Global warming gases
Joe Blaine
a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
Uncle Al
>
> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Robert Grumbine
Joe Blaine <an...@anon.com> wrote:
>Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
Pretty much any gas whose molecule has 3 or more atoms is a greenhouse
gas. The most common greenhouse gases are:
Water Vapor - H2O
Carbon Dioxide - CO2
Ozone - O3
Others include: N2O, CH4, ...
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are very strong greenhouse gases,
Carbon Dioxide, N2O, CH4, and CFCs are strongly influenced by
human activity. There are FAQs regarding the growth of CO2 and CH4 (methane)
at my web side (nice articles by Jan Schloerer) and a Climate Change Basics
article, also by Jan. You might also find some of the 'short notes' helpful.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Joe Blaine
news:3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net...
> Joe Blaine wrote:
> >
> > Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me
and
> > a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>
> The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
So if water vapour is the major global warming gas and CO2 a minor trouble
maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving huge tax
incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can increase
production?
Harold
Primarily because there is so much water in the atmosphere that all
the dehumidifiers we could make would not put a dent in the total.
What would help the is reduction of methane (CH4). This would be
cheap and could be done fairly quickly.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
-----
"...cultural relativism refuses to acknowledge the superiority of
the Western way. This refusal to admit the obvious stinks of the bad
faith of the rich man telling the bum that money doesn't matter. Most
critics of the West, after all, live in the material comfort and
political freedom of the West, and have no intention of demonstrating
with their actions their belief that all cultures are equal, that the
difference between Manhattan and Kabul is one merely of taste."
---Richard Thornton, Professor, Cal State Fresno,
Jan 31, 2002
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Lloyd Parker
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Joe Blaine wrote:
>>
>> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why?
Me and
>> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>
>The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
>Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
>Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
>freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
>dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
>
of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
human-caused warming.
Uncle Al
I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
beneath consideration.
John VanSickle
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > >The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> > >Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > >Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > >freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > >dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 accounts for 1/4 or so
> > of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
> > human-caused warming.
>
> I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
> through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
> compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
> than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
> beneath consideration.
Ye gods, Uncle Al, are you coming down with something? I've never
seen you so forebearing with a blatherer.
Regards,
John
Ian St. John
I am not sure if you are trying to be funny? A smiley would have
clarified that.
I'd like to point out to Uncle Al, that you asked for the 'Global
Warming' gases and not 'Greenhouse Effect' gases. As a percentage of
the current GHE, water vapor forms the largest single contributor. But
it is NOT a 'global warming' gas.
That is because water vapor is of very low 'persistence'. The water
that evaporated today will be rained out in short order, and the level
of GHE from water vapor is a function of the temperature, not a
contributor to it.
This is good! Otherwise, we would have a 'runaway greenhouse' and turn
into Venuslike conditions.
As can be seen at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf page 8, the
major *Global Warming* gas ( Greenhouse gas with long and
non-temperature dependent persistence ) is CO2.
But since CO2 increases increase the temperature, water vapor also
increases amplifying the GW from CO2 increase by about 2.5 times, so
an increase purely dependent on CO2 of .4 degrees will actually cause
a warming of 1 degree under current conditions.
This 'positive feedback response' due to changes in the hydrological
cycle is referred to as the 'climate sensitivity' in the literature.
HTH
Joe Blaine
news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for the clarification.
Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
We had snow at sea level in May.
We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.
TellTheTruth
...sinp...
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
record.
> Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the
extremes!
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.
Summer begins June 21. Your post is dated June 8.
???
TellTheTruth
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%
* variable gases
"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:adqtff$8fq$3...@news1.Radix.Net...
Richard Henry
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
record.
Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
Tumbleweed
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
--
Tumbleweed
Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)
John Beardmore
>Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
> Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.
Again a smiley would have helped clarify if your comments are
*intended* to be humorous.
As can be easily seen by http://www.umac.org/climate/climate.html
areas which are warming *on average* can still exibit a wide variety
of warming and cooling trends, not does the weather in May count. GW
is about temperatures averaged both in time ( over the year ) and
space ( over the entire globe ).
*Global* warming is therefore about the total heat energy on the
surface. This is dependent on the influx vs outgo of energy from and
to space, not on climate processes.
The erratic climate oscillations that you seem to be thinking of are
more due to ENSO and the polar vortex oscillations that have changed
climate variability ( year to year variations )especially in the N.A.
continent.
These may eventually be linked to GW as a driving force or trigger.
Some evidence for this is available, but the science has not reached
consensus. If confirmed, it would not be the first or only example of
climate turning a general warming trend into a local cooling event.
Climate is about transportation of heat, and the processes can be
weakened ( cooling ) or strengthened ( warming ) in local regions.
There is no suggestion of GW as a 'nice warm winter'. Even if it did,
the result would not necessarily be good, as such can easily lead to
uncontrollable spring flooding followed by ummer drought in areas
dependent on winter snowpack. You should be especially aware of this.
The science may save your life or livelihood. Good predictions based
on solid science are needed, and you are not helping by promoting this
dismissive attitude.
Michelle Fulton
"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >
> > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > record.
> >
> > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> >
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have
it
> at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
Snow in May is unusual for the NW coast, isn't it. Do y'all even get much
snow in "winter"?
I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to February.
The other seasons just kinda blend in.
Michelle
Richard Henry
"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >
> > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > record.
> >
> > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> >
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have
it
> at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> --
Contrary to popular belief?
I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your statement
of "no agreed start to summer".
Just by coincidence, I posted the following to another newsgroup in a thread
discussing Godwin's Law:
I hereby propose Henry's Lemma:
For any statement of opinion made on usenet about science, law, politics,
religion or general human culture, there exists a website in support of the
opinion.
And Henry's DiLemma:
For any statement of opinion made on usenet about science, law, politics,
religion or general human culture, there exists a website in opposition to
the
opinion.
Paul Farrar
Well, it is true that oceanographers, meteorologists, etc., often treat
June, July and August as a "climatological summer". It's usually refered
to as "JJA", though.
Paul Farrar
Ian St. John
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
emissions.
Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
persistence and therefore their GW potential.
HTH
John Beardmore
John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes
>John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
>> <an...@anon.com> writes
>> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>>
>> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
>> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
>>
>>
>> Cheers, J/.
>
>http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
>
>Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
>Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
>emissions.
OK.
Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?
Absorb ? Absorb/emit ? Reflect ? What's the physical process ?
>Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
>of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
>O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
>persistence and therefore their GW potential.
So some if the indirect 'ghgs' reduce warming by removing direct
ghgs ? Seems odd to call them ghgs in these cases.
So taking the IPCC view that NOx, NMVOCs and CO are indirect ghgs, what
influence do they have and by what mechanism ?
Tumbleweed
"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>
>
> I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
> October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to February.
> The other seasons just kinda blend in.
>
> Michelle
>
I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend of
mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
:-)
--
Tumbleweed
Tumbleweed
>
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > >
> > > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > >
> > > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > > record.
> > >
> > > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> > >
> > Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some
have
> it
> > at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> > seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> > still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> > --
>
>
> Contrary to popular belief?
>
> I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your
statement
> of "no agreed start to summer".
>
yep, most people believe there is an official start to Summer, but not
everyone knows what that is, and for those that do 'know', they disagree
what it is :-)
I always used to think 21st or 22nd but the BBC meteorologists say no, they
use JJA for convenience but there isnt an actual definition that is agreed.
This comes up at this time of year on the BBC radio stations, every year.
Just like the first cuckoo, there is also the first letter arguing with a
weather forecaster who used 'summer' in early June.
Michael Moroney
>> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have
>Contrary to popular belief?
Yes. Despite what the TV weathermen state every three months, 1) There
is no "official" start of any season ("Official"? According to whom? God?)
and 2) The "start" of, e.g. summer on the summer solstice is based on
bad interpretation of astronomy. The summer solstice, or longest day, is
actually the astronomical peak or middle of summer, it is in the middle
of the period of the longest days. Of course on Earth it takes a while
for things to heat up and cool off again so Jun 21 isn't the middle of
the period of warmest temperatures. But even the Brits call the day of
Jun 21 Midsummer's Day.
In most areas "June July August" are a more accurate definition of summer
than Jun 21-Sep 21, but of course every year is different. Which day,
in your experience, do you expect to be warmer, Jun 21 (first day of summer
accordiing to the TV weathermen) or Sep 20 (last day) ?
-Mike
Richard Henry
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:GxGFx...@world.std.com...
I live near San Diego. Sep 20. Maybe even hotter in Oct.
Michael Moroney
>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:GxGFx...@world.std.com...
>> In most areas "June July August" are a more accurate definition of summer
>> than Jun 21-Sep 21, but of course every year is different. Which day,
>> in your experience, do you expect to be warmer, Jun 21 (first day of
>summer
>> accordiing to the TV weathermen) or Sep 20 (last day) ?
>I live near San Diego. Sep 20. Maybe even hotter in Oct.
Yes, but Santa Ana winds are the exception, not the rule.
-Mike
Michelle Fulton
>
>
> "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
> > October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to
February.
> > The other seasons just kinda blend in.
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
> Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend of
> mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
> :-)
>
Yes, mostly true, but unfortunately it's the most prevailent "winter"
precipitation we get here. I guess because of humidity, I'm not sure. I
like snow a lot better; it's more fun and easier to drive on.
You must have been on earth longer than I. At the very extreme, and I've
never seen it, it might freeze in early March, but it would be something
like hell freezing for Texas to freeze in April ;-)
M
Richard Henry
light drizzle. We got a couple of hours of breezy sunlight in the afternoon
before the overcast returned. Pretty typical for June around here.
September, on the other hand, tends to be either hot and dry, or if a Santa
Ana day, windy, dry and very hot.
Ian St. John
> In article <211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com>, Ian St.
> John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes
> >John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
> >> <an...@anon.com> writes
>
> >> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> >> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >>
> >> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
> >> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers, J/.
> >
> >http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
> >
> >Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
> >Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
> >emissions.
>
> OK.
>
> Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?
>
> Absorb ? Absorb/emit ? Reflect ? What's the physical process ?
My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
last...
But I suggest reading the reference I gave which has an authoritative
scientific review of the basics. Since I myself am not an 'atuhority'
on the issue, you should read any references I supply.
>
> >Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
> >of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
> >O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
> >persistence and therefore their GW potential.
>
> So some if the indirect 'ghgs' reduce warming by removing direct
> ghgs ? Seems odd to call them ghgs in these cases.
There is no reference ( that I see, but maybe you do ) to reductions
in persistence. In the case of NO, it makes a GHG ( ozone ), so it
contributes in that way. In other cases, the persistence may be
enhanced or decreased, and both may happen at different altitudes so
as to give a balance of..
>
> So taking the IPCC view that NOx, NMVOCs and CO are indirect ghgs, what
> influence do they have and by what mechanism ?
If you were paying attention ( and I suggest you do some reading ) NO2
( which is NOx where x = 2, is the third most prominent GHG, so you
seem to be a bit wrong here. As others have pointed out, any molecule
of three or more atoms is probably? certainkly? a GHG. Only NO itself
is an 'indirect ghg'.
Please read the reference before further comments, as I feel that you
need to get an authoritative view from the source science material.
Joe Blaine
> My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> last...
I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
'greenhouse effect'. You can't.
The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
fluid.
You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can believe
you if you haven't got the science right? Why should anybody believe the
predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?
Thomas Palm
>
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.
Of course you can't! That's because there are several processes for
removing heat from the surface of the Earth. You can't explain the
lapse rate using only adiabatic expansion either. This process by itself
would give a rate of 10 C/km. Only when you include the effect of
the condensation of water vapor do you get the 6.5 degree figure.
This doesn't mean that radiation is unipmortant. There are windows
where IR can radiate directly into space, unless there are clouds.
That's why clear nights are so much colder than cloudy ones. By
adding more greenhouse gasses we slowly close those windows.
Another effect is that the effective altitude at which heat can
be directly radiated into space rises. Since Earth has to be in
thermal equilibrium the temperature of this layer is constant,
and due to the lapse rate if this layer rises the temperature
near the surface increases.
> The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
> false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
> fluid.
Again, it is well known that the greenhouse metaphor is scientifically
dubious, because greenhouses work to a large extend by preventing
convection, not by trapping radiation. Nevertheless, the end result is
the same, and no one has come up with a better term.
The problems with the contrarian crowd is that they assume that
everyone involved in climate research is a moron who despite
years of study hasn't realized what a clever guy like you can
find out over a beer or two.
> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
> false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can believe
> you if you haven't got the science right? Why should anybody believe the
> predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?
Then show that people haven't done the science right! All you've
done is pointed out stuff that has been well known far longer than
there has even been computers and that as far as I know has been
included in every model made.
Tumbleweed
Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone by
the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about it
being APril.
Joshua Halpern
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net>,
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > >Joe Blaine wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why?
> > Me and
> > >> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> > >
> > >The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> > >Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > >Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > >freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > >dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 accounts for 1/4 or so
> > of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
> > human-caused warming.
>
> I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
> through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
> compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
> than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
> beneath consideration.
1. The CO2 bend is conveniently placed at the IR emission maximum
from the earth. Water vapor absorption lines are not. While you
are looking at those spectra also look at a picture of the emission
from the earth.
One place you can find such a picture and other useful information
is Figure 4-7 in:
www.chem.ualberta.ca/Undergrad%20Studies/ Courses/Chem303/notes/green.pdf
Which is also relevant to the points below.
2. CO2 does make a differece, and that has been measured by
any number of experiments
3. Water vapor concentrations are controlled by liquid vapor
equilibrium. Water vapor concentration increases exponentially
with temperature. A small increase in temperature due to increased
greenhouse gas concentrations, will be amplified by this mechanism.
4. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from a
pre-industrial 280 parts per million to about 370 parts per million
(you would, on average, find 370 molecules of CO2 in every million
that you sampled from the atmosphere).
5. The fractions of C atom isotopes identified the increase as
being due to human emissions. See, for example Jan Schloerer's
faq. References are attached to the end of the FAQ.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
************************************
1. Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?
Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped
by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is
small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic'
input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.
The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level
of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only
two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes
into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more
than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes
are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure
than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin
of the CO2 rise.
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].
* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]
* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.
* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.
* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?
Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely.
***************************************
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
I'm not sure that I would say NO (nitric oxide) has NO (none) GWP. It
does have a relatively strong IR absorption, but at fairly high
frequency
where there is little thermal emission from the atmosphere and earth,
and, as a diatomic, of course there is only one vibrational frequency.
This would make the GWP very small, but not zero.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
John Beardmore wrote:
>
> In article <211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com>, Ian St.
> John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes
> >John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
> >> <an...@anon.com> writes
> >> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> >> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
> >> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
> >http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
> >
> >Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
> >Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
> >emissions.
>
> OK.
> Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?
>
> Absorb ?
The photon is absorbed. Its energy is transformed into vibrational
energy in the molecule. This can be distributed over vibrational
modes either by collisional or intramolecular processes. Eventually
the molecule sheds the energy either by emitting an IR photon, or
in a collision transfers the energy to kinetic energy. The
collisional rates are such that the distribution of energy
may be treated as occuring in a local thermodynamic equilibrium.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote
> > "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> > > "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
SNIP....
> > Contrary to popular belief?
> > I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your
> > statementof "no agreed start to summer".
> >
> yep, most people believe there is an official start to Summer, but not
> everyone knows what that is, and for those that do 'know', they disagree
> what it is :-)
>
> I always used to think 21st or 22nd but the BBC meteorologists say no, they
> use JJA for convenience but there isnt an actual definition that is agreed.
Actually English summer is scheduled for August 4 this year, at
least that has been my experience.
josh halpern
Torsten Brinch
<from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:RqTM8.4588$KS1.14...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:advook$oq3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> > news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>> > > I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
>> > > October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to
>> > > February. The other seasons just kinda blend in.
>> > > Michelle
>> > I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
>> > Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend
>> > of mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
>> > :-)
>> Yes, mostly true, but unfortunately it's the most prevailent "winter"
>> precipitation we get here. I guess because of humidity, I'm not sure. I
>> like snow a lot better; it's more fun and easier to drive on.
>> You must have been on earth longer than I. At the very extreme, and I've
>> never seen it, it might freeze in early March, but it would be something
>> like hell freezing for Texas to freeze in April ;-)
>> M
>Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone by
>the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about it
>being APril.
Could it be the 4-5 March 2002 event you are thinking of?
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Tumbleweed
"Joshua Halpern" <jhal...@neteze.com> wrote in message
news:3D03899F...@neteze.com...
Unlikely. I am having a new fence put in that week, so I can guarantee it
will piss down the entire week.
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.
The temperature lapse rate is a function of the *equilibrium* of the
thermal processes of conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction
is too slow to matter much. Convection is determined somewhat by
terrain and weather processes. For example, an inversion layer stops
convection, while a thunderstorm can force it to higher altitude. As
Thomas points out, there are windows in the IR band which are
relatively open and allow that frequency of IR to escape relatively
unimpeded.
Adiabatic expansion changes the temperature for a volume of gas when
it *changes* altitude. It is not the same as the equilibrium at that
altitude. It is consistent with but not exactly the same as the lapse
rate since there are changes to moisture content as well. It *must* be
consistent with lapse rate to the degree that represents forces in
equilibrium, but every severe storm is an example of the fact that the
lapse rate and adiabatic expansion are not the same thing.
The lapse rate stays pretty much the same under GW conditions, as it
must in order to keep equilibrium between the layers of the
atmosphere. But the radiative equilibrium point moves upward. This is
not significantly affected by convection or conduction. We thus get a
longer path with the same lapse rate and thus a higher endpoint (
surface ).
>
> The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
> false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
> fluid.
The problem is the religious vigor by which the anti-science crowd try
their hand at denial of the science. You have presented a high school
level view of a mixed bag of partial understandings. I suggest a
remedial course at www.ipcc.ch and especially look into the scientific
basis.
>
> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
> false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years.
You use false logic. A metaphor does not predict GW or ACC. A
scientist predicts GW or ACC. The use of a metaphor in simplifying the
science to the layman is irrelevant.
> But who can believe
> you if you haven't got the science right?
Who can believe you when you cannot even make logical sense?
> Why should anybody believe the
> predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?
And who says the science is not right? You???? BTW, your emphasis on
'predictions of computer programs' indicates another level of error.
The basis of GW is the weather station data, and some well established
physics.
Joshua Halpern
Joe Blaine wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum.
Look up the term "local thermodynamnic equilibrium. Note that this
means that the average population of an excited vibrational state is
given by N(v)= N exp(-Ev/kT) where N(v) is the total number of such
molecules, Ev is the energy of the vibrationally excited state and
T the temperature. k is Boltzmann's constant. In useful units, the
CO2 bend is about 600 cm-1, kT is about 200 cm-1 at the surface of
the earth. Work out the average vibrational population of CO2. Oh
yes, the bend is two fold degenerate, so multiply that by 2.
> In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.
Wrong. You have the order wrong. To recycle an old post.
(Google is SO useful)
Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface, evaporation
about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf
On page 3, you will see an illustration of the Earth's
radiation balance. From that, you can see that the balance is
From sun: 342 W/m2
Reflected by clouds 77 W/M2 leaving 265 W/m2
Reflected by surface 30 W/M2 leaving 235 W/m2
Absorbed in atomsphere 67 W/m2
Absorbed by surface 168 W/m2
Total absorbed 235 W/m2
Now since there is a radiative balance, 235 W/m2 have to leave
the earth, and they have to leave the earth as longwave, IR,
radiation (convection and conduction don't work in the vacuum
of space). So we need to have 235 W/m2 leaving the top of the
atmosphere. Of that 235 W/m2, about 40 sneaks through all
of the atmospheric absorptions, scatterings, etc, directly
from the surface to space.
(New Note: This is not quite true. The Earth is currently
NOT in radiative balance, the difference is going to heat
the ocean).
The surface emits 390 W/m2, of which the 40 make it to space
directly, so 350 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere by
greenhouse gases, principally water vapor and CO2, but
including such things as CH4, CFCs, etc.
Convection carries 24 W/m2 from the surface, and latent
heat from the condensation of water vapor in clouds removes
about 78 W/m2 from the surface. The mechanism is as
Blaine describes, but he neglects the role of radiation.
Sorry, you can't do that.
324 W/m2 of energy are radiated back to the surface from thermally
excited greenhouse molecules. BTW they get a (small) part of their
thermal energy from convection and latent heat
All of this too and fro of energy, heats the top of the atmosphere,
until it is at a temperature hot enough that it can radiate 195 W/m2
Obviously, that much energy is not transferred by convection,
even including the latent heat contribution.
Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
volumes.
When all about you are running around,
Screaming and shouting,
Any you are calm and cool.
Maybe there is something you don't know?
\
josh halpern
Fred Kasner
I am not a believer in the global warming hypothesis. I generally
believe that the forces of nature are so large that man's puny attempts
do not significantly affect the natural forces.
However I find you appear to base your opposition on the most specious
of claims. The atmosphere whether contained or free is a fluid. Why?
Because a fluid is either of the two non-condensed phases: a gas or a
liquid. Perhaps even a plasma might be properly considered a fluid.
Even a supercritical phase is really a fluid.
Also ( post that was returned to me concerning you earlier claim) the
water in the atmosphere is not something impermanent. Just consider the
photos taken from space of the surface of the Earth. It is almost
completely covered with all that white stuff. That white stuff is clouds
and that is condensed phase of water it is liquid water in fine droplet
condition. It is NOT a gas and most of the Earth is covered by it
according to pictures I have seen. It is one of the reasons that we
sometimes refer to the Earth as the water planet.
FK
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
<snip>
>Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface, evaporation
>about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
<snip>
>Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
>as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
>(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
>the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
>from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
>volumes.
I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.
James B. Shearer
Michelle Fulton
"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:3mr8gusnrmf8apmgu...@4ax.com...
Did we have ice in March of this year? How quickly we forget...once the
heat has set in...
M
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
Michelle Fulton
Isn't that the way it always is????!!!
M ;-)
Daniel B. Wheeler
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...> news:<297M8.201087$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > Joe Blaine wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and
> > > > > why? Me and a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> > > >
> > > > Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > > > Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > > > freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > > > dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >
> trouble
> > > maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving huge tax
> > > incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can increase
> > > production?
> >
> > I am not sure if you are trying to be funny? A smiley would have
> > clarified that.
> >
> > I'd like to point out to Uncle Al, that you asked for the 'Global
> > Warming' gases and not 'Greenhouse Effect' gases. As a percentage of
> > the current GHE, water vapor forms the largest single contributor. But
> > it is NOT a 'global warming' gas.
> >
> > That is because water vapor is of very low 'persistence'. The water
> > that evaporated today will be rained out in short order, and the level
> > of GHE from water vapor is a function of the temperature, not a
> > contributor to it.
> >
> > This is good! Otherwise, we would have a 'runaway greenhouse' and turn
> > into Venuslike conditions.
> >
> > As can be seen at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf page 8, the
> > major *Global Warming* gas ( Greenhouse gas with long and
> > non-temperature dependent persistence ) is CO2.
> >
> > But since CO2 increases increase the temperature, water vapor also
> > increases amplifying the GW from CO2 increase by about 2.5 times, so
> > an increase purely dependent on CO2 of .4 degrees will actually cause
> > a warming of 1 degree under current conditions.
> >
> > This 'positive feedback response' due to changes in the hydrological
> > cycle is referred to as the 'climate sensitivity' in the literature.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.
I'd _much rather_ have the cooler temperatures (we haven't reached
summer yet, btw) than the extreme warm temperatures the PNW had in
1987-89.
As for snow at sea level in May...read some more about the Vanport,
Oregon Flood of Memorial Day, 1948 (I believe). Snow pack was
tremendous in the Cascades until May 31, when a Chinook wind took the
average air temperature from 40's and low 50's with a lot of snow
still on the ground to the upper 80's, unleashing a sudden melt of
water that inundated the second largest city in Oregon and
obliterating it in a few hours.
Getting back to gw and temperature changes, it is to be expected that
warm weather in some parts of the globe will mean cooler weather in
others. The key is that *average* temperatures have risen over the
past 20 years. That means not just in Washington, but in Washington DC
and Calcutta, India.
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Torsten Brinch
Yes, that's true. We remember cold and warm events distinctly,
but when... that gets quickly in the blur.
"March 4, 2002 — A deadly Arctic blast dropped temperatures over the
weekend to the teens in southern Texas <..> according to NOAA's
National Weather Service. The Arctic air plunged south across the
central states to the Gulf of Mexico and combined with moisture to
cover the area with ice and snow. The storm was blamed for 23 deaths.
Local National Weather Service forecast offices had warned early last
week of impending ice and snow storms across much of the central
United States.<..> Early Saturday, the storm covered Texas with a
layer of sleet, snow and freezing rain and dropped temperatures into
the single digits in southern states. Low temperatures in northern
states plunged below zero and snowfall amounts of six-12 inches were
common. Snow and freezing rain forced cancellation of about 100
flights Saturday at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.<snip>"
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
David Ball
>
>Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
>Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
>We had snow at sea level in May.
As someone has already pointed out, summer hasn't started yet.
For the past 90 days, temperatures trends are...
Quillayute: -0.91C
Seattle: -0.28C
Yakima: -0.31C
Spokane: -1.28C
Cooler than normal, but certainly not 5C cooler.
Joshua Halpern
j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>
> In article <3D050B61...@neteze.com>,
> on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
>
> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
as well. The original claim was that convection
explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
if you want to look at nets, then you should
balance convection and evaporation which is the
primary driver for convection.
> <snip>
> >Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
> >as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
> >(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
> >the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
> >from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
> >volumes.
>
> I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
> not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
> the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
> once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
> unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
> sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.
The connection is that evaporation is the primary
driving force for convection. Convection cannot
move unlimited amounts of energy, it can only move
enough energy to partially compensate for temperature
differences induced by other processes beyond the
normal lapse rate.
josh halpern
Gordon Couger
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:55:04 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
> <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
> >news:3mr8gusnrmf8apmgu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:47:52 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> >> <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone
by
> >> >the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about
it
> >> >being APril.
> >>
> >> Could it be the 4-5 March 2002 event you are thinking of?
> >>
> >
> >Did we have ice in March of this year? How quickly we forget...once the
> >heat has set in...
>
> Yes, that's true. We remember cold and warm events distinctly,
> but when... that gets quickly in the blur.
>
> weekend to the teens in southern Texas <..> according to NOAA's
> National Weather Service. The Arctic air plunged south across the
> central states to the Gulf of Mexico and combined with moisture to
> cover the area with ice and snow. The storm was blamed for 23 deaths.
> Local National Weather Service forecast offices had warned early last
> week of impending ice and snow storms across much of the central
> United States.<..> Early Saturday, the storm covered Texas with a
> layer of sleet, snow and freezing rain and dropped temperatures into
> the single digits in southern states. Low temperatures in northern
> states plunged below zero and snowfall amounts of six-12 inches were
> common. Snow and freezing rain forced cancellation of about 100
> flights Saturday at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.<snip>"
>
>
bad as usual. In fact I don't even remeber this one when it came through
here since it was dry when it came through here. They cause trouble when the
cold air and moisture come togeater as they did in Texas. Ice storms are
infrequent in south Texas and people aren't prepared for them and don't know
how to drive on ice. Ice storms in Dallas happen about once every 5 to 10
years.
Most of the deaths were in the northern part of the country and are a common
happening with any really cold spell. Fires, carbon monoxide, exposure, and
auto acidents make up most of the deaths. The elderly are the most common
victims.
That wasn't near as bad here as the ice storm
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/20020129/ a month earlier that left parts
of Oklahoma out of electricity for as much as 6 weeks. That was caused by
Pacific moisture and an Artic front all coiming togeater and just staying in
place for a couple of days with moisture from the jet stream falling through
the relitivly thin layer of artic air over Oklahoma.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/index.html is list of Oklahoma storms. I
was involed with the 1979, October 4, 1998, April 5 1999, May 3, 1999 storms
in the storm spotting network. This year has had a great deal less tornadoes
than usual. I am an amatuer radio operator and involved with the storm watch
nets. It gives a very up close view of the storms.
The weather on and near the Great Plains that run up and down the center of
the Unitied States can be very violent and extreem. It is triggered by large
temperture differeces and moisture that can be drawn up from the Gulf of
Mexico, or ride the jet stream in from the Pacific. I have seen winter
storms in May, thunder storms that dropped hail and snow and tornados in
every month of the year. That is one of the reasons that the headquarters
for the national weather service is in Norman Oklahoma so they can get to
storms to observe them as they are building and validate their radar images
with real world sightings. They do an excelent job of forcasting a warning
of adverse weather events.
Observations from one place, season or year don't have any meaning to the
trend of the climate. Extreme weather either cold, hot, more or less storms
could all be the result of global warming.
The weather is a chaotic system and a single observation has very little
relation to the whole or the ability to predict the future. The weather
appears to be bound by upper and lower bounds and stay with in those bounds.
One plausible out come of global warming is a sudden change in those bounds
either broadening or jumping to a new range. Global change may not be a
linear path.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Scott Douglas
> trouble maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving
> huge tax incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can
> increase production?
That would be an acceptable solution if water could be removed fast enough.
Unfortunately you need to compete against the combined surface area of all
of the worlds oceans in order to do that. And they constitute 2/3rds of
the earth's surface.
So if you have a design for an efficient dehumidifier that can extract
water from the air as rapidly as it can evaporate from the oceans, and do
so without consuming bagillions of gigawatts of power, you have a plan.
But unless you can extract water much faster than it can evaporate, you are
going to need to build enough dehumidifier surface that it is larger than
the combined surface area of the worlds oceans.
How do you plan to do that Mr. Blaine?
The simple fact of the matter, is that water vapour represents the primary
feedback mechanism of the warming atmosphere.
By adding more Co2, you get a small increase in temperature. That increase
allows the atmosphere to hold more water, which in turn causes a greater
increase in temperature and still more heating, and so on.
The process is self limiting. The IPCC places the self limiting limit of a
doubling of the content of the Co2 content of the atmosphere to be several
to around 10'C warming.
Scott Douglas
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some
> have it at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the
> start, it seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be
> broken, there are still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
The official definition of the first point of summer is the time when the
sun reaches it's maximum distance north of the equator.
Fred Kasner
The vernal equinox and the summer solstice etc. are well defined
astronomical terms. The calendar choice of beginning of summer is the
astronomically defined summer solstice. However for weather purposes the
meteorological summer beginning is June 1. Most of the confusions are
the result of localized conditions of when the greatest heating occurs.
That will also depend on the locale. There is a considerable lag
between the date of the greatest elevation of Sun above the southern
horizon (northern for the southern hemisphere). In regions of
continental climate the hottest time tends to be about a month later.
Above the oceans that time tends to be about two months later. Local
weather effects like monsoons tend to confuse irrevocably when summer
really begins. The astronomers find no confusion in such matters.
FK
j...@watson.ibm.com
on Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:50:27 +0200,
Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>
>
>j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D050B61...@neteze.com>,
>> on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
>> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
>> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
>>
>> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
>> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
>
>I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
>processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
>moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
>as well. The original claim was that convection
>explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
>radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
>convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
>if you want to look at nets, then you should
>balance convection and evaporation which is the
>primary driver for convection.
Evaporation should be included in convection since it is the
convection of moist air which moves the energy away from the surface.
It is true that convection starts in moist (saturated) air at a lower
temperature gradient than in dry air. This is because as a rising
parcel of air cools water condenses out releasing heat slowing the
cooling. So moist air becomes unstable with respect to convection
at a lower temperature gradient than dry air.
>> <snip>
>> >Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
>> >as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
>> >(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
>> >the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
>> >from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
>> >volumes.
>>
>> I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
>> not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
>> the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
>> once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
>> unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
>> sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.
>
>The connection is that evaporation is the primary
>driving force for convection. Convection cannot
>move unlimited amounts of energy, it can only move
>enough energy to partially compensate for temperature
>differences induced by other processes beyond the
>normal lapse rate.
What is the limit on the energy that convection can move?
A limit much larger than the solar input is effectively infinite.
James B. Shearer
Joshua Halpern
Where
j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
and
> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
furiously agree
> >j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> >> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
> >> <snip>
> >> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
> >> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
> >>
> >> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
> >> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
> >
> >I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
> >processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
> >moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
> >as well. The original claim was that convection
> >explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
> >radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
> >convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
> >if you want to look at nets, then you should
> >balance convection and evaporation which is the
> >primary driver for convection.
>
> Evaporation should be included in convection since it is the
> convection of moist air which moves the energy away from the surface.
Which is also why the role of convection decreases with altitude
as the atmosphere drys. This thought, however, opens up the
idea that as the stratosphere gets wetter through methane
photolysis, convection may play a greater role, ie a new
mechanism of climate disruption.
For convection it is a LOT smaller than that and nowhere near
infinite, even on your definition. Convection (and evaporation)
move heat away from the surface.
josh halpern
Scott Douglas
Perhaps that's why I'm not confused.
Scott Douglas
> attachment to a false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a
> greenhouse. The atmosphere is a fluid.
Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
makes up a greenhouse.
The fact is, adding Co2 to the atmosphere further closes the radiative
"window" that the earth employs to radiate away surface heat.
The term "window" by the way, is the scientifically correct term to use.
Window.... Greenhouse???? Do I see another similarity?
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in
> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in
> a false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can
> believe you if you haven't got the science right?
What does metaphor have to do with science Joe?
The metaphor is for the benefit of the scientifically illiterate. A means
of explaining science to unthinking apes who don't know the difference
between science and metaphor.
Daniel B. Wheeler
And, of course, the original post was before the latest heatwave which
included 2 new warmest temperatures ever in Portland, Oregon during
the last 4 days. Personally, I'm glad clouds rolled back in yesterday
and today. And I'm _very_ grateful we haven't had the heat responsible
for over 100 fatalities in India during the last month.
Sometimes cooler than expected temperatures can be nice...
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
B
"TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.turn> wrote in message
news:VDqM8.29965$UT.20...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Here are some numbers:
>
> Nitrogen N2 78.08%
> Oxygen O2 20.95%
> *Water H2O 0 to 4%
> Argon Ar 0.93%
> *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
> Neon Ne 0.0018%
> Helium He 0.0005%
> *Methane CH4 0.00017%
> Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
> *Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
> *Ozone O3 0.000004%
>
> * variable gases
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:adqtff$8fq$3...@news1.Radix.Net...
> > In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> > Joe Blaine <an...@anon.com> wrote:
> > >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me
> and
> > >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >
> > gas. The most common greenhouse gases are:
> > Water Vapor - H2O
> > Carbon Dioxide - CO2
> > Ozone - O3
> > Others include: N2O, CH4, ...
> > Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are very strong greenhouse gases,
> >
> > Carbon Dioxide, N2O, CH4, and CFCs are strongly influenced by
> > human activity. There are FAQs regarding the growth of CO2 and CH4
> (methane)
> > at my web side (nice articles by Jan Schloerer) and a Climate Change
> Basics
> > article, also by Jan. You might also find some of the 'short notes'
> helpful.
> >
> > http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
> >
> > --
> > Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
> activities notes and links.
> > Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
> much
> > evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
> they
> > would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
> Sciences
>
>
Joe Blaine
> > The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious
> > attachment to a false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a
> > greenhouse. The atmosphere is a fluid.
>
> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
> makes up a greenhouse.
Clever. Science is based on observables. The difference between the fluidity
of the atmosphere and the fluidity of glass is readily observable. Go
outside and observe the convection of the atmophere. On the other hand, you
will be dead and buried in your grave before glass creeps.
A conjecture: English majors believe in 'the greenhouse'. Is Scott Douglas
an English major?
w...@bas.ac.uk
>"Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
>> makes up a greenhouse.
>On the other hand, you
>will be dead and buried in your grave before glass creeps.
You certainly will, since glass doesn't creep at all. Its a myth, based
(as far as I know) on the observation that glass in some old churches is
thicker at the bottom. But thats because it was put in that way.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Scott Douglas
>> > attachment to a false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a
>> > greenhouse. The atmosphere is a fluid.
>>
>> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass
>> that
>> makes up a greenhouse.
Joe Blaine:
> Clever. Science is based on observables. The difference between the
> fluidity of the atmosphere and the fluidity of glass is readily
> observable. Go outside and observe the convection of the atmophere. On
> the other hand, you will be dead and buried in your grave before glass
> creeps.
Convection? How can that be unless there is heat trapping in the lower
levels of the atmosphere?
Heat trapping? How can that be unless the lower levels of the atmosphere
act like greenhouses that trap heat?
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in
> A conjecture: English majors believe in 'the greenhouse'. Is Scott
> Douglas an English major?
I am no english major. I am just a scientifically literate, rational,
moral man.
How about you?
Ian St. John
> In sci.environment Joe Blaine <an...@anon.com> wrote:
> >"Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
> >> makes up a greenhouse.
>
> >On the other hand, you
> >will be dead and buried in your grave before glass creeps.
>
> You certainly will, since glass doesn't creep at all. Its a myth, based
> (as far as I know) on the observation that glass in some old churches is
> thicker at the bottom. But thats because it was put in that way.
Actually it was made that way due to the technique of making glass at
the time, however, it is not a myth in terms that it does happen. I
observed a piece of glass on a beach which had been subjected to
constant pressure from waves and sand and had completely folded over
like a piece of paper.
OTOH, glass in windows is not subject to significant pressures and
does not flow, or does not flow at a significant rate.
>
> -W.
Graham Cowan
The oldest known glass-walled vacuum envelopes --
tubes and light bulbs -- have shown no sign
of buckling under the atmosphere's weight.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
"Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
Thomas Palm
>
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > > You certainly will, since glass doesn't creep at all. Its a myth, based
> > > (as far as I know) on the observation that glass in some old churches is
> > > thicker at the bottom. But thats because it was put in that way.
> >
> > Actually it was made that way due to the technique of making glass at
> > the time, however, it is not a myth in terms that it does happen. I
> > observed a piece of glass on a beach which had been subjected to
> > constant pressure from waves and sand and had completely folded over
> > like a piece of paper.
> >
> > OTOH, glass in windows is not subject to significant pressures and
> > does not flow, or does not flow at a significant rate.
>
> The oldest known glass-walled vacuum envelopes --
> tubes and light bulbs -- have shown no sign
> of buckling under the atmosphere's weight.
Glass is made in a lot of different qualities. Some are more resistant
to creep than others. My father once described how he had found a bunch
of glass bottles on top of an oven that had been left there for several
years and flowed out to resemble modern art. The oven was warm, which
certainly speeded up the process, but not warmer than that it was a
comfortable place to sleep. People who make bottles don't care about
long time durability.
Scott Douglas
> The oldest known glass-walled vacuum envelopes --
> tubes and light bulbs -- have shown no sign
> of buckling under the atmosphere's weight.
If they have circular cros sections, and I believe they are, you wouldn't
expect them to show any change.
Karl Johanson
news:Xns922E50E67...@216.221.81.119...
> "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in
> > The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious
> > attachment to a false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a
> > greenhouse. The atmosphere is a fluid.
>
> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
> makes up a greenhouse.
(* Urban legend alert *) The glass that makes up a greenhouse isn't a fluid.
The atoms in glass are held together by chemical bonds (unlike a fluid) they
just aren't bonded in a regular way.
> The fact is, adding Co2 to the atmosphere further closes the radiative
> "window" that the earth employs to radiate away surface heat.
Minor quibble on what is likely just a typo. (I tend not to point out typos,
being so good at them myself, but this one can be misinterpreted.) "Co"
refers to Cobalt. "CO2" tends to be what's used for carbon dioxide in text
without subscripting. A subscripted "2" would be more accurate, of course.
> The term "window" by the way, is the scientifically correct term to use.
>
> Window.... Greenhouse???? Do I see another similarity?
Greenhouses made with material transparent to infrared level out at
virtually the same temperature as greenhouses with glass windows.
Heat is transferred by three main methods. Conduction, convection &
radiation. Radiative energy (mostly visible light) from the sun passes
through the windows of the greenhouse & heats up the plants & soil & such.
The warmed soil & plants emit infrared (radiation) and they heat the air
(conduction). (Depending on what you use for the windows, the infrared will
be reflected back into the greenhouse, or it will exit through the windows.)
The warmer air tends to move upwards as cooler (denser) air is pulled
downwards (convection). The upward moving warm air is stopped by the
greenhouses panels. It is the blocking of convecting air, more so than the
trapping of infrared energy, which heats greenhouses.
The presence of infrared absorbing or reflecting gasses in a planet's
atmosphere does significantly influence a planet's temperature (well,
planets near stars anyway), but "greenhouse effect" is something of a
misnomer. I find the term tends to create more misconceptions about
greenhouses than about certain gas's effects on planetary temperatures.
Karl Johanson
Scott Douglas
>> that
>> makes up a greenhouse.
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> (* Urban legend alert *) The glass that makes up a greenhouse isn't a
> fluid. The atoms in glass are held together by chemical bonds (unlike
> a fluid) they just aren't bonded in a regular way.
Even the atoms in a fluid are held together by chemical bonds. The atoms
are motile becuase some bonds are broken. The number of broken bonds
increases with temperature.
Glass is most certianly a fluid, although a very viscus one.
>> The fact is, adding Co2 to the atmosphere further closes the
>> radiative
>> "window" that the earth employs to radiate away surface heat.
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> Minor quibble on what is likely just a typo. (I tend not to point out
> typos, being so good at them myself, but this one can be
> misinterpreted.) "Co" refers to Cobalt. "CO2" tends to be what's used
> for carbon dioxide in text without subscripting. A subscripted "2"
> would be more accurate, of course.
You are correct here. I typically ignore capitalization of labels as I
prefer the written and spoken word to be equivalent in meaning.
I am pleased that you agree with the meaning of the quote you are talking
about once you correctly interpret Co2 to be CO2.
>> The term "window" by the way, is the scientifically correct term to
>> use.
>>
>> Window.... Greenhouse???? Do I see another similarity?
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> Greenhouses made with material transparent to infrared level out at
> virtually the same temperature as greenhouses with glass windows.
Ordinary window glass is partially transparent out to about wavelengths of
2.5 microns in the near infrared, not totally transparent, and not through
the entire frequency range.
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> The presence of infrared absorbing or reflecting gasses in a planet's
> atmosphere does significantly influence a planet's temperature...
Bahahahahah....
Sunlight absorbed by the surface of the earth is either reflected directly
back into space, or converted to heat and radiated as IR. If those infared
absorbing gases were not present to absorb and reradaite (in a random
direction), the radiation back toward the earth 50% of the time, then the
atmosphere above the earth would have a temperature well below zero.
Your level of scientific literacy is astounding Karl. Snicker.
W. D. Allen
Carbon dioxide found to be not nearly as significant in affecting world-wide
atmopsheric temperatures as the more lethal pollutant dihydrogen monoxide !
PASS THIS WARNING ALONG!
end
"Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92491C51A...@216.221.81.119...
Ian St. John
"W. D. Allen" <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:kDHX8.5860$ka6.3...@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> URGENT WARNING CONCERNING GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!
>
> Carbon dioxide found to be not nearly as significant in affecting
world-wide
> atmopsheric temperatures as the more lethal pollutant dihydrogen monoxide
!
>
> PASS THIS WARNING ALONG!
If you are trying to show your stupidity, you have succeeded. Again...
P.S. The ratio ( for those too clued out to actually look at it ) for
*changes* in the GHE is approximately 1(CO2) to 1.5(H2O), which is pretty
'near' to my eye. Your 'not nearly' seems to be pulled from your asshole.
And it should be noted that the CO2 is the *cause* of the change. That is,
CO2 is persistent in the atmosphere so changes in concentration lead to
changes in GW.
A 1 degree increase from CO2 leads to a (0.6) degree increase from increased
H2O in response to the warmer temperatures and resulting higher *specific
humidity* with constant *relative humidity*. That is, the actual mass of
water vapor increases while the amount of water vapor compared to the
carrying capacity is not affected.
Now the increase in warming from CO2 drives an increase in warming from H20
based on *temperature* and so the change in temperature ( .6 degrees ) from
increasing H2O is also a factor in increasing the specifiic humidity and
leads to an increase in temperature of (.6^2) degrees. This in turn causes
an increase of (.6^3), and so on.
Those of you familiar with science will recognise a series of terms with
SUM[i=1..n] (0.6^i) which approaches 1.5 as n >> infinity.
Since the response time is about the same for every increase, we see that
the warming is an exponentially decaying curve ( leading to the 'lag' effect
as later increases take longer for the same absolute temperature change).
The system, nowever, does not take forever ( i.e. infinity) to reach the
1.5x equilibrium as the terms become too small to be significant after a few
dozen time periods.
The 'sensitivity' of H2O to warming has been confirmed by experiments such
as monitoring Mt. Pinatubo's effects and confirmed to be about (0.6) which
is the estimate that the IPCC accepted as the best and most probable value.
Scott Douglas
> URGENT WARNING CONCERNING GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!
>
> Carbon dioxide found to be not nearly as significant in affecting
> world-wide atmopsheric temperatures as the more lethal pollutant
> dihydrogen monoxide !
>
> PASS THIS WARNING ALONG!
The concentration of dihydrogen monixide (water) in the atmosphere is
controlled by temperature. The higher the temperature the more evaporation
, and the higher the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere retards the escape of heat from the lower
levels of the atmosphere, causing surface heating. That heating causes
more evaporation, higher water vapour levels and as a result even greater
amounts of retardation in the rate at which heat escapes. This in turn
results in even higher temperatures.
Thus adding CO2 to the atmosphere, causes a temperature change which is
magnified by increased evaporation.
This has been explained many, many times here. Some denialists never
learn.
John
> Bahahahahah....
>
> Sunlight absorbed by the surface of the earth is either reflected directly
> back into space, or converted to heat and radiated as IR. If those
infared
> absorbing gases were not present to absorb and reradaite (in a random
> direction), the radiation back toward the earth 50% of the time, then the
> atmosphere above the earth would have a temperature well below zero.
>
> Your level of scientific literacy is astounding Karl. Snicker.
Scott Douglas has never read a science text. The following passage is taken
from "THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER" third edition, 1992, by Robert Siegel
and John Howell.
"1-1 IMPORTANCE OF THERMAL RADIATION
One factor that accounts for the importance of thermal radiation in some
applications is the manner in which radiant emission depends on temperature.
For conduction and convection the transfer of energy between two locations
depends on the temperature difference of the locations to approximately the
first power*. (*For free convection, or when variable property effects are
included, the power of the temperature difference may become larger than 1
but usually in convection and conduction does not approach 2.)
The transfer of energy by thermal radiation between two bodies, however,
depends on the difference between the individual absolute temperatures of
the bodies each raised to a power in the range of about 4 or 5. From this
basic difference between radiation and the convection and conduction
energy-exchange mechanisms, it is evident that the importance of radiation
becomes intensified at high absolute-temperature levels. Consequently,
radiation contributes substantially to heat transfer in furnaces and
combustion chambers and to the energy emission from a nuclear explosion. ...
Hence radiation must often be considered in calculating thermal effects in
devices such as a rocket nozzle, a nuclear power plant for space
applications, or a gaseous-core nuclear rocket.
A second distinguishing feature of radiative transfer is that no medium need
be present between two locations for radiant exchange to occur. Radiative
energy passes perfectly through a vacuum. This is in contrast to convection
and conduction, where a physical medium must be present to carry energy with
the convective flow or to transport it by thermal conduction. When no medium
is present, radiation becomes the only significant mode of heat transfer."
The rate of radiative heat transfer depends on the fourth power of the
temperature difference between two points whereas convention varies as the
first power. That means that if the temperature difference is reduced by a
factor of two, convection drops by 50%, but thermal radiation drops by
93.75%. The temperature differences normally found on earth are not that
great.
You can get an idea of the relative effectiveness of convection versus
radiation with a simple experiment. Light a candle. Put your hand beside the
candle at one inch distance from the flame. You can feel the heat of the
candle. Now move your hand to two inches beside the flame. You cannot feel
the heat of the candle because your hand is bathed in the thermal radiation
of the room, which is more significant. Now move your hand to one inch above
the flame. OUCH, that hurts. You cannot leave your hand there, it is too
hot. Upward convention of heat is very effective. Move your hand to two
inches above the flame. You can still feel the heat of the flame whereas at
two inches beside the flame you cannot. Upward convention of heat is very
effective.
Gosh Hellburn
taken
> from "THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER" third edition, 1992, by Robert
Siegel
> and John Howell.
> You can get an idea of the relative effectiveness of convection versus
> radiation with a simple experiment. Light a candle.
This is wrong. Any reference to a recognized university text or to simple
experiments that could be performed by a child is strictly forbidden in any
debate about important issues.
Ian St. John
"Gosh Hellburn" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:MTLX8.22667$pi1.1...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
It isn't forbidden, just incredibly ignorant. You cannot model the climate
with a high temperature flame. Convection is driven much more strongly by a
hot flame in cool air than it is in a relatively near equilibrium between
slightly different differnt air masses. Radiation, on the other hand doesn't
care about the temperature difference. It is pretty much the same at all
temperatures.
The fact that we don't have massive windstorms every morning as it warms up
indicates that convection from daylight warming isn't quite a major force.
How important is radiation? That can be seen by the much greater cooling on
clear nights than on cloudy ones. Radiation is much more effective than
convection at the normal earth temperatures.
Joe
> Convection is driven much more strongly by a
> hot flame in cool air than it is in a relatively near equilibrium between
> slightly different differnt air masses.
Houses are near equilibrium and yet hot air convection insures that the
upstairs rooms are warmer than those downstairs.
> Radiation, on the other hand doesn't
> care about the temperature difference.
Nonsense.
> It is pretty much the same at all
> temperatures.
Can't you read?
> The fact that we don't have massive windstorms every morning as it warms
up
> indicates that convection from daylight warming isn't quite a major force.
Where do you live? We do have strong winds down by the sea, onshore during
the day and offshore at night. Hot air convection drives those winds.
> How important is radiation? That can be seen by the much greater cooling
on
> clear nights than on cloudy ones. Radiation is much more effective than
> convection at the normal earth temperatures.
It is only on clear nights that radiation has any significance whatsoever.
Convection is much more effective than radiation at normal earth
temperatures.
My advice to you is to pick up an engineering text on the principles of heat
transport and do some learning.
John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
[snip]
> > Radiation, on the other hand doesn't
> > care about the temperature difference.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > It is pretty much the same at all
> > temperatures.
>
> Can't you read?
Ian St. John was talking about infrared radiation, *not* heat transport via
thermal radiation. There is a difference. However, Ian St. John is not quite
correct. Infrared radiation does increase with temperature but not
dramatically at normal temperatures.
Never the less, it is very important to understand the difference between
infrared radiation and heat transport via thermal radiation. Infrared
radiation happens even after thermal equilibration is achieved. Any two bit
spectroscopist can give an informative discourse on infrared radiation and
the infrared spectra of gases. All that is nearly irrelevant to an
understanding of heat transport via thermal radiation. You really need to
study an engineering text on heat transport. Studying the infrared
spectroscopic properties of gases will not give you a clue. A very good text
is: "THERMAL RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER" third edition, 1992, by Robert Siegel
and John Howell.
Joshua Halpern
Joe wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
SNIP....
> > How important is radiation? That can be seen by the much greater
> > cooling on clear nights than on cloudy ones. Radiation is much
> > more effective than convection at the normal earth temperatures.
>
> It is only on clear nights that radiation has any significance whatsoever.
> Convection is much more effective than radiation at normal earth
> temperatures.
On clear nights in dry areas, the radiative cooling
directly to space (4K), or high up to the tropopause
(210K) is enhanbced. OTOH, as far as distribution
of energy from that absorbed by the ground to the
atmosphere, and redistribution of that energy among
wavelengths, then radiation is more important.
> My advice to you is to pick up an engineering text on the
> principles of heat transport and do some learning.
Atmospheric science is a fairly complex area which
requires knowledge of many things. Heat transfer
is one of them, but so is detailed knowledge of the
processes that are actually taking place. In this
case, since the temperature of the atmosphere decreases
steadily up to the level where radiation directly
to space is steady, and the absorption of radiation
by molecules, clouds and particles is complex and
changing, a simple heat transfer course is just a
beginning. Take a look at
http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf
On page 3, you will see an illustration of the Earth's
radiation balance. From that, you can see that the balance is
From sun: 342 W/m2
Reflected by clouds 77 W/M2 leaving 265 W/m2
Reflected by surface 30 W/M2 leaving 235 W/m2
Absorbed in atomsphere 67 W/m2
Absorbed by surface 168 W/m2
Total absorbed 235 W/m2
Now since there is a radiative balance, 235 W/m2 have to leave
the earth, and they have to leave the earth as longwave, IR,
radiation (convection and conduction don't work in the vacuum
of space). BTW, this is a bit of a simplification, as
it appears that currently the Earth is NOT in radiative
balance, and that a couple of W/m2 are going into heating
the oceans. As a calibration, this is of the same order
or slightly more than the observed change in solar irradiance
over the last century.
So we need to have 235 W/m2 leaving the top of the
atmosphere. Of that 235 W/m2, about 40 sneaks through all
of the atmospheric absorptions, scatterings, etc, directly
from the surface to space.
The surface emits 390 W/m2, of which the 40 make it to space
directly, so 390 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere by
greenhouse gases, principally water vapor and CO2, but
including such things as CH4, CFCs, etc. clouds and
particulates.
Convection carries 24 W/m2 from the surface, and one latent
heat from the condensation of water vapor in clouds removes
about 78 W/m2 from the surface. The mechanism is as
Naugler describes, but he neglects the role of radiation.
Sorry, you can't do that.
324 W/m2 of energy are radiated back to the surface.
All of this too and fro of energy, heats the top of the atmosphere,
until it is at a temperature hot enough that it can radiate 295 W/m2
Obviously, that much energy is not transferred by convection,
even including the latent heat contribution.
josh halpern
Ian St. John
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> > Convection is driven much more strongly by a
> > hot flame in cool air than it is in a relatively near equilibrium between
> > slightly different differnt air masses.
>
> Houses are near equilibrium and yet hot air convection insures that the
> upstairs rooms are warmer than those downstairs.
Nobody says that houses are a good model of the atmosphere either.
>
> > Radiation, on the other hand doesn't
> > care about the temperature difference.
>
> Nonsense.
Infrared radiation is not as strongly driven by high temperatures as
convection. The point is that a FLAME is not a good model for
convection vs infrared heat transfer.
>
> > It is pretty much the same at all
> > temperatures.
>
> Can't you read?
What?
>
> > The fact that we don't have massive windstorms every morning as it
> > warms up indicates that convection from daylight warming isn't
> > quite a major force.
>
> Where do you live? We do have strong winds down by the sea, onshore
> during the day and offshore at night. Hot air convection drives
> those winds.
Did I say NO convection??? Seaside winds are fairly local affairs, as
is thermals in wheat fields, etc. Radiation, otoh, takes place at the
South Pole in midwinter.
>
> > How important is radiation? That can be seen by the much greater
> > cooling on clear nights than on cloudy ones. Radiation is much
> > more effective than convection at the normal earth temperatures.
>
> It is only on clear nights that radiation has any significance whatsoever.
Nonsense. The thermal radiation continues at all locations at all
times, even when you can't notice it. You *see* more of it in
convection due to mass movements but even when you can't see thermal
radiation, it is effective.
> Convection is much more effective than radiation at normal earth
> temperatures.
See Joshua Halperns excellent post. You will find that you cannot
support this.
>
> My advice to you is to pick up an engineering text on the principles of heat
> transport and do some learning.
The basic heat transfer mechanisms are Convection, Conduction, and
Radiation.
Conduction can be ignored for this discussion. The factors are
density, heat capacity, temperature, and mean free path. With air
having a low heat capacity, and the mean free path being much shorter
than the distance to space, the heat transfer from conduction can be
ignored.
Convection is driven by density difference. These follow Boyles law
relating temperature, density and volume. In a flame, this is fairly
strong, so it removes a lot of heat by removing a lot of the *high
temperature* gases in a focused column of hot air directly above the
flame. This says little about the overall relative effectiveness of
heat transfer from convection and radiation heat sources.
Radiation is determined by the fourth power of the absolute
temperature, and occurs in all directions, assuming a free path. It
occurs not only from the point of the candles flame, but from the
rising warm gases. Put you hand a little higher. Note that it is no
longer too hot for comfort. Why? Radiation cools the convection gases
and drops their temperature very rapidly. Now, we are discussing
movements of heat over long distances,not a few inches.
In a more logical example of the relative effectiveness of convection
vs radiation in heat transfer processes, we can think of the
convection heating from a warm human body.
If you look at calculations they just lump convection in with
conduction since it just as weak with most heat transfer occurring
through heat radiation from the skin ( ignoring evaporative cooling ).
Note: we 'huddle together' for warmth. This comes from thermal
radiation over a large surface area, and not convection which would
require that we get above the other person.
Clued in yet? Maybe it is you that needs a refresher course?
Lloyd Parker
"W. D. Allen" <ball...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>URGENT WARNING CONCERNING GLOBAL WARMING !!!!!
>
>Carbon dioxide found to be not nearly as significant in affecting
world-wide
>atmopsheric temperatures as the more lethal pollutant dihydrogen
monoxide !
>
>PASS THIS WARNING ALONG!
Idiot manages to post to usenet, but post is still idiotic!
John
news:3D2FF5A4...@neteze.com...
Have you corrected these figures for cloud cover? Accurate knowledge of
energy fluxes ought to improve climate models. Climate models are
notoriously inaccurate so perhaps you misstated the confidence bounds on
these numbers. Here is the abstract to a new paper which finds that global
climate models fail to reproduce real climate when they are tested against
observed conditions. Climate models still fail to match the real world.
Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric
Variability
R. B. Govindan,1,2 Dmitry Vyushin,1,2 Armin Bunde,2 Stephen Brenner,3 Shlomo
Havlin,1 and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber4
1Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan
52900, Israel
2Institut für Theoretische Physik III, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen,
Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, 35392 Giessen, Germany
3Department of Geography, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
4Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
(Received 1 November 2001; revised 22 April 2002; published 21 June 2002)
We test the scaling performance of seven leading global climate models by
using detrended fluctuation analysis. We analyze temperature records of six
representative sites around the globe simulated by the models, for two
different scenarios: (i) with greenhouse gas forcing only and (ii) with
greenhouse gas plus aerosol forcing. We find that the simulated records for
both scenarios fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior of the
observed records and display wide performance differences. The deviations
from the scaling behavior are more pronounced in the first scenario, where
also the trends are clearly overestimated. ©2002 The American Physical
Society
John
> Take a look at
>
> http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf
>
> On page 3, you will see an illustration of the Earth's
> radiation balance. From that, you can see that the balance is
This is an adaptation. From:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/kt97.html
Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget
Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208.
The purpose of this paper is to put forward a new estimate, in the context
of previous assessments, of the annual global mean energy budget. A
description is provided of the source of each component to this budget. The
top-of-atmosphere shortwave and longwave flux of energy is constrained by
satellite observations. Partitioning of the radiative energy throughout the
atmosphere is achieved through the use of detailed radiation models for both
the longwave and shortwave spectral regions. Spectral features of shortwave
and longwave fluxes at both the top and surface of Earth's system are
presented. The longwave radiative forcing of the climate system for both
clear (125 W·m-2) and cloudy (155 W·m-2) conditions are discussed. We find
that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water vapor to the total
longwave radiative forcing is 75 W·m-2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32
W·m-2. Clouds alter these values, and the effects of clouds on both the
longwave and shortwave budget are addressed. In particular, the shielding
effect by clouds on absorption and emission by water vapor is as large as
the direct cloud forcing. Because the net surface heat budget must balance,
the radiative fluxes constrain the sum of the sensible and latent heat
fluxes which can also be estimated independently.
//////////////////
Take a look at the figure. Only 40 W/m^2 IR are radiated directly into space
whereas 24 + 78 = 102 W/M^2 are carried upwards by convection. Heat carried
by convection exceeds radiation. This is why when you ignore radiation you
get a pretty good climate model. If you include radiation you do not get an
improved climate model, because it is hard to model accurately.
When you focus on radiation, the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gases'
as opposed to convection all you gain is the *delusion* that you can predict
future global warming.
Thomas Palm
> Take a look at the figure. Only 40 W/m^2 IR are radiated directly into space
> whereas 24 + 78 = 102 W/M^2 are carried upwards by convection. Heat carried
> by convection exceeds radiation. This is why when you ignore radiation you
> get a pretty good climate model. If you include radiation you do not get an
> improved climate model, because it is hard to model accurately.
It is impossible to build a climate model from first principles while
ignoring radiation effects. There simply is no way you can make an
energy balance of the Earth without it. With no raditation the Earth
would neither receive nor emit radiation, so how can you find the
temperature?
If you artificially insert some boundary conditions I'm sure you can ignore
radiation, but that is only because you have hidden it in the boundary, and
if you change the radiative properties of the atmosphere you have to
change the boundary conditions. How to do this will not be possible
to determine without using a model with the radiation included.
> When you focus on radiation, the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gases'
> as opposed to convection all you gain is the *delusion* that you can predict
> future global warming.
Both are needed to make any decent model. Ignore either and you get a
nonsense result.
Ian St. John
"John" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:x2mY8.42269$BD1.3...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
<snip>
>
> When you focus on radiation, the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse
gases'
> as opposed to convection all you gain is the *delusion* that you can
predict
> future global warming.
John. Space is a vacuum. It has almost no mass ( a few molecules per cc ).
Convection requires mass flow.
The energy balance is between energy incoming on the planet *solar flux* and
energy outgoing from the planet *IR black body radiation*.
How much energy is carried away from the planet by 'convection'?
Hint. **NONE**. Got a clue yet???
All that convection can do is move some of the warmer lower atmosphere to a
slightly higher elevation. This internal flow allows for slightly higher
radiation due to the warm gases being closer to space. But you have to
radiate the heat to space. Conduction and convection do not do anything.
Now. Are your illusions and delusions clearing up??? P.S. I can see why you
post anonymously. Must be very embarrassing..
Thomas Palm
> All that convection can do is move some of the warmer lower atmosphere to a
> slightly higher elevation. This internal flow allows for slightly higher
> radiation due to the warm gases being closer to space. But you have to
> radiate the heat to space. Conduction and convection do not do anything.
How warm do you think the surface of the Earth would be if you
removed convection and only let heat out through radiation?
> Now. Are your illusions and delusions clearing up??? P.S. I can see why you
> post anonymously. Must be very embarrassing..
Insults are rather pointless and only serve to reduce your own credibility.
If you want to insult someone, at least be creative and witty.
Paul Farrar
Kiehl's results which you are citing are model results.
Joshua Halpern
Gosh Hellburn wrote:
Why thank you for the compliment anon.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
John wrote:
> "Joshua Halpern" <jhal...@neteze.com> wrote
SNIP...
> > http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf
> > On page 3, you will see an illustration of the Earth's
> > radiation balance. From that, you can see that the balance is
> > From sun: 342 W/m2
> > Reflected by clouds 77 W/M2 leaving 265 W/m2
> > Reflected by surface 30 W/M2 leaving 235 W/m2
> > Absorbed in atomsphere 67 W/m2
> > Absorbed by surface 168 W/m2
> > Total absorbed 235 W/m2
SNIP....
> > The surface emits 390 W/m2, of which the 40 make it to space
> > directly, so 390 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere by
> > greenhouse gases, principally water vapor and CO2, but
> > including such things as CH4, CFCs, etc. clouds and
> > particulates.
> > Convection carries 24 W/m2 from the surface, and one latent
> > heat from the condensation of water vapor in clouds removes
> > about 78 W/m2 from the surface. The mechanism is as
> > Naugler describes, but he neglects the role of radiation.
> > Sorry, you can't do that.
The string you are playing on, as you can see, has been sawed
on by others, mostly chem and mech E types who took a course
in heat transfer.
> > 324 W/m2 of energy are radiated back to the surface.
> > All of this too and fro of energy, heats the top of the atmosphere,
> > until it is at a temperature hot enough that it can radiate 295 W/m2
> >
> > Obviously, that much energy is not transferred by convection,
> > even including the latent heat contribution.
> Have you corrected these figures for cloud cover?
Well, other than the fact that they are not my figures, and that
they are global averages including cloud cover (see reflected
by clouds above, condensation of water vapor in clouds above
and absorbed and emitted radiation by clouds) yes, clouds the
effects of clouds have been included. This is not to say that
everything about how clouds effect radiative balance is
understood. Although our understanding is a lot better than
ten years ago, as the IPCC TAR says, cloud behaviour is
the cloudiest part of our understanding of climate.
> Accurate knowledge of energy fluxes ought to improve climate models.
And there is a very serious effort to tackle this problem, both
in the laboratory and in the field, as well as by improved
modeling of the clouds. So far, it appears that while there
have been some surprises, our general understanding has been
along the right track.
> Climate models are notoriously inaccurate
As compared to what standard. Actually, the newer 3-D models
are quite impressive, the old 1-D models were not, but then
again you appear to have no acquaintance with model verification
efforts and are arguing from ignorance. Let me put it this
way, if you ask about the climate 120 years ago, the models
are probably better than the data.
> so perhaps you misstated the confidence bounds on these numbers.
I didn't state any confidence bounds. If you want serious ones
you need to go to the IPCC TAR and references therein, not the
kind of classroom notes that I provided the URL for.
> Here is the abstract to a new paper which finds that global
> climate models fail to reproduce real climate when they are tested against
> observed conditions. Climate models still fail to match the real world.
>
> Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric
> Variability
(List of author's and abstract cut)
all very nice, but what is the journal citation? I've had a
lot of good fun going and actually reading the papers after
such global pronouncements from your ilk, and finding that
they said something different than was claimed.
josh halpern
Joshua Halpern
And then radiated to space and downwards.
> Heat carried
> by convection exceeds radiation. This is why when you ignore radiation you
> get a pretty good climate model. If you include radiation you do not get an
> improved climate model, because it is hard to model accurately.
Silly, if you don't include radiation you get silly. Why do you think
these modellers included the shielding effects of clouds on long and
shortwave radiation? Moreover, look at the last sentence. They
limited the convection and condensation by estimating the radiative
fluxes. They did this because it is much easier to calculate the
radiative fluxes, but if you left radiation out of the model, it
could not be done. Thus, even this model which you site REQUIRES
including radiation.
> When you focus on radiation, the 'greenhouse effect' and 'greenhouse gases'
> as opposed to convection all you gain is the *delusion* that you can predict
> future global warming.
Ah, friend, it is you who are advocating OMITTING something, radiation.
I am saying one must INCLUDE both radiation and convection.
josh halpern
w...@bas.ac.uk
In sci.environment John <an...@anon.com> wrote:
>Global Climate Models Violate Scaling of the Observed Atmospheric
>Variability
>R. B. Govindan,1,2 Dmitry Vyushin,1,2 Armin Bunde,2 Stephen Brenner,3 Shlomo
>Havlin,1 and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber4
>1Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan
>52900, Israel
>2Institut für Theoretische Physik III, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen,
>Heinrich-Buff-Ring 16, 35392 Giessen, Germany
>3Department of Geography, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
>4Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
>(Received 1 November 2001; revised 22 April 2002; published 21 June 2002)
>We test the scaling performance of seven leading global climate models by
>using detrended fluctuation analysis. We analyze temperature records of six
>representative sites around the globe simulated by the models, for two
>different scenarios: (i) with greenhouse gas forcing only and (ii) with
>greenhouse gas plus aerosol forcing. We find that the simulated records for
>both scenarios fail to reproduce the universal scaling behavior of the
>observed records and display wide performance differences. The deviations
>from the scaling behavior are more pronounced in the first scenario, where
>also the trends are clearly overestimated. ©2002 The American Physical
>Society
I couldn't find that. But I found:
Lack of scaling in global climate models
Vjushin D, Govindan RB, Brenner S, Bunde A, Havlin S, Schellnhuber HJ
JOURNAL OF PHYSICS-CONDENSED MATTER 14 (9): 2275-2282 MAR 11 2002
Detrended fluctuation analysis is used to test the performance of global climate models. We study the temperature data simulated by seven leading models for the greenhouse gas forcing
only (GGFO) scenario and test their ability to reproduce the universal scaling (persistence) law found in the real records for four sites on the globe: (i) New York, (ii) Brookings, (iii)
Tashkent and (iv) Saint Petersburg. We find that the models perform quite differently for the four sites and the data simulated by the models lack the universal persistence found in the
observed data. We also compare the scaling behaviour of this scenario with that of the control run where the CO2 concentration is kept constant. Surprisingly, from the scaling point of view,
the simple control run performs better than the more sophisticated GGFO scenario. This comparison indicates that the variation of the greenhouse gases affects not only trends but also
fluctuations.
Quite why this should be in JOURNAL OF PHYSICS-CONDENSED MATTER is a bit of a mystery.
Why exactly the same authors, but in a different order, have published a rather
similar looking abstract (compare:
"We test the scaling performance of seven leading global climate models by
using detrended fluctuation analysis."
to
"Detrended fluctuation analysis is used to test the performance of global
climate models.")
is also a mystery. But these authors clearly like working together: see-also:
"Long-range correlations and trends in global climate models: Comparison with real data
Govindan RB, Vjushin D, Brenner S, Bunde A, Havlin S, Schellnhuber HJ
PHYSICA A,294 (1-2): 239-248 MAY 1 2001 ".
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Scott Douglas
> And not forgetting the water vapor!
Ian St. John
"Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:3D320003...@chello.se...
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > All that convection can do is move some of the warmer lower atmosphere
> > to a slightly higher elevation. This internal flow allows for slightly
higher
> > radiation due to the warm gases being closer to space. But you have to
> > radiate the heat to space. Conduction and convection do not do anything.
>
> How warm do you think the surface of the Earth would be if you
> removed convection and only let heat out through radiation?
Good question. Not sure, but let's take a stab.
If you ignore the lack of clouds ( water vapor needs to be moved by
convection ) and the lack of horizontal movement ( driven by the same
processes as convection, i.e. low density due to high temperature ). I
assume you are also fixing the lapse rate, since that is also set by
convection ( moist and dry lapse rates )
The ground surface would heat up, without convection, only radiation could
cool it, so I would expect it to be hotter. Or would that be only a higher
variation? Convection also cools during the night.. Hmm.. O.K. higher
temperature variations both between day and night and over the planet from
equator to poles.
Take an evenly heated surface with 10 degree average vs a surface with half
at 0 degrees and half at 20 degrees. What would be the effect on IR
radiation rates?
((276^4 = 5802782976)+(296^4 = 7676563456))/2 = 67396732
286^4 = 6690585616)
Hmm. It looks like lack of convection would increase the rate of IR thermal
emission and therefore cool the average surface somewhat.
How'd I do?
>
> > Now. Are your illusions and delusions clearing up??? P.S. I can see why
> > you post anonymously. Must be very embarrassing..
>
> Insults are rather pointless and only serve to reduce your own
> credibility. If you want to insult someone, at least be creative and
> witty.
Sorry. I was a little tired of these posts insulting my intelligence..
Convection cooling of the planet *without* radiation for Gods sake!!! Give
me a break!
Karl Johanson
> > "Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass
> >> that
> >> makes up a greenhouse.
>
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> > (* Urban legend alert *) The glass that makes up a greenhouse isn't a
> > fluid. The atoms in glass are held together by chemical bonds (unlike
> > a fluid) they just aren't bonded in a regular way.
>
> Even the atoms in a fluid are held together by chemical bonds. The
atoms
> are motile becuase some bonds are broken. The number of broken bonds
> increases with temperature.
>
> Glass is most certianly a fluid, although a very viscus one.
No it isn't. It's a solid with strong irregular bonding. Molecules & atoms
in a
fluid can flow freely past each other, owing to the lack of strong chemical
bonds. It's viscosity at room temperature is estimated to be on the order of
10 to the 20th power poise (9 orders of magnitude higher than lead).
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> > The presence of infrared absorbing or reflecting gasses in a planet's
> > atmosphere does significantly influence a planet's temperature...
>
> Bahahahahah....
>
> Sunlight absorbed by the surface of the earth is either reflected directly
> back into space, or converted to heat and radiated as IR. If those
infared
> absorbing gases were not present to absorb and reradaite (in a random
> direction), the radiation back toward the earth 50% of the time, then the
> atmosphere above the earth would have a temperature well below zero.
Scott. Try reading what I write before you respond. Read, understand, think,
then respond; don't skip the first three steps. Please note that I said it
does influence a planet's temperature significantly. You're reacting as if I
said it
doesn't.
> Your level of scientific literacy is astounding Karl. Snicker.
I'm used to you being snotty when people disagree with you, but you can't
even tolerate people agreeing with you on a point. No wonder you're such a
grouch.
Think Scott; don't just react.
Karl Johanson
Scott Douglas
> "Scott Douglas" <s_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Glass is most certianly a fluid, although a very viscus one.
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote
> No it isn't. It's a solid with strong irregular bonding. Molecules &
> atoms in a
> fluid can flow freely past each other, owing to the lack of strong
> chemical bonds.
Actually you would probably be surprised to learn that liquids are
typically composed of solid globs of atoms that are surrounded by fluid
channels that lubricate the movement of these clusters past one another.
The closer you get to the boiling point of the liquid the smaller these
clusters of solids become.
> It's viscosity at room temperature is estimated to be
> on the order of 10 to the 20th power poise (9 orders of magnitude
> higher than lead).
Karl, From time to time I have had the need to measure small volumes of
liquid with reasonable precision. To tis end I obtained a small 25 ml
pipette. Now it was some 1.5 feet long, glass and as you probably know,
easily broken. So I kept it in the most secure place in my house for such
a thing. In the back of my toilet where it is not only constantly washed,
but also protected from shock.
When I first obtained the pipette it was straight as an arrow, but after
15 years of sitting on an approximately 45' angle inside the toilet tank,
it developed a slump - a bend - of approximately 1' Perhaps 2' (from
memory as I didn't measure the deflection).
I presume that the very thin walls of the pipette near the 25ml balloon
which were blown from the thicker glass tube bent under the weight of the
pipette, and the occasional weight of water it carried.
Thomas Palm
> > removed convection and only let heat out through radiation?
>
> Good question. Not sure, but let's take a stab.
>
> If you ignore the lack of clouds ( water vapor needs to be moved by
> convection ) and the lack of horizontal movement ( driven by the same
> processes as convection, i.e. low density due to high temperature ). I
> assume you are also fixing the lapse rate, since that is also set by
> convection ( moist and dry lapse rates )
>
> The ground surface would heat up, without convection, only radiation could
> cool it, so I would expect it to be hotter. Or would that be only a higher
> variation? Convection also cools during the night.. Hmm.. O.K. higher
> temperature variations both between day and night and over the planet from
> equator to poles.
>
> Take an evenly heated surface with 10 degree average vs a surface with half
> at 0 degrees and half at 20 degrees. What would be the effect on IR
> radiation rates?
>
> ((276^4 = 5802782976)+(296^4 = 7676563456))/2 = 67396732
> 286^4 = 6690585616)
>
> Hmm. It looks like lack of convection would increase the rate of IR thermal
> emission and therefore cool the average surface somewhat.
>
> How'd I do?
I don't really know the answer, but my impression is that we'd see a
strong heating.
The fixed boundary condition is that the temperature of Earth as seen
from space has to be constant (neglecting changes in albedo). Above the
tropopause there is almost no convection, so the temperature in those
regions would change little.
In the troposphere, however, convection and transport of sensible and
latent heat is very significant. The fact that the troposphere on
the average has a lapse rate that is clamped by the convective limit
shows that radiative transport is not enough to carry off all the
absorbed heat. (I saw a reference to a paper supposed to have shown
this back in 1913).
Since air is such a poor heat conductor it can be safely ignored, and
what is needed is to increase the temperature enough to radiate the
energy now carried by convection.
A simple attempt to bracket the possible increase:
(Based on numbers from the reference by Joshua
http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf)
Total radiation from the surface today: 350 W/m^2
Latent/sensible heat transport: 100 W/m^2
If we now want the energy radiated from the surface to replace
convection we need to increase it from 350 W/m^2 to 450 W/m^2,
i.e. by 30%. This would mean a temperature increase of about 19 K.
This is a lower estimate because it ignores that if we increase
the energy radiated from the surface most of that will be absorbed
in the atmosphere and some of it will be radiated back thus
reducing the net gain in heat transport.
The other extreme is if we consider that only the energy radiated
in the atmoshperic window will reach space and that the rest will
have such a hard time being radiated thorugh an atmoshpere almost
opaque to IR that it will act as a perfect insulator.
In that case we would have to increase the energy radiated from
the surface into space from 40 W/m^2 to 140 W/m^2, this would
imply a temperature increase of 110 K! (Assuming the usual T^4
law, which in itself is dubious considering that it is radiation
within a narrow window, not the total blackbody radiation)
So remove convection and the temperature could increase anywhere
between 19 and 110 K. This is hardly an insignificant effect.
Phil.
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > All that convection can do is move some of the warmer lower atmosphere to a
> > slightly higher elevation. This internal flow allows for slightly higher
> > radiation due to the warm gases being closer to space. But you have to
> > radiate the heat to space. Conduction and convection do not do anything.
>
> How warm do you think the surface of the Earth would be if you
> removed convection and only let heat out through radiation?
Slightly warmer but not much since the heat loss from the surface by
non-radiative means is about 20% of the total. The temperature
profile of the atmosphere would be quite different though being
non-linear with a rather steeper drop near the surface with a
progressively lower lapse rate with altitude. The radiation transfer
to the atmosphere from the surface though creates an unstable
atmosphere because the T-gradient greatly exceeds the adiabatic lapse
rate and the atmosphere is mixed due to convective instability until
the adiabatic rate is nearly reached. So most of the heat transferred
to the atmosphere is transported by radiation while convection serves
to modify the transfer upwards in the atmosphere. See for examople
'Chemistry of Atmospheres', Richard P. Wayne.
Phil.
Joshua Halpern
I remember seeing a figure of 77 C, but none of the
details. To defray the silliness, my point has always
been A and B not A or B.
josh halpern
Ian St. John
Possible.
>
> The fixed boundary condition is that the temperature of Earth as seen
> from space has to be constant (neglecting changes in albedo). Above the
> tropopause there is almost no convection, so the temperature in those
> regions would change little.
Assuming no change in the lapse rate, radiation is dependent on the altitude
of the 'equipotential point' to radiate the required heat from insolation.
Changes to surface temperature do not change the temperature of the
equipotential point but change the altitude so the surface area changes and
the length ( height ) over which the lapse rate runs is longer or shorter.
Convection is not significant here, so yes we only need to consider the
lower tropospere.
>
> In the troposphere, however, convection and transport of sensible and
> latent heat is very significant. The fact that the troposphere on
> the average has a lapse rate that is clamped by the convective limit
> shows that radiative transport is not enough to carry off all the
> absorbed heat. (I saw a reference to a paper supposed to have shown
> this back in 1913).
I'n not so sure of this. The lapse rate is set by the forces that drive
convection, i.e. density changes and adiabatic temperaure changes. There is
both moist and dry adiabatic lapse rates leading to our current lapse rate.
Your challenge eliminated convection ( the movement of air ) but presumably
not the other factors which are dependent on it.
The lapse rate is set by convection. We aren't changing the lapse rate. The
temperature at the surface is determined by the lapse rate, and the distance
from the surface to the 'equipotential point' at which an IR photon has an
equal chance of being emitted to space or being emitted downward.
What I question is that the lapse rate shows that radiative transport is not
enough to carry off all heat. Without an atmosphere, we would carry off
exactly as much entirely by radiative processes. The only question is the
diameter and temperature of the radiating body (equipotential sphere ).
But I am not sure of this. There may be a subtle point that is beyond me. Is
there any change in the lapse rate due to GW? I undestood it was unaffected
by GW and set only by convection ( dry and moist lapse rates )
>
> Since air is such a poor heat conductor it can be safely ignored, and
> what is needed is to increase the temperature enough to radiate the
> energy now carried by convection.
Only if we allow changes in lapse rate. Your challenge did not allow for
other variables to change. This is not a stable condition since normally
convection would transport heat away from warming air masses, but if you
allow for a varying lapse rate, then you would see a much higher temperature
at the surface since the lack of convection is equivalent to an insulating
layer of glass in layers. I.E. a *real* greenhouse effect. I would imaging
that this would lead to about 80 degrees C warming of the surface, since the
heat 'leveling' by convection is about 40 W/m^2 and we have already seen
calculation that link a forcing of x W/m^2 to a warming of 2x degree C .
Convection is about equalizing the temperature over the planet and
throughout the layers of the atmosphere. This has a minor effect in terms of
the heat radiation *from* the planet.
Paul Farrar
Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> wrote:
>If memory serves, and I have had recent senior moments,
>I remember seeing a figure of 77 C, but none of the
>details. To defray the silliness, my point has always
>been A and B not A or B.
>
>josh halpern
>
Looking at Manabe & Strickler (1961, JAtmSci, 21, p361), their
pure radiative case is about 335K at the surface, but that's for
current water vapor distribution, I think.
Paul Farrar
Thomas Palm
>
> "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> news:3D358CEC...@chello.se...
> > "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> > > > How warm do you think the surface of the Earth would be if you
> > > > removed convection and only let heat out through radiation?
> > The fixed boundary condition is that the temperature of Earth as seen
> > from space has to be constant (neglecting changes in albedo). Above the
> > tropopause there is almost no convection, so the temperature in those
> > regions would change little.
>
> Assuming no change in the lapse rate, radiation is dependent on the altitude
> of the 'equipotential point' to radiate the required heat from insolation.
> Changes to surface temperature do not change the temperature of the
> equipotential point but change the altitude so the surface area changes and
> the length ( height ) over which the lapse rate runs is longer or shorter.
>
> Convection is not significant here, so yes we only need to consider the
> lower tropospere.
>
> >
> > In the troposphere, however, convection and transport of sensible and
> > latent heat is very significant. The fact that the troposphere on
> > the average has a lapse rate that is clamped by the convective limit
> > shows that radiative transport is not enough to carry off all the
> > absorbed heat. (I saw a reference to a paper supposed to have shown
> > this back in 1913).
>
> I'n not so sure of this. The lapse rate is set by the forces that drive
> convection, i.e. density changes and adiabatic temperaure changes. There is
> both moist and dry adiabatic lapse rates leading to our current lapse rate.
> Your challenge eliminated convection ( the movement of air ) but presumably
> not the other factors which are dependent on it.
I don't see how you can consider a situation where the lapse rate would
remain constant when the process that creates it is removed. If you
remove convection, of course all processes that depend on convection will
also disappear. That all dependent variables could also change was
implicit in the challenge. Otherwise you'd get a solution without any
thermal equilibrium, which is hardly satifsfying.
Assume someone managed to convert our atmosphere to "air-nine", a
solidified version phase with otherwise identical properties.
> The lapse rate is set by convection. We aren't changing the lapse rate. The
> temperature at the surface is determined by the lapse rate, and the distance
> from the surface to the 'equipotential point' at which an IR photon has an
> equal chance of being emitted to space or being emitted downward.
>
> What I question is that the lapse rate shows that radiative transport is not
> enough to carry off all heat. Without an atmosphere, we would carry off
> exactly as much entirely by radiative processes. The only question is the
> diameter and temperature of the radiating body (equipotential sphere ).
Without atmoshpere there would be no trapping and reradiating of
IR either. The fact is that the lower atmosphere is almost opaque
to IR and that we need convection to carry off heat if we want to
keep the current temperature.
> Only if we allow changes in lapse rate. Your challenge did not allow for
> other variables to change. This is not a stable condition since normally
> convection would transport heat away from warming air masses, but if you
> allow for a varying lapse rate, then you would see a much higher temperature
> at the surface since the lack of convection is equivalent to an insulating
> layer of glass in layers. I.E. a *real* greenhouse effect. I would imaging
> that this would lead to about 80 degrees C warming of the surface, since the
> heat 'leveling' by convection is about 40 W/m^2 and we have already seen
> calculation that link a forcing of x W/m^2 to a warming of 2x degree C .
This is a more reasonable answer, although other posts indicate it
may be a factor two too high compared to a stringent calculation.
> Convection is about equalizing the temperature over the planet and
> throughout the layers of the atmosphere. This has a minor effect in terms of
> the heat radiation *from* the planet.
Even minor changes in temperature are dramatic. A 1% increase in temperature
corresponds to 3K, which is significant. Temperature is odd in that the
most common units hide most of the low temperature range as negative numbers.
A change from 0 C to 10 C feels like a large change, and from the numbers
it looks like a large change, but rewrite it in Kelvin and the change from
273 K to 283 K seems much less impressive.
Joshua Halpern
Thomas Palm wrote:
> "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote
> > > "Ian St. John" wrote:
> > > > "Thomas Palm" <thoma...@chello.se> wrote in message
> Without atmoshpere there would be no trapping and reradiating of
> IR either. The fact is that the lower atmosphere is almost opaque
> to IR and that we need convection to carry off heat if we want to
> keep the current temperature.
I think this is a bit extreme.
josh halpern