Derek - Smelling the coffee.

[Derek]

Strangely, even coincidentally I have recently been enjoying having the physics of CO2 understandably explained to me in a closed forum. Excellant explanations they are too.
So, I am now asking if convection is greater than radiation, and greater to such an extent (by at least an order of magnitude) that the CO2 physics is simply irrelevant as such.

I am assuming it has been discussed in the closed forum before, but
heck it's time the discussion was revisited isn't it..

[Sunsettommy]

(03-07-2010 12:22 PM)Derek Wrote:  Strangely, even coincidentally I have recently been enjoying having the physics of CO2 understandably explained to me in a closed forum. Excellant explanations they are too.
So, I am now asking if convection is greater than radiation, and greater to such an extent (by at least an order of magnitude) that the CO2 physics is simply irrelevant as such.

I am assuming it has been discussed in the closed forum before, but
heck it's time the discussion was revisited isn't it..

Good idea to mine their thoughts about Convection.

Then they are beginning to realize that CO2 at best does most of what it can do in less than 100 ppmv?

[Derek]

(03-07-2010 01:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Then they are beginning to realize that CO2 at best does most of what it can do in less than 100 ppmv?

The main point of my one assumption piece,
AND how Hansen moved it (with no evidence to support such) to higher CO2 levels
so there was still some CO2 effect left in the "system" as modelled.

---

(03-07-2010 01:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Good idea to mine their thoughts about Convection.

Both the new thread, convection versus radiation, and the old thread have had some very, very interesting replies..
The experiment thread has had a reply suggesting that the mass / molar confusion I corrected may well have not needed correction, and my first interpretation is correct - I think that may "run"...
AND the other thread has got some very positve replies so far, indeed it does appear time to "revisit" the discussion.

Incidentally I came across this link in my travels today, I have been reading about heat pipes all damned day (and we have been discussing them here as well) but had not realised it..
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html
Would it help if I called atmospheric heat pipes, "tropical clouds and thunderstorms"...

[Sunsettommy]

(03-07-2010 02:27 PM)Derek Wrote:  

(03-07-2010 01:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Then they are beginning to realize that CO2 at best does most of what it can do in less than 100 ppmv?

The main point of my one assumption piece,
AND how Hansen moved it (with no evidence to support such) to higher CO2 levels
so there was still some CO2 effect left in the "system" as modelled.

---

(03-07-2010 01:34 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Good idea to mine their thoughts about Convection.

Both the new thread, convection versus radiation, and the old thread have had some very, very interesting replies..
The experiment thread has had a reply suggesting that the mass / molar confusion I corrected may well have not needed correction, and my first interpretation is correct - I think that may "run"...
AND the other thread has got some very positve replies so far, indeed it does appear time to "revisit" the discussion.

Incidentally I came across this link in my travels today, I have been reading about heat pipes all damned day (and we have been discussing them here as well) but had not realised it..
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html
Would it help if I called atmospheric heat pipes, "tropical clouds and thunderstorms"...

Quote:Of course, wind, weather fronts, and storms greatly complicate this model. My point was simply to show that simple evaporation followed, by cloud formation, effectively pokes a hole in the insulating atmospheric blanket so that heat can escape. As a result, if additional CO2 makes this blanket more efficient at holding heat, that will have almost no effect because the water driven heat pipe (phase change assisted heat transfer) will provide the necessary negative feedback.

Cumulonimbus clouds can do that.

[Derek]

(03-07-2010 03:24 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Cumulonimbus clouds can do that.

Apparently so,
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Heat.html
excerpt,
" Note - if the heat was released inside the cloud, it would simply be reabsorbed by
the surrounding water droplets causing them to return to the vapor state.
Therefore, the vapor *effectively* condenses only at the top of the cloud. "

[Richard111]

Derek, don't know if you have come across this before. It's an email from Hans Schreuder. It was posted December 13, 2008.

Read the whole thing HERE. and the comments.

Quote:By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever. The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth's surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.

Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area). If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead - instead, an instant cooling is experienced - instant.

It is comforting to know other, more experienced people, think like we do.

[Derek]

Thank you Richard111, I am asking on a closed forum regarding the specific heat capacity / content of CO2 compared to other atmospheric constituents, which is the heart of the matter really.
My previous description / points here in post 117 has been described as correct, by A. N. Other chemist.

To the best I can understand the difference between the views is best explained by this brief over view.

Physicists tend to say CO2 has a larger specific heat capacity for molar reasons,
but chemists tend to say CO2 has a lower heat capacity within the atmosphere for mass reasons.

We appear to be "chemists", as is Hans.

[Derek]

Richard111 - You HAVE to watch the video contained in this article,
http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-Environm...al-warming
as should everyone else here.

[Richard111]

Okay, will check your video out next time I visit my local library.
I have a very limited broadband account and NEVER watch videos.

[Sunsettommy]

Here is another interesting comment from JoNova:

Quote:Baa Humbug:
March 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Interesting article from MiltonConservative
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.

Truths:

1. Most of the Sun’s radiation that gets to the Earth’s lower atmosphere passes through substantially unabsorbed.

2. Most of the radiation is then absorbed on contact with the Earth’s surface. This includes the majority water and the minority land.

3. Most of the Earth’s surface is either water or moist vegetation.

Most of the radiation from the sun is converted to infrared wavelengths at or near the surface.

The water molecules absorb the infrared radiation causing increased vibration within the individual water molecules. This is converted into translational energy during intermolecular collisions.

Water is an unusual compound. Its molecular weight (18) is half that of nitrogen (28) and less than half oxygen (32). Water should by all rights be a gas.

The reason water is liquid or ice normally, is that water molecules are naturally attracted to each other and form large aggregates which are substantially heavier than air.

When liquid water absorbs infrared radiation or is otherwise stimulated it vibrates more quickly and more intensely. This breaks down that tendency to aggregate.

In fact, in order for an associated water molecule to break free and escape into the air, a specific amount of energy must be absorbed. This is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization.

In fact, this is a very large amount of energy as anyone who has boiled water knows.

It takes 1 calorie of heat to raise the temperature of liquid water by 1 Celsius degree.

It take 539 calories to change one gram of water to steam.

Enormous amounts of energy (principally translational and vibrational) are carried from the surface into the atmosphere by fast moving free or loosely associated water molecules.

Collisions between water molecules and the majority nitrogen and oxygen molecules transfer the energy to the greater atmosphere. As the energy level of the water molecules diminishes, the probability that water molecules will reaggregate increases. This leads to condensation and has the effect of transferring that 539 calories per gram to the rest of the atmosphere.

Now for the Kicker!

Carbon dioxide does NOT form aggregates. It is not lighter than air and thus does not rise quickly. There is no phase change when carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide carries less than half the heat per molecule compared to water.

One gram of Carbon Dioxide heated at the surface by incident sunlight carries (2 * 539 = 1078) 1078 times less energy into the atmosphere than one gram of water.

Carbon dioxide represents 0.0387 % of the atmosphere. Water in the lower atmosphere represents 1% to 4% or 25 to 100 times the amount of carbon dioxide.

Combining the two statements above, Water is (25 * 1078 = 27,175) to (100 * 1078 = 108,700) times more responsible for greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Posted by BillM at Wednesday, March 10, 2010

POST #94

[Derek]

(03-11-2010 07:31 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Here is another interesting comment from JoNova:

Quote:Baa Humbug:
March 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

Interesting article from MiltonConservative
Simple Chemistry and the Real Greenhouse Effect.

Truths:

Water is an unusual compound. Its molecular weight (18) is half that of nitrogen (28) and less than half oxygen (32). Water should by all rights be a gas.
The reason water is liquid or ice normally, is that water molecules are naturally attracted to each other and form large aggregates which are substantially heavier than air.


In fact, in order for an associated water molecule to break free and escape into the air, a specific amount of energy must be absorbed.
This is called the Latent Heat of Vaporization.

In fact, this is a very large amount of energy as anyone who has boiled water knows.

Water is (25 * 1078 = 27,175) to (100 * 1078 = 108,700) times more responsible for greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide.
Posted by BillM at Wednesday, March 10, 2010

POST #94

Thank you SST, I think we are really getting somehwere.
The above, Willis's WUWT posts, and that IR budgets could be hiding a massive convection / latent heat versus radiation difference.
It seems to me to be coming together.

[Derek]

Has anyone else heard of, or seen this before.

http://nov55.com/zone.html
Zone of Emission Fraud
Gary Novak.

Any thoughts, I'm still trying to grasp it in a meaningful manner,
but it sort of smells correct(ish) to me on initial impressions.
There again I maybe a bit "biased", I have never liked the adiabatic dry, wet, blah, blah, blah,
that just never smelled right to me.

I am concerned though that he does not seem to mention latent heat, that could do some of the things he says can not happen,
specifically I am referring to the "Fraud 3" he describes, and I'm thinking "tops of clouds".

Also in "Fraud 2" he writes, " To get expansion in the atmosphere would require upward convection. "
Errr, not neccesarily, just a larger diametre surely, which is exactly what happens with altitude. ?

[Derek]

Hi All,
Leading on from, or as a consequence of, various discussions and posts in various forums recently,
I am left with the impression it is time for a new version of the classic (two) black bodies thermal radiation explanation.
This is at least partially because the K/T global energy budgets are completely based upon this,
what can I call it, bunkum, rubbish, deliberately misleading "explanation".
Those and a lot worse to be honest...
On it's own this would not be so bad, or as big a thing as it is presently, but,
because all present greenhouse effect so called "theory" explanations and therefore AGW fears and
resulting political policies to "save the planet" are based upon this basic, and false explanation,
is it time for a new version of the explanation. ?

Black body thermal radiation "flows"
- a RELATIVELY simple explanation.

More often than not the classical explanations of black body thermal radiation seem
to revolve around two equally sized "objects" in a perfect vacuum only exchanging "heat" with each other.
(Please remember at this point that we all know
a warmer thing warms a cool thing, and
a cool thing cools a warmer thing
- sounds so stupidly obvious does it not....)

For example, let us say one object is emitting thermal radiation at 50 W/m2 (object a) and the other is emitting at 100 W/m2 (object b).
If all thermal heat radiation is understood to be positive, ie in little energy packets called photons,
then both objects are described (in the classical explanations)
by a commonly and widely held "view" of the sums as shown below.

Object a) 50 + 100 = 150W/m2.
and,
Object b) 100 + 50 = 150 W/m2.

THIS IS RUBBISH, but yet it seems to form the basis of many people's present understanding of
the global energy budget "explanations"
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-609.html
and of explanations of, or understandings of,
the so called greenhouse effect, and therefore also
man made climate change fears, and the resulting "justified" CO2 "reduction" political policies / actions / taxes.

Firstly the objects (applies to all solids and liquids) are emitting thermal radiation according to their temperature.
All emitting thermal radiation objects emit over the entire frequency range, but the peak frequency is temperature dependant.
This phenomenom is commonly known as, or described by the Planck curve.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html

The W/m2 figure so commonly used (ie K/T global energy budgets) does not take temperature into account whatsoever, and
as shown in the "sums" above makes adding what should not be added together seem "reasonable", when
it is not only unreasonable, it is physically impossible.
In the form above the sums are energy creationalist - there is no other term for them.
They create energy out of nothing.

The "sums" above for the two classical black bodies radiating thermal radiation should be,

Object a) -50 (what it is emitting) + 100 (what it recieves) = +50 W/m2
and,
Object b) -100 (what it is emitting) + 50 (what it recieves) = -50 W/m2

This instantly seems more reasonable, as the cooler object warms,
and the warmer object cools.
One can also think of emission / absorbtion in colour of light terms
to better describe how radiation is absorbed relatively.
If our 100 W/m2 object b) surface temperautre was represented by red light and
the cooler object a) by blue light, then it is easy to see that
object b) surface would turn purple upon absorbing the lower frequency (blue light) radiation.

When the objects are equal in size and duration of emission the above is a reasonably close approximation,
but if the objects differ in size or the time duration of the flows is not equal then
the W/m2 figures do not describe these differences in any manner whatsoever.
A smaller higher temperature flow would look the same or less than a longer lower energy (temperature) flow.
This is because W/m2 are a joules per second figure, in K/T budgets derived from annual figures.
Most of these figures are not measured, but are either guessitimates, or modelling derived "answers"....GIGO.

OK, all this seems a bit "removed" from what we can actually see and observe all around us everyday,
so how can we make the classical black body radiation explanation a bit easier to "visualise". ?
Let us change the "objects" for two 1 meter cubes of water,
object a) is now a 30 degrees centigrade cubic meter of water.
Object b) is a 90 degrees centigrade cubic metre of water.

The actual radiation figures in W/m2 figures for such meter cubes of water would roughly be
for Object a) 30C water cube 478 W/m2, and
Object b) 90C water cube 985 W/m2.
The difference between the two being 507 W/m2, which according to the "classical" explanation
describes the rate of warming and the rate of cooling of the cubes of water.
According to this explanation both cubes of water would cool faster on their own than in the presence of the other,
respectively cooling rates of 478 and 985 W/m2.
In the presence of each other the rates would be a warming rate of 507 W/m2 for object a) and
a cooling rate of 507 W/m2 for object b).

I agree with the "on their own" cooling rates, whatever that would be if converted to temperature / time.
But the rates of warming and cooling in the presence of each other I strongly disagree with.

In my opinion, Object a) our 30C cube of water would be warmed by the incoming hotter radiation of Object b),
by the difference between the radiations temperatures (frequency).
ie, How much warmer is the recieved radiation compared to object a) surface temperature.
Unfortunately in this example (because both objects are the same size) it gives the same answer as the classic explanation.
If object b) was twice the size and at 60C, then presumably it would radiate the same amount
in W/m2 terms, as compared to a 1 metre 90C water cube.
Would the rate of warming of object a) be the same. ?
The classic explanation says it would be.
I would suggest that because the relative heat difference is smaller,
then the frequency of the thermal radiation will be lower (Planck curve),
so the rate of heating will be lower.

Object b) rate of cooling is an easier way to explain the differences I am trying to illustrate
compared to the classic black body radiation explanation.
I would suggest that object b) cools at the 985 W/m2 rate of it's emission
PLUS the difference between the incoming lower frequency radiation, and object b) surface temperature.
This would seemingly give a rate of 985 + 507 = 1492 W/m2.
A far, far faster rate of cooling than the classic explanation describes,
namely a rate of cooling for object b) of 1492 compared to 507 W/m2.
This is such an enourmous difference it can not have been missed, by "science" surely..
Surely a simple experiment would clearly show whether the rate of cooling for object b)
was 507 W/m2 (classical black body explanation) or a lot more,
namely nearer 1492 W/m2 (relatively absorbed explanation). ?

I have heard of flows of radiation neutralising or counter acting other flows,
(there is a proper term for this known effect but it escapes me at present)
certainly it is simple to imagine that warmer and cooler radiation may meet "in transit" and cancel each other out, relatively speaking.
Maybe the answer is in object a) heating being less than "expected"
because some of the radiation has been cancelled out in transit, but not fully, or,
objects b) cooling being "more than expected" because not as much cool radiation gets through as classically suggested.
I would suspect the latter, object b) cooling rate being larger than expected,
is more likely to be a measureable difference between
the described here (relatively absorbed) explanation and the classic (black body) explanation.

--------------------
This is as far as I've got, is there such an experiment, and if so what were the results. ?
Do other factors complicate matters obscuring what would otherwise be a clearer picture. ?

[Richard111]

Derek, I understand what you are trying to do but am lacking the knowledge and ability to confirm the validity of your suggestions.

For what they are worth, a couple of observations. If you are dealing with 1 meter cubes of water won't they radiate from 6 sides?

How did you derive the radiation level in watts per square meter starting from a known temperature? I ask because I believe the radiative power changes as the fourth power of the temperature. I expected to a bigger difference between the two temperatures you quoted of 30C and 90C.

I believe a grey body at 16C will radiate at 400W/m^2. I would really like to know how to calculate that. George E. Smith posted the formulae some time ago on WUWT but I cannot find it again.

[Derek]

My apologies Richard111, my description of the example being discussed elsewhere, and
that I am using here was not as complete as it is elsewhere.
There, the water cubes were assumed as perfectly insulated on 5 sides, so could only radiate on one side.
Ferdy produced those figures, from where or how I do not know, but for discussion purposes
I did not ask about them, I just accepted them.

All in all I think it is getting a better and better discussion topic,
because as of yet I have not seen anything from the "all radiation is positive" side of things
that the "all radiation is absorbed relatively" can not explain, and explain in a way that makes a lot more sense,
to me at least..
Though I have had to walk the dog of occasion. (see your layman thread page 8)

Furthermore I have suggested a couple of simple experiments so far that would really cast some light on the subject,
but no one seems to have taken up on them, or given examples of similar experiments
already performed which surely they must of been by now....

[Richard111]

Fair enough Derek. I am so screwed up about this radiation business. My post #57 in laymans tells it.

The way I see it: a calm clear night, the ground is radiating, cooling, GHG above absorbs some percentage of that radiation and sends something less than half back to the ground. This is not warming the ground, just reducing its radiation efficency by some finite amount. More GHGs can't change this, this includes water vapour which can vary hugely near the surface.

[Derek]

Richard111, elsewhere it appears that the presently quoted radiation spectra are not actual measurements,
but model results.........

I will try to paraphrase the basis of the discussion / questioning below.

Apparently when W/m2 is used on the Y axis of such plots, then this is
the product of a model's calculation that ESTIMATE line by line emission (HITRAN, LOWTRAN, etc.).

The model's calculations will be presumably based upon some version of the Schwarzchild equation,
using an algorithm. The algorithm used is generally
a) not realised to be used,
and,
b) unknown in what it actually assumes or actually calculates.

The end result appears to be that these spectra so calculated / modelled produce,
very high emissivity values for gases (ie 0.97)
when because gases do not behave as black bodies or grey bodies,
the emissivity of the gases should be very low (ie, 0.09).....

To my mind this is all getting a bit,
"MLO again" to me........
and,
"IPCC again" - Let's move the decimal point one place to the right, ie, from 0.09 to 0.97...

[Richard111]

Yep. That is why I gave up with silas on the Physics Forum when he claimed MODTRAN as the authority on atmospheric radiation levels.

It seems to me it would be quite easy to prove the saturation level of CO2 in the air. Have a large black metal plate uniformly heated to say 100C, the plate mounted horizantally say about 1 meter above ground. Oh, yes, make the plate about 10 square meters. All simple engineering.

Now for the tricky bit. A captive balloon with a down looking IR detector tuned to the 15 micron band. Manoeuvre the balloon until it is vertically over the plate starting at say 10 meters and record IR levels while allowing the balloon to ascend.

Hell, why bother with the plate, any airfield on a quiet sunnny day should do.

Why is there no emprical data from the atmosphere? It's not rocket science.

[Derek]

I think "we" have got there, this is the end of all the AGW nonsense.

I pondered how this might effect MLO, whilst walking the dog.
- She does look confused when I muse aloud though......

So, if the above is correct, in that radiation plots are actually modelled (line by line) answers, then,
the electrical "measurements" taken at MLO are processed by a similar algorithm to produce a number of CO2 ppm,
rather than W/m2 figure per line in radiation plots.
(It's simply the same sum, and the same assumptions, the other way round.)
SO, the MLO figures for CO2 in ppm ARE a modelled answer, not an actual raw data "measurement".

That is BEFORE any further processing of the data that is so questionable anyways,
by never released algorithms, of unknown "consistency", or "changes over time", or "assumptions".

Science at long last appears to be trumping pseudo science.

I would not like to be in the position of recently having agreed ("reluctantly") with Ferdy...........

[Sunsettommy]

Keep in mind that Ferdinand does not accept the AGW hypothesis.He does have some views that have been politely considered but not accepted.