Cap and trade can fight global warming--but not this bill, and not now
Eric Gisin
http://sites.google.com/site/rogerpielkejr/Home/PielkeTBILecture1July2009.pdf?attredirects=0
Roger Pielke Jr. showed me the numbers that have moved me away from my previous support of the
Waxman Markey ACES legislation instituting a cap and trade mechanism for limiting emissions. He was
speaking July 1st at Giannini Hall at U.C. Berkeley. The room was full of exactly the type of
people you would expect to see at a discussion of energy policy on a beautiful summer
evening--serious and intelligent people. When he presented his conclusions, the people from this
liberal university in this liberal city had no objections to offer, which makes me feel a bit more
comfortable walking away from a position I have held for years. (The first two articles on his
presentation are here, here and here.)
I still believe a cap and trade policy can work in the future. I think it can be a valuable tool in
our toolbox, although I don't think it can be our only tool. Here's why, according to Pielke,
professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and an Associate Fellow
at Oxford's Institute for Science, Innovation and Society:
The legislation implies that we would need to 'decarbonize' by 80% by 2050, and by 17% by 2020. Our
economy 'naturally' decarbonizes through efficiency improvements, but at a slower rate.
Pielke's calculations, which can be found in his slide presentation from the lecture here, show
convincingly that even if we replaced all of our coal consumption (about half of our electricity
comes from coal) with the more efficient natural gas, we would still not meet our targeted
reductions by 2020, overshooting it by about 10%.
To reach the target by expanding the use of renewable energy (including nuclear), we would have to
guarantee a reduction in coal consumption of 40% and double the use of renewables (including
nuclear) to the point where they constituted 30% of all energy consumption. We might be able to
double the number and energy from windmills. I would be surprised if we cannot double the energy
produced from solar. But to move from 124 to 248 nuclear power plants in 10 years (which makes up
the lion's share of what we're referring to as renewable) is not going to happen without a
draconian imposition of anti-NIMBY legislation. The same is true when speaking of redoubling the
energy we get from hydro-electric power, considering protection schemes for salmon in the
Northwest, and other environmental concerns elsewhere.
To get the same energy from wind and solar only, Pielke says their use would have to be multplied
by 40 times current production. Again, absent a huge investment program and new laws permitting the
siting of these very large plants (windmill farms and solar arrays take up surprisingly large
amounts of space), it just isn't going to happen.
Increasing efficiency might help, but if we rely on this alone to reach our goals, we would have to
become so efficient that we would return to consumption levels last seen in 1992, when our economy
was one-third smaller.
For the world to stabilize emissions at a rate estimated to stabilize temperature increases at 2
degrees Celsius, we would have to add one large emission free power plant every day for the next 50
years.
King Canute is unjustly ridiculed for ordering the tides not to advance (He was actually teasing
advisors who were recommending impossible legislation). But passing a law requiring the impossible
is not going to make it happen, especially if the law has get-out clauses and loopholes meaning
that there are no penalties or rewards.
But as Pielke noted, putting our emissions policy in one basket and then cutting holes in the
basket as it is woven is completely backwards. The better policy is to fund research in a variety
of sectors, identify the most promising, create a strategic investment plan--and then and only then
to reconvene and create a cap and trade (and/or a carbon tax) that pushes an already identified
path for success with rewards and penalties.
This is how it has worked for advancing human life, human health, the Green Revolution, and even
our approach to the Cold War. It could work as a strategy to combat global warming, especially if,
as Pielke noted, we adopt the Japanese practice of forcing companies (and organisations) to become
as efficient as the industry leader. Sadly, the end result of Waxman Markey is not going to reduce
either CO2 emissions or global warming. It may make Democrats feel good, but that's not enough.
Back to the drawing board.
Jerry Okamura
1. What are all the sources of greenhouse gases?
2. I would want to know which is the biggest contributors to greenhouse
gases, not only greenhouse gases that are controlled by man, but also
include greenhouse gases that are not produced by man. And I would want
that list to not only include the biggest contributors, but all sources of
greenhouse gases, in order of importance.
3. I would want to know what the goal should be, like how many tons of
these greenhouse gases we have to eliminate to prevent the event from
happening.
4. I would want to have a way to measure what the effects are in our
efforts to prevent the even from happening. In order to know that, I would
think the best way to get the inforamtion is to measure the amount of
greenhouses gases in the atmosphere where it is accumulating. Then you
would know if what we are doing is actually reducing the amount of
greenhouse gases.
Do we the information I said we need? Not that I am aware of. Can we
measure directly the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not that
I am aware of. I don't even think there is an effort to do that or that we
know how to do that.
So, my question is, how can you prevent the event from happening to a high
degree of confidence, if you do not have what I think of as very basic
things we need to know and do?
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:h2u50l$qgg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Rod Speed
> http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d4-Cap-and-trade-can-fight-global-warmingbut-not-this-bill-and-not-now
> http://sites.google.com/site/rogerpielkejr/Home/PielkeTBILecture1July2009.pdf?attredirects=0
> Roger Pielke Jr. showed me the numbers that have moved me away from
> my previous support of the Waxman Markey ACES legislation instituting
> a cap and trade mechanism for limiting emissions. He was speaking
> July 1st at Giannini Hall at U.C. Berkeley. The room was full of
> exactly the type of people you would expect to see at a discussion of
> energy policy on a beautiful summer evening--serious and intelligent
> people. When he presented his conclusions, the people from this
> liberal university in this liberal city had no objections to offer,
> which makes me feel a bit more comfortable walking away from a
> position I have held for years. (The first two articles on his
> presentation are here, here and here.)
> I still believe a cap and trade policy can work in the future.
I dont. I believe that the only thing that makes any sense for the
US to do if it cares about CO2 levels is to replace coal fired power
stations with nukes and use the electricity from those to heat houses
and use the natural gas currently wasted heating houses in cars and trucks.
That way the economy wont be crippled by the cost of cap and trade.
And that should be done right thruout the first world that can
be relied on to not use the nukes to make nuclear weapons.
Thorium based nukes should be developed for the rest
of the world that hasnt already got nuclear weapons.
> I think it can be a valuable tool in our toolbox, although I don't
> think it can be our only tool. Here's why, according to Pielke,
> professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at
> Boulder and an Associate Fellow at Oxford's Institute for Science,
> Innovation and Society:
> The legislation implies that we would need to 'decarbonize' by 80% by 2050, and by 17% by 2020. Our economy
> 'naturally' decarbonizes
> through efficiency improvements, but at a slower rate.
In fact CO2 production keeps increasing.
> Pielke's calculations, which can be found in his slide presentation
> from the lecture here, show convincingly that even if we replaced all of our coal consumption (about half of our
> electricity comes from
> coal) with the more efficient natural gas, we would still not meet
> our targeted reductions by 2020, overshooting it by about 10%.
Which is why it should be replaced by nukes instead.
> To reach the target by expanding the use of renewable energy
> (including nuclear), we would have to guarantee a reduction in coal
> consumption of 40% and double the use of renewables (including
> nuclear) to the point where they constituted 30% of all energy consumption.
There isnt any point in other than nukes.
> We might be able to double the number and energy from windmills.
It would still be a fart in the bath if that happened with an absolutely
gross pollution of the environment with all those windmills.
> I would be surprised if we cannot double the energy produced from solar.
Corse we can. What matters is whether it makes any sense to do that.
> But to move from 124 to 248 nuclear power plants in 10 years (which makes up the lion's share of what we're referring
> to as renewable) is not going to happen without a draconian imposition of anti-NIMBY legislation.
Have fun explaining how France managed it fine.
> The same is true when speaking of redoubling the energy we get from hydro-electric power, considering protection
> schemes for salmon in the Northwest, and other
> environmental concerns elsewhere.
And hydro cant come close to replacing all the coal fired power stations.
> To get the same energy from wind and solar only, Pielke says their
> use would have to be multplied by 40 times current production. Again,
> absent a huge investment program and new laws permitting the siting
> of these very large plants (windmill farms and solar arrays take up
> surprisingly large amounts of space), it just isn't going to happen.
> Increasing efficiency might help, but if we rely on this alone to
> reach our goals, we would have to become so efficient that we would
> return to consumption levels last seen in 1992, when our economy was
> one-third smaller.
And that would achieve nothing like the result replacing
all the coal fired power stations with nukes would.
> For the world to stabilize emissions at a rate estimated to stabilize
> temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius, we would have to add one large emission free power plant every day for the
> next 50 years.
Depends on how big they are.
> King Canute is unjustly ridiculed for ordering the tides not to
> advance (He was actually teasing advisors who were recommending
> impossible legislation). But passing a law requiring the impossible
> is not going to make it happen, especially if the law has get-out
> clauses and loopholes meaning that there are no penalties or rewards.
> But as Pielke noted, putting our emissions policy in one basket and
> then cutting holes in the basket as it is woven is completely
> backwards. The better policy is to fund research in a variety of
> sectors, identify the most promising,
Dont need any of that, we know that thats nukes.
> create a strategic investment plan--and then and only then to reconvene and create a cap and trade (and/or a carbon
> tax)
Dont need that when the coal fired power stations are replaced with nukes.
> that pushes an already identified path for success with rewards and penalties.
Dont need that either. Just start replacing coal fired power stations with nukes.
> This is how it has worked for advancing human life, human health, the Green Revolution, and even our approach to the
> Cold War.
But isnt how France ended up generating 95% of its electricity using nukes.
> It could work as a strategy to combat global warming,
Nope, cant fly.
> especially if, as Pielke noted, we adopt the Japanese practice of forcing companies (and organisations) to become as
> efficient as the industry leader. Sadly, the end result of Waxman Markey is not going to reduce either CO2 emissions
> or global warming. It may make Democrats feel good, but that's not enough.
> Back to the drawing board.
No need for any drawing board, just replace coal fired power stations with nukes.
Michael Coburn
> Do we the information I said we need? Not that I am aware of.
Then our first priority will be to educate Jerry.
We're in deep, deep, shit.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
What A. Fool
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Is I were the global warming czar, the first thing I would want to know is
>
>1. What are all the sources of greenhouse gases?
>
>2. I would want to know which is the biggest contributors to greenhouse
>gases, not only greenhouse gases that are controlled by man, but also
>include greenhouse gases that are not produced by man. And I would want
>that list to not only include the biggest contributors, but all sources of
>greenhouse gases, in order of importance.
>
>3. I would want to know what the goal should be, like how many tons of
>these greenhouse gases we have to eliminate to prevent the event from
>happening.
What event, Jerry?
Jerry Okamura
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h2u7m...@news1.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:56:20 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Do we the information I said we need? Not that I am aware of.
>
> Then our first priority will be to educate Jerry.
>
response to what I said.
Jerry Okamura
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:ep855513hu9nvc9ge...@4ax.com...
What A. Fool
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>news:ep855513hu9nvc9ge...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:56:20 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
>> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is I were the global warming czar, the first thing I would want to know is
>>>
>>>1. What are all the sources of greenhouse gases?
>>>
>>>2. I would want to know which is the biggest contributors to greenhouse
>>>gases, not only greenhouse gases that are controlled by man, but also
>>>include greenhouse gases that are not produced by man. And I would want
>>>that list to not only include the biggest contributors, but all sources of
>>>greenhouse gases, in order of importance.
>>>
>>>3. I would want to know what the goal should be, like how many tons of
>>>these greenhouse gases we have to eliminate to prevent the event from
>>>happening.
>>
>> What event, Jerry?
>>
>You don't know? Global warming
Not in Hawaii, Jerry. :-)
Michael Coburn
I am not interested, Jerry. It has been like educating a queue ball. I
was illustrating the futility of all the current science and reality
awareness.
Rob Dekker
"Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
news:h2u50l$qgg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> But as Pielke noted, putting our emissions policy in one basket and then
> cutting holes in the
> basket as it is woven is completely backwards. The better policy is to
> fund research in a variety
> of sectors, identify the most promising, create a strategic investment
> plan--and then and only then
> to reconvene and create a cap and trade (and/or a carbon tax) that pushes
> an already identified
> path for success with rewards and penalties.
>
Such pathetic reasoning.
Who ever suggested that we should put all our emission policies in one
basket ?
Who were the people that wanted to have a 'drill drill drill' single
solution to solve energy policy issues and who insisted that there is no
such thing as a silver bullet ? Who
Who then initiated a wide portfolio of actions and stimuli plans and yes,
also a cap-and-trade system ?
.....
> This is how it has worked for advancing human life, human health, the
> Green Revolution, and even
> our approach to the Cold War. It could work as a strategy to combat global
> warming, especially if,
> as Pielke noted, we adopt the Japanese practice of forcing companies (and
> organisations) to become
> as efficient as the industry leader. Sadly, the end result of Waxman
> Markey is not going to reduce
> either CO2 emissions or global warming. It may make Democrats feel good,
> but that's not enough.
>
> Back to the drawing board.
>
This guy is seriously behind the facts.
The only people that thought that there may have been a single (drill drill
drill) solution to our energy policy issues are now finally coming to terms
: There is no silver bullet, and there never was.
The world changed already. The government changed. Policies have changed,
and please wake up : the cap-and-trade system for CO2 os just ONE tool out
of many that the the current government has already pushed through. Let
alone what is still to come.
Let's turn this country around and free ourselves of the oil addiction that
is costing us a trillion dollars per year...
Rob
Last Post
> "Eric Gisin" <gi...@uniserve.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h2u50l$qgg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> ......
>
> > But as Pielke noted, putting our emissions policy in one basket and then
> > cutting holes in the
> > basket as it is woven is completely backwards. The better policy is to
> > fund research in a variety
> > of sectors, identify the most promising, create a strategic investment
> > plan--and then and only then
> > to reconvene and create a cap and trade (and/or a carbon tax) that pushes
> > an already identified
> > path for success with rewards and penalties.
>
> Such pathetic reasoning.
> Who ever suggested that we should put all our emission policies in one
> basket ?
•• Gore, Pelosi, Waxman, and Obama
> Who were the people that wanted to have a 'drill drill drill' single
> solution to solve energy policy issues and who insisted that there is no
> such thing as a silver bullet ?
•• Whoever, they were on the ball and not deceived
by the fascist anthropogenic global warming
alarmist bullshit.
> Who then initiated a wide portfolio of actions and stimuli plans and yes,
> also a cap-and-trade system ?
> > This is how it has worked for advancing human life, human health, the
> > Green Revolution, and even
> > our approach to the Cold War. It could work as a strategy to combat global
> > warming, especially if,
•• More bullshit. There is no need to "combat global
warming" since global warming does not exist
>> Sadly, the end result of Waxman
> > Markey is not going to reduce
> > either CO2 emissions or global warming. It may make Democrats feel good,
> > but that's not enough.
>
> This guy is seriously behind the facts.
>
> The only people that thought that there may have been a single (drill drill
> drill) solution to our energy policy issues are now finally coming to terms
> : There is no silver bullet, and there never was.
•• Nonsense
> The world changed already. The government changed. Policies have changed,
> and please wake up : the cap-and-trade system for CO2 os just ONE tool out
> of many that the the current government has already pushed through. Let
> alone what is still to come.
•• More nonsense
>
> Let's turn this country around and free ourselves of the oil addiction that
> is costing us a trillion dollars per year...
•• Bullshit.
–– ––
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the religious fanatic
If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."
3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years
There is no way to convince the terrorists,
anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
What A. Fool
Unfortunately no matter where the energy comes from,
"we" will still pay for it.
The big worry now seems to be the efforts of those
who are pushing a (new) one world order, there could end
up being so much agitation from this, it could bring things
to a stand still, the percentage of people who are opposed
to even a continental central government is overwhelming,
let alone a global central government.
Maybe Tony Blair and Obama want to be king of
the world, but there isn't much chance of elections
to be suspended.
If Cap and Trade is passed in any form, it will
be a big surprise, every member of the house and
a third of senators come up for re-election next year.
Some ideas sound good, but if it costs more
money, it will not be popular.
Michael Coburn
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:h2uic...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:45:25 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:h2u7m...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:56:20 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do we the information I said we need? Not that I am aware of.
>>>>
>>>> Then our first priority will be to educate Jerry.
>>>>
>>> I am waiting. Are you the one who is going to educate me? What is
>>> your response to what I said.
>>
>> I am not interested, Jerry. It has been like educating a queue ball. I
>> was illustrating the futility of all the current science and reality
>> awareness.
>>
> You are not "interested" because you cannot defend your position?
No. I'm not interested because you are too damned stupid or evil to
grasp reality.
What A. Fool
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Most islands have weather and climate determined
by the water around them.
It would take a lot of years of excess sunshine to
warm the waters, and where there is lots of vegetation,
evaporation, transpiration and respiration resists any
warming at all.
Michael Coburn
I do not think that the current legislation will pass the Senate, but the
greed of Wall Street might actually make it pass. It is a good idea and
a horrible bill.
What A. Fool
Get off the profit earning hatred train, this is a private
enterprise country, the socialist and communist parties
have trouble getting one or two percent of the vote.
Everybody thinks more efficiency use of existing
energy and affordable alternate energy is good, don't
assume that anybody wants to cause pollution or
waste money if they have a choice.
All taxes are a bad idea, although I am radical
about some tax ideas, the idea is to pass taxes that
don't stifle commerce and trade, and don't cause
undue hardship.
An asset tax would fit that idea, about one or
two tenths of a percent of assets over one million
might raise a lot of badly needed money, but would
not take all of the assets from anybody even in a
hundred years, the exact percentage could be
regulated to meet minimal needs.
Any energy tax will hurt the poor the most,
and a big sales tax or value added tax really hurts
the economy, I have even canceled a purchase
because of a 6 percent sales tax.
The senate may pass the bill, but it may not
matter much, government borrowing will still harm
the world economies, fear has been causing more
caution in investing since the beginning of the
election campaign last year.
That fear seems to be increasing, the idea
of mandatory health care premiums plus the cap
and trade taxes may be more than the average
person even wants to hear about.
It is claimed Bush I lost the election because
he reluctantly signed a bill raising taxes.
Michael Coburn
I have absolutely no complaint with _*PROFIT*_ as that term is defined in
classical economics and no real problem with it as it is defined in most
neoclassical economics. And with the strict definition of _*CAPITAL*_ as
defined in classical and SOME neoclassical economics (some marginalists)
I have no complaint about _real_ capitalism. I think that pretty well
distinguishes my views from that of a communist. And as far as socialism
and socialist it will depend on what in particular, is socialized. Some
stuff works better socialized and most things don't.
> Everybody thinks more efficiency use of existing
> energy and affordable alternate energy is good, don't assume that
> anybody wants to cause pollution or waste money if they have a choice.
There are some that think that somewhat less affordable energy would be
better than dependence on foreign oil. But for the most part, those of
us that are in favor of alternatives just wish the giant subsidies that
inure to oil would be eliminated or at least recovered with a tax and
redistributed.
> All taxes are a bad idea, although I am radical
> about some tax ideas, the idea is to pass taxes that don't stifle
> commerce and trade, and don't cause undue hardship.
That would be ad valorem taxes on locations and very large taxes on
extraction of natural resources. And the "goodness" or "badness" of a
tax depends on the use of the proceeds. Some things are better done by
government.
> An asset tax would fit that idea, about one or
> two tenths of a percent of assets over one million might raise a lot of
> badly needed money, but would not take all of the assets from anybody
> even in a hundred years, the exact percentage could be regulated to meet
> minimal needs.
10 years ago or so it was calculated that a 2% tax on all assets would
raise as much as the current income tax. Based on that I GUESSED that a
1% tax on capital assets with a 3% tax on location rents would raise as
much revenue as the current income tax.
> Any energy tax will hurt the poor the most,
> and a big sales tax or value added tax really hurts the economy, I have
> even canceled a purchase because of a 6 percent sales tax.
A tax on oil that is used to fund a quarterly 2008 like stimulus would do
wonders for conservation, arresting climate change, conservation, trade
imbalance, jobs, and alternative fuels and would not hurt the poor.
> The senate may pass the bill, but it may not
> matter much, government borrowing will still harm the world economies,
> fear has been causing more caution in investing since the beginning of
> the election campaign last year.
So long as your money gains value just sitting in your account then there
is no need to "invest".
> That fear seems to be increasing, the idea
> of mandatory health care premiums plus the cap and trade taxes may be
> more than the average person even wants to hear about.
I would forgo the "cap and trade". And the proper points about health
care is not being made by the congress or the president.
> It is claimed Bush I lost the election because
> he reluctantly signed a bill raising taxes.
That was daddy Bush and his "read my lips". He lost the election because
the economy was in the ditch and that was back when Americans actually
still had a vague clue about the economy.
Hipupchuck
Jerry Okamura
Jerry Okamura
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
the ocean level will rise. If it rises, it will rise all over the world.
How much it rises could mean that land on these islands which are not above
the sea level, will be below the sea level
Bill Ward
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:h3077...@news5.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:36:56 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:h2uic...@news7.newsguy.com...
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:45:25 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h2u7m...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:56:20 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we the information I said we need? Not that I am aware of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then our first priority will be to educate Jerry.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am waiting. Are you the one who is going to educate me? What is
>>>>> your response to what I said.
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested, Jerry. It has been like educating a queue ball.
>>>> I was illustrating the futility of all the current science and
>>>> reality awareness.
>>>>
>>> You are not "interested" because you cannot defend your position?
>>
>> No. I'm not interested because you are too damned stupid or evil to
>> grasp reality.
>>
> How do you know if you don't try to educate me?
Give it up, Jerry. The reason he won't try to "educate" you is that he
doesn't actually understand what he believes. He has faith, but can't
exactly explain why. All he can do is insult. There's a lot of that
going around. For some reason, they think everyone else is so dumb we'll
be fooled by it.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
He has faith"
laughing, same bs from bill, just a different day.....
Bill Ward
The first question you should ask is, "Exactly where is the physical
evidence that unequivocally shows CO2 is able to significantly raise the
surface temperature?".
You'll get a lot of general links, and some arm waving about "everybody
knows" it's true, but never an actual quote or explanation that can stand
up to scrutiny. All they have are arguments from authority, which they
treat as gospel.
What A. Fool
<okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Aren't the islands there getting bigger from lava running
into the sea?
Sorry, even that causes sea level to rise a little.
Maybe it will be fun to find a pier that has been
there a long time, mark high tide, and sit and watch
how many times the water goes above the mark.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"The first question you should ask is, "Exactly where is the
physical evidence that unequivocally shows CO2 is able to
general links, and some arm waving about "everybody knows" it's true,
but never an actual quote or explanation that can stand up to
scrutiny. All they have are arguments from authority, which they
treat as gospel. "
wow, challenge bill ward on facts that contradict his assertions, and
you get avoidance, and pompous posts. So what you have is somebody
who neglects and avoids observed physical phenomena, when he is
pressed, instead of providing an actual information correlating his
assertions to reality, he waves his arms, or attacks the messenger.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
yes, it is established bill avoids the facts, im glad you undertsand
that.
What A. Fool
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:37:18 -1000, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>[snip]
>> What in the world are you talking about. The global warming theory
>> predicts the ocean level will rise. If it rises, it will rise all over
>> the world. How much it rises could mean that land on these islands which
>> are not above the sea level, will be below the sea level
>
>The first question you should ask is, "Exactly where is the physical
>evidence that unequivocally shows CO2 is able to significantly raise the
>surface temperature?".
>
>You'll get a lot of general links, and some arm waving about "everybody
>knows" it's true, but never an actual quote or explanation that can stand
>up to scrutiny. All they have are arguments from authority, which they
>treat as gospel.
Maybe the problem is, we just don't have enough satellites;
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?sensorName=all&order=newest&sequence=data
No Data () 35mm Camera () 3B4XRT () AATSR () AC () ACE () ACRIM () ADEOS
() AIRS () AIRSAR () ALI () AMSR-E () AMSU () Apogee AP8p () Apollo ()
Apollo 17 () Aqua () Artist's Rendering () ASAR () ASTER () ATLAS () ATM
() Aura () AVHRR () AVIRIS () CAD/CAM () CaIIK Camera () CCD () CERES ()
CLAES () Cluster () Composite () CORONA () CREAM () CZCS () Daedelus ()
DEM () Digital Camera () DMSP () EarthKAM () EIT () EO-1 () EPA () ERBE
() ERS () ERS 1 () ERTS () ETM+ () EUV () FOC () FUSE () FUV () FY 2 ()
Galileo () GCPC () GEMS () GEOSAT () Geotail () GLAS () GMS 4 () GMS 5
() GOES () GOES 10 () GOES 11 () GOES 12 () GOES 6 () GOES 7 () GOES 8
() GOES 9 () GOMOS () GRACE () HALOE () Hasselblad 70mm Electr… () HENA
() HILT () HIRDLS () HIRS () HRDI () HSB () HST () Hyperion () ICESat ()
IKONOS () IMAGE () Imager () IMP 8 () IR4 () ISAMS () ISCCP () ISS ()
Jason-1 () JERS 1 () Landsat () Landsat 2 () Landsat 3 () Landsat 7 ()
LASCO () LASCO/C2 () LASCO/C3 () LENA () LIS () Lunar Prospector () LVIS
() Mariner 10 () Mariner 9 () MAS () MDI () MERIS () Meteor 3 ()
Meteosat () METEOSAT 6 () MFI () MGS () Microlab 1 () MIPAS () MISR ()
MLS () MOC () Model Data () MODIS () MOLA () MOPITT () MSS () MWR ()
NCAR () NCGIA () NEAR () NLR () NOAA () NOAA 10 () NOAA 11 () NOAA 12 ()
NOAA 14 () NOAA 16 () NOAA 7 () NOAA 8 () NOAA 9 () NSCAT () NSIPP ()
OLS () Omega Dropwindsonde () OMI () OTD () Panoramic Camera () PEM ()
PET () PIXIE () POES () Polar () Poseidon () PR () PSPT () QuickBird ()
QuikSCAT () RA-2 () RADARSAT 1 () RHESSI () SAMPEX () SAR () SBUV ()
SCIAMACHY () SeaStar () SeaWiFS () SeaWinds () Seismic Recording Netw…
() Seismic Recording Netw… () Siesmometer () SIR-A () SIR-C/X-SAR () SLR
() SMMR () SOHO () Solid State Imaging Ca… () SOLSTICE () SORCE () Space
Shuttle () SPOT 4 () SRTM () SSM/I () SUSIM () SWE () SXI () TAO ()
TDRSS () Terra () TES () TIM () TM () TMI () TOMS () TOVS () TRACE ()
TRITON Array () TRMM () ULDB () UVVIS () VAULT () VGT-S10 () Vidicon ()
Viking () VIRS () VIS () VISSR () Voyager 1 () WAVES () Wind () WINDII
() X-Ray Imaging Spectrom… () XPS () Yohkoh ()
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:Note: The author of this message requested that it not be
archived. This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jul 14,
6:45 pm" Talking to yourself again?"
laughing, are you going to speak for bill? Now, based on the fact you
dont stand by your words beyond 6 days, he would be better represented
by a different troll other than you...
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:4bqdncUDxOSndM7X...@giganews.com...
Bill, we have been through this.
The links presented to you were not 'general', but very specifically showing
theoretical and physical evidence of the of CO2 causing global warming. Here
are only two example papers of the long list of papers that stand
unchallenged on this subject :
Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
And the very detailed spectrum analysis of Schrama, showing a 3.2 W/m^2
global warming if CO2 would be doubled :
http://home.hccnet.nl/e.schrama/radiative_transport_coart.pdf
I know you dismis these papers as 'irrelevant' because you have your own
theory about how temperature is "regulated".
You cannot simply shove such papers aside without showing where they are
mistaken.
So they still stand and they are still awaiting counter proof.
And these are just 2 papers...
Rob
What A. Fool
Rob Dekker
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:jto855ddm2nv0necn...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> And the very detailed spectrum analysis of Schrama, showing a 3.2 W/m^2
>> global warming if CO2 would be doubled :
>> http://home.hccnet.nl/e.schrama/radiative_transport_coart.pdf
>
> temperatures decline since then?
>
>> I know you dismis these papers as 'irrelevant'
>
> We have 14 �C atm, freezing my ass off.
Peter, you are such a moron.
Current temperature is 15 C because it is raining.
Nurnberg wheather average low around this time of the year is 21 C high and
12 C low.
Yesterday you had 21 C high and 14 C low. A bit on the high side, but
otherwise normal.
Nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
Now go and concentrate on your work, because FrankenExpress does not
appreciate it when you post news group messages from your work station.
Rob
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:" Go away, nutcase, but first answer my question."
lauhing, maybe you should go away, but dont answer or reply 0because
you have nothing to offer, dont post words that stay longer than six
days, oh yeah, dont pass go....
Bill Ward
Thanks for so quickly confirming my post, Rob.
Readers will note that you have provided no specific explanation that can
withstand scrutiny. Instead, you posted general links to two papers
without quoting the section(s) you believe shows how CO2 can
significantly affect surface temperatures in the presence of an excess of
water. Without that, any rebuttal I give will be met with the claim that
I responded to the wrong part.
If you want to play, you need to show you understand enough about what
you believe to explain the process in your own words. If you can't do
that, you obviously won't understand my rebuttal, and I would be wasting
my time, again.
If you have been paying attention, you might know I have previously
addressed both those papers. Both ignore convection and fail to explain
how radiation can transfer net energy through an optically dense gas in
local thermodynamic equilibrium.
I'm looking forward to your explanation of how CO2 affects surface
temperatures, and the ensuing discussion. Are you up to the challenge?
If so, you may want to review these:
http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
(Dr. Noor van Andel)
http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
(Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi)
Bill Ward
Thanks for so quickly confirming my post, Rob.
Jerry Okamura
Probably true.
Jerry Okamura
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
What A. Fool
<spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>
>> And the very detailed spectrum analysis of Schrama, showing a 3.2 W/m^2
>> global warming if CO2 would be doubled :
>> http://home.hccnet.nl/e.schrama/radiative_transport_coart.pdf
>
>Ah, and how do you explain a CO2 increase of 21 ppmv since 2000, when
>temperatures decline since then?
>
>> I know you dismis these papers as 'irrelevant'
>
>No, I simply burn them... to heat my bureau.
>We have 14 °C atm, freezing my ass off.
>Your Schrama toilet paper is just in time to limber up.
>
>C'mon, show us some more "facts", because paper is not burning very long.
>Maybe you post some dried IPCC camel dung now, enjoying my heating stove.
I don't know how anybody can be idiot enough to talk
about doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration.
But anyway, the thing that determines the mean
air temperature a couple of meters above sea level is
mean barometric pressure, as long as it is less than
15 PSI, the mean temperature is not going to change
much, barometric pressure has a lot to do with free
air vapor pressures.
The cap and trade bill as written will do NOTHING
to reduce carbon emissions, all it will do is cost everybody
more money, is that the objective?
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:56Cdnby_4JJtKcnX...@giganews.com...
Hi Bill,
With all due respect, but we have already had that conversation in a long, interesting, discussion on this a few months ago.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/2f94da9018b883cf/d38a988ac5f5f3a7?lnk=raot#
We both used our own words and understanding.
This thread ended with the summary posting that I wrote.
Hi Bill,
I appreciate the conversation, but I think the postings keep growing in size with sections that are near-duplicates of each other.
Allow me to summarize our opinions a bit on what I think the main issues are in this discussion :
(1) Direct influence of doubling of CO2 in atmosphere :
Accepted GHG theory and models estimate that a doubling of CO2 will (without feedback) result in a 1.2 C increase of global
temperature.
Miskolczi estimated this number (without feedback) is 0.48 C increase of global temperature.
Rob thinks that standard GHG models are the right one, but is happy to investigate why Miskolczi thinks it is a factor 2 lower.
Not sure exactly if Bill agrees with Miskolczi or thinks that the direct influence of CO2 is completely nonexistent.
I would like to know if (for this issue (1)) you accept Miskolczi's 0.48 C number or have another number in mind.
(2) Schrama did a spectrum analysis based on radiative transfer model that shows that a CO2 doubling causes 'directly' (without
feedback) a flux imbalance of about 3 W/m^2, causing global warming. Reasoning is that increased CO2 as GHG affects the outbound IR
window to space (around 15u) through wich radiation can escape to space. This window tightens a bit, reducing outbound radiation all
through the atmosphere but has the most profound forcing (heating) effect around 12 km altitude.
Miskolczi uses LTE and radiative balance (near the ground) as a tool to eliminate the boundary condition (of Earth having a surface)
in the Eddington differential equations.
Bill assumes LTE and radiative balance holds, no matter what, and thus direct GHG influence on temperature is nonexisting.
Main reason for this opinion is that WV traps heat close to the ground and convection causes transport of WV to higher (up to 5km)
altitude, where the heat can escape through radiation, unaffected by GHGs. There is no CO2 influence in Bill's scheme.
Rob sees no reason why this direct CO2 effect at 12 km would be directly affected by WV or LTE and convection at much lower
altitudes.
Note that Schrama's paper reports only on 'direct' influence of CO2 (issue (1) above), and not on any feedback mechanism. Schama
explains this limitation in his paper.
(3) About feedback mechanisms :
Accepted GHG theory and models believe that WV in the troposphere will create a positive feedback mechanism, because WV is a strong
GHG. Estimated feedback would be around 2X, based on paleoclimate analysis.
Miskolczi thinks there is a strong negative feedback mechanism, due to convection and latent heat in the troposphere.
We have not yet discussed much about feedback mechanism, but let me summarize what I understand from your position :
Bill agrees with Miskolczi in that even if GHG have a direct effect, that convection and latent heat cause a strong negative
feedback, essentially eliminating global warming.
Rob thinks that accepted GHG models are right, but is willing to look at and understand any other feedback mechanisms.
I would like to discuss feedback mechanisms. I posted Miskolczi's reasoning (using latent heat as negative feedback) but think that
that he calculated a irrelevant number.
Is this pretty close ?
Rob
Now I would be happy to respond to all line items below, but I'm not so sure if that changes anything about the conclusions (above)
so far.
If you want me to respond to line items, then please say so, and I will answer in that side thread.
> If so, you may want to review these:
>
> http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
> (Dr. Noor van Andel)
>
> http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
> (Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi)
>
We discussed both of these papers in the thread in depth.
Summary of our discussion above.
>
>
>
>
Rob Dekker
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message news:enn855l2hljv8hcv3...@4ax.com...
But not everywhere....
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/weather/britains-hottest-june-for-three-years-14373572.html
http://www.heraldbanner.com/local/local_story_179011347.html
and globally, we are still at the peak.
For example, the 'coldest' year this decade (2008) is still in the top 10 hottests years in a century.
We have a loooong way to go down before we could consider temps as 'normal'.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0127-temperature.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
>
>
>
Bill Ward
I don't think the summary is complete. I don't see a "next article" link
and I believe you bailed out of that discussion after failing to answer
the questions in my last post of the series. Here's the reply you
ignored:
<begin repost>
> Here it is again :
[RD]
> Did Schrama make a mistake in his spectral analysis leading to 3.15
> W/m^2 forcing ? Here is the paper again :
> http://home.hccnet.nl/e.schrama/radiative_transport_coart.pdf
[BW]
Same question, same answer. The error is in omitting convection from his
model. He acknowledges it as follows (last page):
"A weakness of the radiative transfer model approach is that it can not
easily insert a feedback mechanism to the hydrologic cycle on Earth.
Global warming would change the hydrologic cycle because a temperature
increase would affect terms like the evaporation and transpiration, and
cloud formation. An increment in the cloud coverage would be a negative
feed-back in the climate system."
Miskolczi includes the hydrologic cycle. Keep studying and you may have
a "Eureka" moment when you see it. Good luck.
<end repost>
I still haven't seen an explanation in your own words of the mechanism by
which CO2 is able to significantly heat the surface in the presence of
water vapor.
Thanks for posting the link to the prior discussion. The nice thing about
archived NGs is that determined readers can go back to that discussion
and see exactly what I meant at the beginning of this post. The process
of quietly snipping portions of my post you can't address is not
conducive to a meaningful discussion. It looks more like an attempt to
"win" an argument by any means necessary.
What A. Fool
>[snip]
>and globally, we are still at the peak.
>For example, the 'coldest' year this decade (2008) is still in the top 10 hottests years in a century.
>We have a loooong way to go down before we could consider temps as 'normal'.
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
>http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0127-temperature.html
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
What is normal?
I would like to see a climate where no energy is needed
to make indoor living space comfortable.
The problems are local or regional, it is a waste of
money and manpower to average global temperatures.
That money could be better spent on dams below
glaciers and in mitigation of any actual rising sea level.
The Maldives is not a good example, sea level
is being used to get money for an economy that has no
product other than tourism.
My main reason for being skeptical is the change
in so many of the methods, locations, units and hardware
used in the global averaging process.
Just tell me about what year all thermometers
changed to digital, about what year all the east Europe stations
closed down, about what year many stations finally switched
to Celsius, about what year most stations that were human
recorded changed to automatic temperature recording, about
what year analog sensors changed to digital sensors?
And about what year the IPCC was formed, and
about what year James Hansen became a major executive
in the process.
Anybody can be wrong, anybody can get on the
wrong track and really believe in something, but good
scientists do everything possible to remove bias from
experimental data and interpretation.
There is no question that GHGs are the only
thing that cools the atmosphere, so who can argue
that more GHGs can do anything but cool it more?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> Mr. "Nervous Fat Fingers" Clumpshitaccident.
interesting, you make up words, and you say you dont understand me,
maybe you should try english instead of your idiotic dribble. And
yes, it established bill ward avoids the facts, he cannot even
correlate his assertions to reality, so it really does not matter how
stupid you want to act, bills avoidance is well documented in this
group....
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
translation, bill only wants to play, if he can make up the rules, if
he can change them when he feels its ok, and if can move the goal
posts, oh yeah, and most importantly he does not need to hold himself
or his sources to the same standard that he holds others to, now whats
not fair about that?
Rob Dekker
......
As both Schama and Miskolczi assert, water vapor and convection insert a
"feedback mechanism".
Any feedback mechanism falls under point (3) of the summary.
Still, I still have not seen a summary of your position on point (1) and
(2),
that is, EXCLUDING feedback mechanisms like convection and water vapor.
So before we talk about feedback mechanisms (point (3)) in more depth, can
you at least confirm
that we are done with points (1) and (2), or else give your opinion on these
?
>
> Thanks for posting the link to the prior discussion. The nice thing about
> archived NGs is that determined readers can go back to that discussion
> and see exactly what I meant at the beginning of this post. The process
> of quietly snipping portions of my post you can't address is not
> conducive to a meaningful discussion. It looks more like an attempt to
> "win" an argument by any means necessary.
>
As above, the unanswered points have to do with feedback mechanisms,
while we were discussing primary mechanisms (points 1 (qualitative) and 2
(quantitative)).
Are we done with these ? Or can we add your opinion to these points ?
>
Bill Ward
On point 1, my position,as clearly stated previously, is that CO2 has an
insignificant effect on surface temperatures. I use "insignificant" to
mean non-catastrophic, inconsequential, and difficult to measure.
I'm not sure how you expect to exclude the feedbacks like WV and
convection from the system. That's what got the IPCC models in trouble.
The feedbacks are there, you just have to deal with them. It's a system
with no convenient place to break the loop.
I don't have an exact number in mind for CO2 doubling, and I think
anyone that claims to know is either very brave or very reckless. My
intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global panic,
not to find a precise value.
On point 2, I do not agree with your assumption that "convection causes
transport of WV to higher (up to 5km) altitudes". Convection reaches
into the stratosphere at times, but usually stays in the troposphere,
which reaches to 17km in the tropics, where most cooling occurs. The
tropopause is apparently caused by convection becoming non-adiabatic due
to radiation losses.
Also, LTE is not simply used to "correct the boundary condition" in the
Eddington equations. It is an observable phenomenon that shows the
Eddington equations as used are not applicable to the Earths atmosphere.
The "boundary problem" is an artifact of using the wrong model. LTE is a
better "model" because it more accurately represents the boundary
interface, and is valid at least up through the troposphere.
> So before we talk about feedback mechanisms (point (3)) in more depth,
> can you at least confirm that we are done with points (1) and (2), or
> else give your opinion on these?
See above.
>> Thanks for posting the link to the prior discussion. The nice thing
>> about archived NGs is that determined readers can go back to that
>> discussion and see exactly what I meant at the beginning of this post.
>> The process of quietly snipping portions of my post you can't address
>> is not conducive to a meaningful discussion. It looks more like an
>> attempt to "win" an argument by any means necessary.
>>
>>
> As above, the unanswered points have to do with feedback mechanisms,
> while we were discussing primary mechanisms (points 1 (qualitative) and
> 2 (quantitative)).
> Are we done with these ? Or can we add your opinion to these points?
First I think you need to address the points I made above. I see no
necessity or even a valid way to open the climate feedback loop.
Why do you want to try to separate the discussion?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:" LTE is a better "model" because it more accurately represents
the boundary interface, and is valid at least up through the
troposphere."
laughing, you mean it give you the results you want, but that has
nothing to do with reality....
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:fsydnfMmBYLn-cvX...@giganews.com...
OK. I know you think it is 'insignificant'. But is it insignificant because you do not think there is any primary CO2 forcing,
or do you think it is insignificant because convection (with WV) causes a strong enough negative feedback so that surface temps are
not affected ?
>
> I'm not sure how you expect to exclude the feedbacks like WV and
> convection from the system. That's what got the IPCC models in trouble.
>
> The feedbacks are there, you just have to deal with them. It's a system
> with no convenient place to break the loop.
Not exclude. Simply first identify the primary effect.
If there is no primary effect, then there is no reason to talk about feedback mechanisms, is there ?
If CO2 has no effect at all, then neither convection, nor WV content (at various altitudes) will change.
So it's kind of important to know where you stand on this....
>
> I don't have an exact number in mind for CO2 doubling, and I think
> anyone that claims to know is either very brave or very reckless.
Many scientists have been estimating the primary influence for more than 100 years, using increasingly creative and more accurate
methods.
All this work over time resulted in numbers that are now published by the IPCC and others.
> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global panic,
> not to find a precise value.
Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
Knowing what the IPCC and Schrama publish are causing the concern that now roams the planet.
So do you agree with their numbers, but do you not think it is cause for concern ?
Or do you not agree with their numbers, maybe because you believe there is a strong negative feedback mechanism which will
effectively nullify the primary cause ?
If the latter, then it is time we talk about feedback mechanisms, convection, WV content, radiation at altitude and adiabatic
cooling.
>
> On point 2, I do not agree with your assumption that "convection causes
> transport of WV to higher (up to 5km) altitudes". Convection reaches
> into the stratosphere at times, but usually stays in the troposphere,
> which reaches to 17km in the tropics, where most cooling occurs. The
> tropopause is apparently caused by convection becoming non-adiabatic due
> to radiation losses.
OK. Up to 17 km it is.
>
> Also, LTE is not simply used to "correct the boundary condition" in the
> Eddington equations. It is an observable phenomenon that shows the
> Eddington equations as used are not applicable to the Earths atmosphere.
> The "boundary problem" is an artifact of using the wrong model. LTE is a
> better "model" because it more accurately represents the boundary
> interface, and is valid at least up through the troposphere.
OK. Not sure why that is so important, but if you want to use LTE to explain GW or CO2 forcing or any feedback mechanisms, please
use it.
>
>> So before we talk about feedback mechanisms (point (3)) in more depth,
>> can you at least confirm that we are done with points (1) and (2), or
>> else give your opinion on these?
>
> See above.
>
>>> Thanks for posting the link to the prior discussion. The nice thing
>>> about archived NGs is that determined readers can go back to that
>>> discussion and see exactly what I meant at the beginning of this post.
>>> The process of quietly snipping portions of my post you can't address
>>> is not conducive to a meaningful discussion. It looks more like an
>>> attempt to "win" an argument by any means necessary.
>>>
>>>
>> As above, the unanswered points have to do with feedback mechanisms,
>> while we were discussing primary mechanisms (points 1 (qualitative) and
>> 2 (quantitative)).
>
>> Are we done with these ? Or can we add your opinion to these points?
>
> First I think you need to address the points I made above.
I just did.
> I see no necessity or even a valid way to open the climate feedback loop.
>
> Why do you want to try to separate the discussion?
>
Once again, because without a primary cause, feedback has no influence, which would explain your resistance to talk about feedback.
On the other hand, if you admit a primary cause, but you believe that feedback is strong and negative, then it would explain your
position (that we should not worry about GW at all).
So before we proceed, I would like to know what you think : strong negative feedback, or no primary cause ?
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:fsydnfMmBYLn-cvX...@giganews.com...
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:40:44 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
>>>> (2) Schrama did a spectrum analysis based on radiative transfer model
>>>> that shows that a CO2 doubling causes 'directly' (without feedback) a
>>>> flux imbalance of about 3 W/m^2, causing global warming. Reasoning is
>>>> that increased CO2 as GHG affects the outbound IR window to space
>>>> (around 15u) through wich radiation can escape to space. This window
>>>> tightens a bit, reducing outbound radiation all through the atmosphere
>>>> but has the most profound forcing (heating) effect around 12 km
> On point 2, I do not agree with your assumption that "convection causes
> transport of WV to higher (up to 5km) altitudes". Convection reaches
> into the stratosphere at times, but usually stays in the troposphere,
> which reaches to 17km in the tropics, where most cooling occurs. The
> tropopause is apparently caused by convection becoming non-adiabatic due
> to radiation losses.
One additional note : At 17 km altitude, the temperature of air is -55 C (average), or about 220 K.
If most of the radiative cooling comes from that altitude, with the tropospher being opague for IR, then Earth would look like 220
K.
In reality, it looks like 255 K, which indicates 5 km (or lower due to the atmosphere not being 'black' in IR).
We had a discussion about this before:
Bill:>>> That 255K corresponds to the upper troposphere, above about half the
>>> atmosphere, and is confirmed by satellite observations. Some (~20%?)
>>> of the radiation emitted by the surface is unaffected by GHGs, and
>>> under clear skies escapes unimpeded to space.
Rob:>> Bill, you are confused. Or you forgot the point you were making (about
>> CO2 being irrelevant in the troposphere).
>> First of all, 255 K is 33 K lower than average surface temp. At 6.5 K/km
>> troposphere temp decrease with altitude, 255 K thus indicates an
>> altitude of 5 km.
>> That is at the very bottom of the atmosphere and even in the lower
>> portion of the troposphere itself (which extends to about 17km
>> altitude).
Bill:> It's above about half of the atmosphere and is where the photons begin to
> escape from the rising, less dense air.
So it IR radiation comes from 5km or less.
Now if you still think that this radiation it is unaffected by GHG absorption or IR, then look at the spectrum of the outbound
radiation :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
I'm sure you notice the GHG absorption bands in this spectrum.
This also means that maybe below 5km, convection may play the majority role, but above 5km, radiation and GHGs are the dominating
heat transfer method.
And there is still plenty of CO2 (and WV too) above 5km as the spectrum indicates.
Rob
Bill Ward
The ones I've seen seem to vary quite a lot amongst themselves. Which
one is right, and why?
>> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global
>> panic, not to find a precise value.
>
> Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
I like to think of it as showing a more plausible mechanism. If someone
can show me where I'm wrong. I'll change my thinking.
Ok, I'll lay it out again. Since the surface and atmosphere are in local
thermodynamic equilibrium from water vapor, the atmosphere cannot
transmit LWIR that is affected by GHGs. The LWIR that is not affected by
GHGs can be radiated directly to space, assuming no cloud cover. All
LWIR is thus either emitted directly to space, or is absorbed and
converted to sensible heat by particulates or GHGs before it can reach
space. None of that so far involves feedbacks. Can we agree on that?
Now the primary cooling mechanisms can be split into direct radiation to
space, which is unaffected by GHGs, and convection, which is also
unaffected by GHGs.
Convection is a much larger heat transfer mechanism which involves
sensible heat conduction to surface winds (think "wind chill factor"),
evaporation of water to WV carrying large amounts (2500 kJ/kg) of latent
heat, plus the heat deposited in the boundary layer from the absorption
of the LWIR described above. All are lifted upward because the air is
warmer than the surroundings, and cool at the dry lapse rate. When the
temperature is low enough, the WV condenses, the latent heat is released,
and the cloud billows to a higher altitude, cooling at the wet lapse
rate, also radiating broadband, losing energy as it rises.
In clear air, dry thermals also lift sensible heat upward, cooling at the
dry lapse rate until the optical density is low enough to allow the LWIR
photons to escape to space. That loss of energy makes the expansion no
longer adiabatic, forming the tropopause, and continues into the
stratosphere, where CO2 can play a cooling role by converting thermal
energy into LWIR and radiating it to space.
What part of the above requires a separate "feedback" to be valid?
CO2 can play no significant part in the troposphere because of convection
and is a coolant in the stratosphere. Why do you think it has some sort
of "forcing"? What "primary cause" can CO2 provide under those
conditions?
Now, do you seriously think that focusing solely on radiation models
while omitting convection and latent heat will adequately describe the
cooling process? I don't, and apparently neither does Schrama.
That's why I'm not really interested in Schrama's paper, the IPCC models
or any of the other analyses that ignore LTE. They simply start with the
wrong assumptions. Can you give me any good reason why you think they
could be valid, other than an appeal to authority?
Do you disagree with any of the concepts in my explanation?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
If someone can show me where I'm wrong."
na, been there done that, and you came up short in the honesty/
integrity department, but dont give up on yourself yet....
Bill Ward
In the stratosphere the CO2 is emitting 15u to space. I suspect the
graph is based on a radiation model, not satellite observations.
> This also means that maybe below 5km, convection may play the majority
> role, but above 5km, radiation and GHGs are the dominating heat transfer
> method.
>
> And there is still plenty of CO2 (and WV too) above 5km as the spectrum
> indicates.
The better to radiate from. LTE still applies.
And there's still convection up to the tropopause. Check out the intro
to this book:
NON-LTE RADIATIVE TRANSFER IN THE ATMOSPHERE
by M López-Puertas (Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC, Spain) &
F W Taylor (University of Oxford, UK)
<http://www.worldscibooks.com/environsci/4650.html>
<begin quote>
[Regarding the troposphere]
The upper boundary is the level where the overlying atmosphere is of such
a low density that a substantial amount of radiative cooling to space can
occur in the thermal infrared range of the spectrum. At this level,
called the tropopause, radiation cools rising air so efficiently that the
temperature tends to become constant with height and convection ceases.
Figs. 1.2 and 1.3 show that the tropopause varies in height over about
6km with latitude, being highest (around 16km) in the tropics, where
solar heating is greatest, but it is generally quite a sharp feature in
the temperature profile everywhere.
[... omit description of lapse rate...]
The lapse rate above the tropopause tends to zero (i.e.constant
temperature with height) because there is no longer enough absorption
above the layer at most wavelengths to stop emitted photons from reaching
space. Each layer is then heated by radiation from the optically thick
atmosphere below, and cooled by radiation to space; to first order height
is no longer important. This region is called the stratosphere; it is
stratified in the sense that density decreases monotonically with height,
and therefore the layers do not try to move up or down through each other
as in the troposphere. If the stratosphere is modeled as an optically
thin slab of (vanishingly small) emissivity c, its temperature Tstras can
be related to the effective radiative, or equivalent blackbody,
temperature of the Earth, TEarth.
<end quote>
Does that help? Maybe his words are clearer than mine.
He seems to think the TEarth is related to the stratosphere T, not the
troposphere T.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
bill has some misconceptions about the middle atmosphere.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/39939.pdf
"LARGE-AMPLITUDE GRAVITY-WAVE BREAKING OVER THE GREENLAND LEE
AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORMATION OF DOWNSTREAM SYNOPTIC-SCALE
TROPOPAUSE FOLDING AND STRATOSPHERIC-TROPOSPHERIC EXCHANGE
Melvyn A. Shapiro1, Simon Low-Nam2, Haraldur Olafsson3, James Doyle4
and Piotr K. Smolarkiewicz2
1NOAA/Environmental Technology Laboratory, Boulder, CO
2National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
3University of Iceland, Icelandic Meteorological Office, Reykjavik,
Iceland
4Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of mountain waves for numerical
weather prediction is underscored by the numerous
studies that document their impact on the atmospheric
momentum balance (e.g., Eliassen and Palm 1961),
turbulence generation (e.g., Lilly 1978), and the creation
of severe downslope winds (e.g., Smith 1985). Largeamplitude
internal gravity waves may be generated as a
consequence of stably stratified air that is forced to rise
over topography. Amplification of upward-propagating
gravity waves occurs, in part, due to the decrease in
atmospheric density with height and may result in
subsequent wave overturning and turbulent breakdown
(e.g., Bacmeister and Schoeberl 1988)."
Rob Dekker
Mmm. No.
It matches the spectrum as measured by the Nimbus 4 satellite.
Here is a better picture :
http://books.google.com/books?id=6xUpdPOPLckC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=infrared+spectrum+of+atmosphere&source=bl&ots=NnOMeHZgOy&sig=eyycqJD9xW2mLWxBExoisL1OJqs&hl=en&ei=yedWSqjNB4WYsgOk5_nzAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
Notice figure 4.1 and also the text below figure 4.1:
"The envelope of the emission spectrum is very close to the spectrum emitted
from a blackbody with a temperature of 290 K, which is about the temperature
of the surface. It is evident that a large portion of thermal infrared
energy is trapped by various gases in the atmosphere".
So the IR radiation as measured from space comes from the lower troposphere,
mostly the surface. Unfortunately, most of that energy is absorbed by GHGs
in the atmosphere.
If IR radiation was mainly from the upper troposphere, then the envelope
would indicate a different (lower) temperature.
If IR radiation from CO2 in the stratosphere would be dominant, then we
would see peaks (not valleys) in the CO2 absorption bands.
None of that happens though.
So GHG matters !
>> This also means that maybe below 5km, convection may play the majority
>> role, but above 5km, radiation and GHGs are the dominating heat transfer
>> method.
>>
>> And there is still plenty of CO2 (and WV too) above 5km as the spectrum
>> indicates.
>
> The better to radiate from. LTE still applies.
If you say so. But the IR radiation does get affected (absorbed) by GHGs at
every level in the atmosphere.
Else we would observe no absorption bands in the outgoing IR spectrum.
Can we at least agree on this ?
>
> And there's still convection up to the tropopause. Check out the intro
> to this book:
>
> NON-LTE RADIATIVE TRANSFER IN THE ATMOSPHERE
>
> by M L�pez-Puertas (Instituto de Astrof�sica de Andaluc�a, CSIC, Spain) &
If that were true (that the observed Tearth is related to the statosphere T)
then this would suggest that IR radiated to space is mostly from the
statosphere. If that is so, then we should not see any water absorption
bands in the outgoing spectrum.
So, no. He either did not mean that, or he made a mistake.
Also, the stratosphere does not get 'warmed' by radiation from the lower
troposphere, since it has very few IR absorbing gases (no WV for one thing).
Instead, it gets warmed by the sun, mostly through the ultraviolet
absorption spectra of oxygen and nitrogen (if I'm not mistaken).
>
>
Rob Dekker
....
>> Many scientists have been estimating the primary influence for more than
>> 100 years, using increasingly creative and more accurate methods.
>> All this work over time resulted in numbers that are now published by
>> the IPCC and others.
>
> The ones I've seen seem to vary quite a lot amongst themselves. Which
> one is right, and why?
>
We don't know that. But in science, discrepancies between measurements and
discrepancies between measurements and models or between models themselves
always have to be explained and verified and counter verified.
For climate science, it took 100 years to get where we are, and it was not
easy.
For example, until recently, there was a discrepancy between satellite and
ground measurements of the atmosphere's temperatures. And a discrepancy
between the CO2 data and temperature data from ice core samples.
Such discrepancies, while still unresolved in science, are often fuel on the
fire of sceptics, who jump on them to attack the underlying concepts.
We have seen similar attacks on the theory of evolution,
but slowly but surely science reached consensus as more and more evidence
and details are taken into consideration, and explanations are found and
verified for discrepancies inmodels and data.
We now have models, based on basic laws of physics and validated by
laboratory experiments and empical data, that match actual measurements
of temperature over long periods and wide areas of planet Earth.
So the science in general has come to a point where there is 'concensus'
between observations and models.
>>> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global
>>> panic, not to find a precise value.
>>
>> Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
>
> I like to think of it as showing a more plausible mechanism. If someone
> can show me where I'm wrong. I'll change my thinking.
>
I'll do my best to point out where I believe you make verifiable incorrect
assertions.
At the same time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if I don't know, or
cannot find the data to counter your statements.
......
>> So before we proceed, I would like to know what you think : strong
>> negative feedback, or no primary cause ?
>>
>> Rob
>
> Ok, I'll lay it out again. Since the surface and atmosphere are in local
> thermodynamic equilibrium from water vapor, the atmosphere cannot
> transmit LWIR that is affected by GHGs. The LWIR that is not affected by
> GHGs can be radiated directly to space, assuming no cloud cover. All
> LWIR is thus either emitted directly to space, or is absorbed and
> converted to sensible heat by particulates or GHGs before it can reach
> space. None of that so far involves feedbacks. Can we agree on that?
No feedback. Agreed.
But the LWIR IS affected by GHGs.
The devil is in the details : The CO2 'forcing' does not come from the part
of LWIR that is 100% absorbed,
nor does it come from LWIR that is passed through to space unimpeded.
The 'forcing' comes from the 'fringes' of the CO2 absorption spectrum.
Schrama showed that very nicely in his graphs, and it is also pretty well
explained in this
graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Look at the CO2 graph, and see that the absorption mismatch between standard
and increased CO2
graph. There is a slight mismatch, which causes the difference that is oh,
so important.
Schrama calculated 3.2 W/m^2 forcing, this graph shows 3.9 W/m^2 forcing.
But you get the idea..
Indeed, none of this has to do with feedback. This is the PRIMARY effect of
global warming.
>
> Now the primary cooling mechanisms can be split into direct radiation to
> space, which is unaffected by GHGs, and convection, which is also
> unaffected by GHGs.
>
Leave the "unaffected by GHGs" out, because I have shown clearly that that
GHGs are affecting radiative cooling of planet Earth.
About convection, I am reading your text....
> Convection is a much larger heat transfer mechanism which involves
> sensible heat conduction to surface winds (think "wind chill factor"),
> evaporation of water to WV carrying large amounts (2500 kJ/kg) of latent
> heat, plus the heat deposited in the boundary layer from the absorption
> of the LWIR described above. All are lifted upward because the air is
> warmer than the surroundings, and cool at the dry lapse rate. When the
> temperature is low enough, the WV condenses, the latent heat is released,
> and the cloud billows to a higher altitude, cooling at the wet lapse
> rate, also radiating broadband, losing energy as it rises.
>
This is a good paragraph.
You make a very convincing point how convection causes surface cooling.
There is certainly a transfer of heat from the surface to the altitude where
rain
forms (that drops back to the surface). That makes it plausible that the
surface will be cooled and the altitude (where the rain forms) will be
warmed,
counteracting adiabatic rate between these two points.
If this is true, than it would be reasonable to assume that an increase in
evaporation (due to primary global warming effect) would cause an increase
in evaporation/condensation, which would increase the surface
cooling/altitude warming effect. That means that there would be a negative
feedback mechanism for surface temperatures.
I see how you reason that and for now, I tend to agree with you.
Let me think a bit about this, and I'll be back.
But you forget an additional effect : increased WV in the atmosphere will
also increase IR absorption on fringes of WV absorption spectrum,
similar to how CO2 initiated the primary effect of GW.
That is a positive feedback mechanism.
It would be good to get some quantitative data on both these effects.
> In clear air, dry thermals also lift sensible heat upward, cooling at the
> dry lapse rate until the optical density is low enough to allow the LWIR
> photons to escape to space. That loss of energy makes the expansion no
> longer adiabatic, forming the tropopause, and continues into the
> stratosphere, where CO2 can play a cooling role by converting thermal
> energy into LWIR and radiating it to space.
>
This part I do not agree with, for the same reasons that I stated earlier.
The outbond IR spectum as measured does not confirm with your assertions of
'cooling' effects.
> What part of the above requires a separate "feedback" to be valid?
>
I identified the primary effects and feedback mechanisms in the text above.
> CO2 can play no significant part in the troposphere because of convection
> and is a coolant in the stratosphere. Why do you think it has some sort
> of "forcing"? What "primary cause" can CO2 provide under those
> conditions?
See above
>
> Now, do you seriously think that focusing solely on radiation models
> while omitting convection and latent heat will adequately describe the
> cooling process? I don't, and apparently neither does Schrama.
>
And neither do I. Feedback mechanisms are crucial.
If the feedback is negative, then there is little to worry about.
If the feedback is positive then we have a big problem.
> That's why I'm not really interested in Schrama's paper, the IPCC models
> or any of the other analyses that ignore LTE. They simply start with the
> wrong assumptions. Can you give me any good reason why you think they
> could be valid, other than an appeal to authority?
>
Schrama's paper is only about the primary effect. That is the baseline.
Feedback mechanisms will determine if that effect is a problem or not.
The IPCC works with a feedback factor of about 2 (positive).
My reasoning : I have not made up my mind yet.
As always, I'm open for solid scientific evidence and the physics need to
make sense.
> Do you disagree with any of the concepts in my explanation?
>
I disagree firmly with the part where you discard the primary effect of CO2.
The measured outbound IR spectrum simply does not agree with your
assertions.
I think you make a good point with the evaporation/condensation feedback.
That can certainly be a negative feedback, but I'll have to study that a bit
more and understand both positive and negative influences. I'll be back.
Please understand that I also have a day job, so it may take a bit of time.
Thanks for a good discussion. I appreciate that.
Rob
Rob Dekker
....
>> Many scientists have been estimating the primary influence for more than
>> 100 years, using increasingly creative and more accurate methods.
>> All this work over time resulted in numbers that are now published by
>> the IPCC and others.
>
> The ones I've seen seem to vary quite a lot amongst themselves. Which
> one is right, and why?
>
We don't know that. But in science, discrepancies between measurements and
discrepancies between measurements and models or between models themselves
always have to be explained and verified and counter verified.
For climate science, it took 100 years to get where we are, and it was not
easy.
For example, until recently, there was a discrepancy between satellite and
ground measurements of the atmosphere's temperatures. And a discrepancy
between the CO2 data and temperature data from ice core samples.
Such discrepancies, while still unresolved in science, are often fuel on the
fire of sceptics, who jump on them to attack the underlying concepts.
We have seen similar attacks on the theory of evolution,
but slowly but surely science reached consensus as more and more evidence
and details are taken into consideration, and explanations are found and
verified for discrepancies inmodels and data.
We now have models, based on basic laws of physics and validated by
laboratory experiments and empical data, that match actual measurements
of temperature over long periods and wide areas of planet Earth.
So the science in general has come to a point where there is 'concensus'
between observations and models.
>>> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global
>>> panic, not to find a precise value.
>>
>> Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
>
> I like to think of it as showing a more plausible mechanism. If someone
> can show me where I'm wrong. I'll change my thinking.
>
I'll do my best to point out where I believe you make verifiable incorrect
assertions.
At the same time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if I don't know, or
cannot find the data to counter your statements.
......
>> So before we proceed, I would like to know what you think : strong
>> negative feedback, or no primary cause ?
>>
>> Rob
>
> Ok, I'll lay it out again. Since the surface and atmosphere are in local
> thermodynamic equilibrium from water vapor, the atmosphere cannot
> transmit LWIR that is affected by GHGs. The LWIR that is not affected by
> GHGs can be radiated directly to space, assuming no cloud cover. All
> LWIR is thus either emitted directly to space, or is absorbed and
> converted to sensible heat by particulates or GHGs before it can reach
> space. None of that so far involves feedbacks. Can we agree on that?
No feedback. Agreed.
But the LWIR IS affected by GHGs.
The devil is in the details : The CO2 'forcing' does not come from the part
of LWIR that is 100% absorbed,
nor does it come from LWIR that is passed through to space unimpeded.
The 'forcing' comes from the 'fringes' of the CO2 absorption spectrum.
Schrama showed that very nicely in his graphs, and it is also pretty well
explained in this
graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Look at the CO2 graph, and see that the absorption mismatch between standard
and increased CO2
graph. There is a slight mismatch, which causes the difference that is oh,
so important.
Schrama calculated 3.2 W/m^2 forcing, this graph shows 3.9 W/m^2 forcing.
But you get the idea..
Indeed, none of this has to do with feedback. This is the PRIMARY effect of
global warming.
>
> Now the primary cooling mechanisms can be split into direct radiation to
> space, which is unaffected by GHGs, and convection, which is also
> unaffected by GHGs.
>
Leave the "unaffected by GHGs" out, because I have shown clearly that that
GHGs are affecting radiative cooling of planet Earth.
About convection, I am reading your text....
> Convection is a much larger heat transfer mechanism which involves
> sensible heat conduction to surface winds (think "wind chill factor"),
> evaporation of water to WV carrying large amounts (2500 kJ/kg) of latent
> heat, plus the heat deposited in the boundary layer from the absorption
> of the LWIR described above. All are lifted upward because the air is
> warmer than the surroundings, and cool at the dry lapse rate. When the
> temperature is low enough, the WV condenses, the latent heat is released,
> and the cloud billows to a higher altitude, cooling at the wet lapse
> rate, also radiating broadband, losing energy as it rises.
>
This is a good paragraph.
You make a very convincing point how convection causes surface cooling.
There is certainly a transfer of heat from the surface to the altitude where
rain
forms (that drops back to the surface). That makes it plausible that the
surface will be cooled and the altitude (where the rain forms) will be
warmed,
counteracting adiabatic rate between these two points.
If this is true, than it would be reasonable to assume that an increase in
evaporation (due to primary global warming effect) would cause an increase
in evaporation/condensation, which would increase the surface
cooling/altitude warming effect. That means that there would be a negative
feedback mechanism for surface temperatures.
I see how you reason that and for now, I tend to agree with you.
Let me think a bit about this, and I'll be back.
But you forget an additional effect : increased WV in the atmosphere will
also increase IR absorption on fringes of WV absorption spectrum,
similar to how CO2 initiated the primary effect of GW.
That is a positive feedback mechanism.
It would be good to get some quantitative data on both these effects.
> In clear air, dry thermals also lift sensible heat upward, cooling at the
> dry lapse rate until the optical density is low enough to allow the LWIR
> photons to escape to space. That loss of energy makes the expansion no
> longer adiabatic, forming the tropopause, and continues into the
> stratosphere, where CO2 can play a cooling role by converting thermal
> energy into LWIR and radiating it to space.
>
This part I do not agree with, for the same reasons that I stated earlier.
The outbond IR spectum as measured does not confirm with your assertions of
'cooling' effects.
> What part of the above requires a separate "feedback" to be valid?
>
I identified the primary effects and feedback mechanisms in the text above.
> CO2 can play no significant part in the troposphere because of convection
> and is a coolant in the stratosphere. Why do you think it has some sort
> of "forcing"? What "primary cause" can CO2 provide under those
> conditions?
See above
>
> Now, do you seriously think that focusing solely on radiation models
> while omitting convection and latent heat will adequately describe the
> cooling process? I don't, and apparently neither does Schrama.
>
And neither do I. Feedback mechanisms are crucial.
If the feedback is negative, then there is little to worry about.
If the feedback is positive then we have a big problem.
> That's why I'm not really interested in Schrama's paper, the IPCC models
> or any of the other analyses that ignore LTE. They simply start with the
> wrong assumptions. Can you give me any good reason why you think they
> could be valid, other than an appeal to authority?
>
Schrama's paper is only about the primary effect. That is the baseline.
Feedback mechanisms will determine if that effect is a problem or not.
The IPCC works with a feedback factor of about 2 (positive).
My reasoning : I have not made up my mind yet.
As always, I'm open for solid scientific evidence and the physics need to
make sense.
> Do you disagree with any of the concepts in my explanation?
>
I disagree firmly with the part where you discard the primary effect of CO2.
Rob Dekker
....
>> Many scientists have been estimating the primary influence for more than
>> 100 years, using increasingly creative and more accurate methods.
>> All this work over time resulted in numbers that are now published by
>> the IPCC and others.
>
> The ones I've seen seem to vary quite a lot amongst themselves. Which
> one is right, and why?
>
We don't know that. But in science, discrepancies between measurements and
discrepancies between measurements and models or between models themselves
always have to be explained and verified and counter verified.
For climate science, it took 100 years to get where we are, and it was not
easy.
For example, until recently, there was a discrepancy between satellite and
ground measurements
of the atmosphere's temperatures. And a discrepancy between the CO2 data and
temperature data
from ice core samples.
Such discrepancies, while still unresolved in science, are often fuel on the
fire of sceptics, who jump on them to
attack the underlying concepts. We have seen similar attacks on the theory
of evolution,
but slowly but surely science reached consensus as more and more evidence
and details
are taken into consideration, and explanations are found and verified for
discrepancies in
models and data.
We now have models, based on basic laws of physics and validated by
laboratory experiments,
that match measurements of temperature over long periods and wide areas of
planet Earth.
So the science in general has come to a point where there is 'concensus'
between observations and models.
>>> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global
>>> panic, not to find a precise value.
>>
>> Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
>
> I like to think of it as showing a more plausible mechanism. If someone
> can show me where I'm wrong. I'll change my thinking.
>
I'll do my best to point out where I believe you make verifiable incorrect
assertions.
At the same time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if I don't know, or
cannot find the data to counter your statements.
......
>> So before we proceed, I would like to know what you think : strong
>> negative feedback, or no primary cause ?
>>
>> Rob
>
> Ok, I'll lay it out again. Since the surface and atmosphere are in local
> thermodynamic equilibrium from water vapor, the atmosphere cannot
> transmit LWIR that is affected by GHGs. The LWIR that is not affected by
> GHGs can be radiated directly to space, assuming no cloud cover. All
> LWIR is thus either emitted directly to space, or is absorbed and
> converted to sensible heat by particulates or GHGs before it can reach
> space. None of that so far involves feedbacks. Can we agree on that?
No feedback. Agreed.
But the LWIR IS affected by GHGs.
The devil is in the details : The CO2 'forcing' does not come from the part
of LWIR that is 100% absorbed,
nor does it come from LWIR that is passed through to space unimpeded.
The 'forcing' comes from the 'fringes' of the CO2 absorption spectrum.
Schrama showed that very nicely in his graphs, and it is also pretty well
explained in this
graph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Look at the CO2 graph, and see that the absorption mismatch between standard
and increased CO2
graph. There is a slight mismatch, which causes the difference that is oh,
so important.
Schrama calculated 3.2 W/m^2 forcing, this graph shows 3.9 W/m^2 forcing.
But you get the idea..
Indeed, none of this has to do with feedback. This is the PRIMARY effect of
global warming.
>
> Now the primary cooling mechanisms can be split into direct radiation to
> space, which is unaffected by GHGs, and convection, which is also
> unaffected by GHGs.
>
Leave the "unaffected by GHGs" out, because I have shown clearly that that
GHGs are affecting radiative cooling of planet Earth.
About convection, I am reading your text....
> Convection is a much larger heat transfer mechanism which involves
> sensible heat conduction to surface winds (think "wind chill factor"),
> evaporation of water to WV carrying large amounts (2500 kJ/kg) of latent
> heat, plus the heat deposited in the boundary layer from the absorption
> of the LWIR described above. All are lifted upward because the air is
> warmer than the surroundings, and cool at the dry lapse rate. When the
> temperature is low enough, the WV condenses, the latent heat is released,
> and the cloud billows to a higher altitude, cooling at the wet lapse
> rate, also radiating broadband, losing energy as it rises.
>
This is a good paragraph.
You make a very convincing point how convection, combined with evaporation
on the surface
followed by condensation at altitude causes cooling of the surface, and
warming
at altitude.
If this is true, than it would be reasonable to assume that an increase in
evaporation (due to primary global warming effect) would cause an increase
in evaporation/condensation, which would increase the surface
cooling/altitude warming
effect. That means that there would be a negative feedback mechanism.
I see how you reason that and for now, I tend to agree with you.
Let me think a bit about this, and I'll be back.
Also, you forget thing : increased WV in the atmosphere will also increase
the primary effect of IR absorption on fringes of WV absorption spectrum,
similar to how CO2 initiated the primary effect of GW.
That is a positive feedback mechanism.
> In clear air, dry thermals also lift sensible heat upward, cooling at the
> dry lapse rate until the optical density is low enough to allow the LWIR
> photons to escape to space. That loss of energy makes the expansion no
> longer adiabatic, forming the tropopause, and continues into the
> stratosphere, where CO2 can play a cooling role by converting thermal
> energy into LWIR and radiating it to space.
>
This part I do not agree with, for the same reasons that I stated earlier.
The outbond IR spectum as measured does not confirm with your assertions of
'cooling' effects.
> What part of the above requires a separate "feedback" to be valid?
>
I identified the primary effects and feedback mechanisms in the text above.
> CO2 can play no significant part in the troposphere because of convection
> and is a coolant in the stratosphere. Why do you think it has some sort
> of "forcing"? What "primary cause" can CO2 provide under those
> conditions?
See above
>
> Now, do you seriously think that focusing solely on radiation models
> while omitting convection and latent heat will adequately describe the
> cooling process? I don't, and apparently neither does Schrama.
>
And neither do I. Feedback mechanisms are crucial.
If the feedback is negative, then there is little to worry about.
If the feedback is positive then we have a big problem.
> That's why I'm not really interested in Schrama's paper, the IPCC models
> or any of the other analyses that ignore LTE. They simply start with the
> wrong assumptions. Can you give me any good reason why you think they
> could be valid, other than an appeal to authority?
>
Schrama's paper is only about the primary effect.
That is the baseline.
Feedback mechanisms will determine if that effect is a problem or not.
The IPCC works with a feedback factor of about 2 (positive).
My reasoning : I have not made up my mind yet.
As always, I'm open for solid scientific evidence and the physics need to
make sense.
> Do you disagree with any of the concepts in my explanation?
>
I disagree firmly with the part where you discard the primary effect of CO2.
Bill Ward
Much of that is through the 10u WV window, which is unaffected, except on
the very edges, as you pointed out in the MODTRAN simulation.
> So the IR radiation as measured from space comes from the lower
> troposphere, mostly the surface. Unfortunately, most of that energy is
> absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
I know that's the IPCC party line, but I think the energy absorbed is
simply converted to heat, not "trapped". In the troposphere, the warmer
gas must convect, continuing the upward trip to the radiating layer. If
it were "trapped", there would be an increasingly warm layer with
increasing CO2, and apparently none is found.
> If IR radiation was mainly from the upper troposphere, then the envelope
> would indicate a different (lower) temperature. If IR radiation from CO2
> in the stratosphere would be dominant, then we would see peaks (not
> valleys) in the CO2 absorption bands. None of that happens though.
> So GHG matters !
The effective temperature of the CO2 emission in graph 4.1 seems to be
about 225K, which is about what I'd expect from a cooling process at
10km. It seems to me the most reasonable explanation for the lower
emission temperature is that the CO2 lower down is in LTE, and can't emit
until it can "see" space around 10km, where the optical density is lower.
Do you believe CO2, or any GHG, does anything more than convert thermal
energy to IR, and vice versa? If so, what do you think it does?
>>> This also means that maybe below 5km, convection may play the majority
>>> role, but above 5km, radiation and GHGs are the dominating heat
>>> transfer method.
>>>
>>> And there is still plenty of CO2 (and WV too) above 5km as the
>>> spectrum indicates.
>>
>> The better to radiate from. LTE still applies.
>
> If you say so. But the IR radiation does get affected (absorbed) by GHGs
> at every level in the atmosphere.
> Else we would observe no absorption bands in the outgoing IR spectrum.
>
> Can we at least agree on this ?
I'll agree that there are absorption bands in the spectrum, but I don't
see why you think that stops the resulting thermal energy from heating
the air and convecting upward. Can you explain a little more about what
you think happens to the absorbed heat?
>
>> And there's still convection up to the tropopause. Check out the intro
>> to this book:
>>
>> NON-LTE RADIATIVE TRANSFER IN THE ATMOSPHERE
>>
>> by M López-Puertas (Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC, Spain)
Can you explain why you think that? The stratosphere is about the same
temperature as the tropopause (~zero lapse rate).
> If that is so, then we should not see any
> water absorption bands in the outgoing spectrum.
> So, no. He either did not mean that, or he made a mistake.
>
> Also, the stratosphere does not get 'warmed' by radiation from the lower
> troposphere, since it has very few IR absorbing gases (no WV for one
> thing).
No CO2?
> Instead, it gets warmed by the sun, mostly through the
> ultraviolet absorption spectra of oxygen and nitrogen (if I'm not
> mistaken).
I believe that's ozone at the top of the stratosphere. If it's not
cessation of adiabatic expansion due to radiative losses that causes the
tropopause, what do you think it is?
I appreciate the links, as they allow a clear discussion of the
mechanisms involved. But notice the scaling on Fig. 4.1 is different
from the Atmospheric Transmission graph. The intensity versus radiance
scale change makes the 300K peak ~10u on the A.T. graph, and ~16u on fig.
4.1. A little bit of mixing apples and oranges that can fool the eye, if
you don't notice.
Do you still believe GHGs "trap" radiation, or can we agree that in LTE,
no net radiative transfer can occur until the air convects up to where
the optical density is low enough that photons can escape to space?
Bill Ward
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:CKWdnY9aA-6xIsvX...@giganews.com... ....
>>> Many scientists have been estimating the primary influence for more
>>> than 100 years, using increasingly creative and more accurate methods.
>>> All this work over time resulted in numbers that are now published by
>>> the IPCC and others.
>>
>> The ones I've seen seem to vary quite a lot amongst themselves. Which
>> one is right, and why?
>>
>>
> We don't know that. But in science, discrepancies between measurements
> and discrepancies between measurements and models or between models
> themselves always have to be explained and verified and counter
> verified.
I've always wondered how there could be more than one correct model for
the same system. I can see having various approximations, but they
should converge somewhere.
> For climate science, it took 100 years to get where we are, and it was
> not easy.
> For example, until recently, there was a discrepancy between satellite
> and ground measurements
> of the atmosphere's temperatures. And a discrepancy between the CO2 data
> and temperature data
> from ice core samples.
>
> Such discrepancies, while still unresolved in science, are often fuel on
> the fire of sceptics, who jump on them to attack the underlying
> concepts.
That's what makes it science instead of theology.
> We have seen similar attacks on the theory of evolution,
> but slowly but surely science reached consensus as more and more
> evidence and details are taken into consideration, and explanations are
> found and verified for discrepancies in models and data.
>
> We now have models, based on basic laws of physics and validated by
> laboratory experiments, that match measurements of temperature over
> long periods and wide areas of planet Earth.
> So the science in general has come to a point where there is 'concensus'
> between observations and models.
Science is never about consensus. That's the realm of politics.
>
>>>> My intent is simply to rule out CO2 increases as a reason for global
>>>> panic, not to find a precise value.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. But that is an opinion.
>>
>> I like to think of it as showing a more plausible mechanism. If
>> someone can show me where I'm wrong. I'll change my thinking.
>>
>>
> I'll do my best to point out where I believe you make verifiable
> incorrect assertions.
> At the same time, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if I don't
> know, or cannot find the data to counter your statements.
That's certainly fair enough. I'll do the same.
> ......
>>> So before we proceed, I would like to know what you think : strong
>>> negative feedback, or no primary cause ?
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> Ok, I'll lay it out again. Since the surface and atmosphere are in
>> local thermodynamic equilibrium from water vapor, the atmosphere cannot
>> transmit LWIR that is affected by GHGs. The LWIR that is not affected
>> by GHGs can be radiated directly to space, assuming no cloud cover.
>> All LWIR is thus either emitted directly to space, or is absorbed and
>> converted to sensible heat by particulates or GHGs before it can reach
>> space. None of that so far involves feedbacks. Can we agree on that?
>
> No feedback. Agreed.
>
> But the LWIR IS affected by GHGs.
> The devil is in the details : The CO2 'forcing' does not come from the
> part of LWIR that is 100% absorbed,
> nor does it come from LWIR that is passed through to space unimpeded.
> The 'forcing' comes from the 'fringes' of the CO2 absorption spectrum.
The photons are either absorbed or they are not. If they are absorbed,
they are converted to heat, warming the surrounding gas and forcing it to
convect upward. Do you agree with that, or do you have another
hypothesis in mind?
If they are not absorbed, then by definition, they escape to space, and
cannot be part of any warming effect.
> Schrama showed that very nicely in his graphs, and it is also pretty
> well explained in this graph
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
> Look at the CO2 graph, and see that the absorption mismatch between
> standard and increased CO2
> graph. There is a slight mismatch, which causes the difference that is
> oh, so important.
> Schrama calculated 3.2 W/m^2 forcing, this graph shows 3.9 W/m^2
> forcing. But you get the idea..
And he admits in his paper he doesn't include convection, and that it's
an important (primary?) part of the process.
>
> Indeed, none of this has to do with feedback. This is the PRIMARY effect
> of global warming.
Right. Convection does not require feedback to function.
>> Now the primary cooling mechanisms can be split into direct radiation
>> to space, which is unaffected by GHGs, and convection, which is also
>> unaffected by GHGs.
>>
>>
> Leave the "unaffected by GHGs" out, because I have shown clearly that
> that GHGs are affecting radiative cooling of planet Earth. About
> convection, I am reading your text....
The "unaffected by GHGs" refers to photons that escape directly to space.
If the photons are absorbed in the troposphere, the resulting heat will
continue to convect upward, carrying the energy to the radiation layer.
It's either one hop to space, or one hop to heat, then another to space.
Radiation doesn't wait around in a "trap".
>> Convection is a much larger heat transfer mechanism which involves
>> sensible heat conduction to surface winds (think "wind chill factor"),
>> evaporation of water to WV carrying large amounts (2500 kJ/kg) of
>> latent heat, plus the heat deposited in the boundary layer from the
>> absorption of the LWIR described above. All are lifted upward because
>> the air is warmer than the surroundings, and cool at the dry lapse
>> rate. When the temperature is low enough, the WV condenses, the latent
>> heat is released, and the cloud billows to a higher altitude, cooling
>> at the wet lapse rate, also radiating broadband, losing energy as it
>> rises.
>>
>>
> This is a good paragraph.
> You make a very convincing point how convection, combined with
> evaporation on the surface followed by condensation at altitude causes
> cooling of the surface, and warming at altitude.
>
> If this is true, than it would be reasonable to assume that an increase
> in evaporation (due to primary global warming effect) would cause an
> increase in evaporation/condensation, which would increase the surface
> cooling/altitude warming effect. That means that there would be a
> negative feedback mechanism.
>
> I see how you reason that and for now, I tend to agree with you. Let me
> think a bit about this, and I'll be back.
Thanks. I look forward to an interesting discussion.
>
> Also, you forget thing : increased WV in the atmosphere will also
> increase the primary effect of IR absorption on fringes of WV absorption
> spectrum, similar to how CO2 initiated the primary effect of GW. That is
> a positive feedback mechanism.
I've tried to clear up why I don't think absorption of LWIR in a GHG can
trap heat to have that "primary effect". If you're not convinced, please
tell me why.
>> In clear air, dry thermals also lift sensible heat upward, cooling at
>> the dry lapse rate until the optical density is low enough to allow the
>> LWIR photons to escape to space. That loss of energy makes the
>> expansion no longer adiabatic, forming the tropopause, and continues
>> into the stratosphere, where CO2 can play a cooling role by converting
>> thermal energy into LWIR and radiating it to space.
>>
>>
> This part I do not agree with, for the same reasons that I stated
> earlier. The outbond IR spectum as measured does not confirm with your
> assertions of 'cooling' effects.
From fig 4.1 in your prior post, it appears the actual radiating layer,
as opposed to the "effective" layer, is much lower than the tropopause,
and that CO2 is emitting to space from a higher (~10km?) altitude, still
below the tropopause. If so, that radiating CO2 is clearly cooling the
planet, even though not quite in the stratosphere.
If you don't agree with my version, what do you think the mechanism,
including LTE and convection, is? Why is the tropopause where it is
instead of somewhere else?
>
>> What part of the above requires a separate "feedback" to be valid?
>>
>>
> I identified the primary effects and feedback mechanisms in the text
> above.
>
>> CO2 can play no significant part in the troposphere because of
>> convection and is a coolant in the stratosphere. Why do you think it
>> has some sort of "forcing"? What "primary cause" can CO2 provide under
>> those conditions?
>
> See above
>
>
>> Now, do you seriously think that focusing solely on radiation models
>> while omitting convection and latent heat will adequately describe the
>> cooling process? I don't, and apparently neither does Schrama.
>>
>>
> And neither do I. Feedback mechanisms are crucial. If the feedback is
> negative, then there is little to worry about. If the feedback is
> positive then we have a big problem.
>
>> That's why I'm not really interested in Schrama's paper, the IPCC
>> models or any of the other analyses that ignore LTE. They simply start
>> with the wrong assumptions. Can you give me any good reason why you
>> think they could be valid, other than an appeal to authority?
>>
>>
> Schrama's paper is only about the primary effect. That is the baseline.
> Feedback mechanisms will determine if that effect is a problem or not.
> The IPCC works with a feedback factor of about 2 (positive). My
> reasoning : I have not made up my mind yet. As always, I'm open for
> solid scientific evidence and the physics need to make sense.
A positive feedback of more than 1 is unstable, and will go to a limit on
any disturbance.
>> Do you disagree with any of the concepts in my explanation?
>>
>>
> I disagree firmly with the part where you discard the primary effect of
> CO2. The measured outbound IR spectrum simply does not agree with your
> assertions.
Do you understand my explanation about CO2 not able to emit, because of
LTE, until it can reach an altitude with sufficiently low optical density?
> I think you make a good point with the evaporation/condensation
> feedback. That can certainly be a negative feedback, but I'll have to
> study that a bit more and understand both positive and negative
> influences. I'll be back.
> Please understand that I also have a day job, so it may take a bit of
> time.
I look forward to it.
> Thanks for a good discussion. I appreciate that.
Me too. Thanks.
Bruce Richmond
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:38:42 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
[snip a lot of good stuff]
It is nice to see an actual discussion in this group.
Bruce
BDR529
Yes, it is plain oldfashioned GHG absorption while Billobwab bites the dust.
g'day,
Q
--
Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!
Rob Dekker
I think I understand more about where we mismatch in thought process.
Until I have line-item feedback on your posts, I want to show you an example
which
should clear up a lot. It is a bit different than the normal explanations of
GHG effect,
and I hope you will find it interesting.
Imagine an atmosphere, which has a temperature of T1 at the bottom and T2 at
the top. Now imagine that there are no external sources of IR (no Earth
surface,
and no Sun).
If this atmosphere is fully opague in IR, then it will radiate. On the
bottom,
it will radiate energy with T1 (into the Boltzmann equation) and at the top
it
radiates T2 (into the Boltzmann equation).
So it will cool itself down by radiation, but based only on the temperatures
T1 and T2.
Now imagine that this atmosphere is NOT opague. In fact, it is fully
transparant in IR.
Classic radiation theory tells that in that case, the atmosphere CANNOT
radiate at all.
An atmosphere with CO2 and/or other GHGs will be a mix of these two :
for some spectral lines the atmosphere will be opague, for others it will be
transparant.
Radiation only happens at the absorbtion lines of the GHGs.
Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It will feel
the radiation from the bottom (T1).
There is no question about that this will warm the Earth surface. Right ?
So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect. OK. That's one
part.
Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by adiabatic
expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth.
Earth warms up and starts to radiate itself.
Assume that Earth's surface radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at
T1
(into the Boltzmann equation).
This radiation goes into the atmosphere, which filters out (absorbs) the GHG
spectral lines, and then goes to space.
On the space side, the atmosphere will still radiate (only in the GHG
spectral lines, and at T2), but now we also see T1 outside the spectral
lines,
as it came from the surface straight through the atmosphere.
So the combined spectrum measured outside is T1 outside GHG spectral lines,
and T2 inside spectral lines. Note that we do not see much 'in the middle'.
We do not 'see' the temperature distribution through the atmosphere, not do
we 'see' any effects such as convection. What radiates to space is T1 (the
surface) outside the GHG spectral lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere)
inside the GHG spectral lines.
Now what is the 'top' of the atmosphere ?
The top is the altitude where the GHGs becomes effectively opague (as seen
from space).
Because that is where the radiation comes from. For CO2, that is currently
probably
around 12km altitude so T2 for CO2 spectral lines will be -50 C or so on
average. If the concentration CO2 were to increase, then it's opagueness
depth will decrease, and thus the altitude at which it radiates will
increase.
Since 10km is still below the tropopause, this will likely lead to a
decrease in
temperature, and thus a decrease in outbound radiation. Thus it will lead to
global warming.
This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will warm up
so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming sunlight heats the
surface.
The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the atmosphere
can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and eventually also
T2)
will be determined by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
That's global warming explained with my words.
Rob
Last Post
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:CKWdnY9aA-6xIsvX...@giganews.com...
> ....
>
> > one is right, and why?
>
> We don't know that. But in science, discrepancies between measurements and
> discrepancies between measurements and models or between models themselves
> always have to be explained and verified and counter verified.
>
> For climate science, it took 100 years to get where we are, and it was not
> easy.
> For example, until recently, there was a discrepancy between satellite and
> ground measurements of the atmosphere's temperatures. And a discrepancy
> between the CO2 data and temperature data from ice core samples.
>
> Such discrepancies, while still unresolved in science, are often fuel on the
> fire of sceptics, who jump on them to attack the underlying concepts.
> We have seen similar attacks on the theory of evolution,
> but slowly but surely science reached consensus as more and more evidence
> and details are taken into consideration, and explanations are found and
> verified for discrepancies inmodels and data.
>
There Is No Evidence
Dr David Evans
(david...@sciencespeak.com)
16 June 2009
http://sciencespeak.com/NoEvidence.pdf
Introduction
Let’s break down the case for human-caused global warming logically:
1) There is plenty of evidence that global warming has been occurring
recently.
2) There is ample evidence that carbon dioxide emissions causes
warming and
that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing.
3) But there is no evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are the main
cause of
the recent global warming.
The alarmists focus you entirely on the first two points,
to distract you from the third.
The public is increasingly aware of this misdirection.
Yes, every emitted molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2) causes some
warming
—but the
crucial question is how much warming do the CO2 emissions cause? If
atmospheric
CO2 levels doubled, would the temperature rise by 0.1°, 1.0°, or by
10.0° C?
2We go through the usual ―evidence‖
offered by alarmists, and show that in each case
either it:
Is not evidence about what causes global warming.
Proof that global warming occurred is not proof that
CO2 was mainly responsible.
Is not empirical evidence; that is, it is not
independent of theory. In particular models are
theory, not evidence.
Says nothing about how much the temperature
would rise for a given rise in CO2 levels.
Despite spending $50bn over the last 20 years looking
for evidence of point (3) above, the alarmists have
found none. In two instances they expected to find it,
but in both cases they found only evidence of the
opposite—and they have kept awfully quiet about
those cases. If they just had some evidence of (3) they
could just tell us what it was—and end the debate.
We note that there used to be some supporting
evidence, but better data later reversed that evidence.
Instead there are now at least three independent
pieces of evidence that the temperature rises
predicted by the IPCC due to carbon dioxide
emissions are exaggerated by a factor of between
2 and 10, primarily due to the assumption of overly
positive water vapor feedback in the climate models.
Finally, we discuss some examples of what would
constitute evidence.
What is Evidence?
―Evidence‖
in this document means observations that
prove or suggest that human emissions of
CO2 are the main cause of the recent global
warming. Evidence includes the following
information:
Who made the observations?
When were they made?
What did they observe?
(In general terms, we don't have to see the raw data.)
How do the observations support the idea that rising CO2
levels are the main cause of the recent global warming?
The evidence must of course be empirical, meaning that
it is independent of theory.
Typical Alarmist Offerings of “Evidence”
Polar Bears, Glaciers, Arctic Melt, Antarctic Ice Shelves, Storms,
Droughts, Fires, Malaria, Snow Melt on Mt Kilimanjaro, Rising Sea
Levels,
Ocean Warming, Urban Heat Island Effect
Although each of these issues may say something about
whether or not global warming is or was occurring, none
of them say anything about the causes of global warming.
It would make no difference to these issues if the recent
global warming was caused by CO2 or by aliens heating
the planet with ray guns.
The IPCC Said So
So what is their evidence? Chapter 9 of their latest
Assessment Report 4 (2007),
―Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,
contains no evidence. That CO2 is the main cause
of the recent global warming is an assumption in
much of what they say, and they find many ingenious
ways of saying it and implying it using complex
language. But repetition is not proof, and nowhere do
they present any actual evidence.
If you doubt me, read it yourself then say what the
evidence is in your own words:
ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
Often the assumption takes the form that nearly all the
temperature rises since the start of industrialization are
due to CO2 rises, or that there are no other possible
significant causes of global warming. See It Cannot Be
Anything Else, below.
Computer Models are Evidence
Computer models consist solely of a large number of
calculations that, individually, you could do on a
hand-held calculator. So models are theoretical, and
cannot form part of any evidence.
Computer Models Incorporate a Lot of Sound
Empirical Science
Yes they do. The climate models contain some
well-established science that has been verified by
empirical observations. But they also contain a
myriad of:
implicit and explicit assumptions
omissions
guesses
gross approximations.
A single mistake in any one of these can invalidate the
climate models. Typical engineering models that mimic
reality closely contain no untested assumptions,
material omissions, guesses, or gross approximations.
They are the result of mature understanding of the
reality being modelled, and have been tested ad
nauseum in a wide range of circumstances. On the
other hand, climate science is in its infancy, individual
models routinely fail most tests, the climate models
are riddled with untested assumptions and guesses,
they approximate the atmosphere with cells a
hundred kilometres square and hundreds of meters high,
and they do not even attempt to model individual cloud
formations or any feature smaller than the cell size.
Don’t let the word ―model‖ fool you into thinking
climate models are better than they are.
Computer Model Projections Agree with Something that
Actually Happened
This only shows that a particular model predicted a
particular outcome. It might be because the model
accurately mimics reality, or it might be an accident.
Given that all climate models contain a myriad of
implicit and explicit assumptions, omissions, guesses,
and gross approximations (see the last section), it’s
probably a fair bit of the latter. Even a broken clock
is right twice a day.
None of the climate models in 2001 predicted that
temperatures would not rise from 2001 to 2009—
they were all wrong. All of the models wrongly
predict a huge dominating tropical hotspot in the
atmospheric warming pattern—no such hotspot
has been observed, and if it was there we would
easily have detected it.
While it may give us more confidence that that
model might make further successful predictions,
the current climate models are so uncertain and
leave out so many natural factors that even the
IPCC does not call their outputs ―predictions‖.
CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas
Yes, CO2 was proven to be a greenhouse gas in
laboratories over a century ago.
Furthermore, we know what the absorption frequencies
of CO2 are, and we can calculate how much outgoing
radiation the CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back to the
earth. (CO2 molecules absorb radiation at their
absorption frequencies, which are all in the infra-red
range, and later re-emit radiation with the same energy
at those same frequencies but in random directions. So
a cloud of CO2 acts like a blanket at those frequencies,
ultimately reflecting most of the radiation at those
frequencies back to earth.)
The CO2 absorption frequencies are already saturated,
meaning that they are already reflecting close to 100%
of the radiation at those frequencies. As the level of
CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the band of
frequencies at which they reflect radiation widens.
This band widening is logarithmic—the amount of
radiation reflected by the CO2 is the logarithm of the
level of atmospheric CO2—so the warming effect of
each extra quantum of atmospheric CO2 is much less
than the effect of the previous quantum.
(Each doubling of CO2 has the same effect once
beyond about 100 ppmv, at which concentration the
CO2 band is already saturated.)
These calculations are validated by laboratory
experiments, and are not in dispute.
The IPCC climate models use these calculations to
predict how much warming will occur as the CO2
level increases. This is called the no-feedbacks
warming, a ―baseline‖ warming. The no-feedbacks
warming causes changes, which in turn cause further
warming or cooling. This extra warming or cooling is
called the temperature change due to feedbacks, and it
amplifies or dampens the baseline warming:
If the feedback is ―positive‖ then the temperature
change due to feedbacks is a warming: the feedbacks
amplify the original no-feedbacks warming and the net
effect is a larger warming than the no-feedbacks
warming.
If the feedback is ―negative‖ then the temperature
change due to feedbacks is a cooling: the feedbacks
dampen the original no-feedbacks warming and the net
effect is a smaller warming than the no-feedbacks
warming.
[ . . . ]
–– ––
[IPCC report]
"This report is not what it appears to be - It is
not the version that was approved by the
contributing scientists listed on the title page."
Fredrik Seitz,
Bill Ward
Indeed it is. Feel free to join in.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Indeed it is. Feel free to join in."
Pompous....
What A. Fool
wrote:
My opinion is that you neglected to mention that a N2
atmosphere with NO GHGs (no water) could not cool itself,
which would seem to force the conclusion that GHGs are
what cools the atmosphere, regardless of what cools the
surface.
And it is obvious that water cools the surface quite
a bit through evaporation and transport of latent heat high
into the atmosphere.
As I see it, there is no issue with the assumption
that an atmosphere absorbs thermal energy, and that
makes the planet livable, but the fact that the atmosphere
is cooled by GHGs suggests that more GHGs may cool
the atmosphere more.
The basic discussed GHG theory is about local
processes, but do not address the wide range of possible
situations, snow or ice on the ground, dry rock heated by
the sun, or wetlands with lots of vegetation cooled by
evapotranspiration.
Breezes off the Pacific across the west coast are
usually much cooler than the ambient air would be
without them, I have gone to the beach near Los Angeles
and had to wear a jacket in July and August.
So the only real question is, why is the Arctic
warmer, and will it get warmer or cool off again.
Temperatures elsewhere seem rather typical.
Bill Ward
> Hi Bill,
>
> I think I understand more about where we mismatch in thought process.
>
> Until I have line-item feedback on your posts, I want to show you an
> example which should clear up a lot. It is a bit different than the
> normal explanations of GHG effect, and I hope you will find it
> interesting.
>
> Imagine an atmosphere, which has a temperature of T1 at the bottom and
> T2 at the top. Now imagine that there are no external sources of IR (no
> Earth surface, and no Sun).
I'll also assume there's some sort of perfectly transparent membranes to
maintain the (uniform?) pressure.
> If this atmosphere is fully opague in IR, then it will radiate. On the
> bottom, it will radiate energy with T1 (into the Boltzmann equation)
> and at the top it radiates T2 (into the Boltzmann equation). So it will
> cool itself down by radiation, but based only on the temperatures T1
> and T2.
> Now imagine that this atmosphere is NOT opague. In fact, it is fully
> transparant in IR.
> Classic radiation theory tells that in that case, the atmosphere CANNOT
> radiate at all.
> An atmosphere with CO2 and/or other GHGs will be a mix of these two :
> for some spectral lines the atmosphere will be opague, for others it
> will be transparant.
> Radiation only happens at the absorbtion lines of the GHGs.
So far so good, if you assume no broadband from particulates, like cloud
tops.
> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It will
> feel the radiation from the bottom (T1).
> There is no question about that this will warm the Earth surface.
> Right?
Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out conduction.
> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
> OK. That's one part.
>
> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth. Earth
> warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's surface
> radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1
> (into the Boltzmann equation).
> This radiation goes into the atmosphere, which filters out (absorbs) the
> GHG spectral lines, and then goes to space.
The IR absorbed by GHGs heats the surrounding air. Unless the Earth you
installed is massless, it must have a gravitational field, so the warmer,
less dense air will rise, carrying the energy with it higher, where it
can radiate to space.
> On the space side, the atmosphere will still radiate (only in the GHG
> spectral lines, and at T2), but now we also see T1 outside the spectral
> lines, as it came from the surface straight through the atmosphere. So
> the combined spectrum measured outside is T1 outside GHG spectral
> lines, and T2 inside spectral lines. Note that we do not see much 'in
> the middle'.
> We do not 'see' the temperature distribution through the atmosphere, not
> do we 'see' any effects such as convection.
When you see the GHG spectral lines. you are seeing convection.
Convection is not optional, it is required if gases become less dense
then their surroundings in a gravitational field. The fact that the air
absorbs energy to form the dark lines forces the conclusion that
convection is carrying the energy rather than radiation. Where else can
it go?
> What radiates to space is T1 (the surface) outside the GHG spectral
> lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere) inside the GHG spectral lines.
In a cloud free atmosphere, yes. But we have clouds.
> Now what is the 'top' of the atmosphere ? The top is the altitude where
> the GHGs becomes effectively opague (as seen from space).
I would say it's where the atmosphere is optically thin enough that the
thermal photons can escape to space, say one photon mean free path to
space. But it's only a glass half full/empty thing. (Half opaque/
transparent?)
> Because that is where the radiation comes from. For CO2, that is
> currently probably around 12km altitude so T2 for CO2 spectral lines
> will be -50 C or so on average. If the concentration CO2 were to
> increase, then it's opagueness depth will decrease, and thus the
> altitude at which it radiates will increase.
> Since 10km is still below the tropopause, this will likely lead to a
> decrease in temperature, and thus a decrease in outbound radiation.
> Thus it will lead to global warming.
That's a good point. It works the other way, too. If cloud tops become
lower, the outgoing broadband radiation is higher by del T^4.
When WV increases, cloud tops are lower. When the surface is hotter, WV
increases. But we'll leave the loop open for now.
BTW, if you look closely at fig 4.1, you can see the 10u WV "window" as a
notch in the emission spectrum. That suggests to me the surface
radiation is less than the BB radiation from 8 to 12.5u. Otherwise I'd
expect a spike because it's not absorbed by WV above it. Do you have any
other explanation?
>
> This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will
> warm up so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming
> sunlight heats the surface.
You still need to account for convective transfer from the surface to the
radiating layer. Convection remains in play up to the tropopause.
I would look at it as the Earth always emitting the same average LWIR
energy as it receives from the Sun, and that radiation layer being
connected to the surface via a lapse rate dependent on WV.
Think of the radiation process at T2 as a heat sink connected to the
surface heat source T1 via a variable thermal conductance. In your
nomenclature, T2 is set by insolation, T1 is dependent on the lapse rate
(WV) and the average radiating altitude.
> The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
> adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the atmosphere
> can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and eventually
> also T2) will be determined by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
I still don't see why you think GHG's affect convection. Radiation is
only one of the ways the surface can heat the opaque lower atmosphere.
If it's opaque to GHGs, all the LWIR is either converted to heat
somewhere before the troposphere, or freely escapes to space. I see no
other options.
Conduction (wind) is also a very important surface heat transfer
mechanism. I've never heard of a "clear sky" warning in cold weather,
but "wind chill factor" is quite common.
> That's global warming explained with my words.
And good words they are. That's well written, clear, and specific.
The problem is, it doesn't allow for clouds, especially BB radiation from
them. It seems inadequate to me to ignore winds and clouds when
describing the climate system.
Once you include the effect of latent heat and clouds, I think we'll
converge.
Again, thanks for an interesting exchange of ideas. I think you're onto
something with your observation that lower radiating altitudes mean more
cooling.
Rob Dekker
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
Actually I did mention that : an atmosphere without GHG is transparant in
IR, and thus cannot radiate (cool) itself.
>
> And it is obvious that water cools the surface quite
> a bit through evaporation and transport of latent heat high
> into the atmosphere.
It does. It transports that heat to altitude, where condensation of WV gives
off that heat to the surrounding air.
That heat creates counter effects to adiabatic cooling, and this causes
wheather patterns to occur .
But for the space bound radiation that is irrelevant, as long as the
condensation altitude is still at the level where GHGs are still opague
(towards space), which is around 10km or higher. So the majority (if not
all) of convection heat will create adiabatic disturbances (wind, rain,
thunderstorms, tornados etc) in the heat engine of the troposphere, instead
of radiating into space.
>
> As I see it, there is no issue with the assumption
> that an atmosphere absorbs thermal energy, and that
> makes the planet livable, but the fact that the atmosphere
> is cooled by GHGs suggests that more GHGs may cool
> the atmosphere more.
Please re-read my summary above.
Yes, GHGs cause the atmosphere to cool (by radiating in the GHG absoption
bands). GHGs radiate from the top of the atmosphere (at an altitude where
they are no longer opague towards space).
In absense of GHGs, the atmosphere does not radiate at all, but since it is
now transparant, the radiation will come straight from the surface. Since
the surface is warmer that the top of the atmosphere, radiation to space
will be larger if GHGs are absent.
That's the key to understanding GHG influence on global warming.
>
> The basic discussed GHG theory is about local
> processes, but do not address the wide range of possible
> situations, snow or ice on the ground, dry rock heated by
> the sun, or wetlands with lots of vegetation cooled by
> evapotranspiration.
Yes. Surface conditions are important for the radiative balance.
They mostly determine the 'color' of the surface, which affects radiation
and emission patterns.
Note that above I assumed the surface to be a 'black-body', which is
obviously incorrect.
But it's a start.
>
> Breezes off the Pacific across the west coast are
> usually much cooler than the ambient air would be
> without them, I have gone to the beach near Los Angeles
> and had to wear a jacket in July and August.
>
I live in the San Francisco area, so I know what you mean.
"No winter as cold as the summer in San Francisco" (Mark Twain)
Still, such local effects are irrelevant in first order ; cooling on one
place always causes warming somewhere else, and the other way around.
Average should more or less stay the same. I think that solving all the
details is beyond the scope of this discussion.
At least they are beyond me.
> So the only real question is, why is the Arctic
> warmer, and will it get warmer or cool off again.
>
> Temperatures elsewhere seem rather typical.
>
I don't know exactly why the poles (the arctic specifically) heats up more
than elsewhere.
But there are certainly other people that do know that. Otherwise the models
would not predict exactly this effect.
>
>
>
Rob Dekker
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:42:58 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> I think I understand more about where we mismatch in thought process.
>>
>> Until I have line-item feedback on your posts, I want to show you an
>> example which should clear up a lot. It is a bit different than the
>> normal explanations of GHG effect, and I hope you will find it
>> interesting.
>>
>> Imagine an atmosphere, which has a temperature of T1 at the bottom and
>> T2 at the top. Now imagine that there are no external sources of IR (no
>> Earth surface, and no Sun).
>
> I'll also assume there's some sort of perfectly transparent membranes to
> maintain the (uniform?) pressure.
>
Yes. And a gravity field as well, so pressure at the surface is higher than
at the top, and thus T1 is higher than T2 due to adiabatic expansion
principles.
>> If this atmosphere is fully opague in IR, then it will radiate. On the
>> bottom, it will radiate energy with T1 (into the Boltzmann equation)
>> and at the top it radiates T2 (into the Boltzmann equation). So it will
>> cool itself down by radiation, but based only on the temperatures T1
>> and T2.
>
>> Now imagine that this atmosphere is NOT opague. In fact, it is fully
>> transparant in IR.
>
>> Classic radiation theory tells that in that case, the atmosphere CANNOT
>> radiate at all.
>
>> An atmosphere with CO2 and/or other GHGs will be a mix of these two :
>> for some spectral lines the atmosphere will be opague, for others it
>> will be transparant.
>
>> Radiation only happens at the absorbtion lines of the GHGs.
>
> So far so good, if you assume no broadband from particulates, like cloud
> tops.
You are right. Let's leave clouds out for the moment. Clouds are notoriously
complicated, and I do not think they are relevant form the point that you
are making : that latent heat (by convection) would counter balance any GHG
induced warming.
>
>> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It will
>> feel the radiation from the bottom (T1).
>> There is no question about that this will warm the Earth surface.
>> Right?
>
> Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
>
Corrent. But even though the surface is at same temperature as the air just
above it (T1), the presence of GHGs still cause the atmosphere to radiate,
and thus the surface gets heated by it (where it would not be heated if
there were no GHGs). In essence, this is the very same effect that I
describe below, just seen from the surface rather than from space.
>> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
>
> Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out conduction.
>
Correct. But the equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the same set-up
without GHGs.
I indeed left conduction out. I'm working with average temperatures for now.
>> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
>> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
>
>> OK. That's one part.
>>
>> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth. Earth
>> warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's surface
>> radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1
>> (into the Boltzmann equation).
>
>> This radiation goes into the atmosphere, which filters out (absorbs) the
>> GHG spectral lines, and then goes to space.
>
> The IR absorbed by GHGs heats the surrounding air. Unless the Earth you
> installed is massless, it must have a gravitational field, so the warmer,
> less dense air will rise, carrying the energy with it higher, where it
> can radiate to space.
This is the part I think that you are mistaken about.
I've been thinking a lot about convection and heat transfer in the lower
troposphere, but I have not found the right words (line of thought) to
explain what I think is happening. Just a few thoughts come out that may
have meaning at this point :
At first sight, it seems that you are right and that the absorbed IR would
convect upward, until it reaches the top of the atmosphere, where it would
radiate to space. That would imply that T2 would increase until the heat
that was absorbed can radiate away.
For that to happen for all the energy that was absorbed, T2 would have to
rise to T1, since that is where the radiative balance would even out again.
First of all, that is not what we observe. T2 (temperature at top of
troposphere) is definitely lower than T1 (temperature at the surface).
Still, I understand that the absorbed energy has to go somewhere, and what I
think (but am not sure about) is that most of the energy that the surface
radiates to the atmosphere comes right back to the surface (due to increased
temperature of the lower atmosphere, and thorough mixing by conduction and
convection and wheather patterns in general. It may not come back at the
same place where it started, but it will come back. The heat simply has no
time to reach the top of the atmosphere.
That part that reaches the top will indeed create a slight increase in T2
(in my model) which would mean that there will be slightly more radiation
going to space in the GHG absorption lines. But how much the fraction is
that makes it to the top, that I do not know yet.
That's as far as I got until now.
>
>> On the space side, the atmosphere will still radiate (only in the GHG
>> spectral lines, and at T2), but now we also see T1 outside the spectral
>> lines, as it came from the surface straight through the atmosphere. So
>> the combined spectrum measured outside is T1 outside GHG spectral
>> lines, and T2 inside spectral lines. Note that we do not see much 'in
>> the middle'.
>
>> We do not 'see' the temperature distribution through the atmosphere, not
>> do we 'see' any effects such as convection.
>
> When you see the GHG spectral lines. you are seeing convection.
>
I do not think so.The GHG spectral lines come from a layer at the top of the
atmosphere (where the "photons can escape to space" in your words). But I
think that the temperature there is determined by adiabatic lapse rate to
the surface, not by convection.
Convection pushes warm air up (which then cools adiabatically) and it pushes
cold air down (which then warms adiabatically) elsewhere. So I think that
the net effect of convection (on T2) is close to zero. Very little heat
makes it to the top of the atmosphere.
> Convection is not optional, it is required if gases become less dense
> then their surroundings in a gravitational field. The fact that the air
> absorbs energy to form the dark lines forces the conclusion that
> convection is carrying the energy rather than radiation. Where else can
> it go?
>
Back to the surface, albeit probably at a different location then where it
originated.
>> What radiates to space is T1 (the surface) outside the GHG spectral
>> lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere) inside the GHG spectral lines.
>
> In a cloud free atmosphere, yes. But we have clouds.
>
Again, I'd like to leave clouds out for now. Their effect is not just in IR,
but also in visible light.
Their reflection factors (top and/or bottom) make them rather difficult to
model.
I would like to deal with your points about latent heat, which does not
necessarily include cloud cover.
>> Now what is the 'top' of the atmosphere ? The top is the altitude where
>> the GHGs becomes effectively opague (as seen from space).
>
> I would say it's where the atmosphere is optically thin enough that the
> thermal photons can escape to space, say one photon mean free path to
> space.
Indeed.
> But it's only a glass half full/empty thing. (Half opaque/
> transparent?)
What do you mean ?
>
>> Because that is where the radiation comes from. For CO2, that is
>> currently probably around 12km altitude so T2 for CO2 spectral lines
>> will be -50 C or so on average. If the concentration CO2 were to
>> increase, then it's opagueness depth will decrease, and thus the
>> altitude at which it radiates will increase.
>
>> Since 10km is still below the tropopause, this will likely lead to a
>> decrease in temperature, and thus a decrease in outbound radiation.
>> Thus it will lead to global warming.
>
> That's a good point. It works the other way, too. If cloud tops become
> lower, the outgoing broadband radiation is higher by del T^4.
True, but only to the extend that cloud tops are absorbers/emitters of IR
(and even all light frequencies).
If they are reflectors, then their altitude does not matter.
That's one reason why clouds are tricky.
>
> When WV increases, cloud tops are lower.
Is that true even if air temperatures increase ?
See, that's another reason that clouds are tricky.
> When the surface is hotter, WV
> increases. But we'll leave the loop open for now.
OK.
>
> BTW, if you look closely at fig 4.1, you can see the 10u WV "window" as a
> notch in the emission spectrum. That suggests to me the surface
> radiation is less than the BB radiation from 8 to 12.5u. Otherwise I'd
> expect a spike because it's not absorbed by WV above it. Do you have any
> other explanation?
Sorry, have not looked into this yet.
Could it be dust in the atmosphere, or clouds ?
>>
>> This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will
>> warm up so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming
>> sunlight heats the surface.
>
> You still need to account for convective transfer from the surface to the
> radiating layer. Convection remains in play up to the tropopause.
>
As above. Have not figured everything out yet, but I think that very little
energy convects up to 10-12km where it could radiate away.
Most will simply be transported to another place and go back to the surface.
> I would look at it as the Earth always emitting the same average LWIR
> energy as it receives from the Sun, and that radiation layer being
> connected to the surface via a lapse rate dependent on WV.
We did not talk about the WV radiation layer yet.
That one is for sure in the troposphere.
What do you think will happen if there is increased WV, and thus WV could
reach higher into the troposphere, which thus increases the altitude of the
WV radiation layer ?
>
> Think of the radiation process at T2 as a heat sink connected to the
> surface heat source T1 via a variable thermal conductance. In your
> nomenclature, T2 is set by insolation, T1 is dependent on the lapse rate
> (WV) and the average radiating altitude.
>
Interesting.
In fact, T1 and T2 are BOTH important for outbound radiation (see above).
But the difference between T1 and T2 is almost certainly determined by the
lapse rate and the average radiating altitude.
>> The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
>> adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the atmosphere
>> can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and eventually
>> also T2) will be determined by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
>
> I still don't see why you think GHG's affect convection.
I do not think it does.
> Radiation is
> only one of the ways the surface can heat the opaque lower atmosphere.
> If it's opaque to GHGs, all the LWIR is either converted to heat
> somewhere before the troposphere, or freely escapes to space. I see no
> other options.
>
I think you are right.
I think that it is converted to heat somewhere before the tropopause, and
the transported by conduction (and other thorough mixing mechanisms which we
call 'wheather') to another (colder) place on the planet where it will then
be returned to the surface.
Maybe this is why the poles are more affected by GHG induced global warming
than other places..
> Conduction (wind) is also a very important surface heat transfer
> mechanism. I've never heard of a "clear sky" warning in cold weather,
> but "wind chill factor" is quite common.
You bet. I grew up in Holland. Wind goes through to your bones...
>
>> That's global warming explained with my words.
>
> And good words they are. That's well written, clear, and specific.
>
Thank you. I appreciate that.
> The problem is, it doesn't allow for clouds, especially BB radiation from
> them. It seems inadequate to me to ignore winds and clouds when
> describing the climate system.
>
> Once you include the effect of latent heat and clouds, I think we'll
> converge.
Let's start with latent heat. As explained above, I do not have all the
answers, but I think that very little of that heat makes it to the top of
the atmosphere. The vast majority will simply be transported and retured to
the surface in colder places.
Clouds are difficult. Not sure if I know enough about them to make a
difference.
>
> Again, thanks for an interesting exchange of ideas. I think you're onto
> something with your observation that lower radiating altitudes mean more
> cooling.
Likewise, I appreciate your point of view and sharp, detailed questions and
statements.
It is a good exercise for me too, and increases my understanding of this
subject as well.
Rob
Bill Ward
OK, but that's not really my point. You were wanting to discuss primary
cooling factors, and I believe in the troposphere, convection, including
latent heat, may be the most important one. It's not necessary to invoke
feedback to show that.
>>> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It will
>>> feel the radiation from the bottom (T1). There is no question about
>>> that this will warm the Earth surface. Right?
>>
>> Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
>>
>>
> Corrent. But even though the surface is at same temperature as the air
> just above it (T1), the presence of GHGs still cause the atmosphere to
> radiate, and thus the surface gets heated by it (where it would not be
> heated if there were no GHGs).
I don't think so. That's the essence of LTE. Everything radiates to
everything else, always transferring energy from warm to cool, driving
temperatures toward equilibrium. If the surface becomes warmer than the
air, it warms the air. The air can only warm the surface if it is warmer
than the surface. Since the Sun is heating the surface, that is unlikely
during the daytime, when most cooling occurs.
At night, there's an inversion layer that forms as the surface
radiatively cools, which blocks convection and conductive cooling.
That's, IMHO, the main GHG effect. When it's cold, heat is retained by
that inversion layer blocking convection.
At no time can net energy ever flow from cold to hot. That would violate
the second law, as you could use the hot surface "sink" and the cold
"source" air to drive a heat engine and get free energy. I'm pretty sure
you have enough background to understand that doesn't work.
> In essence, this is the very same effect
> that I describe below, just seen from the surface rather than from
> space.
>
>>> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
>>
>> Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out
>> conduction.
>>
>>
> Correct. But the equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the same
> set-up without GHGs.
I don't think so. If that were true, we could solve our energy problems
by setting up heat engines using the surface as the heat source and the
air as a heat sink.
> I indeed left conduction out. I'm working with average temperatures for
> now.
>
>>> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
>>> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
>>
>>> OK. That's one part.
>>>
>>> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth.
>>> Earth warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's
>>> surface radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1 (into the
>>> Boltzmann equation).
It also conducts heat into the air, both sensible and latent.
>>> This radiation goes into the atmosphere, which filters out (absorbs)
>>> the GHG spectral lines, and then goes to space.
>>
>> The IR absorbed by GHGs heats the surrounding air. Unless the Earth
>> you installed is massless, it must have a gravitational field, so the
>> warmer, less dense air will rise, carrying the energy with it higher,
>> where it can radiate to space.
>
> This is the part I think that you are mistaken about. I've been thinking
> a lot about convection and heat transfer in the lower troposphere, but I
> have not found the right words (line of thought) to explain what I think
> is happening. Just a few thoughts come out that may have meaning at this
> point :
>
> At first sight, it seems that you are right and that the absorbed IR
> would convect upward, until it reaches the top of the atmosphere, where
> it would radiate to space.
It's important to remember that IR doesn't convect, warm gas does. When
the gas convects up to the radiation layer, it will lose energy to space
as thermal photons.
On the way up, when the gas reaches the dewpoint temperature, it gives up
its latent heat to a cloud, which rises at the wet adiabatic lapse rate,
radiating the former latent energy BB from the water droplets. The
photons that aren't absorbed escape to space, those that are absorbed are
recycled into heat, which goes back into convecting upward to the
radiating layer.
The only place energy can go is to be radiated to space, and it will
convect up until it can. I think "trapped" is the word that has misled
more people than any other, except perhaps "back" radiation.
> That would imply that T2 would increase until the heat that was
> absorbed can radiate away. For that to happen for all the energy that
> was absorbed, T2 would have to rise to T1, since that is where the
> radiative balance would even out again.
I don't see why. The energy being radiated is the thermal energy of the
gas. At 255K, there is just enough energy radiated from a BB to balance
the energy from the sun. (effective radiation temperature) Why would the
temperature need to rise to the temperature of the surface to emit that
much?
> First of all, that is not what we observe. T2 (temperature at top
> of troposphere) is definitely lower than T1 (temperature at the
> surface).
>
> Still, I understand that the absorbed energy has to go somewhere, and
> what I think (but am not sure about) is that most of the energy that the
> surface radiates to the atmosphere comes right back to the surface (due
> to increased temperature of the lower atmosphere, and thorough mixing by
> conduction and convection and wheather patterns in general. It may not
> come back at the same place where it started, but it will come back.
That's why the concept of "local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is so
important. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the
troposphere. Net energy cannot be transported against that gradient. To
do so would require energy from outside the system.
You are correct, of course, in observing that the energy is distributed
meridionally by the global circulation, but never from cold to warm. Some
of the tropical heat is distributed, but much of it is also radiated to
space. There are cumulonimbus clouds there, for example, that penetrate
the stratosphere, radiating BB all the way up, and depositing ice.
> The heat simply has no time to reach the top of the atmosphere.
What other choice does it have? It can't go against the thermal gradient
without mechanical energy, which has to come from somewhere else in the
climate system. Some will be distributed poleward, but only towards
cooler regions. The cooler regions also lose heat by convection and
radiation, as they are still warmer than space.
> That part that reaches the top will indeed create a slight increase in
> T2 (in my model) which would mean that there will be slightly more
> radiation going to space in the GHG absorption lines. But how much the
> fraction is that makes it to the top, that I do not know yet.
All of it will make it to the top, just not at the same rate everywhere.
That distributed poleward will also be convected and radiated. There's
an equilibrium.
> That's as far as I got until now.
I think it's good progress. You're thinking critically, not just
accepting dogma.
>>> On the space side, the atmosphere will still radiate (only in the GHG
>>> spectral lines, and at T2), but now we also see T1 outside the
>>> spectral lines, as it came from the surface straight through the
>>> atmosphere. So the combined spectrum measured outside is T1 outside
>>> GHG spectral lines, and T2 inside spectral lines. Note that we do not
>>> see much 'in the middle'.
>>
>>> We do not 'see' the temperature distribution through the atmosphere,
>>> not do we 'see' any effects such as convection.
>>
>> When you see the GHG spectral lines. you are seeing convection.
>>
>>
> I do not think so.The GHG spectral lines come from a layer at the top of
> the atmosphere (where the "photons can escape to space" in your words).
> But I think that the temperature there is determined by adiabatic lapse
> rate to the surface, not by convection.
Convection enforces the lapse rate. It's the defining feature of the
troposphere.
> Convection pushes warm air up (which then cools adiabatically) and it
> pushes cold air down (which then warms adiabatically) elsewhere. So I
> think that the net effect of convection (on T2) is close to zero. Very
> little heat makes it to the top of the atmosphere.
The term "cooling" is ambiguous. One meaning is to decrease in
temperature, the other is to lose energy. As air rises, the temperature
drops, but no energy is lost (adiabatic). So all the heat energy that
was in the air at the surface is still there at T2, except for that which
was radiated, or lost to precipitation. When it radiates its energy away
to space, its temperature drops, its density increases, and it descends
to push the warmer, less dense, air below upward.
>> Convection is not optional, it is required if gases become less dense
>> then their surroundings in a gravitational field. The fact that the
>> air absorbs energy to form the dark lines forces the conclusion that
>> convection is carrying the energy rather than radiation. Where else
>> can it go?
>>
>>
> Back to the surface, albeit probably at a different location then where
> it originated.
I don't think so, unless you mean the meridional distribution process,
which still only runs from hot to cold. The 2nd law always applies.
>>> What radiates to space is T1 (the surface) outside the GHG spectral
>>> lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere) inside the GHG spectral
>>> lines.
>>
>> In a cloud free atmosphere, yes. But we have clouds.
>>
>>
> Again, I'd like to leave clouds out for now. Their effect is not just in
> IR, but also in visible light.
But I think clouds are part of the "primary" cooling mechanism. Leaving
them out distorts reality, invalidating the model.
> Their reflection factors (top and/or bottom) make them rather difficult
> to model.
True enough. But being "difficult to model" is not a very good
scientific reason to simply ignore them. That's the mistake the IPCC is
making.
> I would like to deal with your points about latent heat, which does not
> necessarily include cloud cover.
You need phase changes to invoke latent heat. Are you limiting it to ice
sublimation and deposition?
>>> Now what is the 'top' of the atmosphere ? The top is the altitude
>>> where the GHGs becomes effectively opague (as seen from space).
>>
>> I would say it's where the atmosphere is optically thin enough that the
>> thermal photons can escape to space, say one photon mean free path to
>> space.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> But it's only a glass half full/empty thing. (Half opaque/
>> transparent?)
>
> What do you mean?
I was trying to say there's no major difference between our definitions,
only philosophical.
>>> Because that is where the radiation comes from. For CO2, that is
>>> currently probably around 12km altitude so T2 for CO2 spectral lines
>>> will be -50 C or so on average. If the concentration CO2 were to
>>> increase, then it's opagueness depth will decrease, and thus the
>>> altitude at which it radiates will increase.
>>
>>> Since 10km is still below the tropopause, this will likely lead to a
>>> decrease in temperature, and thus a decrease in outbound radiation.
>>> Thus it will lead to global warming.
>>
>> That's a good point. It works the other way, too. If cloud tops
>> become lower, the outgoing broadband radiation is higher by del T^4.
>
> True, but only to the extend that cloud tops are absorbers/emitters of
> IR (and even all light frequencies).
> If they are reflectors, then their altitude does not matter. That's one
> reason why clouds are tricky.
The absorption spectrum of liquid water shows strong absorption
throughout the IR:
<http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html>
(scroll down to a nice color graph)
Clouds consist of droplets of water or ice, plus saturated WV, so I'd
expect they would absorb/emit fairly well. If you look at the spectrum
fig 4.1 in your link, you'll note a smooth sloping line from about 12u
down to 8u, following a roughly 285K? temperature profile, interrupted by
a notch at the water window at 10u. I'd suggest that might be consistent
with low cloud tops radiating BB, but I'm not sure what to make of the
notch. Any ideas?
>
>> When WV increases, cloud tops are lower.
>
> Is that true even if air temperatures increase ? See, that's another
> reason that clouds are tricky.
The air temperature is pretty well set by the lapse rate. More water
vapor means higher dewpoint, thus lower condensation temperatures and
altitudes.
>> When the surface is hotter, WV
>> increases. But we'll leave the loop open for now.
>
> OK.
>
>
>> BTW, if you look closely at fig 4.1, you can see the 10u WV "window" as
>> a notch in the emission spectrum. That suggests to me the surface
>> radiation is less than the BB radiation from 8 to 12.5u. Otherwise I'd
>> expect a spike because it's not absorbed by WV above it. Do you have
>> any other explanation?
>
> Sorry, have not looked into this yet. Could it be dust in the
> atmosphere, or clouds ?
Well, it looks like the water window, complete with the ozone band, but
it seems to be absorbing rather than transmitting.
>>> This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will
>>> warm up so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming
>>> sunlight heats the surface.
>>
>> You still need to account for convective transfer from the surface to
>> the radiating layer. Convection remains in play up to the tropopause.
>>
>>
> As above. Have not figured everything out yet, but I think that very
> little energy convects up to 10-12km where it could radiate away. Most
> will simply be transported to another place and go back to the surface.
See above for why I disagree. The "other place" is also emitting energy,
or it wouldn't be cooler.
>> I would look at it as the Earth always emitting the same average LWIR
>> energy as it receives from the Sun, and that radiation layer being
>> connected to the surface via a lapse rate dependent on WV.
>
> We did not talk about the WV radiation layer yet. That one is for sure
> in the troposphere. What do you think will happen if there is increased
> WV, and thus WV could reach higher into the troposphere, which thus
> increases the altitude of the WV radiation layer ?
See above for why I think more WV means lower clouds.
>
>
>> Think of the radiation process at T2 as a heat sink connected to the
>> surface heat source T1 via a variable thermal conductance. In your
>> nomenclature, T2 is set by insolation, T1 is dependent on the lapse
>> rate (WV) and the average radiating altitude.
>>
>>
> Interesting.
> In fact, T1 and T2 are BOTH important for outbound radiation (see
> above). But the difference between T1 and T2 is almost certainly
> determined by the lapse rate and the average radiating altitude.
>>> The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
>>> adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the atmosphere
>>> can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and eventually
>>> also T2) will be determined by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
T2 is set only by the average solar input. T1 is the dependent variable.
>> I still don't see why you think GHG's affect convection.
>
> I do not think it does.
OK
>> Radiation is
>> only one of the ways the surface can heat the opaque lower atmosphere.
>> If it's opaque to GHGs, all the LWIR is either converted to heat
>> somewhere before the troposphere, or freely escapes to space. I see no
>> other options.
>>
>>
> I think you are right.
> I think that it is converted to heat somewhere before the tropopause,
> and the transported by conduction (and other thorough mixing mechanisms
> which we call 'weather') to another (colder) place on the planet where
> it will then be returned to the surface.
See above for my comments.
> Maybe this is why the poles are more affected by GHG induced global
> warming than other places..
So the models say. I suspect surface inversion layers.
>> Conduction (wind) is also a very important surface heat transfer
>> mechanism. I've never heard of a "clear sky" warning in cold weather,
>> but "wind chill factor" is quite common.
>
> You bet. I grew up in Holland. Wind goes through to your bones...
Yup. No mother ever says, "Button up your overcoat, it's clear out
tonight."
>>> That's global warming explained with my words.
>>
>> And good words they are. That's well written, clear, and specific.
>>
>>
> Thank you. I appreciate that.
>
>> The problem is, it doesn't allow for clouds, especially BB radiation
>> from them. It seems inadequate to me to ignore winds and clouds when
>> describing the climate system.
>>
>> Once you include the effect of latent heat and clouds, I think we'll
>> converge.
>
> Let's start with latent heat. As explained above, I do not have all the
> answers, but I think that very little of that heat makes it to the top
> of the atmosphere. The vast majority will simply be transported and
> retured to the surface in colder places.
See above for why I (and the 2nd law) think that doesn't affect the
average heat radiated to space.
> Clouds are difficult. Not sure if I know enough about them to make a
> difference.
It's all just physics... All puzzles are simple once you figure out
what's going on.
>> Again, thanks for an interesting exchange of ideas. I think you're
>> onto something with your observation that lower radiating altitudes
>> mean more cooling.
>
> Likewise, I appreciate your point of view and sharp, detailed questions
> and statements.
> It is a good exercise for me too, and increases my understanding of this
> subject as well.
Me too. Thanks for your post. Your earlier link to the outgoing
spectrum opened up some new questions for me. Why is that 10u notch
there?
Ouroboros Rex
During the time it is held as heat instead of radiation, it is trapped.
Ouroboros Rex
Science is always about consensus. It is known as duplication of results.
Ouroboros Rex
No, see 'radiative transfer'.
Ouroboros Rex
...Except through continuum radiation.
Ouroboros Rex
It is always losing energy to space as thermal photons.
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:MpOdnfvsOumc48bX...@giganews.com...
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:27:38 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
....
This posting is only in response to what I think is a key misunderstanding between us....
Mostly about radiation levels at different altitudes, and about the second law of thermodynamics.
.....
>> That would imply that T2 would increase until the heat that was
>> absorbed can radiate away. For that to happen for all the energy that
>> was absorbed, T2 would have to rise to T1, since that is where the
>> radiative balance would even out again.
>
> I don't see why. The energy being radiated is the thermal energy of the
> gas. At 255K, there is just enough energy radiated from a BB to balance
> the energy from the sun. (effective radiation temperature) Why would the
> temperature need to rise to the temperature of the surface to emit that
> much?
>
The 255K is the 'effective' temperature, indicating the amount of energy radiated (or the amount of full-spectrum energy received
for that matter).
If Earth were a black body with highly (thermally) conductive surface, and no GHG in the atmosphere, then it would be 255 K.
But due to opague GHGs at the (cold) top of the troposphere, a portion of the IR spectrum radiates at a lower temperature (lower
intensity) than 255 K.
The effective radiating temperature of Earth thus is lower than without the GHGs.
The non-opague portion (radiated directly from the surface) will have to increase in intensity to retain an 255 K effective
radiating Earth.
The surface can only do that by heating up. So T1 gets higher in the presence of GHGs.
>> First of all, that is not what we observe. T2 (temperature at top
>> of troposphere) is definitely lower than T1 (temperature at the
>> surface).
>>
>> Still, I understand that the absorbed energy has to go somewhere, and
>> what I think (but am not sure about) is that most of the energy that the
>> surface radiates to the atmosphere comes right back to the surface (due
>> to increased temperature of the lower atmosphere, and thorough mixing by
>> conduction and convection and wheather patterns in general. It may not
>> come back at the same place where it started, but it will come back.
>
> That's why the concept of "local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is so
> important. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the
> troposphere. Net energy cannot be transported against that gradient. To
> do so would require energy from outside the system.
>
I do not think so. This is a key difference of opinion.
In my opinion, even under LTE, on a planet where the warmest point is the surface, and the atmospheric temperatures follow adiabatic
lapse rate, radiation levels will reduce from bottom to top, and heat sources inside the atmosphere will warm the surface (as well
as radiating to space).
Key is that radiation does go down as well as up !
See below for a long explanation.
.......
>> The heat simply has no time to reach the top of the atmosphere.
>
> What other choice does it have? It can't go against the thermal gradient
> without mechanical energy, which has to come from somewhere else in the
> climate system. Some will be distributed poleward, but only towards
> cooler regions. The cooler regions also lose heat by convection and
> radiation, as they are still warmer than space.
>
>> That part that reaches the top will indeed create a slight increase in
>> T2 (in my model) which would mean that there will be slightly more
>> radiation going to space in the GHG absorption lines. But how much the
>> fraction is that makes it to the top, that I do not know yet.
>
> All of it will make it to the top, just not at the same rate everywhere.
Now I see where you are struggling with !
When two layers of the atmosphere are at a different temperature, then they would radiate from high to low temperature.
That means that radiation has to go up, and will eventually reach space...
If radiation were absorbed, then if adds heat to some layer, which will then radiate again, upward again, where it would have to
eventually escape to space.
Is this your line of thinking ?
If so, then first, again, this is NOT what we are observing. From space, the opague part of IR (opague due to GHGs) is lower in
intensity than the transparant part. So inside these absorption bands, less radiation makes it to space.
Second, here is an example model that should explain how that happens (in an opague section of the spectrum).
Imagine a thin (but still IR opague) layer of atmosphere (say with some water vapor), It has temperature T at the bottom and T-dT at
the top.
The temperature difference of this layer is determined mostly by adiabatic expansion rate (and convection if there were any heat
sources inside the atmosphere).
Next layer is right on top (with bottom T-dT and top at T-2*dT), and so on, until the top layer reaches space (optically).
Important to note that the boundary between each opague layer is in LTE with the next one.
Now it would be easy to understand that radiation levels on each layer boundary is also in equilibrium.
That radiation intensity on each layer boundary simply follows the Boltzmann equation with the temperature on that boundary.
Also important to note is that no radiation is 'lost' anywhere. Net radiation balance inside and between each layer is 0.
Each layer-top exchanges (emits and absorbs) exactly the same radiation intensity as the bottom of the layer above it.
And each layer-bottom does the same with the layer below it (albeit at a slightly higher intensity).
So no energy is lost, but intensity of radiation reduces with altitude (in a section of the spectrum where the atmosphere is
opague).
Now what if there is a (constant) heat source inside this opague layer ?
Where does this heat go ?
Well, temperature inside the layer increases. So it's too warm for it's location in the stack.
The heat will thus transport. There are at least two methods by which it does that :
(1) The heat will create excess radiation inside this layer. Radiation is in arbitrary direction, so initially 50% goes up, and 50%
goes down.
Each part warms it's neighbors, which then warm theirs, and so on, until the heat source (energy) is spread out across the entire
atmosphere.
Does this mean that heat goes from low to high ? No. The radiative balance is still guaranteed at every layer boundary, and remember
that the
highest intensity thermal emitter (the surface) is still (net) radiating and loosing energy to space in the normal high-low
radiative flow.
But the heat source DOES warm the surface as well as radiate to space. In an opague atmosphere, 50% of a heat source heats the
surface, and 50% is added to space-bound radiation.
(2) By convection. Here, it will be be 'effectively' transported upward, to higher level layers.
But if there is already a lot of convection, it could do this by REDUCING that existing convection.
In a sense, it forms an 'inversion' layer, which ultimately reduces heat losses from the surface
Both methods effectively warm the surface AND increase radiation to space, without violating the 2nd law.
Key is that the second law does does not rule out that heat flows from cold to warm absolutely. It just rules out that the net heat
flow has to be from hot to cold.
Does this help ?
>
>> That's as far as I got until now.
>
> I think it's good progress. You're thinking critically, not just
> accepting dogma.
>
And you too, I should say. Thanks for keeping an open mind.
> Me too. Thanks for your post. Your earlier link to the outgoing
> spectrum opened up some new questions for me. Why is that 10u notch
> there?
Still did not have time to look into that and respond to some of the other good questions and statements (about clouds for example)
that you made.
Will do so when I have enough time.
I first wanted to get mutual understanding about heat flow in an (adiabatic lapse rate) atmosphere.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>Still did not have time to look into that and respond to some of the other good questions and statements (about clouds for example)
>that you made.
>Will do so when I have enough time.
>I first wanted to get mutual understanding about heat flow in an (adiabatic lapse rate) atmosphere.
I think one of the issues overlooked a lot is that the oceans
and the land surfaces radiate broadband and nothing in the
atmosphere can absorb broadband but clouds, so there is a
lot of radiation to space that is not subject to the up-down
radiation premise.
Also it sounds like there is an assumption in GW theory
that the surface radiates more up than the atmosphere
radiates down 25/7, or that the up-down is constant,
or that the surface is warmer than the atmosphere,
when a lot of the time the air is warmer than the surface.
All the justification of IR radiation theory is not going
to change the global average temperature set, which has
plateaued, and until I get some temperatures warmer
than normal, all the promises of Global Warming have
been broken.
Bill Ward
OK. Include the above in your next post where you address the points you
snipped from this one, and I'll answer your points in detail there. I
prefer not to spread the discussion out over several disconnected
threads, because it's hard to keep straight which points were answered
where.
Rob Dekker
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:F9R6m.21567$iz2....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
> news:MpOdnfvsOumc48bX...@giganews.com...
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:27:38 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>
> ....
> This posting is only in response to what I think is a key misunderstanding
> between us....
> Mostly about radiation levels at different altitudes, and about the second
> law of thermodynamics.
> .....
>>> That would imply that T2 would increase until the heat that was
>>> absorbed can radiate away. For that to happen for all the energy that
>>> was absorbed, T2 would have to rise to T1, since that is where the
>>> radiative balance would even out again.
>>
>> I don't see why. The energy being radiated is the thermal energy of the
>> gas. At 255K, there is just enough energy radiated from a BB to balance
>> the energy from the sun. (effective radiation temperature) Why would the
>> temperature need to rise to the temperature of the surface to emit that
>> much?
>>
>
A more direct answer to your question would be like this :
How else (but raising the temperature to T1) could the top of the atmosphere
readiate as much as the surface emits at T1 ?
Say the surface is at temperature T1 and emits power Pabs into the
atmosphere (inside GHG absorbtion bands).
If the atmosphere would emit all of it again (in the same GHG absorbtion
bands) at the top of the atmosphere, then the top of the atmosphere needs to
be at temperature T1. The atmosphere is only opague in GHG absorbtion bands,
so there is simply no other part of the spectrum that it could adiate from
(of course all this is absense of clouds).
In reality it is not at T1. It is at T2, which is much lower than T1,
causing reduction in space bound radiation in the GHG absorbtion bands. The
remaining part of the absorbed energy that does not get radiated to space
makes it back to Earth, one way or another, where it warms the surface (as
compared to an atmosphere without GHGs).
> The 255K is the 'effective' temperature, indicating the amount of energy
> radiated (or the amount of full-spectrum energy received for that matter).
>
> If Earth were a black body with highly (thermally) conductive surface, and
> no GHG in the atmosphere, then it would be 255 K.
> But due to opague GHGs at the (cold) top of the troposphere, a portion of
> the IR spectrum radiates at a lower temperature (lower intensity) than 255
> K.
> The effective radiating temperature of Earth thus is lower than without
> the GHGs.
> The non-opague portion (radiated directly from the surface) will have to
> increase in intensity to retain an 255 K effective radiating Earth.
> The surface can only do that by heating up. So T1 gets higher in the
> presence of GHGs.
>
Rob
Rob Dekker
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
That is austrich tactics. The physics show that IR radiation theory is
crucial in setting the global average temperature.
Please not that for a doubling in CO2, we are taking about at least 3 W/m^2
warming (lowballed, and even if there is no positive feedback at all).
That is a power of 382 TW, or a factor 30 larger than all human power
sources combined.
Blazing 24/7.
> and until I get some temperatures warmer
> than normal, all the promises of Global Warming have
> been broken.
>
So if YOU don't notice it in your own backyard than it does not exist ?
That's pretty shortsighted...
>
>
>
>
Bill Ward
As I said in my last post, include this in your next complete, unsnipped
post, and I'll answer in detail. It's too hard to keep track of which
point was answered where when the thread is chopped up into pieces.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
na, you prefer, non ending rambling posts....
Rob Dekker
Bill,
I normally like to get to the point, and not get sidetracked in browsing
through large sections of text to fill in questions and remarks that are
duplicated with different wording.
I'll make the complete side post as you want, but I don't think it make it
more readable. Not for you, not for me, and not for anyone that is reading
this thread.
Rob
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:MpOdnfvsOumc48bX...@giganews.com...
I don't see how convection or latent heat are directly affected by CO2
increase.
So I don't think it can be a primary factor.
>
>>>> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It will
>>>> feel the radiation from the bottom (T1). There is no question about
>>>> that this will warm the Earth surface. Right?
>>>
>>> Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
>>>
>>>
>> Corrent. But even though the surface is at same temperature as the air
>> just above it (T1), the presence of GHGs still cause the atmosphere to
>> radiate, and thus the surface gets heated by it (where it would not be
>> heated if there were no GHGs).
>
> I don't think so. That's the essence of LTE. Everything radiates to
> everything else, always transferring energy from warm to cool, driving
> temperatures toward equilibrium. If the surface becomes warmer than the
> air, it warms the air. The air can only warm the surface if it is warmer
> than the surface.
Sure, but even if the atmosphere is colder than the surface, when it has
GHGs, it will still radiate in these absorbtion bands towards the surface.
So it still warms it.
In LTE terms, the radiation up is the same as the radiation down.
If the atmosphere had no GHG, then there would be no radiation down. Only
directly up to space.
Concequently, average surface temperature would drop to 255 K, where direct
BB radiation is in equilibrium with solar irradiance.
With GHGs, the atmosphere heats the surface as well as the other way around,
and equilibrium is higher than 255 K.
This is very standard knowledge. Are you still disputing this ?
> Since the Sun is heating the surface, that is unlikely
> during the daytime, when most cooling occurs.
>
> At night, there's an inversion layer that forms as the surface
> radiatively cools, which blocks convection and conductive cooling.
> That's, IMHO, the main GHG effect. When it's cold, heat is retained by
> that inversion layer blocking convection.
What has GHG to do with this process ?
>
> At no time can net energy ever flow from cold to hot. That would violate
> the second law, as you could use the hot surface "sink" and the cold
> "source" air to drive a heat engine and get free energy. I'm pretty sure
> you have enough background to understand that doesn't work.
>
Net energy flow is always from warm to cold. From surface to space.
But if there is an absorbtion barrier in between warm and cold, then things
change.
Some energy gets radiated back (by the atmosphere which, albeit cooler,
radiates), which prevents the surface from cooling.
>> In essence, this is the very same effect
>> that I describe below, just seen from the surface rather than from
>> space.
>>
>>>> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
>>>
>>> Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out
>>> conduction.
>>>
>>>
>> Correct. But the equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the same
>> set-up without GHGs.
>
> I don't think so. If that were true, we could solve our energy problems
> by setting up heat engines using the surface as the heat source and the
> air as a heat sink.
>
Even though huricanes are great examples of heat engines that use the
surface as heat source and the air as heat sink, in general, and for the
planet as a whole, this is not true.
Reason is that the NET energy flow is still from surface to space.
Just the net rate at which this energy leaves (the power) is less than
without the GHGs.
>> I indeed left conduction out. I'm working with average temperatures for
>> now.
>>
>>>> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
>>>> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
>>>
>>>> OK. That's one part.
>>>>
>>>> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth.
>>>> Earth warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's
>>>> surface radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1 (into the
>>>> Boltzmann equation).
>
> It also conducts heat into the air, both sensible and latent.
>
Yes, and it also transports this heat around the planet, effectively
reducing the temp differences between poles and equator.
There is a lot of bad nomenclature in this field.
"Trapped" is indeed bad naming, and neither form GHGs a "blanket" and even
the name "green house gas" is bad, because "green houses" and blankets
reduce cooling mostly by reducing convection.
The absorbed heat it not trapped. It gets transported up and around the
globe, and eventually relocated to cooler areas, and radiated back to the
surface, and a (small) portion gets radiated to space.
How much gets radiated to space depends on T2.
>> That would imply that T2 would increase until the heat that was
>> absorbed can radiate away. For that to happen for all the energy that
>> was absorbed, T2 would have to rise to T1, since that is where the
>> radiative balance would even out again.
>
> I don't see why. The energy being radiated is the thermal energy of the
> gas. At 255K, there is just enough energy radiated from a BB to balance
> the energy from the sun. (effective radiation temperature) Why would the
> temperature need to rise to the temperature of the surface to emit that
> much?
>
How else (but raising T2 to T1) could the top of the atmosphere
readiate as much as the surface emits at T1 ?
Say the surface is at temperature T1 and emits power Pabs into the
atmosphere (inside GHG absorbtion bands).
If the atmosphere would emit all of it again (in the same GHG absorbtion
bands) at the top of the atmosphere, then the top of the atmosphere needs to
be at temperature T1. The atmosphere is only opague in GHG absorbtion bands,
so there is simply no other part of the spectrum that it could adiate from
(of course all this is absense of clouds).
In reality it is not at T1. It is at T2, which is much lower than T1,
causing reduction in space bound radiation in the GHG absorbtion bands. The
remaining part of the absorbed energy that does not get radiated to space
makes it back to Earth, one way or another, where it warms the surface (as
compared to an atmosphere without GHGs).
>> First of all, that is not what we observe. T2 (temperature at top
>> of troposphere) is definitely lower than T1 (temperature at the
>> surface).
>>
>> Still, I understand that the absorbed energy has to go somewhere, and
>> what I think (but am not sure about) is that most of the energy that the
>> surface radiates to the atmosphere comes right back to the surface (due
>> to increased temperature of the lower atmosphere, and thorough mixing by
>> conduction and convection and wheather patterns in general. It may not
>> come back at the same place where it started, but it will come back.
>
> That's why the concept of "local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is so
> important. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the
> troposphere. Net energy cannot be transported against that gradient. To
> do so would require energy from outside the system.
Net energy flow is not reversed. Net energy flow still goes with the
gradient.
But the amount of energy that makes it through to space is reduced if there
are GHGs in the atmosphere.
This seems to be a key difference of opinion between us.
In my opinion, even under LTE, on a planet where the warmest point is the
surface, and the atmospheric has GHGs and temperatures follow adiabatic
lapse rate,
radiation levels will be higher at the bottom than they will be at the top.
The difference radiates back to the surface.
Key is that radiation does go down as well as up !
See below for a long explanation.
>
> You are correct, of course, in observing that the energy is distributed
> meridionally by the global circulation, but never from cold to warm.
> Some of the tropical heat is distributed, but much of it is also radiated
> to space.
True. The poles would be close to 3 K, if there were no heat flow from warm
to cold.
> There are cumulonimbus clouds there, for example, that penetrate
> the stratosphere, radiating BB all the way up, and depositing ice.
>
OK.
>> The heat simply has no time to reach the top of the atmosphere.
>
> What other choice does it have? It can't go against the thermal gradient
> without mechanical energy, which has to come from somewhere else in the
> climate system. Some will be distributed poleward, but only towards
> cooler regions. The cooler regions also lose heat by convection and
> radiation, as they are still warmer than space.
>
>> That part that reaches the top will indeed create a slight increase in
>> T2 (in my model) which would mean that there will be slightly more
>> radiation going to space in the GHG absorption lines. But how much the
>> fraction is that makes it to the top, that I do not know yet.
>
> All of it will make it to the top, just not at the same rate everywhere.
Now I see where you are struggling with !
Does this help ?
> That distributed poleward will also be convected and radiated. There's
> an equilibrium.
>
>> That's as far as I got until now.
>
> I think it's good progress. You're thinking critically, not just
> accepting dogma.
>
And you too, I should say. Thanks for keeping an open mind.
>>>> On the space side, the atmosphere will still radiate (only in the GHG
>>>> spectral lines, and at T2), but now we also see T1 outside the
>>>> spectral lines, as it came from the surface straight through the
>>>> atmosphere. So the combined spectrum measured outside is T1 outside
>>>> GHG spectral lines, and T2 inside spectral lines. Note that we do not
>>>> see much 'in the middle'.
>>>
>>>> We do not 'see' the temperature distribution through the atmosphere,
>>>> not do we 'see' any effects such as convection.
>>>
>>> When you see the GHG spectral lines. you are seeing convection.
>>>
>>>
>> I do not think so.The GHG spectral lines come from a layer at the top of
>> the atmosphere (where the "photons can escape to space" in your words).
>> But I think that the temperature there is determined by adiabatic lapse
>> rate to the surface, not by convection.
>
> Convection enforces the lapse rate. It's the defining feature of the
> troposphere.
Sure, I just feel that 'convection' does not quite address the nature of the
adiabatic lapse rate.
Convection is a mode of heat transfer. If the atmosphere is in perfect
adiabatic balance (lapse rate perfect everywhere) then there is no
convection. Still the top of the atmosphere is at a lower temperature than
the bottom.
Convection creates thus a very strong (negative) feedback on the lapse rate,
but is not the primary cause.
The primary cause is the air pressure difference, induced by gravity and the
mass of air.
>
>> Convection pushes warm air up (which then cools adiabatically) and it
>> pushes cold air down (which then warms adiabatically) elsewhere. So I
>> think that the net effect of convection (on T2) is close to zero. Very
>> little heat makes it to the top of the atmosphere.
>
> The term "cooling" is ambiguous. One meaning is to decrease in
> temperature, the other is to lose energy. As air rises, the temperature
> drops, but no energy is lost (adiabatic). So all the heat energy that
> was in the air at the surface is still there at T2, except for that which
> was radiated, or lost to precipitation. When it radiates its energy away
> to space, its temperature drops, its density increases, and it descends
> to push the warmer, less dense, air below upward.
Thanks. Very clearly written.
Only it can only radiate as much energy to space as T2 dictates.
>
>>> Convection is not optional, it is required if gases become less dense
>>> then their surroundings in a gravitational field. The fact that the
>>> air absorbs energy to form the dark lines forces the conclusion that
>>> convection is carrying the energy rather than radiation. Where else
>>> can it go?
>>>
>>>
>> Back to the surface, albeit probably at a different location then where
>> it originated.
>
> I don't think so, unless you mean the meridional distribution process,
> which still only runs from hot to cold. The 2nd law always applies.
>
Yes, the lateral heat transfer process distributes the heat around the
globe.
>>>> What radiates to space is T1 (the surface) outside the GHG spectral
>>>> lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere) inside the GHG spectral
>>>> lines.
>>>
>>> In a cloud free atmosphere, yes. But we have clouds.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, I'd like to leave clouds out for now. Their effect is not just in
>> IR, but also in visible light.
>
> But I think clouds are part of the "primary" cooling mechanism. Leaving
> them out distorts reality, invalidating the model.
Clouds play an important role for cooling and heat distribution.
They can offer a feedback mechanism, either resisting or enforcing average
global surface temperatue changes, but they cannot be a "primary" forcing
function when we talk about increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>> Their reflection factors (top and/or bottom) make them rather difficult
>> to model.
>
> True enough. But being "difficult to model" is not a very good
> scientific reason to simply ignore them. That's the mistake the IPCC is
> making.
They don't ignore them. Clouds have been studied in detail to estimate their
feedback effect.
>
>> I would like to deal with your points about latent heat, which does not
>> necessarily include cloud cover.
>
> You need phase changes to invoke latent heat. Are you limiting it to ice
> sublimation and deposition?
>
Sorry. That was worded poorly.
What I meant is that I wanted to deal with your points regarding heat
transfer (to different altitude).
That could be by convection, or by latent heat in clouds, or by radiation.
>>>> Now what is the 'top' of the atmosphere ? The top is the altitude
>>>> where the GHGs becomes effectively opague (as seen from space).
>>>
>>> I would say it's where the atmosphere is optically thin enough that the
>>> thermal photons can escape to space, say one photon mean free path to
>>> space.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>>> But it's only a glass half full/empty thing. (Half opaque/
>>> transparent?)
>>
>> What do you mean?
>
> I was trying to say there's no major difference between our definitions,
> only philosophical.
Agreed.
>
>>>> Because that is where the radiation comes from. For CO2, that is
>>>> currently probably around 12km altitude so T2 for CO2 spectral lines
>>>> will be -50 C or so on average. If the concentration CO2 were to
>>>> increase, then it's opagueness depth will decrease, and thus the
>>>> altitude at which it radiates will increase.
>>>
>>>> Since 10km is still below the tropopause, this will likely lead to a
>>>> decrease in temperature, and thus a decrease in outbound radiation.
>>>> Thus it will lead to global warming.
>>>
>>> That's a good point. It works the other way, too. If cloud tops
>>> become lower, the outgoing broadband radiation is higher by del T^4.
>>
>> True, but only to the extend that cloud tops are absorbers/emitters of
>> IR (and even all light frequencies).
>> If they are reflectors, then their altitude does not matter. That's one
>> reason why clouds are tricky.
>
> The absorption spectrum of liquid water shows strong absorption
> throughout the IR:
>
> <http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html>
>
> (scroll down to a nice color graph)
That's a great graph and an interesting site.
Thanks for finding that one.
It seems that IR absorption of liquid water (and ice too) peaks at 3400/cm
(2.9 um).
I wish we could find the graph that extends into the peak for 300 K
radiation around 600/cm (17 um) and beyond...
>
> Clouds consist of droplets of water or ice, plus saturated WV, so I'd
> expect they would absorb/emit fairly well. If you look at the spectrum
> fig 4.1 in your link, you'll note a smooth sloping line from about 12u
> down to 8u, following a roughly 285K? temperature profile, interrupted by
> a notch at the water window at 10u. I'd suggest that might be consistent
> with low cloud tops radiating BB, but I'm not sure what to make of the
> notch. Any ideas?
>
I tend to agree with you. I think you found the most plausible explanation
for this noth.
If the clouds absorb/emit around 10 um, then the notch is easily explained
because the temperature of the top of the clouds is lower than surface temp
of the 290 K envelope.
Do you know if there is a way to calculate what the temperature is at the
top of (say common cumulus) clouds ?
>>
>>> When WV increases, cloud tops are lower.
>>
>> Is that true even if air temperatures increase ? See, that's another
>> reason that clouds are tricky.
>
> The air temperature is pretty well set by the lapse rate. More water
> vapor means higher dewpoint, thus lower condensation temperatures and
> altitudes.
Wouldn't lower condensation temperatures imply higher altitudes ?
And are you talking about the top or the bottom of clouds ?
>
>>> When the surface is hotter, WV
>>> increases. But we'll leave the loop open for now.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>> BTW, if you look closely at fig 4.1, you can see the 10u WV "window" as
>>> a notch in the emission spectrum. That suggests to me the surface
>>> radiation is less than the BB radiation from 8 to 12.5u. Otherwise I'd
>>> expect a spike because it's not absorbed by WV above it. Do you have
>>> any other explanation?
>>
>> Sorry, have not looked into this yet. Could it be dust in the
>> atmosphere, or clouds ?
>
> Well, it looks like the water window, complete with the ozone band, but
> it seems to be absorbing rather than transmitting.
>
Absorbtion w.r.t. the 290 K envelope would indicate radiation from a lower
temperature (than 290 K).
I think your assessment of radiation from clouds in this area is plausible
(assuming clouds absorb/emit at 10 um).
>>>> This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will
>>>> warm up so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming
>>>> sunlight heats the surface.
>>>
>>> You still need to account for convective transfer from the surface to
>>> the radiating layer. Convection remains in play up to the tropopause.
>>>
>>>
>> As above. Have not figured everything out yet, but I think that very
>> little energy convects up to 10-12km where it could radiate away. Most
>> will simply be transported to another place and go back to the surface.
>
> See above for why I disagree. The "other place" is also emitting energy,
> or it wouldn't be cooler.
>
See above (the long explanation) how radiation levels decrease with
temperature through an opague atmosphere.
>>> I would look at it as the Earth always emitting the same average LWIR
>>> energy as it receives from the Sun, and that radiation layer being
>>> connected to the surface via a lapse rate dependent on WV.
>>
>> We did not talk about the WV radiation layer yet. That one is for sure
>> in the troposphere. What do you think will happen if there is increased
>> WV, and thus WV could reach higher into the troposphere, which thus
>> increases the altitude of the WV radiation layer ?
>
> See above for why I think more WV means lower clouds.
I would love to understand more about that. I'm not a cloud expert.
>>
>>
>>> Think of the radiation process at T2 as a heat sink connected to the
>>> surface heat source T1 via a variable thermal conductance. In your
>>> nomenclature, T2 is set by insolation, T1 is dependent on the lapse
>>> rate (WV) and the average radiating altitude.
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting.
>> In fact, T1 and T2 are BOTH important for outbound radiation (see
>> above). But the difference between T1 and T2 is almost certainly
>> determined by the lapse rate and the average radiating altitude.
>
>>>> The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
>>>> adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the atmosphere
>>>> can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and eventually
>>>> also T2) will be determined by the GHGs in the atmosphere.
>
> T2 is set only by the average solar input. T1 is the dependent variable.
Not sure how you figured that..
Yes. That's how I see it too.
>>> Again, thanks for an interesting exchange of ideas. I think you're
>>> onto something with your observation that lower radiating altitudes
>>> mean more cooling.
>>
>> Likewise, I appreciate your point of view and sharp, detailed questions
>> and statements.
>> It is a good exercise for me too, and increases my understanding of this
>> subject as well.
>
> Me too. Thanks for your post. Your earlier link to the outgoing
> spectrum opened up some new questions for me. Why is that 10u notch
> there?
See above.
What A. Fool
wrote:
Sorry, I don't know what "austrich" means.
I am also sorry to see you are teaching instead of
discussing now.
>The physics show that IR radiation theory is
>crucial in setting the global average temperature.
There is more change in temperature from change
in wind direction than from surface radiation.
>Please not that for a doubling in CO2, we are taking about at least 3 W/m^2
>warming (lowballed,
Please note that there will not be a doubling in atmospheric
CO2 concentrations (from present) before fossil fuels become
so scarce it will not be an issue.
Also note that the global temperature last month
is listed as only having an anomaly of 0.001 degrees.
>and even if there is no positive feedback at all).
Apparently there are none, else the anomaly
should be more than 0.001 degrees.
>That is a power of 382 TW, or a factor 30 larger than all human power
>sources combined.
>Blazing 24/7.
So the CO2 increased concentration caused warming
predicted by your described model should be 30 times greater
than all the power created in producing it?
>> and until I get some temperatures warmer
>> than normal, all the promises of Global Warming have
>> been broken.
>
>So if YOU don't notice it in your own backyard than it does not exist ?
>That's pretty shortsighted...
Sorry, I should have known, temperatures 15 degrees
below normal represent Global Warming, everything is global
warming, Global Warming is all there is, Global Warming is
everything, everything worth talking about is Global Warming.
Bill Ward
Thanks. It's also easier for me to clarify my meaning when I can
actually see your response to my points. When you simply snip them
without comment, I just have to guess why they weren't clear to you.
Bill Ward
If you start with the assumption that increases in CO2 is causing the
warming, then ignore all other effects that are not affected by CO2, it
looks like circular logic to me. I think we first need to understand the
complete system, then see if we can calculate the effect of CO2.
>>>>> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It
>>>>> will feel the radiation from the bottom (T1). There is no question
>>>>> about that this will warm the Earth surface. Right?
>>>>
>>>> Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Corrent. But even though the surface is at same temperature as the air
>>> just above it (T1), the presence of GHGs still cause the atmosphere to
>>> radiate, and thus the surface gets heated by it (where it would not be
>>> heated if there were no GHGs).
>>
>> I don't think so. That's the essence of LTE. Everything radiates to
>> everything else, always transferring energy from warm to cool, driving
>> temperatures toward equilibrium. If the surface becomes warmer than the
>> air, it warms the air. The air can only warm the surface if it is
>> warmer than the surface.
>
> Sure, but even if the atmosphere is colder than the surface, when it has
> GHGs, it will still radiate in these absorbtion bands towards the
> surface. So it still warms it.
It can slow the cooling. It can't add any energy.
> In LTE terms, the radiation up is the same as the radiation down. If the
> atmosphere had no GHG, then there would be no radiation down. Only
> directly up to space.
> Concequently, average surface temperature would drop to 255 K, where
> direct BB radiation is in equilibrium with solar irradiance. With GHGs,
> the atmosphere heats the surface as well as the other way around, and
> equilibrium is higher than 255 K. This is very standard knowledge. Are
> you still disputing this?
That's basically LTE, and I think I may have mentioned it a couple of
times.
>
>> Since the Sun is heating the surface, that is unlikely during the
>> daytime, when most cooling occurs.
>>
>>
>> At night, there's an inversion layer that forms as the surface
>> radiatively cools, which blocks convection and conductive cooling.
>> That's, IMHO, the main GHG effect. When it's cold, heat is retained by
>> that inversion layer blocking convection.
>
> What has GHG to do with this process?
It absorbs the radiation from the surface (LTE), warming the air to form
the inversion layer.
>> At no time can net energy ever flow from cold to hot. That would
>> violate the second law, as you could use the hot surface "sink" and the
>> cold "source" air to drive a heat engine and get free energy. I'm
>> pretty sure you have enough background to understand that doesn't work.
>>
>>
> Net energy flow is always from warm to cold. From surface to space. But
> if there is an absorbtion barrier in between warm and cold, then things
> change.
> Some energy gets radiated back (by the atmosphere which, albeit cooler,
> radiates), which prevents the surface from cooling.
Energy is always radiated from everything to everything else, in the
direction of maximizing entropy. It never reduces entropy. The "back
radiation" term seems to confuse people. It's simply another way to look
at the experimentally observed (Tsource^4-Tsink^4) term in the S/B
equation.
>>> In essence, this is the very same effect that I describe below, just
>>> seen from the surface rather than from space.
>>>
>>>>> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
>>>>
>>>> Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out
>>>> conduction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Correct. But the equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the same
>>> set-up without GHGs.
>>
>> I don't think so. If that were true, we could solve our energy
>> problems by setting up heat engines using the surface as the heat
>> source and the air as a heat sink.
>>
>>
> Even though huricanes are great examples of heat engines that use the
> surface as heat source and the air as heat sink, in general, and for the
> planet as a whole, this is not true.
> Reason is that the NET energy flow is still from surface to space. Just
> the net rate at which this energy leaves (the power) is less than
> without the GHGs.
The power radiated by the Earth must be equal to the power received by
the Earth. That's why the ERT must be 255K. GHG's can only affect the
temperature distribution, not the power emitted.
>>> I indeed left conduction out. I'm working with average temperatures
>>> for now.
>>>
>>>>> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
>>>>> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
>>>>
>>>>> OK. That's one part.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth.
>>>>> Earth warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's
>>>>> surface radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1 (into the
>>>>> Boltzmann equation).
>>
>> It also conducts heat into the air, both sensible and latent.
>>
>>
> Yes, and it also transports this heat around the planet, effectively
> reducing the temp differences between poles and equator.
Some of it, but much is radiated to space. Look at the Hadley cell:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell>
The surface latent heat is lifted up near the tropopause and radiates
most of it's energy to space. When cooled and dried, the air descends in
the horse latitudes for another pass. That's a lot of cooling.
Because radiation is only part of the heat transport from the surface.
Radiation outside the 10u window is almost completely blocked by LTE.
Convection carries the rest of the energy.
> Say the surface is at temperature T1 and emits power Pabs into the
> atmosphere (inside GHG absorbtion bands). If the atmosphere would emit
> all of it again (in the same GHG absorbtion bands) at the top of the
> atmosphere, then the top of the atmosphere needs to be at temperature
> T1. The atmosphere is only opague in GHG absorbtion bands, so there is
> simply no other part of the spectrum that it could radiate from (of
> course all this is absense of clouds).
And convection.
> In reality it is not at T1. It is at T2, which is much lower than T1,
> causing reduction in space bound radiation in the GHG absorbtion bands.
> The remaining part of the absorbed energy that does not get radiated to
> space makes it back to Earth, one way or another, where it warms the
> surface (as compared to an atmosphere without GHGs).
Can you explain how that doesn't violate the 2nd law? "One way or
another" is a bit ambiguous.
>>> First of all, that is not what we observe. T2 (temperature at top of
>>> troposphere) is definitely lower than T1 (temperature at the surface).
>>>
>>> Still, I understand that the absorbed energy has to go somewhere, and
>>> what I think (but am not sure about) is that most of the energy that
>>> the surface radiates to the atmosphere comes right back to the surface
>>> (due to increased temperature of the lower atmosphere, and thorough
>>> mixing by conduction and convection and wheather patterns in general.
>>> It may not come back at the same place where it started, but it will
>>> come back.
>>
>> That's why the concept of "local thermodynamic equilibrium" (LTE) is so
>> important. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the
>> troposphere. Net energy cannot be transported against that gradient.
>> To do so would require energy from outside the system.
>
> Net energy flow is not reversed. Net energy flow still goes with the
> gradient.
> But the amount of energy that makes it through to space is reduced if
> there are GHGs in the atmosphere.
Only if you assume there is no convection.
> This seems to be a key difference of opinion between us. In my opinion,
> even under LTE, on a planet where the warmest point is the surface, and
> the atmospheric has GHGs and temperatures follow adiabatic lapse rate,
> radiation levels will be higher at the bottom than they will be at the
> top.
Again, ignoring LTE and convection. The surface temperatures will be
higher than T2, but the radiative transport excluding the 10u window is
essentially zero. The "radiation" is simply thermal photons ricocheting
around in equilibrium at T1. There's essentially no delta T. The only
upward transport will be to replace the energy lost at the top by
radiating to space at T2.
> The difference radiates back to the surface. Key is that radiation
> does go down as well as up ! See below for a long explanation.
Radiation cannot transfer energy from cold to hot, regardless of the
length of the explanation.
No, not really. Because of LTE, the atmosphere is essentially opaque to
radiation (WV absorption). Think of it as a black (in LWIR) cloud, with
the surface radiating to the bottom at T1, and the "top" radiating to
space at T2. That's all the radiative transfer you get. The rest has to
come through the 10u window, or via convection.
Simple observation of the tropical climate mechanism shows massive
convective cooling.
> If so, then first, again, this is NOT what we are observing. From space,
> the opague part of IR (opague due to GHGs) is lower in intensity than
> the transparant part.
When I look at fig 4.1 in your link, the sloping line from 12.5u to 8u
looks a lot like ~290K BB radiation, and the transparent part appears to
be actually radiating less than the opaque part.
> So inside these absorption bands, less radiation
> makes it to space.
Fig 4 looks like more radiation is making it to space from the
"absorption bands" than is making it through the transparent part, with
the exception of the 15u CO2 band, which is apparently radiating normally
from a temperature of ~220K.
That's the standard approximation, but it's not necessary, or even
accurate in this case. For example: Assume two brothers are on bicycles
30 miles apart each riding towards the other at 15 MPH. They have a
trained parrot which flies at 35MPH, starting from one rider, flying to
the second rider, then turning around (in zero time), flying back to the
first rider, repeating the process until they all meet.
How far does the parrot fly?
The first instinct is to calculate the convergent series, which gives a
good approximation. The easy way is to observe the riders will meet in
one hour, the bird flies at 35MPH, so will go 35 miles.
For the atmosphere, the trick is to note the LTE condition, making it
essentially a black cloud which conserves energy. No more power can
enter the bottom than can be radiated at the top. The top temperature is
set by the lapse rate and altitude. There is no need to go through the
monkey motion of trying to integrate over a bunch of layers.
Conservation of energy and LTE limit the purely radiative transport to
whatever power density can be radiated at the top temperature.
> (2) By convection. Here, it will be be 'effectively' transported upward,
> to higher level layers.
> But if there is already a lot of convection, it could do this by
> REDUCING that existing convection.
Convective latent heat transport in a m/s thermal is on the order of
10's of kW/m^2. Radiative transport is on the order of 100's of W/m^2.
It seems unlikely to me that radiation will overwhelm convection. I like
to fly sailplanes. I always look for thermals, not surface radiation,
when I need lift. How bright a searchlight would I need to keep a glider
in the air? Trust me, there's a lot more energy in thermals than there
is in surface radiation.
> In a sense, it forms an 'inversion' layer, which ultimately reduces heat
> losses from the surface
>
> Both methods effectively warm the surface AND increase radiation to
> space, without violating the 2nd law.
> Key is that the second law does does not rule out that heat flows from
> cold to warm absolutely. It just rules out that the net heat flow has to
> be from hot to cold.
>
> Does this help ?
I assume that's a typo, and that you meant to say it just "confirms" that
net heat flow has to be from hot to cold.
>
There will be as soon as the upper layers radiate their heat to space,
cool, and become more dense. It can't stay in equilibrium without
convection.
> Still the top of the atmosphere is at a lower temperature
> than the bottom.
The troposphere is observed to have considerable convection and
turbulence. That instability would seem to rule out the lapse rate being
controlled by radiation.
> Convection creates thus a very strong (negative) feedback on the lapse
> rate, but is not the primary cause.
> The primary cause is the air pressure difference, induced by gravity and
> the mass of air.
The resulting temperature difference is maintained by dense air sinking
and less dense air rising; convection.
>>> Convection pushes warm air up (which then cools adiabatically) and it
>>> pushes cold air down (which then warms adiabatically) elsewhere. So I
>>> think that the net effect of convection (on T2) is close to zero. Very
>>> little heat makes it to the top of the atmosphere.
>>
>> The term "cooling" is ambiguous. One meaning is to decrease in
>> temperature, the other is to lose energy. As air rises, the
>> temperature drops, but no energy is lost (adiabatic). So all the heat
>> energy that was in the air at the surface is still there at T2, except
>> for that which was radiated, or lost to precipitation. When it
>> radiates its energy away to space, its temperature drops, its density
>> increases, and it descends to push the warmer, less dense, air below
>> upward.
>
> Thanks. Very clearly written.
> Only it can only radiate as much energy to space as T2 dictates.
I believe T2 (ERT) is set by the requirement that the outgoing LWIR input
must equal the SW input from the sun, and T1 is set by T2 and the lapse
rate.
>>>> Convection is not optional, it is required if gases become less dense
>>>> then their surroundings in a gravitational field. The fact that the
>>>> air absorbs energy to form the dark lines forces the conclusion that
>>>> convection is carrying the energy rather than radiation. Where else
>>>> can it go?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Back to the surface, albeit probably at a different location then
>>> where it originated.
>>
>> I don't think so, unless you mean the meridional distribution process,
>> which still only runs from hot to cold. The 2nd law always applies.
>>
>>
> Yes, the lateral heat transfer process distributes the heat around the
> globe.
>
>>>>> What radiates to space is T1 (the surface) outside the GHG spectral
>>>>> lines and T2 (the top of the atmosphere) inside the GHG spectral
>>>>> lines.
>>>>
>>>> In a cloud free atmosphere, yes. But we have clouds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, I'd like to leave clouds out for now. Their effect is not just
>>> in IR, but also in visible light.
>>
>> But I think clouds are part of the "primary" cooling mechanism.
>> Leaving them out distorts reality, invalidating the model.
>
> Clouds play an important role for cooling and heat distribution. They
> can offer a feedback mechanism, either resisting or enforcing average
> global surface temperatue changes, but they cannot be a "primary"
> forcing function when we talk about increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I'm trying to understand the cooling mechanisms of the surface before
jumping to conclusions about the effect of CO2. Once we understand the
system, we have a better chance of properly allocating the effects of the
different components.
>>> Their reflection factors (top and/or bottom) make them rather
>>> difficult to model.
>>
>> True enough. But being "difficult to model" is not a very good
>> scientific reason to simply ignore them. That's the mistake the IPCC
>> is making.
>
> They don't ignore them. Clouds have been studied in detail to estimate
> their feedback effect.
Without considering the effects of convection, because it's not amenable
to modeling. The last I saw, they were trying to parametrize convection.
Sorry, I should have said the _second_ nice color graph, about 3/4
down the page.
I think it's there, between 1000/cm and 100/cm
>> Clouds consist of droplets of water or ice, plus saturated WV, so I'd
>> expect they would absorb/emit fairly well. If you look at the spectrum
>> fig 4.1 in your link, you'll note a smooth sloping line from about 12u
>> down to 8u, following a roughly 285K? temperature profile, interrupted
>> by a notch at the water window at 10u. I'd suggest that might be
>> consistent with low cloud tops radiating BB, but I'm not sure what to
>> make of the notch. Any ideas?
>>
>>
> I tend to agree with you. I think you found the most plausible
> explanation for this notch.
> If the clouds absorb/emit around 10 um, then the notch is easily
> explained because the temperature of the top of the clouds is lower than
> surface temp of the 290 K envelope.
>
> Do you know if there is a way to calculate what the temperature is at
> the top of (say common cumulus) clouds ?
Lapse rate and altitude for an estimate, radiosondes or a flyby for a
measurement. Maybe a satellite, if you can get the resolution. The tops
tend to vary in altitude on any given day more than the bases do, for
obvious reasons.
>>>> When WV increases, cloud tops are lower.
>>>
>>> Is that true even if air temperatures increase ? See, that's another
>>> reason that clouds are tricky.
>>
>> The air temperature is pretty well set by the lapse rate. More water
>> vapor means higher dewpoint, thus lower condensation temperatures and
>> altitudes.
>
> Wouldn't lower condensation temperatures imply higher altitudes?
Right you are. I meant to say lower condensation altitudes.
> And are you talking about the top or the bottom of clouds?
More WV means higher dewpoint and lower condensation (cloud base)
altitudes. The bottom is where the cloud starts to build, then it
billows upward depending on the latent heat release and the current state
of the atmosphere (temperature, humidity, winds. etc).
A cumulus cloud is a dynamic, transient system, you pretty much have to
consider the whole entity.
>>>> When the surface is hotter, WV
>>>> increases. But we'll leave the loop open for now.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>> BTW, if you look closely at fig 4.1, you can see the 10u WV "window"
>>>> as a notch in the emission spectrum. That suggests to me the surface
>>>> radiation is less than the BB radiation from 8 to 12.5u. Otherwise
>>>> I'd expect a spike because it's not absorbed by WV above it. Do you
>>>> have any other explanation?
>>>
>>> Sorry, have not looked into this yet. Could it be dust in the
>>> atmosphere, or clouds ?
>>
>> Well, it looks like the water window, complete with the ozone band, but
>> it seems to be absorbing rather than transmitting.
>>
>>
> Absorbtion w.r.t. the 290 K envelope would indicate radiation from a
> lower temperature (than 290 K).
> I think your assessment of radiation from clouds in this area is
> plausible (assuming clouds absorb/emit at 10 um).
They're solid bodies, so they should be broad band.
>>>>> This spectrum eventually (in the long run) determines T1. Earth will
>>>>> warm up so that as much IR radiates through to space as incoming
>>>>> sunlight heats the surface.
>>>>
>>>> You still need to account for convective transfer from the surface to
>>>> the radiating layer. Convection remains in play up to the
>>>> tropopause.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As above. Have not figured everything out yet, but I think that very
>>> little energy convects up to 10-12km where it could radiate away. Most
>>> will simply be transported to another place and go back to the
>>> surface.
>>
>> See above for why I disagree. The "other place" is also emitting
>> energy, or it wouldn't be cooler.
>>
>>
> See above (the long explanation) how radiation levels decrease with
> temperature through an opague atmosphere.
The short explanation says in LTE, it's simply thermal photons being
exchanged, at vanishingly small delta T.
>>>> I would look at it as the Earth always emitting the same average LWIR
>>>> energy as it receives from the Sun, and that radiation layer being
>>>> connected to the surface via a lapse rate dependent on WV.
>>>
>>> We did not talk about the WV radiation layer yet. That one is for sure
>>> in the troposphere. What do you think will happen if there is
>>> increased WV, and thus WV could reach higher into the troposphere,
>>> which thus increases the altitude of the WV radiation layer ?
>>
>> See above for why I think more WV means lower clouds.
>
> I would love to understand more about that. I'm not a cloud expert.
I'm not either, but I think they're not only fascinating, but also
entertaining, with the right equipment.
>>>> Think of the radiation process at T2 as a heat sink connected to the
>>>> surface heat source T1 via a variable thermal conductance. In your
>>>> nomenclature, T2 is set by insolation, T1 is dependent on the lapse
>>>> rate (WV) and the average radiating altitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Interesting.
>>> In fact, T1 and T2 are BOTH important for outbound radiation (see
>>> above). But the difference between T1 and T2 is almost certainly
>>> determined by the lapse rate and the average radiating altitude.
>>
>>>>> The difference between T1 and T2 could be determined by convection,
>>>>> adiabatic expansion, radiation or any other cause, and the
>>>>> atmosphere can all be nice in LTE. But the absolute value of T1 (and
>>>>> eventually also T2) will be determined by the GHGs in the
>>>>> atmosphere.
>>
>> T2 is set only by the average solar input. T1 is the dependent
>> variable.
>
> Not sure how you figured that..
By the conservation of energy. At equilibrium, the Earth must radiate
LWIR all the SW energy it receives from the Sun. That sets the effective
radiating temperature T2. The rest of the story is how the energy gets
from the surface to the appropriate radiating layer. Some is direct, the
rest is convected.
Thanks for humoring me. I much prefer a long but complete post to a
collection of snippets that must be reassembled to make sense.
Now it's all right here...
Rob Dekker
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message news:5bio55ppg4s66hfqs...@4ax.com...
Sorry. I meant "ostrich".
That bird that sticks it's head into the sand when something scary is going on, so it can pretend nothing is wrong...
> I am also sorry to see you are teaching instead of
> discussing now.
Mmm. I thought you were the one doing the teaching :
"All the justification of IR radiation theory is not going to change the global average temperature set, which has plateaued"
>
>>The physics show that IR radiation theory is
>>crucial in setting the global average temperature.
>
> There is more change in temperature from change
> in wind direction than from surface radiation.
>
With the exception that wind transports heat inside the atmosphere, thus changing local temperatures, but does not affect the global
average.
But outside the atmosphere, radiation is the only mechanism of heat transport.
So radiation (IR specifically for cooling) determines how warm this planet will get.
That's why it's crucial.
>
>>Please not that for a doubling in CO2, we are taking about at least 3 W/m^2
>>warming (lowballed,
>
> Please note that there will not be a doubling in atmospheric
> CO2 concentrations (from present) before fossil fuels become
> so scarce it will not be an issue.
I would not be too sure of that. We humans are very creative in finding fossil energy sources.
>
> Also note that the global temperature last month
> is listed as only having an anomaly of 0.001 degrees.
>
Last month ? An assessment of climate change over a timespan of a month is an oxymoron.
>
>>and even if there is no positive feedback at all).
>
> Apparently there are none, else the anomaly
> should be more than 0.001 degrees.
>
>>That is a power of 382 TW, or a factor 30 larger than all human power
>>sources combined.
>>Blazing 24/7.
And with nowhere to go.
>
> So the CO2 increased concentration caused warming
> predicted by your described model should be 30 times greater
> than all the power created in producing it?
That's right. At a minimum.
Actually, we are still lucky : at this time, about half of the CO2 that we emit still gets dissolved into the oceans.
That will stop once oceans warm up enough.
Don't worry about this too much yet. We are not at saturation point yet.
Most shell-based sealife will die of first (due to carbonic acid seawater acidification) before the saturation point is reached.
But I guess that is not in your backyard either, so it's not important, right ?
Rob Dekker
I know you hate this, but I have explanation for the 10 um notch. It's not clouds : it's ozone in the stratosphere.
Moreover, we can extract more interesting data from the graph.
What we see in figure 4.1 is an outer envelope of 290 K. That indicates the surface temperature.
All spectral lines that make it straight from the surface to outer space approximate that envelope.
There are 3 exception :
Below 600/cm, and above 1200/cm, water absorption lines show up.
Their envelope is around 275 K, which indicates that radiation originates from an altitude of 2-3 km (average).
This is the altitude below where most water vapor hangs out, so this makes sense.
WV thus effectively becomes opague at 2-3 km altitude (as seen from space).
Then there is the deep notch between 600/cm and 800/cm. That's CO2.
The temperature envelope is around 220 K, which indicates that it is radiated from about 12 km altitude.
This is consistent with our earlier findings, of CO2 becoming effectively opague at that altitude (as seen from space).
The third notch is around 10 um. That is a main absorbtion band for ozone. It's envelope is again 275 K.
If this were from the troposphere, it would be radiated at about 3 km altitude.
But ozone is also present in the stratosphere, where 275 K relates to an altitude of around 50 km.
That makes perfect sense in my opinion.
This explains the entire spectrum as we observe it from outer space.
It also indicates where the various GHGs have their effect, both in quantity and in altitude.
Regards
Rob
P.S. You do not need to respond to this side-thread if you do not want to. Just consider it FYI in that case.
Bill Ward
> Bill,
>
> I know you hate this, but I have explanation for the 10 um notch. It's
> not clouds : it's ozone in the stratosphere.
I think you're right. Believe it or not, I had just figured it out, and
was about to post it. The transform between the wiki Atmospheric
Transmission graph and fig 1.4 threw me off for a bit. Radiance is not
spectral intensity, which I believe refers to power density, so the
radiance graph may be a tad misleading. W/m^2 is what we're looking for.
not radiance. There's more energy in shorter wavelengths.
> Moreover, we can extract
> more interesting data from the graph.
>
> http://books.google.com:80/books?
id=6xUpdPOPLckC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=infrared+spectrum+of
+atmosphere&source=bl&ots=NnOMeHZgOy&sig=eyycqJD9xW2mLWxBExoisL1OJqs&hl=en&ei=yedWSqjNB4WYsgOk5_nzAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9
>
> What we see in figure 4.1 is an outer envelope of 290 K. That indicates
> the surface temperature.
Or maybe an average between low cloud tops and the surface.
> All spectral lines that make it straight from
> the surface to outer space approximate that envelope. There are 3
> exception :
>
> Below 600/cm, and above 1200/cm, water absorption lines show up. Their
> envelope is around 275 K, which indicates that radiation originates from
> an altitude of 2-3 km (average). This is the altitude below where most
> water vapor hangs out, so this makes sense. WV thus effectively becomes
> opague at 2-3 km altitude (as seen from space).
>
> Then there is the deep notch between 600/cm and 800/cm. That's CO2. The
> temperature envelope is around 220 K, which indicates that it is
> radiated from about 12 km altitude. This is consistent with our earlier
> findings, of CO2 becoming effectively opague at that altitude (as seen
> from space).
>
> The third notch is around 10 um. That is a main absorbtion band for
> ozone. It's envelope is again 275 K. If this were from the troposphere,
> it would be radiated at about 3 km altitude. But ozone is also present
> in the stratosphere, where 275 K relates to an altitude of around 50 km.
> That makes perfect sense in my opinion.
>
>
> This explains the entire spectrum as we observe it from outer space. It
> also indicates where the various GHGs have their effect, both in
> quantity and in altitude.
The only thing missing is clouds radiating BB. They show up clearly in
IR weather images, so they must be in there somewhere. I wonder what the
spatial resolution was for that spectrum.
> Regards
>
> Rob
>
> P.S. You do not need to respond to this side-thread if you do not want
> to. Just consider it FYI in that case.
No problem. Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting it myself.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"That's basically LTE, and I think I may have mentioned it a
couple of times."
the funny thing is LTE requires constant T, for that parcel of air,
but does the existence of gravity waves, limit the size of the parcel
at a given temp? (see An introduction to atmospheric physics By David
G. Andrews) The atmosphere is a fluid, and a cross sectional slice
(horizontal to the earths surface) will cut through the troughs and
peaks of the waves traveling through our atmosphere. So in essence
aren’t LTE conditions limited to a given T, and since differences in T
are associated with the peaks and troughs of gravity waves, why
wouldn’t LTE conditions be influenced by gravity waves? A simple
question bill, please do not act like you cannot read, otherwise you
have not correlated your posts to real observations, and you really
are just a bunch of smoke and mirrors…
"Modulation of gravity waves by tides as seen in CRISTA temperatures
References and further reading may be available for this article. To
view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
P. Preussea, S. D. Eckermannb, J. Oberheidea, M. E. Haganc and D.
Offermanna
a Department of Physics, Wuppertal University (BUGW), Gauss Str. 20,
D-42097 Wuppertal, Germany
b E. O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, DC 20375, USA
c High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, 3450 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, CO
80307, USA
Available online 12 October 2001.
Abstract
During shuttle missions STS-66 (November, 1994) and STS-85 (August,
1997) the CRyogenic Infrared Spectrometers and Telescopes for the
Atmosphere (CRISTA) acquired temperature data with very high spatial
resolution. These are analyzed for gravity waves (GW). The altitude
range spans the whole middle atmosphere from the tropopause up to the
mesopause. In the upper mesosphere tidal amplitudes exceed values of
10 K. Modulation of GW activity by the tides is observed and analyzed
using CRISTA temperatures and tidal predictions of the Global Scale
Wave Model (GSWM). The modulation process is identified as a tidally-
induced change of the background buoyancy frequency. The findings
agree well with the expectations for saturated GW and are the first
global scale observations of this process."
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/39939.pdf
"LARGE-AMPLITUDE GRAVITY-WAVE BREAKING OVER THE GREENLAND LEE
AND THE SUBSEQUENT FORMATION OF DOWNSTREAM SYNOPTIC-SCALE
TROPOPAUSE FOLDING AND STRATOSPHERIC-TROPOSPHERIC EXCHANGE
Melvyn A. Shapiro1, Simon Low-Nam2, Haraldur Olafsson3, James Doyle4
and Piotr K. Smolarkiewicz2
1NOAA/Environmental Technology Laboratory, Boulder, CO
2National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
3University of Iceland, Icelandic Meteorological Office, Reykjavik,
Iceland
4Naval Research Laboratory, Monterey, CA
1. INTRODUCTION
The importance of mountain waves for numerical weather prediction is
underscored by the numerous studies that document their impact on the
atmospheric momentum balance (e.g., Eliassen and Palm 1961),
turbulence generation (e.g., Lilly 1978), and the creation of severe
downslope winds (e.g., Smith 1985). Largeamplitude internal gravity
waves may be generated as a consequence of stably stratified air that
is forced to rise over topography. Amplification of upward-propagating
gravity waves occurs, in part, due to the decrease in atmospheric
density with height and may result in subsequent wave overturning and
turbulent breakdown
(e.g., Bacmeister and Schoeberl 1988)."
An introduction to atmospheric physics By David G. Andrews
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message news:w9ydnSP-BLzrTcHX...@giganews.com...
In science, in a complex system, when you want to know the effect that one variable has,
then you would first look at the immediate effect of that variable of the end result.
After that, you can look at feedback effects and see if the first order effect is amplified or suppressed.
Most importantly, you change only ONE variable at a time.
This is standard complex system system analysis.
Nothing 'circular' about it.
>
>>>>>> Now imagine that planet Earth surface is there at the bottom. It
>>>>>> will feel the radiation from the bottom (T1). There is no question
>>>>>> about that this will warm the Earth surface. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only while the surface is cooler than the air. Remember the 2nd law.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Corrent. But even though the surface is at same temperature as the air
>>>> just above it (T1), the presence of GHGs still cause the atmosphere to
>>>> radiate, and thus the surface gets heated by it (where it would not be
>>>> heated if there were no GHGs).
>>>
>>> I don't think so. That's the essence of LTE. Everything radiates to
>>> everything else, always transferring energy from warm to cool, driving
>>> temperatures toward equilibrium. If the surface becomes warmer than the
>>> air, it warms the air. The air can only warm the surface if it is
>>> warmer than the surface.
>>
>> Sure, but even if the atmosphere is colder than the surface, when it has
>> GHGs, it will still radiate in these absorbtion bands towards the
>> surface. So it still warms it.
>
> It can slow the cooling. It can't add any energy.
>
Exactly.
But slowing the cooling in a system that is supplied constantly with a given amount of energy (solar insolation) effectively means
that the system will warm up.
>> In LTE terms, the radiation up is the same as the radiation down. If the
>> atmosphere had no GHG, then there would be no radiation down. Only
>> directly up to space.
>> Concequently, average surface temperature would drop to 255 K, where
>> direct BB radiation is in equilibrium with solar irradiance. With GHGs,
>> the atmosphere heats the surface as well as the other way around, and
>> equilibrium is higher than 255 K. This is very standard knowledge. Are
>> you still disputing this?
>
> That's basically LTE, and I think I may have mentioned it a couple of
> times.
OK. Then we are in agreement.
>>
>>> Since the Sun is heating the surface, that is unlikely during the
>>> daytime, when most cooling occurs.
>>>
>>>
>>> At night, there's an inversion layer that forms as the surface
>>> radiatively cools, which blocks convection and conductive cooling.
>>> That's, IMHO, the main GHG effect. When it's cold, heat is retained by
>>> that inversion layer blocking convection.
>>
>> What has GHG to do with this process?
>
> It absorbs the radiation from the surface (LTE), warming the air to form
> the inversion layer.
>
OK. I see where you are going.
GHGs could stall convection at night, and thus lead to warming (at night). Is that what you mean ?
However, convection during the day will more than make up for the stalling at night.
Convection will still enforce the adiabatic lapse rate (over periods of more than a day). With or without the GHGs.
So what is the direct net GHG effect in this process ? Nil, right ?
So the only thing that matters in the long run is radiation. Radiation to space to be precise.
>>> At no time can net energy ever flow from cold to hot. That would
>>> violate the second law, as you could use the hot surface "sink" and the
>>> cold "source" air to drive a heat engine and get free energy. I'm
>>> pretty sure you have enough background to understand that doesn't work.
>>>
>>>
>> Net energy flow is always from warm to cold. From surface to space. But
>> if there is an absorbtion barrier in between warm and cold, then things
>> change.
>
>> Some energy gets radiated back (by the atmosphere which, albeit cooler,
>> radiates), which prevents the surface from cooling.
>
> Energy is always radiated from everything to everything else, in the
> direction of maximizing entropy. It never reduces entropy. The "back
> radiation" term seems to confuse people. It's simply another way to look
> at the experimentally observed (Tsource^4-Tsink^4) term in the S/B
> equation.
>
Not sure what is confusing about this. Some people call the portion of Tsink^4 that goes back to source the back-radiation, and
that's fine with me.
Also, keep in mind that Tsource^4-Tsink^4 is only valid as a net radiation energy flow number if both source and sink have the same
surface area.
>>>> In essence, this is the very same effect that I describe below, just
>>>> seen from the surface rather than from space.
>>>>
>>>>>> So that causes warming of planet Earth, only by GHG effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only until the surface reaches equilibrium, and you left out
>>>>> conduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Correct. But the equilibrium is at a higher temperature than the same
>>>> set-up without GHGs.
>>>
>>> I don't think so. If that were true, we could solve our energy
>>> problems by setting up heat engines using the surface as the heat
>>> source and the air as a heat sink.
>>>
>>>
>> Even though huricanes are great examples of heat engines that use the
>> surface as heat source and the air as heat sink, in general, and for the
>> planet as a whole, this is not true.
>> Reason is that the NET energy flow is still from surface to space. Just
>> the net rate at which this energy leaves (the power) is less than
>> without the GHGs.
>
> The power radiated by the Earth must be equal to the power received by
> the Earth. That's why the ERT must be 255K. GHG's can only affect the
> temperature distribution, not the power emitted.
>
That is correct. GHGs cannot affect the 255 K effective radiation temperature.
But they DO affect the 'color' of the outgoing spectrum, and with that affect the actual (absolute) temperature of the radiating
body.
>>>> I indeed left conduction out. I'm working with average temperatures
>>>> for now.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note that it does not matter how T1 and T2 were established (by
>>>>>> adiabatic expansion, or convection or radiation or whatever).
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK. That's one part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The second part : Now switch on the sun and install planet Earth.
>>>>>> Earth warms up and starts to radiate itself. Assume that Earth's
>>>>>> surface radiates as a black-body, so it will radiate at T1 (into the
>>>>>> Boltzmann equation).
>>>
>>> It also conducts heat into the air, both sensible and latent.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and it also transports this heat around the planet, effectively
>> reducing the temp differences between poles and equator.
>
> Some of it, but much is radiated to space. Look at the Hadley cell:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell>
>
> The surface latent heat is lifted up near the tropopause and radiates
> most of it's energy to space. When cooled and dried, the air descends in
> the horse latitudes for another pass. That's a lot of cooling.
>
Thanks. Nice link, and shows that indeed both convection and radiation are important in cooling the planet.
First, it shows that convection enforces heat distribution (from subtropics to poles in this case). Convection is the main driver of
this Hadley cell engine.
The actual picture there is a bit misleading, in that the air that goes up from the is shown as 'warm' when it arrives close to the
tropopause.
In reality, it is very cold. It got cold due to adiabatic expansion. But it is cold, and cold it remains all the way to the poles.
During that trip it radiates to space. But it radiates at T2 in our model. This temperature T2 will drop further as it looses energy
by radiation during its trip to the poles.
So when it finally gets sucked down to the polar surface (and warms adiabatically on its way down), it will be much colder than when
it left the subtropic surface.
The difference in temperature is due to radiation from the tropopause. Without radiation to space from the tropopause, the air
coming down at the poles would be the same temperature as the air that left the subtropics, which would warm the poles considerably.
So radiation (from the tropopause) is an important driver of the Hadley engine as well.
One step further : We know (from the T1-T2 opague cloud example up in this thread) that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will
make the upper troposphere more IR opague, and thus the altitude where radiation to space occurs will increase. That means that for
the Hadley engine, less radiation will be emitted to space, so when the air arrives at the poles, it will be slightly warmer than
before. So increase in CO2 in the tropopause between the subtropics and the poles will lead to slightly warmer poles. Rats ! That's
exactly what we are observing ! Isn't that interesting ?
OK. Convection carries the heat up to the tropopause, where it can radiate to space. At (cold) T2.
It can and it does, and you even mention this yourself (with the Tsource^4-Tsink^4 equation), but I give up.
It may not be crucial for the discussion, since you do seem to agree with the effect at the 'space' side.
I like your statement of the altitude where "photons can escape to space".
That is in line with what I mean, and eventually describes the same effect.
Cooling the tropics, warming the poles, by massive heat transport, yes. See my description of the Hadley cell.
The actual cooling of the planet as a whole happens via radiation though. We are in agreement about that, right ?
>
>> If so, then first, again, this is NOT what we are observing. From space,
>> the opague part of IR (opague due to GHGs) is lower in intensity than
>> the transparant part.
>
> When I look at fig 4.1 in your link, the sloping line from 12.5u to 8u
> looks a lot like ~290K BB radiation, and the transparent part appears to
> be actually radiating less than the opaque part.
>
WV has less absoption between 12.5u to 8u than it has above and below this spectrum (called the water window?).
So the radiating altitude will be closer to the surface, closer to 290 K.
The 10 um notch is ozone in the stratosphere IMHO, radiating at 270 K or so, radiating at about 40 km altitude (the ozone layer).
>> So inside these absorption bands, less radiation
>> makes it to space.
>
> Fig 4 looks like more radiation is making it to space from the
> "absorption bands" than is making it through the transparent part, with
> the exception of the 15u CO2 band, which is apparently radiating normally
> from a temperature of ~220K.
>
Right, because CO2 radiates form 12-15 km altitude, as we discussed before.
You are right on. I like the comparison, and the 50/50 number is probably only correct if heat is generated halfway the opague
layer.
>> (2) By convection. Here, it will be be 'effectively' transported upward,
>> to higher level layers.
>> But if there is already a lot of convection, it could do this by
>> REDUCING that existing convection.
>
> Convective latent heat transport in a m/s thermal is on the order of
> 10's of kW/m^2. Radiative transport is on the order of 100's of W/m^2.
>
> It seems unlikely to me that radiation will overwhelm convection.
I never suggested that. But if somebody puts a heat-producing layer through a convective column, then the convection from below
would be slowed down (and convection from that point to top would increase). That means that less energy leaves the surface. Right ?
> I like
> to fly sailplanes. I always look for thermals, not surface radiation,
> when I need lift. How bright a searchlight would I need to keep a glider
> in the air? Trust me, there's a lot more energy in thermals than there
> is in surface radiation.
>
>> In a sense, it forms an 'inversion' layer, which ultimately reduces heat
>> losses from the surface
>>
>> Both methods effectively warm the surface AND increase radiation to
>> space, without violating the 2nd law.
>> Key is that the second law does does not rule out that heat flows from
>> cold to warm absolutely. It just rules out that the net heat flow has to
>> be from hot to cold.
>>
>> Does this help ?
>
> I assume that's a typo, and that you meant to say it just "confirms" that
> net heat flow has to be from hot to cold.
Yes. Net heat flow is from hot to cold. Always.
I never suggested that radiation controls the lapse rate. I don't think it does.
The lapse rate is determined by adiabatic expansion.
Convection is the main enforcer of this lapse rate.
Is that better ?
>
>> Convection creates thus a very strong (negative) feedback on the lapse
>> rate, but is not the primary cause.
>> The primary cause is the air pressure difference, induced by gravity and
>> the mass of air.
>
> The resulting temperature difference is maintained by dense air sinking
> and less dense air rising; convection.
>
>>>> Convection pushes warm air up (which then cools adiabatically) and it
>>>> pushes cold air down (which then warms adiabatically) elsewhere. So I
>>>> think that the net effect of convection (on T2) is close to zero. Very
>>>> little heat makes it to the top of the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> The term "cooling" is ambiguous. One meaning is to decrease in
>>> temperature, the other is to lose energy. As air rises, the
>>> temperature drops, but no energy is lost (adiabatic). So all the heat
>>> energy that was in the air at the surface is still there at T2, except
>>> for that which was radiated, or lost to precipitation. When it
>>> radiates its energy away to space, its temperature drops, its density
>>> increases, and it descends to push the warmer, less dense, air below
>>> upward.
>>
>> Thanks. Very clearly written.
>> Only it can only radiate as much energy to space as T2 dictates.
>
> I believe T2 (ERT) is set by the requirement that the outgoing LWIR input
> must equal the SW input from the sun, and T1 is set by T2 and the lapse
> rate.
In ballpark terms, that is correct.
Fine. Still the system is very complex, while the direct effect of CO2 is fairly simple.
Got it. Thanks !
How about the countereffect :
Let's see, if surface temperature is higher, the vapor pressure would increase (at a certain altitude).
That suggests that the bottom end of the cloud would increase in altitude.
>
>> And are you talking about the top or the bottom of clouds?
>
> More WV means higher dewpoint and lower condensation (cloud base)
> altitudes. The bottom is where the cloud starts to build, then it
> billows upward depending on the latent heat release and the current state
> of the atmosphere (temperature, humidity, winds. etc).
>
> A cumulus cloud is a dynamic, transient system, you pretty much have to
> consider the whole entity.
>
Sounds like pandora's box to me...
I like your explanation you gave before better :
> I believe T2 (ERT) is set by the requirement that the outgoing LWIR input
> must equal the SW input from the sun, and T1 is set by T2 and the lapse
> rate.
>
And another long post right here..