Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 209 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Myth of Backradiation
08-11-2010, 07:56 AM
Post: #61
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Sorry- Last but one sentence should have read " As soon as the sun is obscured by clouds or the sun sets then bamn!"
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-15-2010, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 08-15-2010 11:37 PM by Nasif Nahle.)
Post: #62
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Hi All... Actually, the cipher is by far lower than 0.4 seconds; it is 0.0042 seconds, i.e. 4.2 milliseconds on considering the carbon dioxide dispersion in the Earth's atmosphere. On the other hand, the water vapor "retains" photons into the atmosphere by 24.5 ms; in contrast, the dry air retains photons through 9.4 ms.

I've calculated the mean free path length of photons through the Venusian atmosphere (first 7.7 Km from the surface towards the upper atmosphere) and found remarkable results. For example, I found that the elevated temperature of the surface of Venus at all times is higher than the Venusian atmosphere temperature.

Another surprising fact is that the high temperature of the Venusian surface causes the volumetric expansion of the carbon dioxide, separating the CO2 molecules one to from the other, such that the crossing time through those 7.7 Km of the Venusian atmosphere is almost the same than on Earth (0.0041 s on Venus against 0.0042 s on Earth).

I have concluded that the "greenhouse" effect is an ancient myth rooted in the mind of scientists through exhaustive repetition of the myth on text books, academic papers, didactic articles, scientific articles, etc., from the basic education until postgraduate.

Nasif S. Nahle (NSN)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-17-2010, 02:07 AM
Post: #63
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
(08-15-2010 11:09 PM)Nasif Nahle Wrote:  I have concluded that the "greenhouse" effect is an ancient myth rooted in the mind of scientists through
exhaustive repetition of the myth on text books, academic papers, didactic articles, scientific articles, etc.,
from the basic education until postgraduate.

Nasif S. Nahle (NSN)

I have much the same thoughts regarding the "greenhouse effect", and (order of magnitude at least) under representation of
the release and movement/s of latent heat of vapourisation of water within the atmospheric "refrigerant zone".

AND, the latent heat consumption of melting ice in the upper atmosphere. Most rain starts off as ice, doesn't it.
How often, and by how much, is rain warmer or cooler than it should be. ?

I would tentatively suggest "we" should be looking at what (sensible heat) temperature should be at a certain hieght, and then
working out the difference to actual measurements (if this is possible).
Then adding latent heat content of water vapour "we" might get an idea of how much energy is being moved
in which direction, by what, when, and how.
Richard111 recently sent me the below link, and I think it might offer a start.
Dome A Temperatures - Australian Antarctic Division


The present IR and Greenhouse obsessions are masking most of what would appear to (me at least) be the real movements.
We can feel the coldness of evapouration / vapourisation of water down here at the earth's surface, and we can "see" (in temp profiles) the latent heat release in the upper atmosphere,
but inbetween these movements that do occur are "invisible", and are commonly (usually), it seems to me, misattributed to other "mechanisms",
that are "required", or more realistically absolutely neccesary, to prop up the "greenhouse effect" and IR "heat movements"..
MODTRAN - "now has physical meaning" - their on drugs, they must be.

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
08-17-2010, 09:57 PM
Post: #64
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Derek, there is a post over at ICECAP under the What's New & Cool column and dated Aug 17, 2010. The title is:

Tropical sea surface temperatures respond to natural changes in surface pressure across the globe
(url seems to be corrupt)
by Erl Happ
Quote:Tropical sea surface temperatures respond to the change in surface pressure across the globe and in particular to the differential between mid latitudes and the near equatorial zone. The southern hemisphere and high latitudes in particular experience marked flux in surface pressure. This leads directly to a change in the trade winds and tropical sea surface temperature.


You may find this has some bearing on your project. Good luck. Big Grin

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
08-17-2010, 11:58 PM
Post: #65
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Dear Derek... You say:

"I would tentatively suggest "we" should be looking at what (sensible heat) temperature should be at a certain hieght, and then
working out the difference to actual measurements (if this is possible)."


Yes, it is possible to calculate the temperature caused by sensible heat at different heights and after working out the difference to instrumental instantaneous measurements.

I will be working on it. Smile
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-18-2010, 12:35 PM
Post: #66
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Richard111 - Thank you I will look at that ASAP - would seem to intuitively follow that though.

Nasif - I doubt I am the only one very interested in what you calculate in that regard.

All - Questioning_Climate sent me this link,
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warmin...lysis.html
I particularly note,
" The funny thing is that when this band spreading is taken into effect,
it quickly becomes apparent that carbon dioxide is actually the only gas that cools the atmosphere.
That's right, without carbon dioxide the atmosphere has no way to release its energy to space and the planet quickly over heats.

Up to about 11,000 feet (top of the troposphere),
water vapor provides this capability. But above that level,
there are few, if any, gases to cool the atmosphere.

Another point is that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the mean free path for CO2 released IR radiation decreases.
This is offset, at least in part, by having more emitters.
It is not clear to me if this will have a positive or negative effect.
The evidence from Venus indicates that more CO2 will have a cooling effect ... but there is definitely room for more research on this.
"

I dimly remember from about two years ago, someone, and I think it might have been Lord Monckton saying / suggesting that
the troposphere moves at least five times more energy / heat than can be lost to space.
If anyone also remembers this, or knows of an online reference, please help.

I think the above are coming together, to form a more realistic explanation.

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
08-18-2010, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 08-18-2010 03:35 PM by Nasif Nahle.)
Post: #67
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
(08-18-2010 12:35 PM)Derek Wrote:  Richard111 - Thank you I will look at that ASAP - would seem to intuitively follow that though.

Nasif - I doubt I am the only one very interested in what you calculate in that regard.

All - Questioning_Climate sent me this link,
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warmin...lysis.html
I particularly note,
" The funny thing is that when this band spreading is taken into effect,
it quickly becomes apparent that carbon dioxide is actually the only gas that cools the atmosphere.
That's right, without carbon dioxide the atmosphere has no way to release its energy to space and the planet quickly over heats.

Up to about 11,000 feet (top of the troposphere),
water vapor provides this capability. But above that level,
there are few, if any, gases to cool the atmosphere.

Another point is that as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the mean free path for CO2 released IR radiation decreases.
This is offset, at least in part, by having more emitters.
It is not clear to me if this will have a positive or negative effect.
The evidence from Venus indicates that more CO2 will have a cooling effect ... but there is definitely room for more research on this.
"

I dimly remember from about two years ago, someone, and I think it might have been Lord Monckton saying / suggesting that
the troposphere moves at least five times more energy / heat than can be lost to space.
If anyone also remembers this, or knows of an online reference, please help.

I think the above are coming together, to form a more realistic explanation.

Hi, Derek... I had chosen an unsophisticated formula to calculate the sensible heat flux at different heights without sacrificing the quality of the results. The calculation comprehends the flux of sensible thermal energy from 0 m up to 20000 m. I’m also introducing the average speed of winds as if the velocity of the air was a constant because it fluctuates with altitude, but also by the influence of several subsystems in the atmosphere. I have drawn a preliminary graph which illustrates the calculations but it’s not yet been finished. The amount of heat transported as sensible thermal energy increases up to a point between 5000 and 6000 meters. From this point, the sensible thermal energy flux starts decreasing hastily since temperature and density of the air decreases.

Edition: Oops! I forgot to attach the graph... Sorry Angel

Second Edition: Another "Oops!" Dodgy... The margin of error is ± 0.5 K for temperature.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-20-2010, 04:43 PM
Post: #68
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
A brief explanation on the graph:

The tropospheric temperature diminishes with height. The temperatures considered on this graph were taken from databases recorded by airplanes and satellites. We notice the temperature remains almost constant from 11000 m to the top of the troposphere, including into the ozonosphere. We recognize the lower layer of the tropopause is signaled on the graph by the sharp bump on the sensible heat transfer line at 11000 m. It is notable the increase of sensible heat transfer from 0 m to 6000 m. From this maximum value upwards, the sensible heat transfer continues diminishing until 20000 m.

Consequently, the sensible heat flux is rather efficient on sending heat to the outer space in the first 6000 m of altitude. From there up, the load of heat transferred to the outer space diminishes making the upper layers of the troposphere are inefficient on transferring sensible heat flux.

I think the proper definition of sensible heat flux is quite demonstrated on this graph.

I would have liked to introduce real values for the speed of wind at every layer, but the speed of wind fluctuates persistently such that it is impossible to depict it. We know the speed of winds increases with altitude, but… How much?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-21-2010, 01:09 PM
Post: #69
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
Thank you Nasif. I will attempt to understand and digest,
it may take some time, BUT, thank you again.

A little side note regarding the myth of back radiation I have kindly recieved from Robert Clemenzi.
"
"To test if "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest "
Go to BestBuy and get a $10 IR thermometer.
Point it at the ground and the sky.

That PROVES that back radiation is real.
It also explains why cloudy nights are warmer.

**

"That 102 is cooling the surface from its original state, so it can't be radiating 390."

Wrong analysis, that 120 is cooling it from 30C (or higher) so that the remaining radiation is from 15C.
"

Robert Clemanzi's website / pages can be found from,
url: http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warmin...lysis.html
(I have linked to Robert Clemenzi's heat pipes page in several pieces before now.)

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
11-21-2010, 11:18 AM
Post: #70
RE: The Myth of Backradiation
I don't know anything about all this. I just happen to have a 250 W IR lamp around and now and then experience it's effect.

When I saw the numbers at Trenberth's diagram I started thinking. What if we replace the heating equipment in his home with IR lamps which will amount to an equivalent of his number of 390 W per square meter. I am pretty sure that may soon give him second thoughts about the validity of his numbers.
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
  John O'Sullivan: Thermometer Manufacturer Destroys Greenhouse Gas Warming Myth Sunsettommy 3 4,522 09-27-2011 06:22 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy
  Ocean Heat Content and backradiation Richard111 1 2,981 05-14-2011 12:58 AM
Last Post: Climate Realist



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