Subtitle: Only the hat matters, not the message!
WUWT accolytes must be making Watts so proud.
He posts a piece titled
“Indiana James” Hansen on “Why I must speak out about climate change”
The accolytes respond with:
He looks like an Amish Climate Worrier, is his horse cart parked outside ?
Looks more and more like Homer Simpson
Is it a compulsory or can I get the course credit from cleaning up vomit in a gastro enteritis clinic, or laundering baby nappies? Something easier than watching this.
With people like that in control of the world we will never acquire the wealth and the technology to achieve voluntary population limitation and a truly sustainable future.
Green Hats should be made from palm fronds, pine cones, or recycled truck tires.
here:
I have failed to figure out the thought processes of this man but I have worked out why he wears the hat. It covers the five layer foil and insulation faraday cage beenie he wears under it.
2012/03/26
2012/03/24
Is this person a warmist for just the money?
Worth Listening to.
The answer to the question in my mind is NO Hansen is simply thinking of the future. He does not sound desperate for the money, just what he is passing on to his grand children.
In the 70's I felt that the "H-Bomb" was the biggest threat to life on this planet. I therefore demonstrated against continued reliance on this "defence"
In the 00s I now believe that Global warming/global resources will be some of the biggest threats to continued existence at this level of ease of living we in the west enjoy.
The "west" can probably continue at this level for hundreds of years - but only if we keep the rest of the world at 3rd world state. (or below)
We need poorly paid workers to support our lifestyle
We need to keep them poorly paid so they cannot afford to use our fossil fuels.
We need them poorly paid to prevent them adding to global warming.
A couple of quotes:
“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”
The answer to the question in my mind is NO Hansen is simply thinking of the future. He does not sound desperate for the money, just what he is passing on to his grand children.
In the 70's I felt that the "H-Bomb" was the biggest threat to life on this planet. I therefore demonstrated against continued reliance on this "defence"
In the 00s I now believe that Global warming/global resources will be some of the biggest threats to continued existence at this level of ease of living we in the west enjoy.
The "west" can probably continue at this level for hundreds of years - but only if we keep the rest of the world at 3rd world state. (or below)
We need poorly paid workers to support our lifestyle
We need to keep them poorly paid so they cannot afford to use our fossil fuels.
We need them poorly paid to prevent them adding to global warming.
A couple of quotes:
“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result”
“We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children”
2012/03/18
The wonders of plant genetics - Monsanto
Worth a read:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/tom-philpott-mojo-how-npr-got-it-wrong.html
The view from Monsanto:
http://monsantoblog.com/2010/05/04/roundup-resistant-superweeds/
From the comments section:
Lee Amon says:
Showing how the number of resistant weeds has exploded. And that is supposed to reassure us?
It seems to me that there is a herbicide problem in the offing, much like the human antibiotic overuse leading to resistance.
"Starting in 1996, farmers began to plant Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton across millions of acres of farmland without restriction."
So it took 5 years for roundup ready resistance to develop in weeds.
Looking at the second graph it appears that the vertical scale is resistant biotypes. - so if a glyphosate only kills 20 biotypes then it has hit full resistance as shown by the flattening of the line.
It would have been more constructive to have a % of biotypes resistant out of biotypes killed as the vertical scale.
Hmmm! do we need to think of what we are doing to the planet?
Where are roundup resistant weeds found:
http://www.weedscience.org/Maps/GlyphosateMap.htm
UK is free - no GMOs
HERBICIDE RESISTANT WEEDS BY COUNTRY
http://www.weedscience.org/summary/CountrySummary.asp
Does the rest of the map agree?
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/tom-philpott-mojo-how-npr-got-it-wrong.html
The view from Monsanto:
http://monsantoblog.com/2010/05/04/roundup-resistant-superweeds/
From the comments section:
Lee Amon says:
Showing how the number of resistant weeds has exploded. And that is supposed to reassure us?
- @Lee – I believe the chart you pulled off the weedscience.org home page is for all resistant weeds to all classes of herbicides. There are more than 300 resistant weeds. That graph shows that herbicide-resistant weeds are not new.
What may be more helpful is this chart from the same website:
This graph lists the number of resistant weeds by the type of herbicide. You’ll note that the blue line represents glycines, which is the category of herbicide that glyphosate-based chemicals (including Roundup) fall into. This category includes less than 20 weeds. The majority of the weeds in the graph you linked to earlier are resistant to other classes. So, there are around 280 resistant weeds to other herbicides.
It seems to me that there is a herbicide problem in the offing, much like the human antibiotic overuse leading to resistance.
"Starting in 1996, farmers began to plant Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton across millions of acres of farmland without restriction."
So it took 5 years for roundup ready resistance to develop in weeds.
Looking at the second graph it appears that the vertical scale is resistant biotypes. - so if a glyphosate only kills 20 biotypes then it has hit full resistance as shown by the flattening of the line.
It would have been more constructive to have a % of biotypes resistant out of biotypes killed as the vertical scale.
Hmmm! do we need to think of what we are doing to the planet?
Where are roundup resistant weeds found:
http://www.weedscience.org/Maps/GlyphosateMap.htm
UK is free - no GMOs
HERBICIDE RESISTANT WEEDS BY COUNTRY
| USA | 139 |
| Australia | 61 |
| Canada | 52 |
| France | 33 |
| Spain | 33 |
| Israel | 27 |
| Brazil | 26 |
| Germany | 26 |
| United Kingdom | 24 |
| Italy | 19 |
| Belgium | 18 |
| Japan | 18 |
| Malaysia | 17 |
| Czech Republic | 16 |
| Chile | 14 |
| China | 14 |
| South Africa | 14 |
| Switzerland | 14 |
| Turkey | 14 |
| South Korea | 12 |
| Iran | 11 |
| New Zealand | 10 |
| Poland | 10 |
| Venezuela | 9 |
| Argentina | 8 |
| Bolivia | 7 |
| Greece | 7 |
| The Netherlands | 7 |
| Colombia | 6 |
| Yugoslavia | 6 |
| Costa Rica | 5 |
| Mexico | 5 |
| Norway | 5 |
| Thailand | 5 |
http://www.weedscience.org/summary/CountrySummary.asp
Does the rest of the map agree?
2012/03/12
Tar sands - What is the TRUTH
A couple of videos from one side of the debate:
Story from:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-you-watch-anything-this-week-watch.html
Story from:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-you-watch-anything-this-week-watch.html
2012/03/03
Heartland Fun -The Gleick affair
Firstly let me say I have no idea whether Gleick wrote the memo. Secondly by claiming to be some one else he went further than he should.
The Gleick affair:
If I were faking a memo, and then publishing it for all to dissect (e.g. see here), and I'm not an idiot, so I'd know it would be dissected for similarities to my writing style, and beliefs.
Would I not change that style to another, similar to writings from where I claim it was sent from?
Would I not ensure that my name is not unduly represented?
Would I not make it look just a fraction like it originated at HI.
An alternative view.
Gleick has been bugging my mates from HI with science. I know my mates have nothing to back their arguments and if the conversations continue then they will loose the debate. How to help?
Discredit Gleick!
Easy he is obviously in a somewhat heated mood!
First prime the gun with a document. Make this "leaked" note appear to be written in the style of Gleick - he probably will not notice and it contains some choice phrases so he will probably publish it if he can get corroboration.
Now let's send a sweet email (we'll publish these as proof of how wonderful we are to enrage further - let's invite him to a debate and call his talk part of the entertainment (i.e. it will be a joke session)
"We usually have a keynote speaker or debate for the “entertainment” portion of the event, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to come to Chicago to debate James Taylor" That should push him one step further james Tayloer - a true nonentity in the climate world!
Now we'll rub it in a bit and add a few hinted insults::
" If you’d ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open.
As for the “entertainment” bit … I think you misunderstand. That word was not intended to make frivolous what Heartland does — in general, or certainly at our annual benefit dinner. We’re a think tank. We love debate, and thrive on intellectual back-and-forth. To me, and our supporters, such a stimulating discussion IS ALSO entertaining. Learning should ever be so.".
Success!
Now wait for Gleick to publish and we have him!
One down! how many more to go?
-------------
There we have it - a sting arranged by HI
Is this any sillier than Mosher looking for the placement of brackets and commas in a small document and trying to prove it was Gleick what done it!?
The Gleick affair:
If I were faking a memo, and then publishing it for all to dissect (e.g. see here), and I'm not an idiot, so I'd know it would be dissected for similarities to my writing style, and beliefs.
Would I not change that style to another, similar to writings from where I claim it was sent from?
Would I not ensure that my name is not unduly represented?
Would I not make it look just a fraction like it originated at HI.
An alternative view.
Gleick has been bugging my mates from HI with science. I know my mates have nothing to back their arguments and if the conversations continue then they will loose the debate. How to help?
Discredit Gleick!
Easy he is obviously in a somewhat heated mood!
First prime the gun with a document. Make this "leaked" note appear to be written in the style of Gleick - he probably will not notice and it contains some choice phrases so he will probably publish it if he can get corroboration.
Now let's send a sweet email (we'll publish these as proof of how wonderful we are to enrage further - let's invite him to a debate and call his talk part of the entertainment (i.e. it will be a joke session)
"We usually have a keynote speaker or debate for the “entertainment” portion of the event, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to come to Chicago to debate James Taylor" That should push him one step further james Tayloer - a true nonentity in the climate world!
Now we'll rub it in a bit and add a few hinted insults::
" If you’d ever like to engage in a public debate with a Heartland scholar on the topic of climate change, our door is always open.
As for the “entertainment” bit … I think you misunderstand. That word was not intended to make frivolous what Heartland does — in general, or certainly at our annual benefit dinner. We’re a think tank. We love debate, and thrive on intellectual back-and-forth. To me, and our supporters, such a stimulating discussion IS ALSO entertaining. Learning should ever be so.".
Success!
Now wait for Gleick to publish and we have him!
One down! how many more to go?
-------------
There we have it - a sting arranged by HI
Is this any sillier than Mosher looking for the placement of brackets and commas in a small document and trying to prove it was Gleick what done it!?
2012/02/15
The heartland institute
Not a bad income for some :
Latreece Reed $91,164
Eli Lehrer $155,150
Vince Galbiati $125,000
Jim Lakely $81,113
Sam Karnick $92,700
Diane Bast $96,512
Joseph Bast $160,000
Kevin Fitzgerald $113300
etc
Professor £54133 to £125000
Reader £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 9 £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 7 £29972 to £37990
Research and Analogous 6 £23661 to £31798
But their total Cost of Salaries and Employment
Academic,teaching and research £231945
Research and analogous £298755
====================
$88,000 Surface Stations Project (Anthony Watts of WUWT)
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount contingent on fundraising around mid-year.
$75,000 K-12 Climate Education Project
Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.
=====================
So called peer review (how much faith can be placed in a review of sombody whose reward is paid by an organisation with strong anti science beliefs?)
Willie Soon contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
Craig Loehle contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
David Watkins contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
=====================
The story here is not so much the funding (which is not great) nor the amounts. It shows, in my opinion, the two faced opinions of Watts and followers. Its good to hack CRU, it's not illegal but heartland - that's totally differnt!
More here together with the documents:
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
A good report here
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1OHQWK4TJALYxaP8WjUijdBq0rg?docId=b8b17e53a4e041a9b742a79a3f2be5f1
Latreece Reed $91,164
Eli Lehrer $155,150
Vince Galbiati $125,000
Jim Lakely $81,113
Sam Karnick $92,700
Diane Bast $96,512
Joseph Bast $160,000
Kevin Fitzgerald $113300
etc
How much do CRU employees make:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/
Academic, Teaching and Research
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/71-of-cru-salaries-paid-by-grants/
Academic, Teaching and Research
Professor £54133 to £125000
Reader £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 9 £45336 to £57431
Research and Analogous 7 £29972 to £37990
Research and Analogous 6 £23661 to £31798
But their total Cost of Salaries and Employment
Academic,teaching and research £231945
Research and analogous £298755
====================
$88,000 Surface Stations Project (Anthony Watts of WUWT)
Payments to ItWorks/IntelliWeather to create web site featuring data from NOAA’s new network of surface stations. First payment of $44,000 in January, second of same amount contingent on fundraising around mid-year.
$75,000 K-12 Climate Education Project
Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.
=====================
So called peer review (how much faith can be placed in a review of sombody whose reward is paid by an organisation with strong anti science beliefs?)
Willie Soon contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
Craig Loehle contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
David Watkins contributor - paid by review - assume $1500/year
=====================
The story here is not so much the funding (which is not great) nor the amounts. It shows, in my opinion, the two faced opinions of Watts and followers. Its good to hack CRU, it's not illegal but heartland - that's totally differnt!
More here together with the documents:
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy
A good report here
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1OHQWK4TJALYxaP8WjUijdBq0rg?docId=b8b17e53a4e041a9b742a79a3f2be5f1
2012/02/11
Nikolov & Zeller posts on Tallbloke. and censorship. updated
Just brilliant stuf apply the muzzel when you start hearing what you dont want to here:
David Appell says:
Sorry, but this is some really fabulous nonsense. Your numbers don’t even make sense: you interchange units of energy and electric charge, and write things like 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s which makes no sense unit-wise. And then for some unknown reason you take, I guess, the radius/mass ratio for the proton and apply it to the Earth???
Stephen Wilde says: March 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Because PV = nRT works.
=====
this is really PV=kT since n and R do not change
But then sin P does not change either (the mass of gas is constant although the volume varies so the pressure is constant
so you really have
V=kT
strange!
A question when atmospheric pressure increases is it always hotter?
[Reply] The N&Z theory is dealing with planetary scale quantities on a big time scale, not individual weather sub-systems within a short time frame. Anyway, no-one gets to post on my site with two identities so ‘jjthom’ and ‘thefordprefect’ (and any other sockpuppet) are now banned.
=========
And of course there was the Joel Shore thread where he was only allowed to post via Tallbloke:
tallbloke says:
More from Joel:
Anything as possible says:
“If nothing else, Nikolov & Zeller have ...
============
Well it seems that a load of sef congratulatory comments are being posted at TallBlokes blog.
I simple though I coud perhaps post some different views But this is not the case. Some never make it outside moderation and now I've hit a new form of censorship - a requirement to post in an irrelevant thread!
"[Reply] Read what I wrote! Repost this one on Stephen’s thread. Thanks"
Brilliant!
I repost with the request to repost intact. This was to ensure others did not think it irrelevant. TB edits this out - very clever!
These people then have the temerity to claim RealClimate are evil for vetting their bloggers!!!!
thefordprefect says:
“The discrete set of vibration frequencies of a molecule is called its spectrum; this is both a la Kirchhoff’s Law its absorption spectrum and its emissions spectrum. If the impinging radiation had to have exactly the wavelength of the discrete spectral lines there would not be much interaction between the radiation an the molecules.
The spectrum is modified by the motion of the molecules. The Doppler effect is the modification of the perceived frequency of radiation due to the motion of the molecule. If the molecule is traveling in opposite direction from the incoming radiation the perceived frequency of the radiation is greater. Thus if radiation were slightly lower frequency than a vibration frequency of a molecule the Doppler effect could bring about a coincidence with the vibration frequency of the molecule. If a molecule were traveling in the same direction as incoming radiation the Doppler effect lowers its perceived frequency and thus could result in the absorption of radiation of a slightly higher frequency.
In effect the lines of the absorption spectrum are broadened by the Doppler effect. They are also broadened by collision frequency within a gas.”
http://www.applet-magic.com/absorptionspectra.htm
The atmospere on Venus is 70 times earth What is the absorption spectra of H2O (@100ppm) and CO2, and H2SO4 etc.
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/sagawa09_pressure_jqsrt.pdf
[Reply] TFP: Have you mistaken this venue for the spectrum line knitters circle? Spectra certainly need broadening, along with perspectives
thefordprefect says:
N2 O2 do not radiate, They can transfer energy to molecules that can radiate GHGs
During the day near the equator the actual radiation hitting the ground from the sun is of the order of 1000w/m^2
You suggest that this + gravity heats the atmosphere and gives you your solar/gravity/atmospherical temperature
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
You say you have allowed for the day time 1000W (and distributed it round the globe) to produce your theory – but what about the nighght time 200W/m^2 (this is constant and does not need distributing. The level falls to 140w/m^2 above the arctic circle but it is still there day and night.
This is a large error if indeed it is missed. If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?
My previous post pointed out a couple (out of many) research papers that suggest at 70 atmospheres the spectral line broadening of GHG absorbtion and re-radiation would be great. Couple this with temperature (motion) induced doppler broadening the trace gas h2o in venusian atmosphere, the CO2, The H2SO4, the SO2 must have a phenomenal effect on the rate that energy can leave the venusian atmosphere
===============
davidmhoffer says: February 11, 2012 at 4:50 am
thefordprefect;
Please explain where this night time IR is coming from if not from a GHG.>>>
It does come from a GHG. So what?
There are a variety of mechanisms that move energy about the planet. GHG’s are amongst them. Yes, you can measure given IR and conclude that it was emitted by GHG’s. The question is not if the IR was emitted by GHG’s. The question is, if the GHG’s were not present, what would be different?
============
Surely this is obvious - the 200W/m^2 would be missing. This is a continuous radiation 24hrs/day. This is comind DOWN at night. It has nothing to do with solar radiation at night. This is 200W more than would be there without the GHG. This is 200W more than N&Z have accounted for. So how can their calculations be valid?
It should be noted that GHGs do not suck energy from the earth BUT if the earth emits it, then a GHG could intercept and re-radiate it. This is what is happening
=============
davidmhoffer says
The answer is that unless the absence of the GHG’s changes the amount of energy absorbed in the first place, then the amount of energy emitted doesn’t change either. That being the case, T doesn’t change. What changes is where and how the energy escapes to space. If there is less IR emitted from GHG’s, then to establish equilibrium, there most be more emitted by something else. Its like one of those long balloon the clowns use to make animal shapes with. Squeeze it in the middle, the ends get longer. Squeeze is at one end, the other end gets longer. Squeeze it ANYWHERE and the air just moves to someplace else in the balloon. But the amount of air in the balloon stays exactly the same.
============
2 main things radiate to space from the earth. The ground, and GHGs (ignoring the inconsequential O2 N2 etc)Take away GHGs and the ground radiates directly to space. Add GHGs and the ground's radiation gets absorbed and re-radiated in all directions - almost 50% to earth. You have admitted that this is true "It does come from a GHG. So what?"
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total - the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs
================
---------------------------
Stephen Wilde says: February 11, 2012 at 4:52 am
“If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?”
Warm water, warm ground, warm water vapour, warm Oxygen and Nitrogen conducting to and from the ground and to each other. And yes a miniscule fraction from non condensing GHGs (which are also emitting energy straight out to space faster than could be achieved by other mechanisms).
Conduction, convection, evaporation and lateral winds around the world.
Open your eyes and your mind.
Get used to it. N & Z and many others are right. Perfect mathematical precision will follow in due course assuming they aren’t already there.
=======
warm water/ground emit IR upwards
O2 N2 have insignificant radiative properties
The instruments in the referenced documents measured LWIR RADIATION coming downwards Their measured output contains no directly conducted / convected energy
A simplistic view:
No GHGs no 200W coming down
No GHGs no 200W going up from GHGs
Some of this 400watts is coming from the ground some from hot air conducting to GHGs
If it were not for GHGs then the grounds portion of 400W would go directly to space. But add GHGs and only 200W goes directly to space.
The non-ghg atmosphere would loose some heat to the cooling ground via conduction but little via radiation.
//////////////////////////////////////////
thefordprefect says:
from thefordprefect says: February 11, 2012 at 1:29 am
[co-mod: Sure it is there. Now show the data for DOWNWARD pointing devices. Hint, nightside temperature inversions are normal including over the sea. I think you will find this is atmospheric coupling which is cooling when conduction and scour are failing. Is it forward or reverse at night? There is much more.
--Tim]
==============================
I have shown many times the upward/downward spectrums but from TOA and ground:
What is missing in the TOA is present in the ground in excess:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/powerpoint/ch6_GP.ppt
The ground emissions do not change other than with temperature. so if 25C ground emits at 400 watts with GHGs present then a 25C ground will emit 400Watts with no GHGs in the atmosphere.
The difference is that an atmosphere with GHGs radiates 200W/m^2 downwards
In my books 400 W out + 200 watts in leaves 200 watts out. i.e. 200W less than without GHGs
===============================
tim
it forward or reverse at night?
===========
Are you suggesting they are measuring negative energy?
They measure LWIR which is coming in line of sight only they do not measure the ground emissions
////////////////////////////////////////
tallbloke says:
Back near the start of this thread I commented that I decided to ‘let the politics, the science and the bitchin’ mix up together rather than separating them (which would have been a moderation headache anyway). On the whole this has turned out well, with scientific discussion predominating, and most political comment has been kept general and non-personal.
....
All I ask is that that discussion is courteous, measured and considerate of the wider community.
=====================
noting the above will this every come out of moderation!!!?
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ned Nikolov says: February 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Perhaps you could address my problem (which keeps getting unposted!)
Some measured evidence:
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak frequency TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total – the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs unlike the 1kW solar
Thanks.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
===========
WHAT!!!!!
I thought this was a SCIENTIFIC discussion and you prevent N&Z from seeing my post
It may be garbage but should it not be left up to them to tell me why?
How many other peoples posts are hitting your biased deletions? You have the temerity to call out Real Climate
Wow Just Wow!
[Reply] You started this comment by quoting a timestamp of a comment by Ned Nikolov. I looked at the comment, and yours does not address a single thing he said in his. Moreover, your comment asks for help with your ‘problem’ but you don’t say what your ‘problem’ is. Your figures are meaningless becuase they don’t include the upward LWIR flux. It’s LWIR knitting circle gibberish. Feel free to take it elsewhere, because I’m not publishing it on this thread, when I’ve already posted the same from you on Stephen’s, where it has now been answered by MKelly.
David Appell says:
Sorry, but this is some really fabulous nonsense. Your numbers don’t even make sense: you interchange units of energy and electric charge, and write things like 1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s which makes no sense unit-wise. And then for some unknown reason you take, I guess, the radius/mass ratio for the proton and apply it to the Earth???
[Snip]
[Reply] Take a look at Mathis’ papers on the coulomb charge and it’s equivalence to the Bohr radius, and the supporting papers he links there, and feel free to come back and tell us what you think is wrong with them. He has generated a huge corpus of work, a lot of which does seem to hang together. I recommend you don’t rush to judgement.
[Reply] Take a look at Mathis’ papers on the coulomb charge and it’s equivalence to the Bohr radius, and the supporting papers he links there, and feel free to come back and tell us what you think is wrong with them. He has generated a huge corpus of work, a lot of which does seem to hang together. I recommend you don’t rush to judgement.
==============
luckily some one with intelligence:
dp says: March 27, 2012 at 6:11 am
This is all so stupid. A plucked gem:
“This also proves that the Earth must be radiating rather than trapping energy.”
What – it can’t do both?
Someone asked me a few days ago if Roger’s blog was becoming a dumping ground for crank science. I didn’t have an answer but I hope not.
Keep it real, Roger.
==============
jjthom says:Your comment is awaiting moderation. dp says: March 27, 2012 at 6:11 am
This is all so stupid. A plucked gem:
“This also proves that the Earth must be radiating rather than trapping energy.”
What – it can’t do both?
Someone asked me a few days ago if Roger’s blog was becoming a dumping ground for crank science. I didn’t have an answer but I hope not.
Keep it real, Roger.
==============
Stephen Wilde says: March 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Because PV = nRT works.
=====
this is really PV=kT since n and R do not change
But then sin P does not change either (the mass of gas is constant although the volume varies so the pressure is constant
so you really have
V=kT
strange!
A question when atmospheric pressure increases is it always hotter?
[Reply] The N&Z theory is dealing with planetary scale quantities on a big time scale, not individual weather sub-systems within a short time frame. Anyway, no-one gets to post on my site with two identities so ‘jjthom’ and ‘thefordprefect’ (and any other sockpuppet) are now banned.
=========
And of course there was the Joel Shore thread where he was only allowed to post via Tallbloke:
tallbloke says:
More from Joel:
Anything as possible says:
“If nothing else, Nikolov & Zeller have ...
============
Well it seems that a load of sef congratulatory comments are being posted at TallBlokes blog.
I simple though I coud perhaps post some different views But this is not the case. Some never make it outside moderation and now I've hit a new form of censorship - a requirement to post in an irrelevant thread!
"[Reply] Read what I wrote! Repost this one on Stephen’s thread. Thanks"
Brilliant!
I repost with the request to repost intact. This was to ensure others did not think it irrelevant. TB edits this out - very clever!
These people then have the temerity to claim RealClimate are evil for vetting their bloggers!!!!
thefordprefect says:
“The discrete set of vibration frequencies of a molecule is called its spectrum; this is both a la Kirchhoff’s Law its absorption spectrum and its emissions spectrum. If the impinging radiation had to have exactly the wavelength of the discrete spectral lines there would not be much interaction between the radiation an the molecules.
The spectrum is modified by the motion of the molecules. The Doppler effect is the modification of the perceived frequency of radiation due to the motion of the molecule. If the molecule is traveling in opposite direction from the incoming radiation the perceived frequency of the radiation is greater. Thus if radiation were slightly lower frequency than a vibration frequency of a molecule the Doppler effect could bring about a coincidence with the vibration frequency of the molecule. If a molecule were traveling in the same direction as incoming radiation the Doppler effect lowers its perceived frequency and thus could result in the absorption of radiation of a slightly higher frequency.
In effect the lines of the absorption spectrum are broadened by the Doppler effect. They are also broadened by collision frequency within a gas.”
http://www.applet-magic.com/absorptionspectra.htm
The atmospere on Venus is 70 times earth What is the absorption spectra of H2O (@100ppm) and CO2, and H2SO4 etc.
http://www.sat.ltu.se/members/mendrok/publications/sagawa09_pressure_jqsrt.pdf
[Reply] TFP: Have you mistaken this venue for the spectrum line knitters circle? Spectra certainly need broadening, along with perspectives
thefordprefect says:
N2 O2 do not radiate, They can transfer energy to molecules that can radiate GHGs
During the day near the equator the actual radiation hitting the ground from the sun is of the order of 1000w/m^2
You suggest that this + gravity heats the atmosphere and gives you your solar/gravity/atmospherical temperature
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
You say you have allowed for the day time 1000W (and distributed it round the globe) to produce your theory – but what about the nighght time 200W/m^2 (this is constant and does not need distributing. The level falls to 140w/m^2 above the arctic circle but it is still there day and night.
This is a large error if indeed it is missed. If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?
My previous post pointed out a couple (out of many) research papers that suggest at 70 atmospheres the spectral line broadening of GHG absorbtion and re-radiation would be great. Couple this with temperature (motion) induced doppler broadening the trace gas h2o in venusian atmosphere, the CO2, The H2SO4, the SO2 must have a phenomenal effect on the rate that energy can leave the venusian atmosphere
===============
davidmhoffer says: February 11, 2012 at 4:50 am
thefordprefect;
Please explain where this night time IR is coming from if not from a GHG.>>>
It does come from a GHG. So what?
There are a variety of mechanisms that move energy about the planet. GHG’s are amongst them. Yes, you can measure given IR and conclude that it was emitted by GHG’s. The question is not if the IR was emitted by GHG’s. The question is, if the GHG’s were not present, what would be different?
============
Surely this is obvious - the 200W/m^2 would be missing. This is a continuous radiation 24hrs/day. This is comind DOWN at night. It has nothing to do with solar radiation at night. This is 200W more than would be there without the GHG. This is 200W more than N&Z have accounted for. So how can their calculations be valid?
It should be noted that GHGs do not suck energy from the earth BUT if the earth emits it, then a GHG could intercept and re-radiate it. This is what is happening
=============
davidmhoffer says
The answer is that unless the absence of the GHG’s changes the amount of energy absorbed in the first place, then the amount of energy emitted doesn’t change either. That being the case, T doesn’t change. What changes is where and how the energy escapes to space. If there is less IR emitted from GHG’s, then to establish equilibrium, there most be more emitted by something else. Its like one of those long balloon the clowns use to make animal shapes with. Squeeze it in the middle, the ends get longer. Squeeze is at one end, the other end gets longer. Squeeze it ANYWHERE and the air just moves to someplace else in the balloon. But the amount of air in the balloon stays exactly the same.
============
2 main things radiate to space from the earth. The ground, and GHGs (ignoring the inconsequential O2 N2 etc)Take away GHGs and the ground radiates directly to space. Add GHGs and the ground's radiation gets absorbed and re-radiated in all directions - almost 50% to earth. You have admitted that this is true "It does come from a GHG. So what?"
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total - the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs
================
---------------------------
Stephen Wilde says: February 11, 2012 at 4:52 am
“If you do not believe in GHE where does this night time radiation come from?”
Warm water, warm ground, warm water vapour, warm Oxygen and Nitrogen conducting to and from the ground and to each other. And yes a miniscule fraction from non condensing GHGs (which are also emitting energy straight out to space faster than could be achieved by other mechanisms).
Conduction, convection, evaporation and lateral winds around the world.
Open your eyes and your mind.
Get used to it. N & Z and many others are right. Perfect mathematical precision will follow in due course assuming they aren’t already there.
=======
warm water/ground emit IR upwards
O2 N2 have insignificant radiative properties
The instruments in the referenced documents measured LWIR RADIATION coming downwards Their measured output contains no directly conducted / convected energy
A simplistic view:
No GHGs no 200W coming down
No GHGs no 200W going up from GHGs
Some of this 400watts is coming from the ground some from hot air conducting to GHGs
If it were not for GHGs then the grounds portion of 400W would go directly to space. But add GHGs and only 200W goes directly to space.
The non-ghg atmosphere would loose some heat to the cooling ground via conduction but little via radiation.
//////////////////////////////////////////
thefordprefect says:
from thefordprefect says: February 11, 2012 at 1:29 am
[co-mod: Sure it is there. Now show the data for DOWNWARD pointing devices. Hint, nightside temperature inversions are normal including over the sea. I think you will find this is atmospheric coupling which is cooling when conduction and scour are failing. Is it forward or reverse at night? There is much more.
--Tim]
==============================
I have shown many times the upward/downward spectrums but from TOA and ground:
What is missing in the TOA is present in the ground in excess:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/powerpoint/ch6_GP.ppt
The ground emissions do not change other than with temperature. so if 25C ground emits at 400 watts with GHGs present then a 25C ground will emit 400Watts with no GHGs in the atmosphere.
The difference is that an atmosphere with GHGs radiates 200W/m^2 downwards
In my books 400 W out + 200 watts in leaves 200 watts out. i.e. 200W less than without GHGs
===============================
tim
it forward or reverse at night?
===========
Are you suggesting they are measuring negative energy?
They measure LWIR which is coming in line of sight only they do not measure the ground emissions
////////////////////////////////////////
tallbloke says:
Back near the start of this thread I commented that I decided to ‘let the politics, the science and the bitchin’ mix up together rather than separating them (which would have been a moderation headache anyway). On the whole this has turned out well, with scientific discussion predominating, and most political comment has been kept general and non-personal.
....
All I ask is that that discussion is courteous, measured and considerate of the wider community.
=====================
noting the above will this every come out of moderation!!!?
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ned Nikolov says: February 11, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Perhaps you could address my problem (which keeps getting unposted!)
Some measured evidence:
Southern Great Plains:
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 300+w/m^2 during the day (note that the peak frequency TSI is filtered from these measurements (The AERI-ER measures downward infrared
radiance from 3.3 to 25 um (400 to 3000 cm- 1) with a spectral resolution of 0.482 cm ^-1)
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 200+w/m^2 during the night
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/LongWaveIrradianceMeas.pdf
In the arctic
From this referenced document the LWIR MEASURED is 140w/m^2 during the night and day
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdf
The ground without GHGs receives radiation from the sun (about 1kW/m^2) add GHGs and and another 200W/m^2 comes to the ground. The 1kW does not care that additional energy is hitting the ground nor does it care what the ground temperature is so solar energy hitting the ground remains at 1kW. The agreed 200W GHG radiation similarly does not care about the 1kW or the temperature of the ground so it adds to the total – the ground receives 1.2kW i.e. 20% more than N&Z account for.
in fact it is more than this because the GHG addition is 200W for 24hrs unlike the 1kW solar
Thanks.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
thefordprefect says:Your comment is awaiting moderation.
[Reply] Sorry TFP but it’s off topic. N&Z have demonstrated that albedo is a function of TOA TSI and pressure. So it matters not what the LWIR down flux is. Please discuss N&Z’s theory, not your LWIR beancounting, which fails to state that the net flux is up not down anyway.
===========
WHAT!!!!!
I thought this was a SCIENTIFIC discussion and you prevent N&Z from seeing my post
It may be garbage but should it not be left up to them to tell me why?
How many other peoples posts are hitting your biased deletions? You have the temerity to call out Real Climate
Wow Just Wow!
[Reply] You started this comment by quoting a timestamp of a comment by Ned Nikolov. I looked at the comment, and yours does not address a single thing he said in his. Moreover, your comment asks for help with your ‘problem’ but you don’t say what your ‘problem’ is. Your figures are meaningless becuase they don’t include the upward LWIR flux. It’s LWIR knitting circle gibberish. Feel free to take it elsewhere, because I’m not publishing it on this thread, when I’ve already posted the same from you on Stephen’s, where it has now been answered by MKelly.
2012/01/19
SOPA and stuff
The US Laws are aimed at web sites outside the US apparently (sites in the US are well controlled)!
In my view you should abide by the laws of your place of residence - Just because Saudi has laws against drinking must no mean that it is illegal to drink in the UK. It must also not mean that the Saudi authoritories cannot demand that all alcoholics in the UK must be extradited to Saudi for trial.
So why is it possible for the US to demand the UK extradites a student who has broken no UK law - it is not illegal in the UK to show links to sites hosting movies and TV programmes (illegal). This is just what search engines do after all!
This is what has happened to Richard O’Dwyer - the UK has extradition agreements with the US and the media moguls have demanded extradition to the US for trial against THEIR laws
See UK citizen Richard O’Dwyer’s case:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/student-to-face-us-trial-over-tvshack-website-6289235.html
Other court cases have proven his web site was legal in the UK.
Does one search the world for the most sensitive nations and force everyone to adopt their laws?
If you are in the UK write to your MP about Richard O’Dwyer's case – extradition makes no sense for someone who has broken no current UK laws!
Let this one go and who knows what flood gates get opened.
In my view you should abide by the laws of your place of residence - Just because Saudi has laws against drinking must no mean that it is illegal to drink in the UK. It must also not mean that the Saudi authoritories cannot demand that all alcoholics in the UK must be extradited to Saudi for trial.
So why is it possible for the US to demand the UK extradites a student who has broken no UK law - it is not illegal in the UK to show links to sites hosting movies and TV programmes (illegal). This is just what search engines do after all!
This is what has happened to Richard O’Dwyer - the UK has extradition agreements with the US and the media moguls have demanded extradition to the US for trial against THEIR laws
See UK citizen Richard O’Dwyer’s case:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/student-to-face-us-trial-over-tvshack-website-6289235.html
Other court cases have proven his web site was legal in the UK.
Does one search the world for the most sensitive nations and force everyone to adopt their laws?
If you are in the UK write to your MP about Richard O’Dwyer's case – extradition makes no sense for someone who has broken no current UK laws!
Let this one go and who knows what flood gates get opened.
2012/01/14
WUWT learning exercise???.
Joel Shore says: January 14, 2012 at 10:22 am
Bob Fernley-Jones says:
The fact that this is still being debated despite the best attempts by some of us to inject correct science into the debate shows how many people seem unable to distinguish actual science from nonsense. This is particularly true when the nonsense aligns more with what they want to believe than the science does. – Anthony
REPLY: And this Joel, is where you fail miserably. The point of this is education. To learn people must make mistakes. The problem with the “scientific community” is that they poo poo and denigrate people like myself and those who frequent this blog for going through the learning process discussing things they consider off limits. The fact is though, that anyone who maintains a closed mind to re-evaluating anything is a lost soul, capable only of self affirmatiom and confirmation bias.
I could have prevented this post, knowing full well at the outset that it had serious problems, but then, nobody would have learned anything. Unlike you and the team, I prefer to allow such open debate, even if the debate shows just how wrong the idea can be. The real value is in the journey. I refer everyone to the conclusion of this discussion in Willis Eschenbach’s thread A Matter of Some Gravity
You’ve spent hours dominating this thread and the original, and many have learned something from it, some have not. But in honor of your pig-headedness displayed here, I’m closing the thread. The conversation can continue on the Willis essay linked above. Take a 24 hour time out before you try to take command of that thread too. – Anthony
=================
Has anyone changed their view because of this educational exercise?
=================
BTW, I think this here debate is the best form of “peer review”No…It is evidence of how, outside of the scientific community, people can endlessly debate things that inside the scientific community would quickly and rightly be dismissed as nonsense.
The fact that this is still being debated despite the best attempts by some of us to inject correct science into the debate shows how many people seem unable to distinguish actual science from nonsense. This is particularly true when the nonsense aligns more with what they want to believe than the science does. – Anthony
REPLY: And this Joel, is where you fail miserably. The point of this is education. To learn people must make mistakes. The problem with the “scientific community” is that they poo poo and denigrate people like myself and those who frequent this blog for going through the learning process discussing things they consider off limits. The fact is though, that anyone who maintains a closed mind to re-evaluating anything is a lost soul, capable only of self affirmatiom and confirmation bias.
I could have prevented this post, knowing full well at the outset that it had serious problems, but then, nobody would have learned anything. Unlike you and the team, I prefer to allow such open debate, even if the debate shows just how wrong the idea can be. The real value is in the journey. I refer everyone to the conclusion of this discussion in Willis Eschenbach’s thread A Matter of Some Gravity
You’ve spent hours dominating this thread and the original, and many have learned something from it, some have not. But in honor of your pig-headedness displayed here, I’m closing the thread. The conversation can continue on the Willis essay linked above. Take a 24 hour time out before you try to take command of that thread too. – Anthony
=================
Has anyone changed their view because of this educational exercise?
=================
2012/01/02
Are Adiabatic Lapse Rates Controlling Temperatures
Better stuff here on adiabatic lapse rates!!
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/08/12/temperature-profile-in-the-atmosphere-the-lapse-rate/
Some of the rest is interesyting in this post:
Adiabatic Lapse Rates
wiki
Types of lapse rates
There are two types of lapse rate:
Environmental lapse rate – which refers to the actual change of temperature with altitude for the stationary atmosphere (i.e. the temperature gradient)
The adiabatic lapse rates – which refer to the change in temperature of a parcel of air as it moves upwards (or downwards) without exchanging heat with its surroundings. The temperature change that occurs within the air parcel reflects the adjusting balance between potential energy and kinetic energy of the molecules of gas that comprise the moving air mass. There are two adiabatic rates:[6] Dry adiabatic lapse rate
Moist (or saturated) adiabatic lapse rate
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmospheric_moisture/lapse_rates_1.html
In "The Atmosphere" we discovered that air temperature usually decreases with an increase in elevation through the troposphere. The decrease in temperature with elevation is called the environmental lapse rate of temperature or normal lapse rate of temperature. Recall that the normal lapse rate of temperature is the average lapse rate of temperature of .65o C / 100 meters. The environmental lapse rate of temperature is the actual vertical change in temperature on any given day and can be greater or less than .65o C / 100 meters. Also recall that the decrease in temperature with height is caused by increasing distance from the source of energy that heats the air, the Earth's surface. Air is warmer near the surface because it's closer to its source of heat. The further away from the surface, the cooler the air will be. It's like standing next to a fire, the closer you are the warmer you'll feel. Temperature change caused by an exchange of heat between two bodies is called diabatic temperature change. There is another very important way to change the temperature of air called adiabatic temperature change.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/adiabatic_processes.htm
Make sure you notice that we are talking about moving air (rising or subsiding), not still air. The change in temperature of still air (that is, air that is not rising or subsiding) follows the Environmental Lapse Rate, which varies considerably, but averages about 6.5 deg C/1000 meters (3.6 deg/1000 feet). In still air, if you went up in a hot air balloon, carrying a thermometer and taking the air temperature every 1000 meters, on average the temperature would drop 6.5 degrees C every 1000 meters. The rate of temperature change as you rise in still air is not as great as the rate of change of rising air; that is, the air parcel does not cool off as fast.
For instance, the air temperature at sea level is 28 degrees C. Climb into your balloon, release the tethers, and go up 1000 meters in the still air. On average, the air temperature 1000 meters up will be _21.5___degrees C. If the air were rising, and the temperature at sea level was 28 degrees C, what would the temperature of the air be after it rose 1000 meters? 18C
http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/scripter/geog100/lect/05-atmos-water-wx/05-part-7-atmos-lifting-fronts/ch5-part-7a-atmos-liftin.htm
http://www.geographypages.co.uk/lapse.htm
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
People talk of adiabatit lapse rates as if they control the atmosperic temperatre. Why?
These lapse rates refer to moving a number of molecules from low pressure to high pressure and getting heated. No problem with that. BUT
For every molecule moved down to high press ure there must be a molecule moved from high to low. It cannot be a one way transport (obviously!).
So, in my books, the heating effect of falling molecules equals the cooling effect of rising molecules. Hence no effect.
So Why is it colder up a mountain than on the plains.
GHG free air absorbs litle of the available sunlight. Air with GHGs absorbs only at the known absoption frequencies and the proportion of theses frequencies in the TSI is relatively small. There is therefore little air heating due to sunlight.
However sunlight hits the ground and 70% gets absorbed and reradiated as heat at long wave infra red frequencies. These will heat the air via absoption. There is more close ground creating warming in a valley than on a hill hence it will be warmer.
NOW if there is a 1000 metre plateau will this be as warm as the valley below - if not, why not?
from WUWT
The adiabatic lapse rate is defined by the "gas Laws" not by gravity (other than of course high gravity gives high pressure!).
The adiabatic lapse rate requires that a fixed number of molecules be moved between pressure differences. Once at a new pressure the new temperature will stabilise to the surroundings (but that is not what adiabatic lapse rate is about).
However, for every molecule transported from high to low pressure there MUST be a molecule transported from low to high pressure. This means there is NO net flow of energy.
Where the atmosphere blends into a vacuum there can be no convective/conductive transfer of energy (there is nothing to transfer the energy to!)
Radiation is the only option. N2 H2 O2 etc. have little propensity to absorb radiation. Hoever they will get warm by transfer of heat from GH gasses. All hot bodies emit radiation (bb radiation).
At the other end of the air column you have similar problems. The ground/sea warms through absorption of the shorter wavelengths of TSI (where most of the solar energy is). The heat is radiated from the ground/sea as LWIR and by contact at the boundary between earth and atmosphere. The heat must be transferred from molecule to molecule by contact or by convection. A slow process. Conduction will be enhanced by high pressure, convection will be slowed.
The radiated energy is NOT significantly absorbed by O2 N2 H2 etc. no matter what the pressure. Even a solid glass fibre can be made extremely low loss 0.2dB per km and the molecules are pretty solidly packed http://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/wordpress/optical-fiber-loss-and-attenuation/ . Without a GHG this radiation would escape without attenuation straight to space. GHGs will "absorb" this LWIR at certain frequencies and re-emit it in all directions.The time for this energy to be "reabsorbed" in another molecule is dependent on the path length which is dependent on the proximity of other GHG molecules which is dependant on the pressure of the atmosphere.
The time taken for the radiation to bounce from molecule to molecule increases the time it takes for the energy to travel from ground to space.
The energy input to the system is at a constant rate. Slow down the output and the system gets hotter. A hotter system will radiate more energy (BB radiation).
Where does the energy from static pressure difference come in to this?
Figure 2
Forcing, and Fractional Cloud Cover over the South Polehttp://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~vonw/pubs/TownEtAl_2005.pdf
So where does all that downward radiation come from (at least 270W/sqm)
It can only be from GHGs.
Cloud transmission (from above-FTIR looking down) from
An introduction to atmospheric radiation
By Kuo-Nan Liou
Transmission through the atmosphere. If GH effect exists then there should be mmissing parts of emission spectrum when looking at the earth. AND when looking up at the sky there should be higher levels of radiation at the same wavelengt as is missing when looking down. Is this the case? It seems so:
IR great plains measured here:
SGP Central Facility, Ponca City, OK
36° 36' 18.0" N, 97° 29' 6.0" W
Altitude: 320 meters
http://www.arm.gov/sites/sgp
Better stuff here!!
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/08/12/temperature-profile-in-the-atmosphere-the-lapse-rate/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/08/12/temperature-profile-in-the-atmosphere-the-lapse-rate/
Some of the rest is interesyting in this post:
Adiabatic Lapse Rates
wiki
Types of lapse rates
There are two types of lapse rate:
Environmental lapse rate – which refers to the actual change of temperature with altitude for the stationary atmosphere (i.e. the temperature gradient)
The adiabatic lapse rates – which refer to the change in temperature of a parcel of air as it moves upwards (or downwards) without exchanging heat with its surroundings. The temperature change that occurs within the air parcel reflects the adjusting balance between potential energy and kinetic energy of the molecules of gas that comprise the moving air mass. There are two adiabatic rates:[6] Dry adiabatic lapse rate
Moist (or saturated) adiabatic lapse rate
http://www4.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmospheric_moisture/lapse_rates_1.html
In "The Atmosphere" we discovered that air temperature usually decreases with an increase in elevation through the troposphere. The decrease in temperature with elevation is called the environmental lapse rate of temperature or normal lapse rate of temperature. Recall that the normal lapse rate of temperature is the average lapse rate of temperature of .65o C / 100 meters. The environmental lapse rate of temperature is the actual vertical change in temperature on any given day and can be greater or less than .65o C / 100 meters. Also recall that the decrease in temperature with height is caused by increasing distance from the source of energy that heats the air, the Earth's surface. Air is warmer near the surface because it's closer to its source of heat. The further away from the surface, the cooler the air will be. It's like standing next to a fire, the closer you are the warmer you'll feel. Temperature change caused by an exchange of heat between two bodies is called diabatic temperature change. There is another very important way to change the temperature of air called adiabatic temperature change.
http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/adiabatic_processes.htm
Make sure you notice that we are talking about moving air (rising or subsiding), not still air. The change in temperature of still air (that is, air that is not rising or subsiding) follows the Environmental Lapse Rate, which varies considerably, but averages about 6.5 deg C/1000 meters (3.6 deg/1000 feet). In still air, if you went up in a hot air balloon, carrying a thermometer and taking the air temperature every 1000 meters, on average the temperature would drop 6.5 degrees C every 1000 meters. The rate of temperature change as you rise in still air is not as great as the rate of change of rising air; that is, the air parcel does not cool off as fast.
For instance, the air temperature at sea level is 28 degrees C. Climb into your balloon, release the tethers, and go up 1000 meters in the still air. On average, the air temperature 1000 meters up will be _21.5___degrees C. If the air were rising, and the temperature at sea level was 28 degrees C, what would the temperature of the air be after it rose 1000 meters? 18C
http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/scripter/geog100/lect/05-atmos-water-wx/05-part-7-atmos-lifting-fronts/ch5-part-7a-atmos-liftin.htm
http://www.geographypages.co.uk/lapse.htm
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/lapserates.html
People talk of adiabatit lapse rates as if they control the atmosperic temperatre. Why?
These lapse rates refer to moving a number of molecules from low pressure to high pressure and getting heated. No problem with that. BUT
For every molecule moved down to high press ure there must be a molecule moved from high to low. It cannot be a one way transport (obviously!).
So, in my books, the heating effect of falling molecules equals the cooling effect of rising molecules. Hence no effect.
So Why is it colder up a mountain than on the plains.
GHG free air absorbs litle of the available sunlight. Air with GHGs absorbs only at the known absoption frequencies and the proportion of theses frequencies in the TSI is relatively small. There is therefore little air heating due to sunlight.
However sunlight hits the ground and 70% gets absorbed and reradiated as heat at long wave infra red frequencies. These will heat the air via absoption. There is more close ground creating warming in a valley than on a hill hence it will be warmer.
NOW if there is a 1000 metre plateau will this be as warm as the valley below - if not, why not?
from WUWT
The adiabatic lapse rate is defined by the "gas Laws" not by gravity (other than of course high gravity gives high pressure!).
The adiabatic lapse rate requires that a fixed number of molecules be moved between pressure differences. Once at a new pressure the new temperature will stabilise to the surroundings (but that is not what adiabatic lapse rate is about).
However, for every molecule transported from high to low pressure there MUST be a molecule transported from low to high pressure. This means there is NO net flow of energy.
Where the atmosphere blends into a vacuum there can be no convective/conductive transfer of energy (there is nothing to transfer the energy to!)
Radiation is the only option. N2 H2 O2 etc. have little propensity to absorb radiation. Hoever they will get warm by transfer of heat from GH gasses. All hot bodies emit radiation (bb radiation).
At the other end of the air column you have similar problems. The ground/sea warms through absorption of the shorter wavelengths of TSI (where most of the solar energy is). The heat is radiated from the ground/sea as LWIR and by contact at the boundary between earth and atmosphere. The heat must be transferred from molecule to molecule by contact or by convection. A slow process. Conduction will be enhanced by high pressure, convection will be slowed.
The radiated energy is NOT significantly absorbed by O2 N2 H2 etc. no matter what the pressure. Even a solid glass fibre can be made extremely low loss 0.2dB per km and the molecules are pretty solidly packed http://www.fiberoptics4sale.com/wordpress/optical-fiber-loss-and-attenuation/ . Without a GHG this radiation would escape without attenuation straight to space. GHGs will "absorb" this LWIR at certain frequencies and re-emit it in all directions.
Atmospheric longwave irradiance uncertainty: Pyrgeometers compared to an absolute sky-scanning radiometer, atmospheric emitted radiance interferometer, and radiative transfer model calculations.
================
Downward longwave irradiance uncertainty under arctic atmospheres: Measurements and modeling
http://www.slf.ch/ueber/mitarbeiter/homepages/marty/publications/Marty2003_IPASRCII_JGR.pdfFigure 2
Spectral and Broadband Longwave Downwelling Radiative Fluxes, Cloud Radiative
Forcing, and Fractional Cloud Cover over the South Polehttp://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~vonw/pubs/TownEtAl_2005.pdf
Measurement of night time downward radiation
So we know the solar output received in the dark is 0
We know that O2 and N2 have very very very little thermal radiation.So where does all that downward radiation come from (at least 270W/sqm)
It can only be from GHGs.
During the day we receive about 380W/sqm
So the 270W/sqm is additional to the solar irradiance.
So the average night day temp difference is less than expected (no sideways conduction/wind required)
N2 O2 absoptions are mainly rotational and thereefore mainly in the microwave region. There is not a great amount of radiation in these frequencies.
Cloud transmission (from above-FTIR looking down) from
An introduction to atmospheric radiation
By Kuo-Nan Liou
Transmission through the atmosphere. If GH effect exists then there should be mmissing parts of emission spectrum when looking at the earth. AND when looking up at the sky there should be higher levels of radiation at the same wavelengt as is missing when looking down. Is this the case? It seems so:
spectral plot is here:
http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/powerpoint/ch6_GP.pptIR great plains measured here:
SGP Central Facility, Ponca City, OK
36° 36' 18.0" N, 97° 29' 6.0" W
Altitude: 320 meters
http://www.arm.gov/sites/sgp
Better stuff here!!
http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/08/12/temperature-profile-in-the-atmosphere-the-lapse-rate/
2011/11/24
Confirmation of the Green House Effect
The Effect of CO2 on IR
Conclusion
CO2 in these two instances caused between 6 and 10% greater heating rate
The temperature gradient of the "air" is the reverse of what would be expected with convection or radiation (the higer up the flask the probe the cooler the air)
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
373K
Radiant emmittance: 1097.64 W/m2
Radiance: 349.389 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 29.5722 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 7.76877 µm
298k
Radiant emmittance: 447.186 W/m2
Radiance: 142.344 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 9.62545 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 9.724 µm
100C source is 135mm+125mm-45mm from top thermocouple
top thermocouple is 45 mm from re-radiator
The heating effect of the top 100C source is therefore reduced by 45^2/ 215^2
The green trace below is radiation from the 101C source.
The Blue trace is the upward long wave radiation from the 25C collector.
The Setup
Volume of trapped air in Vacuum Flask 541ml
Air is in a vacuum thermal flask made of double skin stainless steel designed for isolation of liquid from external temperature influenceVolume of trapped air in Vacuum Flask 541ml
IR Absorber used to collect IR is 18g matt black anodised corrugated aluminium rectangular block 40mm by 44mm
Distance from end of tube to top of absorber is 128mmIR Transmitter is 49mm diameter matt black aluminium
Thermal conduction isolation provide by 135mm tube with internal convection cooling internal diameter 49mmAir exchange isolation provided by low density polyethylene (LDPE “cling film”)
Test Set up
Method
1 Temperature recorded at 1 second intervals using an eight channel USB thermocouple interface
2 Apparatus set up as shown but with the IR transmitter isolated from the system. The Internal volume of the vacuum flask was filled with room temperature air (RH approx 50%). The flask then had 60ml of CO2 injected (3 lots of 20ml) (This increases the concentration of CO2 but not to the full 60ml as each injection would displace some of the already injected CO2).
3 IR Transmitter maintained at greater than 100C whilst thermocouple temperatures stabilised
4 When stability reached IR transmitter cooled to 101C and placed on top of tube
5 Temperature of IR transmitter maintained as stable as possible at approximately 100°C during the heating of the gas to greater than 25°C
6 The IR source was removed and the vacuum flask air replaced with room air (using a small fan).
7 The system was then cooled by placing ice cubes in a glass on the LDPE film on the vacuum flask.
8 The system was then reassembled but without the IR source.
9 The air temperature was the allowed to stabilise.
9 The test method was repeated until the air temperature was above 25°C
10 The Air in the flask was then enhanced with CO2 and cooled again, repeating the same method as above
11 The same method was also run (with CO2 and normal done in reverse order) on a previous occasion.
11 The same method was also run (with CO2 and normal done in reverse order) on a previous occasion.
The Results:
1 Using the last 2 runs (room air then CO2 enhanced room air) and measuring the slope of temperature rise per second at around 25°C shows a significant increase with more CO2
2 Also the temperature array record a smaller spread with increased CO2.
Conclusion
CO2 in these two instances caused between 6 and 10% greater heating rate
The temperature gradient of the "air" is the reverse of what would be expected with convection or radiation (the higer up the flask the probe the cooler the air)
http://www.spectralcalc.com/blackbody_calculator/blackbody.php
373K
Radiant emmittance: 1097.64 W/m2
Radiance: 349.389 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 29.5722 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 7.76877 µm
298k
Radiant emmittance: 447.186 W/m2
Radiance: 142.344 W/m2/sr
Peak spectral radiance: 9.62545 W/m2/sr/µm
Wavelength of peak: 9.724 µm
100C source is 135mm+125mm-45mm from top thermocouple
top thermocouple is 45 mm from re-radiator
The heating effect of the top 100C source is therefore reduced by 45^2/ 215^2
The green trace below is radiation from the 101C source.
The Blue trace is the upward long wave radiation from the 25C collector.
CO2 3 times more absorption at 4um than 15um
BB radiation curve shows that 4um absorption and 16um absorption are similar when sensitivity is considered
101C curve always adds less energy to CO2 than 25C re-radiator at 45mm Sensor. The difference will increase as the sensor distance from the re-radiator decreseas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
++++++++++++
There is very little substance to the responses (actually - none?)
And there are the pseudoscience proponents out in force:
Stephen Wilde says:
Quite right, but don’t tell Willis Eschenbach or he’ll go cowboy on you :)
keep repeating it often enough and people will believe!