Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 85 Votes - 2.73 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
George E. Smith comments
04-23-2010, 07:44 PM
Post: #1
George E. Smith comments
From HERE.

Quote:George E. Smith (12:34:10) :

Well I hate to say it; but how many times have I said it here already ?

“IT’S THE WATER; DUMMIES!”

It is at least five years now since I first posted on that Tech Central Station web site my suggestion for two mental exercise experiments.

I came to call them the BIRDSEYYE EXPERIMENT, and the VENUS EXPERIMENT.

The first was named whimsically for that chap Birdseye; who invented flash freezing of food to preserve it; without destroying the cells.

The aim of the Birdseye experiment is to rid the atmosphere of every last molecule of H2O, while leaving all othe components including GHGs unchanged. To assist in the removal process, it is assumed that the entire earth surface; defined here as the boundary between the Atmosphere, and the Non-Atmosphere is flash frozen; well actually it is only frozen in the sense that the temperature is instantly reduced to zero deg C at that boundary, and above UNLESS the place is already colder than zero deg C, in which case it retains its present temperature. Note that this does NOT freeze the oceans; only the surface temperature is zero which is above freezing for sea water. All water in the atmosphere simply drops to the surface where it is; either as rain or snow depending on what the pre-existing surface temperature was. This zero C or less atmosphere then has a much lower saturated vapor pressure for water; and finally we use tweezers or what have you to remove the last remaining H2O molecules, and drop them on the surface.

So that is the starting condition. The atmosphere is zero or less, with no water molecules but otherwise same as normal, the surface is zero or less, and below the surface is what it was previously.

So now we restart the movie and watch what happens.

Without any water vapor, there is of course no H2O GH effect; only CO2 and the rest; so the night side of the earth should start to cool; BUT ! remember that this is not too dissimilar to the Gobi Desert night condition; so the cooling is not catastrophic.

The cloud cover is now zero; so suddenly the earth albedo is reduced dramatically, with only the surface ice and land giving very much reflectance.
Without any water vapor; the total solar absorptance of the atmosphere goes down significantly as normal water vapor absorbs as much as 20% or more of the incoming solar spectrum from about 750 nm on.

DO YOU GET THE PICTURE ! we have the Mother of all climate forcings going on, with the peak ground level insolation suddenly going from about 1000 W/m^2 up to perhaps 1250W/m^2; and the cloud contribution to albedo has completely vanished; so the albedo probably has dropped from about 0.35 with 60% of global cloud cover to something less than 0.1 with zero cloud cover.

Is this a big enough global warming FORCING for you AGW fans ? How long do you think it takes for the very first H2O molecule to break free of the surface, and contaminate the atmosphere with H2O ?

1st question: Do you think this is a big enough forcing to combat the night time cooling on the dark side of the earth.

Now the tropical oceans were maybe at 25 to 30 deg C; except for the surface which is at zero; and the daytime surface irradiance is about 1250 W/m^2. Is this enough forcing to raise the surface temperature of the ocean from zero, and get some more water molecules into the atmosphere ?

Well if that happens, I would expect (please note I have never actually done this experiment; so I am postulating what might happen), that the presence of some H2O molecules in the atmosphere, will immediately start to block some of the incoming sunlight; and also warm the atmosphere on the day side of the earth, so the surface insolation will start to fall, as more H2O absorption of the 760nm + spectrum occurs. But even with this reduced insolation we still have a gynormous positive forcing, that is going to cause a veritable stream of H2O molecules to leave the surface, and enter the atmosphere; and all the while the surface of the ground is going to increase from its starting zero value, given the up to 1250 W/m^2 insolation; and the fact that below the surface some of it was already warmer than zero so will heat the surface by conduction.
As the water pollution of the lower atmosphere increases; along with the enforced warming; the lower moist air is going to start to rise, since everything above it was at zero deg C, so is denser.
Eventually some of that moisture contaminated air is going to reach the saturation vapor pressure at zero deg C, and with all the dust blown up from the non-wet ground, some water droplets are going to form and clouds will start to appear. This will bring on a new phase, since the clouds will now reflect some of the sunlight back out into space; despite all the CO2 in the air above; and they will also block additional sunlight from the ground; thus lowering the warming rate.

Since the earth is rotating, this super blow torch is going to scan the surface, and all the previous phenomena will start to occur on the previously dark side of the planet.

Well I’ll let you think the rest out for yourselves; where on earth is this phenomenon going to end up; and what will planet earth look like; say in 30 years time or so ?

I have to go to lunch now; so I’ll have to describe the Venus Experiment later.

Enjoy !

He later in the comment thread posted this:

Quote:George E. Smith (15:37:19) :

Well if you worked your way through my Birdseye thougth experiment above, you should have a process of continuing increase in atmospheric water vapor, and also increasing atmospheric temperature, but the increasing water vapor will absorb an increasing amount of incoming sunlight which will further warm the atmosphere but further cool the surface, by lowering the ground level insolation. The continually warming moist atmosphere, whether warmed by incomeing solar absorption, or by increasing absorption of outgoing LWIR emissions from an increasingly warm surface, will rise through the colder upper layers bring moisture to ever higher atmospheric layers, and increasing cloud formation which will further lower the ground level insolation.
It is conjectured that the diminishing ground level insolation, and increasing cloud cover will eventually bring the warming to a halt at some unknown temperature and atmospheric ,moisture condition. I say this is a conjecture, because I have never done the actual experiment so I can’t say for sure that it ever stops warming.

So that is why we should now do the Venus Experiment; which is the complete opposite of the Birdseye Experiment. In the Venus experiment we want to establish complete cloud cover over the entire earth essentially from the ground to say 20 Km height; pick a number. We want full saturated vapor pressure of water vapor, and nano water droplets forming a single complete cloud from teh ground to 20 km bordering on precipitation. To get even more water into the atmosphere, we warm the atmosphere from the surface up to say out 20 km up to + 50 deg C; unless some place is already hottere than that; in which case it retains its present temperature. We did this so fast that no snow or ice on the ground or ocean has melted; and only the air adjacent to the surface is at 50 deg C. I really don’t care if you make it 99 deg C; if we are trying to emulate Venus; we aren’t concerned whether any life exists. Well all the people and animals can go inside; where it is anormal temperature.

So now we let reality set in.

Th earth albedo is now much higher; probably higher than 0.8, since the thick clouds are highly reflective in the solar spectrum. so not a lot of the solar spectrum enters the clouds where it is highly scattered.
With 20 km of this total saturated atmosphere; it’s a fairly safe bet that virtually no solar radiation reaches the surface, which is near total darkness.

The top of the clouds being at 50 deg C (or 99) will be quite strongly radiating LWIR thermal radiation at double or more the average 390W/m^2 that we get at 288 K; and with the clouds reflecting 80% of the 1366 W/m^2 TSI we are capturing less than 275W/m^2 from the sun; with maybe 700 going out.

So the upper atmopshere is cooling, and convection and conduction is transporting heat from the surface to the top of the clouds; so the surface too is cooling.

Since we postulated that the atmosphere is everywhere saturated and even nano droplets of liquid exist (part of the cloud); we can hypothesize that some sort of precipitation should start to occur. Given that we started with +50 deg C (or 99), this is most likely in the form of rain.

It might rain for 40 days and 40 nights; but precipitation in some form, is going to start removing vast amounts of excess H2O molecules from the atmosphere, so the cloud density is going to thin. Some of the water vapor, will even start to form new droplets, and the atmospheric temperature will continue to fall, since even at 288 K it should be losing 390 W/m^2, while the albedo is only allowing 275 or less back in from the sun.

Well as the cloud density reduces, the absorption of solar spectrum energy diminishes, and some sunlight starts to reach the ground, which will slow the cooling rate of the surface due to LWIR emissions.
Eventually, the clouds will start to break up, as the moisture content diminishes with all the precipitation, and the upper reaches of the clouds may eventually reach the local freezing point so that ice crystal clouds can also form, and eventually snow and maybe even hail will precipitate.

As precipitation continues, the amount of cloud cover diminishes, and more sunlight reaches the ground so the cooling process continues to slow, and the surface temperature may eventually stop falling.

It is conjectured that at some point the amount of sunlight reaching the ground is enough to halt the cooling and a stable amount of cloud cover is established. But I have never actually done this experiment; so I do not know for sure that that is what happens; which is why we should do the Birdseye experiment; to see if the earth can cool withoug limit as this Venus process continues.

Without proof, it is my thesis that the Birdseye experiment reaches a stable temperature (the Birdseye Temperature) where further heating results in more evaporation and cloud which blocks enough extra sunlight to halt the warming. It is also hypothesized that in the Venus Experiment, the cooling process eventually stops when further cooling results in the precipitation of more water, thus reducing the cloud amount by enough to let more sunlight in to stop the cooling. This would stop at the Venus Temperature.

I have no way of knowing if the Venus Temperature, and the Birdseye Temperature are the same value. Presumably the Venus Temperature would be equal to or greater than the Birdseye Temperature.

If those two temperatures are in fact distinct; then presumably an atmospheric state at a Temperature warmer than the Birdseye Temperature, but Colder than the Venus Temperature is inherently unstable, and the system would be drive either up to the Venus Temperature; or down to the Birdseye temeprature.

However it is also possible that there could be more stable Temperature conditions intermediate between these two. They shoud occur in pairs, and each pair would either boud a stable region or an unstable region, with stable and unstable zones alternating.

So right now, we don’t know whether planet earth is at or near either of my two special temperatures; or is indeed in transition between them.

I know of absolutely no experimental observed evidence, that any more stable atmospheric Temperatures and corresponding states, besides the Venus, and Birdseye Temperatures, actually exists; nor am I aware of any theoretical basis for believing that the Birdseye and Venus Temperatures are in fact different.

It seems to me, that the results of these mental experiments suggest that so long as the general orbital and solar TSI conditions remain generally in the present range; that neither thermal runaway to an increasingly hot state; or an increasingly cold state is even possible.

The starting points of each of these two mental experiments, are so hostile to stable existence; that it is inconceivable that either one can ever exist or that our planet can ever be driven to either state.

So i will reiterate, what I believe to be true; and have been saying in one form or another for at least five years.

The range of comfortable temperatures on planet earth are a direct result of the Physical, Chemical and probably Biological properties of the H2O molecule; and so long as we have those oceans, we can neither raise nor lower the temperature of the planet; even if we wanted to.

Leif is always hinting that he doesn’t think the sun (TSI) is a controlling factor of earth climate (or words to that effect).

And eons of geological history proxies suggest that CO2 has very little effect either.

The mechanisms described in these two thought experiments show that variations in both of those variables is easily compensated by the feedback control, due to the co-existing three phases of H2O in the earth atmosphere.

So I am interested to see what Dr Spencer has revealed in his book; all I have done is doodle in the sand on a desert island with a stick.

Wow!

Quoting him:

Quote:The range of comfortable temperatures on planet earth are a direct result of the Physical, Chemical and probably Biological properties of the H2O molecule; and so long as we have those oceans, we can neither raise nor lower the temperature of the planet; even if we wanted to.

Leif is always hinting that he doesn’t think the sun (TSI) is a controlling factor of earth climate (or words to that effect).

And eons of geological history proxies suggest that CO2 has very little effect either.

The mechanisms described in these two thought experiments show that variations in both of those variables is easily compensated by the feedback control, due to the co-existing three phases of H2O in the earth atmosphere.

Now he is going to make a few member in this forum happy with what I bolded.

Smile

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
04-23-2010, 11:41 PM
Post: #2
RE: George E. Smith comments
Thanks for posting this. Always enjoy reading George's physics explanations on factors effecting the climate, so much so that I have collected more than a dozen of his posts.

I lost one post about how to calculate the surface radiation in watts per square meter if you know the temperature. The radiation changes with respect to the fourth power of the temperature in degrees kelvin.

I would like to irritate people with the figures for my location when morning surface temps are just above zero centigrade and mid-afternoon temperatures are at 20C. Big Grin

Maybe someone has posted a graph to save doing the calculations?

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
04-24-2010, 04:35 AM
Post: #3
RE: George E. Smith comments
Great posts, thanks for putting them here SST,
I would of missed them for sure.

Oh, and whistles innocently........


BTW - Richard111 could the calculation be put into an excel sheet, and then plotted. ?
I can have a go if you want, if you let me know what exactly you want calculating.

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
04-24-2010, 11:17 AM
Post: #4
RE: George E. Smith comments
(04-24-2010 04:35 AM)Derek Wrote:  BTW - Richard111 could the calculation be put into an excel sheet, and then plotted. ?
I can have a go if you want, if you let me know what exactly you want calculating.

Ho! What was the quote about "angels fear to tread"? Rolleyes

One square meter blackbody surface radiating 400W/m^2; what is the temperature?

1 square meter of ice at -60C, how much radiation in watts/m^2?

The temperature to the fourth power in degrees Kelvin was in the formulae, also a constant for "greybody" surfaces.

I thought I had made a post about this over at Lucy Skywalker's blog but blowed if I can find it. Must have been having a "senior moment". Undecided

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 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  E.M. Smith's comment Sunsettommy 0 973 12-15-2012 11:22 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Wes George's comment Sunsettommy 3 1,670 02-19-2012 09:02 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Wes George's comment Sunsettommy 0 1,887 09-25-2011 06:13 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  George E. Smith's comment Richard111 0 1,513 07-16-2011 12:18 AM
Last Post: Richard111
  E.M.Smith comment Sunsettommy 2 2,428 01-29-2011 08:12 PM
Last Post: ajmplanner



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)