Layman struggles with Science

[Derek]

Richard111 have you seen Carl Brehmer's video about water vapour being a negative feedback?
I think he covers and explains it best to date. From expalining the science, what a positive and negative feedback look like, to real world, real data examples.
I think he nails it beyond doubt, and totally understandably.

Is water vapour a positive or negative feedback? - THE definitive answer.

What occurs to me is that as water vapour IS a negative feedback, then
there can be no greenhouse effect, absolutely certainly as presently modelled,
or at all in reality......
Not so many seem to (or want to) realise this.

[Richard111]

Yes, Derek, thanks. I have seen Carl Brehmer's video. I spent most of my working life in the electronics field so positive and negative feedback was my bread and butter. I suppose he had to spend the time to convince the sheeple though I suspect the medical analogy might lead the sheeple to think we live in a sick world.

The world is NOT sick. Just more complex than ANYONE alive today fully understands.

Where Carl quotes the humidity/temperature relationships towards the end of the video is the clincher.

I have commented earlier in this thread about the humidity/temperature relationship between Singapore and the Namib and Arabic deserts. This is the reason I am a sceptic of AGW and tipping points since day one. Just don't have the science background to speak in a loud voice about this obvious scam.

The best I can do is point out the obvious. My last post shows an actual record of water vapour limiting solar insulation, something that cannot happen at night. CO2 will have a similar but much smaller effect, think mass/volume. Thus I firmly believe so called 'greenhouse gases' cool the planet, NOT warm it!

This also shows why the P/4 averaging is total nonsence. Keep up the good fight.

[Derek]

(05-27-2012 09:56 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  CO2 will have a similar but much smaller effect, think mass/volume.

I am not too sure about this. I have asked Carl why his CO2 in a bottle reconsidered experiment / film does not seem to play, and I hope he puts it on you tube.
Does the film play fully for others here, it always stops at " Since I used data recorders to monitor the " for me???
http://myweb.cableone.net/carlallen/Gree...dered.html

In that video he explains why it is rigidly contained more mass that causes the temp. difference. That is the point but it occurs to me that it also means that any radiative explanation is totally incorrect.....Including power = amount.
That may well form the basis of my next set of home experiments, after the latent heat ones I am doing at present.
I also hope Carl can tell me how to put videos on you tube clearly, that I have not sussed and it is why I stopped doing them a couple of years back.
It is time I started doing them again I think.

[Sunsettommy]

You can make it easier for yourself by using the youtube icon to embed the url in.

It is at the opposite end of B just above the postbit box.

[Richard111]

For all you struggling laymen out there I hope I've found something interesting and useful for you all.

In several of my posts I have referred to the essays of Patrick J. Tyson. Unfortunately his web site seems to have disappeared. It used to be at http://www.climates.com which is mentioned on the site I'm talking about. This seems to be an early site for Pat Tyson as I recognise a lot of the writing from his essays.

Klimatos's Blog

There is a lot on the site but it is all text and absolutely NO ADVERTS.

I really, really recommend this site for all laymen struggling to get a grip with climate science. The writing is straight forward and understandable. No fancy maths and some tables that that might astonish you. Enjoy.

[twilightmike]

A few years ago, while watching the Weather Channel, in the midst of a tremendous heat wave here in Atlanta, something on the “weather on the 8’s” caught my attention. The meteorologists were always focused on the daily HIGH temperatures and how far they were departing from normal. The “weather on the 8’s” did not – it’s pretty objective in its presentation. I noticed that the primary focus was on the high temperatures for the day - when a meteorologist was talking. Very, very little attention was paid to the low temperatures each day (it was, after all, August).

I understand why – most people on earth sleep during the night and are awake and active during the day, so most of us experience a lot more of the “high” temperature than the “low”, even if the low does happen just before our commute. If it gets unusually hot outside, we notice. If it doesn’t STAY hot at night, we don’t notice as much. But “weather on the 8’s” just presents numbers. No interpretation.

What that allowed me to do was to focus on the LOW temperature for the day, and that led me to an observation that I want to ask about here. I’ve searched, and since nobody has ever pointed this out, even in the skeptical world, I’m thinking that I’ve somehow missed something – or I’ve thought of something nobody else ever has – not likely. So I am serious when I say – please educate me on what I’ve missed.

When the sun goes up in the morning, so does the temperature. During that heat wave, we were getting up to around 104 to 105 degrees F. When the sun goes down, so does the temperature. The correlation between “sun up” and “temperature up” seems, in the absence of large moving air masses, to be pretty much rock solid. In Atlanta, in August, large moving air masses are absent. I would have expected the CO2 in our atmosphere to trap in HUGE amounts of that heat (if anybody has lots of CO2, we here in Atlanta should – have you seen traffic around here? – sheesh!) But the night time lows were scarcely going above normal for that time of year. “Normal” for August in Atlanta means a high of 89 with a low of 70. Unless I’m sadly mistaken, and I’m afraid I am, that means that, on an “average August day”, our atmosphere here in Hotlanta gains and LOSES about 19 degrees F worth of heat.

But during that heat wave, our atmosphere was gaining, and then LOSING, about 30 degrees F worth of heat. (Highs of 104 or 105 were followed by lows of around 75.) Here is my observation, along with yet another that was brought up by a global warming apologist friend of mine.

It occurred to me then, and now, that gasses behave consistently – the laws of thermodynamics are not subject to whim. Either a gas “retains a certain amount of heat” or it does not. That means that on an “average” day in Atlanta in August, we LOSE 19 degrees of heat, because that’s how much our “greenhouse gasses” allow, on average. But during that heat wave our atmosphere was happily giving up 30 degrees of heat – MORE than normal . . . LOTS more. WHY? If CO2 were indeed “trapping in heat”, the way a greenhouse does, we should have lost the same 19 degrees of heat (or less). We should have had lows of around 85 degrees F – or higher. That didn’t even come CLOSE to happening. Does CO2 only trap in heat on a global basis? Does it turn itself OFF, or take a vacation at times? Does CO2 only affect the HIGH temperature, not the low?

My global warming apologist friend pointed out that it’s more complicated than that. As he said, and he was right, I wasn’t taking into account the RELATIVE HUMIDITY, which at that time was VERY LOW – in the teens, which is CRAZY low for us in August. And he is OBVIOUSLY right that humidity is important. I’ve noticed that regardless of season, clouds will elevate the low temperatures considerably, while depressing the highs. Makes sense, since Mr. Sun can’t get in to warm things up, and Mr. Clouds traps in the heat. You get an elevated low and a depressed high. During that heat wave, since our atmosphere was pretty much devoid of water, the day heated up BIG time, and the night cooled down, the same BIG time.

But as I pointed out to him, CO2 is SUPPOSED to be acting like those clouds would, or high humidity would (if it had been present), without the “blocking out” the sun part. We should have been getting to 105, since CO2 wouldn’t act as a screen, but shouldn’t the amount of heat being retained have stayed AT LEAST the same as average? What was causing our atmosphere here in the ATL to “give it up”? It was almost like REVERSE global warming was going on.

If CO2 really IS the culprit for global warming, then Mr. Heat should be able to get in, but not out. We should see LOWS that are more elevated than the HIGHS.

My admittedly handicapped understanding of weather and physics includes the following (flawed, I’m sure) observation; the sun is the ONLY (significant) contributor of heat to our atmosphere (my apologies to Mr. Geothermal Energy). And the atmosphere is the only (significant) contributor to the “heat holding capacity” of our atmosphere (from the department of redundancy department). If the sun were to suddenly, inexplicably (and terrifyingly) disappear from our presence, I believe that the cooling our planet would undergo would be severe and quick. Evidence for this belief is the daytime/nighttime temperature differential on celestial bodies that don’t have much of an atmosphere. And the fact that if the moon (or a cloud) blocks out Mr. Sun for just a few minutes, the atmospheric temperature IMMEDIATELY begins to drop.

I’ve since purchased a weather station for my home use. Yesterday we had a high (at my house) of 94 degrees. That’s warmer than normal. But we had a low this morning of 63. WOW! We lost 31 degrees of heat! And our RH last night peaked at around 94 % (again, at my house). WHY?!?!?!? Where is Mr. CO2?!?!?!? Does it sometimes “go away”, to plague some OTHER weather station? Or what? (Note that Mr. Water WAS present in our atmosphere last night, and we STILL lost 31 degrees of heat – it’s like a RUNAWAY ANTI-GREENHOUSE effect!!!)

One possibility that I’ve considered is this: Maybe the differentials WOULD have been much GREATER if it weren’t for the horrific presence of all that CO2. Maybe instead of losing 19 degrees, we would normally lose 25 degrees F. Maybe last night we would have lost 40 to 50 degrees F. After thinking that through, I discard that explanation. That’s too much for even a fool like me to believe. 94 degrees is higher than average. 63 is not. I do not believe that we should “normally” be hitting temperatures in the 50’s this time of year. It hasn’t happened in my lifetime, my parents lifetimes, or my great-great-great-great grand parents lifetimes. So that “explanation” is out.

Clearly, while I am a scientist, I’m not a physicist, nor am I a meteorologist or climatologist. I’m obviously missing some highly technical, incredibly difficult to understand property of physics and weather. But I would genuinely like to know what it is that has me so baffled.

So far, the best explanation I’ve gotten has been a lot of stuttering and stammering and blinking of eyes, ALWAYS followed by the observation that global warming is way too complicated for me to understand (I AM an idiot, so I have no doubt of that – I grew up in the south – that’s my excuse – Al Gore’s too). It usually includes some sort of explanation that “global” warming can only happen on a “global” scale, and on “large” time scales. But what property of CO2 makes it only effective “globally” and on “large” time scales? As I’ve mentioned, and anyone can see for themselves, water doesn’t have that property. It acts both globally AND locally, over long AND short time scales. Why is CO2 so . . . so . . . deficient? (And why, why, WHY does Al Gore say we need to have hydrogen burning cars? That would pump LOTS more water into the atmosphere, right? Then we WOULD see the effect “locally” and over a “short” time scale. That I know.)

I’ll save the global warming apologists the insults they are about to hurl my way . . . I am aware of my own stupidity – imagine how frustrating that must be. Nevertheless . . .

Thanks in advance for the education I am about to receive.

[Sunsettommy]

Hello Mike,

I just noticed your first post that is GREAT! It must have been stuck in moderation for a while and finally got released.There is a FIRST two post moderation requirement before new members can post freely.This is to prevent spammers from polluting the forum.

You have noticed how irrelevant CO2 is by the simple observations you wrote about.There is no clear relationship between CO2 and temperature changes since there are so other many variables that effect temperature such as clouds,humidity,winds and so on.

There is database evidence that when the global climate warms up there is an increase in outgoing radiation from the upper atmosphere.The increase of surface heat build up (Warming planet) there is increase in outgoing radiation from the upper atmosphere into space.

When there is a decrease of surface heat (Cooling planet) there is a decrease of outgoing radiation as well from the upper atmosphere.

I am too tired to find the evidence tonight but will try to post it later or Derek and Richard 111 or others here might post it.

Generally speaking less humidity means a greater temperature range between the high and the low even more so when there is light winds and little clouds at night.

In my city of Kennewick the difference between the highest average high and lowest average low in July is about 32 degrees F.

95 high and 63 low.

But a few times it has reached over 40 degrees F difference. High of 108 and low of 66 but that is when the humidity is less than 10% when usually it is 15-20% in the average heat wave.

Swamp coolers works great and I am cooling my house with one because the humidity is low most of the time.

I have visited the Philippines a few times and observe first hand the oppressive humidity that is often above 90% but the the high is around 90 degrees F and the low about 78 degrees just a 12 degree spread in the Manila area.The first time I was there it was like having a 100 pound sack land on my shoulders as I left the cooler drier airport for the taxi cab ride to the hotel.

Good grief!

Now I want to bring up this angle that is rarely considered is the amount of actual solar radiation that strikes the surface and accumulate during the day.They vary a lot and while the thermometers fairly reflect the variations it is not going to tell us the whole story.

We may have a high of 102 degrees on Monday and the next day Tuesday it was 97 degrees but was 102 day really truly the hotter day? Maybe not since it could have been above 100 degrees for two minutes and over 90 for three 1/2 hours while the "cooler" 97 degree day was over 90 for five hours.

It really matters to have the entire 24 hour readout of the days temperature.In newspapers such as mine where they show the HOURLY temperature of the previous 24 hours that can amaze you at how different it is even if the days high is the same as the day before.One day usually FEELS warmer than the other despite the same days high reading over two consecutive days.

The website that covered this angle is somewhere and hopefully can post it here soon for fascinating reading.It was run by then Phd student on climate and related fields.

I have to stop as I am too tired to keep going.

Cheers.

[Richard111]

Hello twilightmike and welcome. Excellent post. You've neatly summarised just about all my mixed up ramblings. And since this is a learning curve I'm looking forward to reaching the hockey stick part.

I have learned that this is a complex subject but certain fascets are taboo. Like global minimum temperatures. Are they rising or falling?

Humidity. I can point to records where sunshine levels in watts per square metre change with the level of humidity yet this is not discussed by 'them'.

And my particular bete noir, how can radiation at 15 microns (193.2K source) warm up a surface at 288K (15C) which is already radiating at 15 microns????

Reading between the lines I think your background reaches beyond mine but I will be happy to provide links to previous discussions on any questions you have.

[Richard111]

There is a very interesting and informative post for us laymen over at John Kehr's blog:
the inconvenient SKEPTIC

Quote:Over the past 18 months or so the measured OLR (out-going long-wave radiation) has been unavailable. In it’s place has been what was called the interpolated OLR. Since OLR can only be measured by satellites the data can only be available when satellites have existed. Oddly enough the new and improved interpolated OLR data was available in a monthly format from 1948 to current without a single month missing. Since that was impossible I was more than a little confused.

Do have a close look at his graphs. Will give you much to think about.

[twilightmike]

(06-28-2012 12:44 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  There is a very interesting and informative post for us laymen over at John Kehr's blog:
the inconvenient SKEPTIC

Quote:Over the past 18 months or so the measured OLR (out-going long-wave radiation) has been unavailable. In it’s place has been what was called the interpolated OLR. Since OLR can only be measured by satellites the data can only be available when satellites have existed. Oddly enough the new and improved interpolated OLR data was available in a monthly format from 1948 to current without a single month missing. Since that was impossible I was more than a little confused.

Do have a close look at his graphs. Will give you much to think about.

That is excellent! Thanks for posting it. And the author is right . . . "interpolated" OLR data is pretty frightening to even think about. Makes one wonder what the "interpolator" is thinking.

[twilightmike]

I recently posted my findings/question (in shorter version) on the comments section of a piece on global warming on Yahoo!. As usual, there was name calling and the ridiculous retort by one AGW apologist that it's GLOBAL warming, not local warming. No answers as to why water vapor acts locally AND globally. Not one attempt was made to explain the HOW of CO2 acting only on long time scales and over the entire face of the planet. The AGW apologists are not winning me over.

[Richard111]

Same here twilightmike. 'They' claim the science is settled but never discuss the science.
I posted a simple question over at WUWT and got a supportive response from another layman and that was it. I was hoping rgbatduke would chime in but no luck.

Back to my layman's observations again. I have mentioned before that I have lived and worked in desert regions. One of my pleasures was to walk over sand dunes just before dawn when there is just enough light to see by and marvel at the life in the desert sands. Quite a number of small creatures, mostly lizards and beetles could be seen just below the ridge of the dune where air from the valley side would be moving up slope as it expands. (I've mentioned an experiment that shows the surface starts to warm as soon as the clear sky above turns blue BEFORE the sun rises.) This expanding air from the lower levels must be very close to dew point because as this air passes over the wing cases of the beetles and the thick skin ridges of the lizards small drops of water appear. You can see the little critturs licking or wiping the water to their front parts with their legs. As soon as they've had enough they scuttle off and bury themselves in the sand. By the time the sun rises there is not a creature to be seen. Nature is very clever.

This leads me to another of my questions. Why do 'they' bother with MAXIMUM temperatures when the MINIMUM temperatures will give a more positive indication of any global warming. (there! that tells you why they won't!) It is a much recorded fact that in the dry desert air temperatures plummet at night. Nearly down to freezing. And also much recorded is the fact that desert air can reach dew point at dawn so there is also some water vapour always present. And water vapour is a much more effective 'greenhouse' gas than CO2. Not so? Then why do the deserts still get so cold on clear nights? (the fact that cloudy nights don't get so cold tells you a lot as well.)

Another recorded fact is the Romans used to dig a well shaped hole about six metres deep in the desert if they were camped. They would then place a small shallow bowl of water at the bottom of this hole and in the morning it would be ice!

[Richard111]

Gosh! Golly! and WOW! rgbatduke is firing on all cylinders. If you don't read anything else, just read his comment. (he is NOT talking about my post )

There are following comments that show links to papers that are now talking about how 'greenhouse' gases like H2O and CO2 actually provide more cooling of incoming sunshine than any special warming at night. I do believe the wheels are falling off the AGW engine.

[Richard111]

Bit of an Ach! Fooey! moment for me right now. Have been trying to write an essay in my layman ramble on how 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere simply CANNOT work as advertised. Even got to the point of describing a block of iron cooled to a temperature that accords to having an IR radiation peak at 15 microns and how that block of iron would in fact be as cold as dry-ice

To cut a long story short I found this over at THE HOCKEY SCHTICK:

Why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect
Posted Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Quote:Greenhouse theory calculations are based on the assumption that the atmosphere radiates like an ideal black-body. However, the gases in the atmosphere do not have available a continuum of quantum transitions that are necessary for black-body absorption or emission. If the atmosphere resembled a black-body, the radiation spectrum would follow an ideal Planck curve as shown on the right side of the graph below, and emissivity ε would = 1. This is what the IPCC and climate models assume, leading to an exaggeration of heat input 50 times greater than alleged anthropogenic global warming. Observations show the atmosphere is far from an ideal black-body radiator, therefore emissivity ε < 1 [ε =0.76 according to the APS], and greenhouse gas warming is much less than assumed.

My highlight. That's when I went WOW! There is a link there to the originator, Dr. Jinan Cao. Some math and stuff I am going to struggle with to see if I can learn enough to ram it up a greenies whatsit.

[Derek]

WTG Richard111. Look forward to you reporting back on ramming up greenies whatsit...

How long have I been saying K&T is a black body reality? AND that they could not measure those figures in actual, grey body reality. In grey body reality the figures would have to be different, and therefore that they have disproves their own "theory". No one seems to have realised this.

In fact many took the figures as proof they were right. When they actually proved they were wrong. I have said this a few times over the years but to date no one has ever seemed to have understood what I meant.

When finished and posted here Richard111 can I link to your essay in the "There is no greenhouse effect" facebook group?

[Richard111]

Ah, yes indeed Derek. So comforting to find someone with more savvy than us publishing reports that show we, as lowly laymen, can think logically and deduce scientifically supported evidence.
As for my essay, thanks for the offer, but I was finding it very boring and it doesn't really prove anything. If I was pleased with it I would have posted it here.

From the links above I found a comment by J. Cao February 5, 2012 12:35 PM where he answers a query from another commenter:

Quote:The emission rate difference between 1K and 1000K ((10^3)^4 = 10^12) was a question/reply to Prof. Pierrehumbert who specified radiation lifetime ranging from a few milli-seconds to a few tenth of a second (range 10^2).

Assuming a tiny spherical black body object with radius, r, density, D, and specific heat capacity, cp, one can easily calculate the rate of temperature drop (dT/dt) due to emission for the object.

4 pi r^2 σT^4 = 4/3 pi r^3 D cp dT/dt
Therefore: dt/dT = D cp r / (3σT^4)

where, 4 pi r^2 and 4/3 pi r^3 are the surface area and volume of the sphere respectively. dt/dT tells the time required to drop 1 K for the sphere.

If we put numbers into the equation:
σ = 5.67 x 10^-8 (J/s)/m^2K^4
T = 288 K
D = 1000 kg/m^3
cp = 1000 J/kgK
r = 1.0 nm = 10^-9 m

One obtains dt/dT = 8.54 x 10^-7 (s/K), i.e. to drop 1 K at 288 K, it takes 8.54 x 10^-7 second.

Yes, the ground surface continuously emits, so that the radiative gases continuously absorb. But equally, the gases continuously emit. This is how we determine the radiative equilibrium temperature for CO2 etc.

The earth ground surface radiation is weak, it can only warm up CO2 up to -80C. CO2 gains further energy from molecular collision with N2O2 to rise temperature to -50C. As a result of energy transfer, N2O2 lose energy and cause temperature drop. Therefore, CO2 and water vapour are the cooling agents for the atmosphere.

Maybe carton movies will explain far better than language does.

My bolding. I've left out a couple of personal comments to the questioner.

My reading of the blackbody science tells me that a body can only absorb radiation of a higher frequency/shorter wavelength than it is already radiating which is directly proportional to its present temperature. J. Cao is treating each CO2 molecule as an independant blackbody. CO2 can NEVER see radiation from the earth in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bands. Too hot at 800C and 400C respectively. But CO2 CAN SEE all radiation which peaks at 288K (15C) from the surface or atmosphere. BUT it can only absorb the 15 micron band which CAN ONLY HEAT THE CO2 MOLECULE TO -80C. The surrounding atmosphere is much warmer than that so it loses energy by collisions WARMING the CO2 molecule up to -50C which I assume must be the average temperature for ALL the CO2 in the atmosphere. Because after all, CO2 is constantly losing energy by radiating in the 15 micron band. Never realised that before. So any and every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere MUST be slightly cooler than the surrounding molecules. Remember, there are 2,500 other molecules to share energy.

ps: Derek, you are welcome to share anything I've already posted but on your head be it.
pps: just occurred to me; write the answer on a hockey stick. Make a first class ram!

[Sunsettommy]

I found this and thought this might interest you on how irrelevant CO2 is from those who have long thought CO2 can warm the atmosphere.They are saying that CO2 warming is much less than they originally believed.

They keep revising the supposed CO2 warm forcing possibility to a lower level as time goes by.

Why The Earth Is Cooling – CO2 Warming Is Only A Tenth Of What The Models Show!

The Climate Team has always claimed that a doubling of CO2 would add 3.7 Watts/m2 to the global climate budget and thus this would fry us all. This fate is their religion’s version of Hell, except we will all suffer this rather than just the “sinners,” thus giving them leverage to force us to do their will. Many bloggers, and some others, notably even BEST, have pointed out that there are many locations that are cooling rather than warming. The warmists would have us believe that these cooling stations are just due to local phenomenon, such as albedo change, land use, site moves, or other changes, and that the warming stations are not due to UHI.

LINK

John Kehr (Link) already showed that CO2 can not warm the atmosphere despite the supposed 3.9 watts/m2 and now Ed Caryl is saying it is about ZERO into the NEGATIVE range when other cooling factors cancel out the supposed CO2 warm forcing capability.

[Derek]

The one assumption of AGW you should understand perhaps...

[Richard111]

Epic Warmist Fail! – Modtran: Doubling CO2 Will Do Nothing To Increase Long-Wave Radiation From Sky

Even MODTRAN agrees doubling CO2 has no effect.

[Derek]

Yet Jonathan Drake produced a plot some time back now showing CO2 increase increased temperature, according to MODTRAN. It seems the contradiction is that MODTRAN says increasing CO2 increases temperature, BUT, increased CO2, AND THEREFORE increasing temperature does not increase Out going Longwave Radiation.
Which would appear to be a direct violation of Stefan Boltzman Law by MODTRAN.
I would post this at Pierre's blog, but my first comment on the thread appears not to have survived "moderation"..