Klimaforskning - hjemmeside
Startet av Gloføken, november 05, 2011, 14:31:56 PM
SitatComments here are not moderated before being published.Almost everyone who has commented here will know that comments usually appear immediately, and without the caveat: "This comment is awaiting moderation".If your comment does not appear it will be for one of two reasons:A word in the comment has been trapped by the moderation filter. This captures certain perjorative words – like "denialist". It also captures lot of other words that indicate a less than generous spirit towards your fellow commenters. However, it also captures many innocent and good-natured comments for reasons that I don't understand.WordPress has latched onto you, your IP address, your name, or your favorite footwear – and decided (incorrectly) that you are one of the many spammers in the world. At least it shows that computers are not clever enough to take over the world just yet.My apologies if this happens.
SitatRepetition - it's frustrating when no one answers your question the way you want it answered. Maybe people have just missed your point or ignored you or haven't understood what you are really getting at. However, at the discretion of the moderator, continual repetition may be snipped or just deleted to avoid a discussion being hijacked or just made less interesting to other readers....Attributing Ideas to People Incorrectly – and then not facing up to that when it is pointed out. When you claim someone said something and it is pointed out that you have made a mistake, the etiquette of this blog demands that you accept your mistake and apologize and especially don't keep repeating the same mistake. Failure to do so indicates that you are not able to understand the basic concept of "an argument" or "a position" or anything we are interested in at this blog and so you really should invest your time at other blogs....Basic Science is Accepted - This blog accepts the standard field of physics as proven. Arguments which depend on overturning standard physics, e.g. disproving quantum mechanics, are not interesting until such time as a significant part of the physics world has accepted that there is some merit to them.The moderator reserves the right to just capriciously delete comments which use as their premise that standard textbook physics is plain wrong.This is aimed to reduce the continual stream of unscientific rubbish that gets placed here as comments.
SitatYour base premise is wrong, SoD. After that, no appeal to 'basic physics' (or the 'authority' of Grant Petty, for that matter), no theoretically conjured up warming mechanisms and no calculations made will help you accomplish anything but a reinforcement of your original misconceptions about how the world works.The earth system warms from the surface UP, not from some hypothesized atmospheric layer in radiative imbalance DOWN. The lapse rate is set from the surface and climbs up with convection bringing the surface heat into and up through the troposphere. The heat moves through the earth system in this way: sun >> surface >> troposphere >> out through the ToA. That's why we always and only see this progression: surface temps up >> troposphere temps up (how? mostly from the transfer of latent heat through evaporation>condensation)* >> OLR at ToA up (why? from the increased temp and humidity/emissivity through the column below). Never the opposite.*http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/rain_ANN.pnghttp://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/hatm_ANN.pngThe earth system, rather than 'holding incoming energy back', radiates whatever it needs to radiate to balance the incoming from the sun, from whatever level(s) convection brings the surface heat up to, from where the 'radiatively active gases' radiate it back out to space. (Without their presence, this would be a problem and the earth would be a much hotter and unstable place.) And that's it. The surface temp is already set, by the incoming radiation from the sun in conjunction with the mass (heat capacity & weight) of the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface. Everything after that is just a result of temperature/temperature distribution and emissivity, always having to catch up with variations in solar input. The strange 'effective (or average) emission height' hypothesis is nothing but an attempt to turn everything we know about how the world works on its head. It is a result, not a cause of temperature (and emissivity) distribution.This is what happens when good old meteorology and climatology become 'high-jacked' by radiative physicists insisting that their particular field of study in fact rules the roost.I'm not disputing the radiative properties of the gases in question. Not even the temperature effect they might have in a closed glass box lab exeriment, by forcing reduced temp gradients away from the externally heated surface. What I'm saying is that, in the open surface/atmosphere system, they don't matter. Well, they matter. The analogy simply fails. They do and can not determine the mean temp of the global surface. At all. Other (and equally 'basic') physical processes entirely do that.The atmosphere does not owe its ability to warm to the presence of 'radiatively active gases'. It owes its ability to cool adequately to the 'radiatively active gases'. Because it warms by convection from the surface and cools by radiation to space. Increase its emissivity and you increase its abiity to cool. Basically, the only gas radiating to space from the troposphere is H2O, CO2 almost not at all:http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/upwelling_brightness1.jpghttp://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/stratosphere-radiation-by-species-1460/And H2O in the atmosphere would, in purely radiative terms, cool the surface underneath, by absorbing and reflecting a massive portion (close to 80%) of the incoming solar radiation before it can ever be absorbed by the surface. Tropical rainforest areas are several degrees cooler in mean annual temps than tropical/subtropical desert areas. Even as they lie on average more directly under the sun, experience much smaller temp fluctuations than the deserts and would (according to 'theory') receive much, much more 'back radiation' from the moist atmosphere ...Now, this is how the atmosphere really makes the surface warmer than solar radiative equilibrium (because it sure does):1) It has a mass and therefore a heat capacity. This means it is able to warm. It does so by being directly convectively coupled with the solar-heated surface below it. Regardless of whether that atmosphere contains radiatively active gases or not, it will warm - conductively>convectively. The atmosphere is able to warm. Space isn't. Therefore the atmosphere sets up a temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface that has a finite (sub-max) steepness. Space doesn't. The atmosphere thus INSULATES the surface. Energy is not able to escape the surface as fast as it's coming in before it has warmed to a higher mean temperature than before the atmosphere was put in place.2) It has a mass and therefore a weight (it's in a gravity field, after all). It therefore exerts a pressure on the solar-heated surface above 0. Unlike space. This pressure makes it harder for energy to escape the surface than without such pressure AT EQUAL TEMPERATURE in two ways: i) it suppresses the evaporation rate, and ii) it suppresses (upward) buoyant acceleration of heated surface air. (The second point here is more subtle and complex than the first one, because it also needs to take into account an atmospheric density distribution factor to work, but that's for another day. It is still the main reason why the surface of Venus is so hot.)This is why Mars's atmosphere is not capable of warming the surface to a mean global temp above pure radiative equilibrium with the sun (S-B) (rather the opposite), even with 95% CO2 in it. It is far from massive enough ...
SitatNot much point me having a discussion with Kristian.Readers interested in Kristian's point of view, please review our discussion in Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation – Part Three – Average Height of Emission.When someone replies to this question:SitatBut just to help me, why not tell me what you think. Same surface temperature, same atmospheric temperature profile, more GHGs: what happens to OLR?- in the way that Kristian did you realize there is no point.When Kristian comes forward with a textbook (never), or says "oh, I got that wrong", then we can pick up the discussion. Until then..
SitatBut just to help me, why not tell me what you think. Same surface temperature, same atmospheric temperature profile, more GHGs: what happens to OLR?
SitatI'm not trying to have a 'discussion' with you, SoD. There's no point in that, I agree ...When someone like SoD simply doesn't understand that the question asked is completely confined within the framework of his interpretation of how the world works and then doesn't like the answer, then any sane person would see there is no point trying to have a normal 'on-the-ball' discussion about how the surface of the earth is warmed beyond pure solar radiative equilibrium.I will have no revelations here, that's for sure. Only reiterations of purely theoretical concepts never even remotely verified by real-world observations.
SitatWhat's the physical mechanism that causes an atmosphere to INSULATE a planetary surface when radiation is the only means for energy to flow to space? Oh, wait, I know the answer: An atmosphere that can absorb and emit radiation in the wavelength range emitted by the surface, is more transparent to incoming solar radiation than radiation emitted from the surface and where the temperature decreases with altitude. That's the greenhouse effect in a nutshell.
SitatWithout GHGs the surface would radiate directly to the space and would be much colder (like 30C colder) than it is,You [debattant Edim, ikke jeg] wrote about the radiation from the atmosphere, but no radiation from the atmosphere would be needed to make the surface cold in absence of down-welling IR radiation from the atmosphere to the surface.
SitatKristian,We have a few rules on this blog. One is civility. Another one is not just repeating the same points.SitatRepetition – it's frustrating when no one answers your question the way you want it answered. Maybe people have just missed your point or ignored you or haven't understood what you are really getting at. However, at the discretion of the moderator, continual repetition may be snipped or just deleted to avoid a discussion being hijacked or just made less interesting to other readers.If you find your future comments are not appearing then you will know why (the amazing insight of your science?)It's clear what you think.I haven't got much patience for people who have no interest in science, no interest in learning, make ridiculous claims as a substitute for learning and start insulting people when they keep pointing out the basic flaws in your claims.Proven experimental science is not armchair science because you don't like it, or don't like the conclusions it leads to.Anyone can read your many comments already posted on this blog, about 32 this year, many last year, so your fabulous insights are preserved for posterity.Probably time to claim victory and move on to other locations that need your real world science insights.
SitatRepetition – it's frustrating when no one answers your question the way you want it answered. Maybe people have just missed your point or ignored you or haven't understood what you are really getting at. However, at the discretion of the moderator, continual repetition may be snipped or just deleted to avoid a discussion being hijacked or just made less interesting to other readers.
SitatSitat"What's the physical mechanism that causes an atmosphere to INSULATE a planetary surface when radiation is the only means for energy to flow to space?"Er, a temperature gradient? A massive sea of air preventing the oceans to evaporate directly into space? You know how common insulation works, don't you, DeWitt Payne? It works by slowing the cooling of a surface. And how does our surface cool primarily (remember now, we're talking HEAT flow)? By conductive/convective/evaporative means. And what would happen if the surface-heated air did not move up and away from the surface upon warming (remember, buoyant air brings with it also the absorbed radiative energy from the surface, you know about the candle thing, of course)?The surface wouldn't be able to rid itself properly of its energy. But would still receive from the Sun. So would heat up as a consequence. Until a balance has been reached. The right temperature (kinetic level).This is all convective. Related to how massive air in a gravity field responds to heating from below.Radiation is there to ultimately COOL the atmosphere, DeWitt Payne, not warm it. Without the radiatively active gases, the atmosphere wouldn't be able to cool adequately to space. But would still warm convectively from below (the Sun wouldn't stop shining). A mighty unstable condition ...
Sitat"What's the physical mechanism that causes an atmosphere to INSULATE a planetary surface when radiation is the only means for energy to flow to space?"
SitatSitat"Without GHGs the surface would radiate directly to the space and would be much colder (like 30C colder) than it is"This outdated talking point again?No, Pekka, it wouldn't. Because of something called conduction and convection. These energy transfers wouldn't just stop so that you mathematically can set them conveniently to 0 – forgotten, out of the equation! The world doesn't work like a mathematical equation. You need your base premises to be correct FIRST and THEN you can apply maths to a problem.Block convective transfer in any earthly setting and you get SWIFTLY RISING TEMPERATURES.It doesn't turn into a purely radiative situation just because you (or SoD) say so, Pekka. This is what you don't get. A solar-heated surface with an atmosphere on top (ANY atmosphere) will NEVER be a purely radiative situation. Meaning, such a surface could NEVER radiate the entire flux absorbed from the Sun back out to space (because there is not enough energy to go around), and most definitely not without having warmed substantially first.
Sitat"Without GHGs the surface would radiate directly to the space and would be much colder (like 30C colder) than it is"
SitatKristian,I tend to agree that Meteorology is run roughshod by some ( not necessarily anyone here ) who exaggerate the effects of radiative forcing.But I would challenge you reflect upon two truths.1. Convection tends to cool the surface and warm aloft, but only radiance ( by definition ) can remove the surplus energy received from the sun to restore balance to earth. The only way that convection can help restore balance is if it also invokes some process which changes radiance ( increase albdeo, lower average cloud height, change in water vapor profile, etc. ) as SoD has laid out.2. 'Radiation Fog' occurs when one GHG ( water vapor ) is reduced, allowing more intense surface cooling. What is the corollary of this?
SitatClimate Weenie,Sitat"1. Convection tends to cool the surface and warm aloft, but only radiance ( by definition ) can remove the surplus energy received from the sun to restore balance to earth. The only way that convection can help restore balance is if it also invokes some process which changes radiance ( increase albdeo, lower average cloud height, change in water vapor profile, etc. ) as SoD has laid out."And here it is again. This is what I'm talking about. SoD sets out the premise that there will necessarily be a radiative balance to 'restore' (less out than in) when putting radiatively active (IR absorbing and emitting) gases into an atmosphere as an established truth and argues from that. It's hopeless discussing these things with such individuals.As I've pointed out so many times now, the radiatively active gases in our atmosphere are not there to enable it to WARM. It would've warmed with or without them, simply from being tightly convectively coupled to the constantly solar-heated surface. They're rather there to enable it to COOL, because this is only possible through radiation.What is the corollary of this, Climate Weenie?There is no actual data from the real world out there hinting at Earth having any problems at all increasing its TOTAL radiative output to space as the world warms. It is just the hypothesis, the claim, of these people that it will, that it must, that first the OLR at ToA goes down, then the temperature rises (from top down, mind you, from where the imbalance first arises) and then the OLR at ToA goes back up again, to 'restore balance'. Never above the starting point, though, then the Earth would end up cooler than before the atmospheric 'forcing' applied, and we can't have that.Still, that's exactly what we see.All we can ever observe in the data is an OLR response to surface temps >> tropospheric temps, tropospheric humidity and cloudiness. To the best of our knowledge, total OLR from the ToA has increased pretty much in step with global temperatures for the last 30 years, so the Earth has increased its cooling rate, doing its share. And still there's (allegedly) an imbalance as of today. Well, in that case, it's specifically not because of the rising atmospheric CO2 content.What is the corollary of this, Climate Weenie?There is no actual data from the real world pointing towards anything other than the Earth radiating whatever it needs to, always simply trying its utmost to catch up with variations in solar input and oceanic energy distribution. After solar absorption, the energy flow moves UPWARDS, and inside the troposphere it moves upwards by way of convection, moving air.When the troposphere warms, it expands and the tropopause lifts. That doesn't mean there is LESS radiation emitted to space because of the tropopause getting colder. MORE radiation is emitted to space as the troposphere as a whole warms. The radiation to space from the Earth system comes from all layers of the atmosphere, and the surface itself, the system as a whole. Convection regulates the final radiative output, because it is what distributes both the gases emitting and the energy being ultimately emitted throughout the troposphere.That's how we see things work. It's out there. Welcome to the real world.The premise that Earth's radiative output to space is somehow directly linked to some precise physical temperature is nonsensical, ridiculous ... and totally unsupported.Sitat"2. 'Radiation Fog' occurs when one GHG ( water vapor ) is reduced, allowing more intense surface cooling. What is the corollary of this?"I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. So there is less H2O in the atmosphere at night and the ground cools faster. DUH! Who would've thought?!This is not the claimed radiative GHE, Climate Weenie.No one has ever denied the fact that dry air cools faster than moist air or clouds. That's because H2O has a large heat capacity, so takes long to cool. That means the surface will in turn take long to cool to an atmosphere with lots of H2O in it. This is VERY basic stuff.'Problem' is, the cooling effect of having H2O in the atmosphere (water vapour, clouds) during the day, especially in the tropics where most of the energy from the Sun comes in, is far greater than the relative warming effect (it's not really warming anything, only slowing down the cooling) during the night.Why do you think tropical rainforests are cooler annually by several degrees than tropical/subtropical deserts, Climate Weenie?
Sitat"1. Convection tends to cool the surface and warm aloft, but only radiance ( by definition ) can remove the surplus energy received from the sun to restore balance to earth. The only way that convection can help restore balance is if it also invokes some process which changes radiance ( increase albdeo, lower average cloud height, change in water vapor profile, etc. ) as SoD has laid out."
Sitat"2. 'Radiation Fog' occurs when one GHG ( water vapor ) is reduced, allowing more intense surface cooling. What is the corollary of this?"
SitatSoD,I wrote four comments last night and tried posting them on your blog (your latest GHE post). They are still held up in moderation. I see you're online posting your own comments, but mine have yet to appear.Could you just let me know here and now whether you have decided not to allow me to comment on your blog any more or not? If I'm somehow 'unwanted'? If there's any point in me trying to post any further comments at all ...?Thanks.
SitatSaw this only now. Sent you a mail about the same. Could've saved me the trouble, I guess.Your 'arguments' for banning me are really, really comical, SoD. Completely arbitrary and without any substance whatsoever. You're laughable. Why haven't you 'banned' RW for instance? He apparently makes no sense either, and he repeats and repeats and repeats, even after you've explained it to him a thousand times. I'll tell you why, SoD. Because he's not a threat. He hasn't really called you out on your central flaw. His points are easy for you to counter and dismiss. You can address each of them directly. Therefore you keep him here, revelling in the endless bickering with him about minor and totally inconsequential matters. So that your readers can see how stupid he is and how clever you are.You know full well that you're the one who's turned it into an artform evading all the main points I'm making by 'not understanding' them. You're not that stupid, SoD. You know it and I know it. I know you understand what I'm telling you, what I'm pointing out to you. Because a child would understand what I'm saying. It's not hard at all.You know you're wrong ... But you can't turn now. You've come so far. You'd lose face completely.But hey, it's your bubbl... I mean site. So keep up the fight for "The Caus... oops, I mean for 'science'.
SitatKristianThey are just repeating the same points in what seems to be the same angry manner. You can see my comment in the thread, dated June 28, 2014 at 3:46 am explaining the situation.Your 30 or so comments this year and however many last year are preserved for posterity.Thanks for your contribution.
Sitat fra: Okular på juli 05, 2014, 15:22:42 PMLegg merke til denne: "It's clear what you think." Å, så nå var det plutselig veldig klart. Det har nemlig ikke vært klart i det hele tatt inntil dette punktet for stakkars SoD. Han har ikke skjønt bæret av hva jeg har prøvd å fortelle ham. Eller, det er i det minste hva han har jobbet hardt mot å gi inntrykk av. Og heller ikke her gjør han noe forsøk på å forholde seg til det jeg faktisk bringer på bane. Bare masse håndveiving og vag referering til "people ... keep pointing out basic flaws in your claims". Klassisk alarmist-avfeiing.
SitatVi vet at...Vi vet også at...Vi har over 5 000...Vi har innrømmelser...vi har vitenuttalelser...Når vi samtidig vet...
SitatTo ting må nevnes. Det finnes mange gode unntak, og jeg har selv, til min grenseløse irritasjon, funnet en del av dette visvaset ført i tastene av undertegnede.
SitatAmerican 'climate change experts' have been exposed for fiddling temperature records to make it appear the past was colder than it actually was. Oh, and, far from melting, as the warmist computer models predicted, Antarctic sea ice has hit record levels.
Sitat fra: Jostemikk på juli 08, 2014, 11:35:58 AMSitatAmerican 'climate change experts' have been exposed for fiddling temperature records to make it appear the past was colder than it actually was. Oh, and, far from melting, as the warmist computer models predicted, Antarctic sea ice has hit record levels.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2684001/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-sun-got-hat-break-Bacofoil.html#ixzz36rsmbP3X Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
SitatAmerican 'climate change experts' have been exposed for fiddling temperature records to make it appear the past was colder than it actually was. Oh, and, far from melting, as the warmist computer models predicted, Antarctic sea ice has hit record levels.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2684001/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-The-sun-got-hat-break-Bacofoil.html#ixzz36rsmbP3X Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Sitat"...so that when I tossed them, most of the cooling went away."
Sitat"I fear a global cooling," warned Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, who played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada before leaving the environmentalist group in 1986 and later authoring a book titled "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout.""There are so many [climate] variables that we can't control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control," said Moore. "So it is virtually impossible to think of doing an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of CO2 versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Which is why you could never make a model that would predict the climate.""The president seems to say it is sufficient to say the 'science is settled.' It is hollow statement with no content," the ecologist continued, adding later that fundamental changes should occur to the way American school children are lectured about climate change."Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we don't there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria,"Morano quoted Moore as saying. "Our children are not taught logic, they are not taught what the scientific method is, and they are taught that carbon dioxide is pollution. They are told it is carbon now as if it were soot."http://rt.com/usa/171656-patrick-moore-global-cooling/
SitatIn apologising for having Nigel Lawson on to discuss climate change, the BBC has breached its charterRational debate is poisonous to climatic correctnessLord Lawson is, of course, not a scientist. But a great many people speak on the BBC on subjects in which they do not have any formal qualifications: Al Gore, for example. Or Rajendra Pachauri, a railway engineer by training, who now runs the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Neither does the BBC seem to be worried about non-scientists addressing scientific issues when it comes to such things as fracking or GM crops, on which any green activists are welcome to speak, however bizarre their scaremongering theoriesThe suppression of debate was shown again this week when Vladimir Semonov, a climate scientist at the Geomar Institute in Kiel, Germany, revealed that a paper he wrote in 2009 questioning the accuracy of climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was effectively censored by the scientist to whom it was sent for review. Their reasons for demanding passages be removed seems rather less than scientifically rigorous: one wrote that the offending material would 'lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community' and another said that 'this entire discussion has to disappear'.The BBC has decided that it is allowable to debate such issues as whether benefit cuts are causing distress or whether sports-women are being discriminated against by male-dominated bastions — something the Today programme does virtually every morning. But dare to question whether it is wise for the country to embark on the economic experiment of abandoning fossil fuel on the back of some far-from-robust scientific models, and you will have to find another media outlethttp://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9259911/climatic-correctness/