strawmen. That's another.
>only the rocks heat an atmosphere with NO GHGs.
>
> Please try to comprehend what you read, if I
>am not precise enough about "a pure N2 atmosphere",
>let me know.
>
> Most of the surface of the Earth would be
>volcanic rock if there never had been any water
>on Earth, and most volcanic rock is rather dark
>in color, and the porosity causes it to be very
>good at absorbing almost any em wavelength.
>
The nature of the surface of a hypothetical Earth without any water is
hard to predict, as the absence of water would affect plate tectonics
(and also the porosity of lavas). You may be right in your conclusion
that such a planet would have a lower albedo than the contemporary Earth
(even though granite and sand have higher albedos than vegetation). But
if you're depending on a changed albedo to achieve a higher temperature
then you've implicitly conceded the falsity of your claim that
greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:06:10 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It cannot radiate to the sky so it can only lose heat to the cold sink at
>> the poles and the side of the Earth facing away from the sun.
>
> But only by contact, and it would take a well controlled
> air handler to direct all parcels down across the surface.
Usually called convection.
>> The principle effect of having an atmosphere assuming the planet still
>> rotates every 24 hours is to average out some of the diurnal temperature
>> variation.
>
> That is my point, that an Earth with an atmosphere
> is what moderates the temperatures, the GHGs do have
> a role in distribution, but do not have the mass to hold
> much thermal energy.
Compared to the part that liquid water oceans play in moderating the
Earths diurnal temperature variation the atmosphere is noise.
Go and stand outside on a clear night. Hint: You cannot have cloudy
nights in a pure nitrogen atmosphere at least not until temperatures are
close to 77K.
>> What are you talking about? It doesn't have to "rush" down. The pressure
>> gradients drive the movement of the gasses in an atmosphere.
>
> And the warm air stays warm without GHGs, there
> is no good way to describe this, as adiabatic cooling
> does not remove energy.
But molecular collisions with the surface in cold polar regions does.
> There just isn't any driver for two-way circulation.
The pressure gradient between pole and equator is all that is needed.
But you are clearly unable to see this. Interestingly the atmosphere of
Titan is close enough to pure nitrogen with methane clouds that full
simulations of that system including a dry nitrogen atmosphere model for
comparison do exist in the astronomical literature. see for example:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~mitch/Publications_files/Mitchell.et.al.09.titan.methane.climate-1.pdf
>> Nonsense. The air will attempt to move along the pressure gradient. It
>> will be frustrated in that by conservation of angular momentum or
>> Coriolis force if you prefer.
>
> The pressure gradient is a function of gravity,
> not temperature, and since the stratosphere has
> an inverse lapse rate, I am not convinced the
> troposphere would have the same temperature
> gradient as with GHGs.
What you are convinced of or not is irrelevant to what happens in nature.
>> More nonsense. Warm air rising must cool as it expands to match the
>> local column pressure that is determined by the equilibrium lapse rate.
>
> It must expand, but it doesn't lose energy. the
> expansion is simply the result of not as much downward
> pressure from above.
Its temperature is lower higher up in the atmosphere. This is relevant
in the GHG scenario since the effective temperature of the surface of
last scattering determines the net flux of longwave thermal radiation
into space at the wavelengths where the GHG are strongly absorbing.
>>> Sorry it doesn't conform to the 33 degree myth.
>> Your ideas do not conform to the known laws of physics.
>
> I beg to disagree.
So prove it. Handwaving arguments will not cut it.
Lets see your mathematical justification for this absurd claim.
> I didn't say how much, but I suspect that a
> large part of the 33 degrees is from the atmosphere
> and not the GHGs, that is the only point.
Do the maths.
>> You are clueless.
>
> I don't see your participation as a discussion of the
> science as much as a defense of an agenda.
Pot, kettle.
>
> A number of factors other than GHGs moderate
> the swing in temperature between night and day, the
> rotation period give less time for heating and less
> time for cooling, the size of the Earth and the wind
> speeds restricted by the speed of sound, which once
> the medium is established as air, is related to temperature,
> so wind speeds can't be much different than now.
>
> So any retention of heat not only slows the
> changes in temperatures, but also moves the average
> temperature higher.
>
> And that is why I say the GHGs cool the atmosphere,
> and I ask, if GHGs cool the atmosphere, will more GHGs,
> more CO2, cool the atmosphere more?
You are barking up entirely the wrong tree.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Tom P
And you know that between 5km and 10km altitude the mixing ratio drops
to less than 1 g/Kg?