Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 255 Votes - 2.83 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Layman struggles with Science
04-10-2010, 01:10 AM
Post: #81
RE: Layman struggles with Science
If a photon of energy returns to the source just how does that heat the source? At best the source was returned to its original energy state. Usually it seems photons will be at a lessor energy state when reradiated. There seems to be claims that radiative energy from "other" sources provide the heat. Only if the "other" source is hotter will that work.

The temperature of the surface for most of this planet is higher than the temperature of the air above it. This can and does insulate the surface aided and abetted by "radiation" from the airborne GHGs but in now way does the surface temperature increase. The sun MUST be shining for that to happen.

Instances of the fohn and mistral winds (warmed by compression), which can be uncomfortably hot to humans, fail to heat the surface. As soon as the winds slow down the temperature drops rapidly.

For example, daytime temperatures in the Namib dessert, where I once lived for three years, approached +50C by midafternoon but were back to +10C and less just before dawn. A 40 degree temperature change in less than 12 hours which could happen every day during high summer.

Land and atmosphere CANNOT store heat for more than a few hours but the oceans can store heat for hundreds of years.

Claiming air temperatures are an indicator of global climate trends is an exercise in deception and those people are not just fooling themselves sadly.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2010, 07:36 AM
Post: #82
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Here is a new struggle for you guys to absorb,by reading this PDF,that was found at Climaterealists.com

Corroboration of Natural Climate Change

Selected excerpt:

I observed the many conflicting assertions regarding the existence and cause of Global Warming, particularly as to whether it was significantly contributed to by human activity.This led to substantial curiosity as to the truth. As a result I have conducted research on the issue for thousands of hours for over three years and have determined that the belief that human activity has had a significant influence on global climate is a mistake.

=========================================================
I find pages 13-17 to be very agreeable to me and I think to Stephen Wilde as well.

I think that the very active solar output from the 1940's to the 1970's,BLUNTED the cooling trend.I have wondered if it was another failed trend in leaving the interglacial phase into a new ice age advance.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2010, 05:48 AM
Post: #83
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I've been reading that Dan Pangburn paper. Thanks for the link SST.
Most encouraging. Seems my thinking is on the right lines.
Sadly his comments on thermalisation don't define how much energy is provided by CO2, just a total of 11.6% of surface radiation warming the air through all GHGs.
At least he does confirm doubling of GHGs only lowers the level of thermalisation by about 25 meters.
I must now continue with pages 13-17 to see if I can absorb anything. Smile

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2010, 10:05 AM
Post: #84
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I have also read through the Dan Pangburn paper.
I particularly like the thermalisation description,
it sounds similar to an idea I tried to describe a bit back.

Infact, it has helped me develop the idea and pull some other seemingly contradictory things together.
I'll try to explain what I mean.

1) According to the physicists molecular view CO2 has a higher specific heat than other atmospheric constituents.

2) According to chemists mass based calculations CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than other atmospheric constituents in a mixed atmosphere.

3) William Kinnimonth, amongst many others such as Hans Schreuder say that GHG's aid, or greatly increase the redistribution / loss of heat by radiation from the atmosphere.
(How can CO2 aid heat loss from the atmosphere but also warm the atmosphere. ? Surely CO2 can not do both, particularly at the same time.)

4) CO2 absorbs and looses the exact same photons.
(How can it do this without any work done losses ?)

If a molecule of CO2 has a higher specific heat than other atmospheric constituents then when they bump into each other,
CO2 will give up it's heat slower to the other constituents.
Infact it could well be hotter than the other atmospheric constituents, at least slightly.
CO2 can be heated by radiation that the other atmospheric constituents are transparent to, so
whenever a CO2 molecule absorbs it's particular wavelength of radiation it is made hotter than the atmosphere it is in.
As the other constituents bump into the CO2 molecule it looses heat a bit at a time to them.
Let us say that a photon of radiation to a CO2 molecule is worth 10 units.
AND, with each collision CO2 loosses 1 unit to the other atmospheric constituent.
For this example as all temperature is above absolute zero, let us assume our CO2 molecule has an energy level of 1,000 units.
The surronding atmosphere is also at a level of 1,000 units per molecule.

When the CO2 molecule absorbs a photon it's level increases by 10 units,
in this example to 1,010.
A short while later a.n.other atmospheric constituent bumps into it.
The CO2 molecule looses 1 unit, it is now at 1,009 units.
This happens again and the CO2 molecule looses another unit, it's new level being 1,008.
This continues untill the CO2 is at the same level again as the rest of the atmosphere.
This is the thermalisation Dan Pangburn describes, and is how CO2 could heat the atmosphere.

If the difference between the CO2 molecules level and the atmospheric constituents around it gets above 11 units,
then CO2 reacts by emitting a 10 unit photon.
So, as CO2 is heating the atmosphere if it recieves another photon it will be above the difference at which it has to emit a photon,
so it does, almost instantly.
This almost instantly is longer than the time it takes for another atmospheric constituent to bump into it,
so at least one unit will be lost, before a photon is emitted.

This scenario I think works whether the atmospheric temperature is rising or falling.
The exact units are proportions that are temperature dependent for the other atmospheric constituents, and the heat lost / conducted to CO2,
but the photon "size" always remains the same, because that it determined by the chemical bond snapping from one state to another,
which the energy for this is irrespective of temerature as such, but does determine the "size" of the CO2 photon.
---------------------------------

Does this seem reasonable, it does appear to me to tie all the above apparently contradictory "things" together.
Whether the atmosphere be heating or cooling, over the temperature ranges that exist within the atmosphere.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-16-2010, 10:05 AM
Post: #85
RE: Layman struggles with Science
According to laws of physics, any and every element in any phase state will radiate if the temperature of that element is above Zero degrees Kelvin. Some elements do not radiate as effectively as others but ALL elements do indeed radiate.

Oxygen and nitrogen constitute some 99% of the total mass of the global atmosphere. That amount of mass MUST radiate more than the 0.04% mass of CO2 contained therein. Where can one find any data?

I read somewhere recently that GCMs do not include any of that data.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-17-2010, 07:13 AM
Post: #86
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Hi Richard111,
I also read similar recently, and I also missed that there is a confusion in the terms used / applied.
Thermal radiation is applied to only solids and liquids as such in the context you mention above.
Because gases are free to move around, the stability of the chemical bonds plays a far larger part in their abilities to radiate IR.
O2 and N2 have very, very stable chemical bonds and so at atmospheric temps and pressures radiate virtually no IR.

If omitted from climate models (O2 and N2 thermal radiation) it would be a very, very small omission,
even though they (O2 and N2) are virtually 99% of the atmosphere.

I hope this helps, I recieved bruises elsewhere over this, untill the above was explained to me........

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-17-2010, 09:52 AM
Post: #87
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Thanks Derek. I will have to accept that for now but I will keep looking for emperical data on radiation characteristics for O2 and N2. It seems to me if we didn't have greenhouse gases we would cook.

Take my location in Milford Haven, current temperature at 17:45 is 17C.
Local forcast warns about frost and zero temperature tonight!
We have a clear sky and minimum wind, the local global cooling fan has been stationary for over 24 hours now. Big Grin

That is some radiative heat loss! Temps every morning for the past week have been 2C with one 3C, yet afternoon temps have been in the high teens.

Time for my sundowner, cheers.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-17-2010, 12:06 PM
Post: #88
RE: Layman struggles with Science
The above does not stop IR escaping, and does not stop the cooling gases radiating to space.
You know those gases commonly thought of as Greenhouse gases at present.

O2 and N2 do however conduct a lot of heat upwards for "those other" gases to radiate to space, as well as to all other directions.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2010, 10:20 PM
Post: #89
RE: Layman struggles with Science
From intuitive reasoning I've been fixated on the question "Why isn't the dry adiabatic lapse rate effected by the changing amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?"

Anthony Watts has made a post titled VENUS ENVY where this subject is discussed.

In the comments there is a link to a university lecture titled The adiabatic atmosphere

The concluding paragraph reads:

Quote:In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the temperature of the lower atmosphere should fall off approximately linearly with increasing height above ground level, whilst the pressure should fall off far more rapidly than this, and the density should fall off at some intermediate rate. We have also shown that the lapse rate of the temperature should be about 10 centigrade per kilometer in dry air, but somewhat less than this in wet air. In fact, all off these predictions are, more or less, correct. It is amazing that such accurate predictions can be obtained from the two simple laws, pV = constant for an isothermal gas, and pV^r = constant for an adiabatic gas.

Greenhouse gases have no effect on the temperature of the atmosphere.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 09:56 PM
Post: #90
RE: Layman struggles with Science
The adiabatic atmosphere

concluding paragraph adiabatic atmosphere Wrote:In fact, all off these predictions are, more or less, correct. It is amazing that such accurate predictions can be obtained from
the two simple laws, pV = constant for an isothermal gas, and pV^r = constant for an adiabatic gas.

Isn't that very similar to, or the same, as Dr. Miskolczi's virial theorum. ?

It's one of his works "bits" I like a lot / agree with.
The other "big" thing I take from his works is the correct question to be asked.
He starts by trying to answer the question what explains the climatic history of this planet and
the ups and downs of global temperature changes within that history and their apparent upper and lower "limits",
ie, interglacials, and glacials.
Both of these AGW has real "problems" with,
most AGW explanations go off into "lala land" trying to avoid
both a runaway greenhouse effect (ie, supposedly Venus), or
some idiotic "snowball earth" version of events.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 10:21 PM
Post: #91
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Will have to read up on Dr. Miskolczi again.

My layman's view of this whole business is yesterday's temperature is not evidence for tomorrow's temperature.

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2010, 11:16 PM
Post: #92
RE: Layman struggles with Science
He is being, and is in current discussions at the air vent, on this thread.
Radiative Physics – Yes CO2 Does Create Warming

He stopped, and still does not talk to me, since I asked him about time and the "speed" of the greenhouse effect.
So, just to remind him at post 196 I asked him, again.
" Hello Dr. Miskolczi, the below are genuine questions on my part, put in simple terms.
1) Is the below an accurate description of what tau means. ?
tau = 1.87
The number of times (expressed as a globally averaged figure) that an IR photon emitted at the earth’s surface
is refelcted back to the earth’s surface, before the photon escapes to space.
"

I am not aware of a reply as yet, but I am still catching up with the comments since I posted that question.
I'm off to catch up, back soon.
I will be longer returning however than it takes a photon to escape to space though - apparently.....

Later edit - Ferenc replies to Steve Short at post 215,

" Actually my Su=OLR/f equation tells that there is no AGW and
the Sun or other astronomical reasons are behind any long term changes in Su.
I am patient enough, and will wait until you understand.

In the planetary greenhouse effect you know everything if you know tau, or A_A or S_T. Mark is right.
All those groups should say something about how they got it.
The K&T ‘ad-hoc’ method is not good eough.
It can not be measured, so what is their A_A?
"

Hmmm, it takes a bit of reading between the lines, but an answer of sorts to my question/s is/are there, I think..

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2010, 10:12 AM
Post: #93
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Derek, you are delving in levels of science beyond my ability to follow.

For example: my understanding is if a photon is absorbed by a molecule it no longer exists.

A CO2 molecule can fire off a photon in one of three energy bands. Why and when the molecule fires off a photon I don't know. I only know it does and depending on the direction the photon leaves the molecule in relation to the actual direction and speed of the molecule itself effects the specific wavelength of the photon. I think this is where "line broading" is occuring.

Either way, we have a "new" photon which may or may not have originated because of absorption of a previous photon.

This does not seem to be "reflection" just because it happened to travel back to source.

I am now thoroughly confusing myself. Rolleyes

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2010, 01:30 PM
Post: #94
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I doubt it is a point Dr. Miskolczi would be comfortable answering either Richard111.
Angel

You are also absolutely accurate with the word "dabbling".......Blush
Apologies Richard111, I misread delving as dabbling.. Blush

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2010, 10:06 PM
Post: #95
RE: Layman struggles with Science
It is interesting to read the sparring exchanges between Steve Short and Ferenc after your # 196 post.

It seems that Steve does not understand what Ferenc wrote about.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2010, 10:39 PM
Post: #96
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I am so fed up reading articles in the MSM about "heat trapping" molecules in a gas. Only a solid or liquid could "trap" heat, store really, as the ability to radiate is reduced by the surface area. A lone molecule has in effect an infinite surface area.

Think of just one CO2 molecule somewhere in the atmosphere. It will be in a group of 2,499 air molecules (400ppmv) all buzzing around and banging into each other with the kinetic energy denoting the local temperature.

Some of those air molecules will excite the CO2 molecule above the local temperature and it will fire off a photon to cool itself down. As the air gets thinner the distance travelled and the time between collisions increases allowing the CO2 more chance to fire off a photon before handing back its excess energy in another collision. Thus the "cooling" effect of CO2 improves in less dense air.

The air molecules (O2 N2) cannot do this.

So how come CO2 is defined as "heat trapping"????

Isn't there anyone out there capable of explaining this simple fact to those dumbos?

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2010, 06:12 AM
Post: #97
RE: Layman struggles with Science
I would take from various recent "discussions" on several forums Richard111,
that there is no one of sufficient "training", that they will listen to.
As you quite rightly say, dumbos.
Ignorance is mostly a matter of (their) attitude, and
seemingly arrogance as well in their self proclaimed "brilliance"..

SST - Ferenc has just sunk "smart Steve" (and AGW) in post 227.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2010, 07:29 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2010 07:30 PM by Mike Davis.)
Post: #98
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Derek:
I would not be to concerned with a lack of response from Fernec. What I read was he was showing the ignorance of the others more than acknowledging. His claim that if you work it out your self you will understand because his work was not for general use but for a narrow range of experts that are involved in this research.
I do not attempt to comprehend the math underlying his opinion. I realize it is based on scientific research and his conclusions are as valuable or more valuable than any other proposed.
"Smart" Steve offered the use of his "Magical " spread sheet that he pieced together in 5 minuets over a beer and lost most everyones respect. Yet there are some who hang on his every word.
I would ask WTF is he? But IDGAF!
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2010, 10:59 PM
Post: #99
RE: Layman struggles with Science
Thanks Mike, I am not concerned about Dr. Miskolczi's lack of public reply,
for the reasons you state.

Privately I am working on something though..

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-18-2010, 10:26 AM
Post: #100
RE: Layman struggles with Science
(05-10-2010 10:39 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Isn't there anyone out there capable of explaining this simple fact to those dumbos?

Seems like I found someone. Big Grin

My daily visit to GREENIE WATCH on Tuesday, May 18, 2010, rewarded me with this headline;

Adiabatic Theory predicts slight cooling from Doubled CO2

This post discusses a paper by G. V. Chilingar et al who look into the physics of the atmosphere in detail. The mathematics is way beyond me but there is enough explanation to understand what is being done. Basically the global energy budget is shown to be wrongly calculated and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will REDUCE the temperature.

I do recommend trying to read this paper. It is most heartening.

You can find the 10 page pdf file here.

Or read the GREENIE WATCH source Adiabatic Theory predicts slight cooling from Doubled CO2

Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)