you mean he cut and pasted that?! i was hoping he could show his work, perhaps attach the spreadsheet that contains most of his calculations, if it's not proprietary.Originally Posted by Bill Pup60
|
|
|
|
|
you mean he cut and pasted that?! i was hoping he could show his work, perhaps attach the spreadsheet that contains most of his calculations, if it's not proprietary.
Hey guys, it is in the
TEXTBOOK Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, 2d ed.
page 18
You are never to old to go back to college and read a textbook.
So, the reality of atmospheric physics is that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles, the amount of thermal radiation from the top of the atmosphere will be deceased by 4 watts per square meter. This means that the surface temperature (T3) has to increase in order to restore balance between radiation energy coming in and going out. T3 increases by 1.2C and if feedbacks are also taken into consideration the total increase in T3 is 2.5C.
Salty, you do understand that these are huge simplifications of the problem, right? I'm not saying they aren't appropriate, because frankly I don't ever think about the problem, but you're going to have to break down the science a little more to make anyone give this a second thought.
What is the basis for the statment that a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 causes a decrease in thermal radiation of 4 W/m2? Is this just IR absorbance data for gaseous CO2? How are you going about averaging the data, when it is absolutely dependent on latitude, total energy applied at the time (time of day), etc.. Are you using AM 1.5 as a reference for total energy/m2 or what? Are the experiments done in a lab or are you taking existing data and extrapolating? If you are extrapolating, are you using a linear model, a gas-law based model, a logarithmic model (probably more appropriate to actual lab data), or what? If you're using lab data, how are you accounting for all of the natural variability (local CO2 sinks, curvature issues, etc.)?
These are questions I'd want to know before I even get into the heat transfer questions, which I will ask you about depending on your response to the above questions.
For starters, I read an article dated back in 2002 where he stated that we were at the end of an active hurricane cycle and that we should have very few storms in the upcoming years. Now he states that we are in a very busy hurricane cycle that will last another 20 years??? I may have posted that article on this thread, but I am not sure and not going to bother to look it up.
Secondly, was he not involved in the predicitions of last year? You would think a man of his intelligence and intense study of weather patterns might have known sooner that an El Nino event would make unfavorable conditions for hurricanes in the atlantic. He flunked that prediction.
Thirdly, he was speaking to a forum of GOP in the Bigdog13 article. You know, the party who has made it it's mission to disregard just about every facet of science when it comes to public policy. Wonder if he was paid for that appearance? He really may need the cash since the government is not funding skeptics these days.
Lastly, he is a stubborn hot head.
Thanks for the red dot and nice comment. I find it a shame that you find it necessary to label someone a liberal just because one chooses to agree with the vast majority of scientists. Actually, you are acting just like Dr. Gray.
randizer, clearly, I'm not as smart as you but I do have the textbook. You should buy one. Wait a second, maybe I am smarter than you because I have bought the textbook and you haven't.
I don't know how the author (one of the world's top scientists on climate) came up with the 4 W/m2 number but have no doubt that it is accurate. Are you contesting the 240 W/m2 number also? Maybe you think that the enchanced greenhouse effect of atmospheric gases doesn't really exist?
Maybe you think that thermal radiation from the earth's surface going into outer space does NOT have to balance the solar radiation hitting the planet?
The more I read the textbook the more interesting the science becomes. For example, radiation from the Sun coming in is 343 W/m2 but 103 W/m2 is refelcted from clouds, atmosphere, and surface for a net gain of 240 W/m2.
The thermal radiation total of 240 W/m2 consists of 40W emitted from the surface, 35W from clouds, and 165W emitted from greenhouse gases.
Hope that helps.
The devil is in the details. Anyone that thinks they can reduce such a complex modeling problem to the level of a basic, undergraduate heat transfer example is being academically dishonest.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
The devil is not in the details. It is not necessary to understand completely the science if the conclusion reached is accepted by the scientific community as vaild. In other words, we can discuss the necessity for net in-coming solar radiation to equal thermal radiation emitted from the planet without each of us being an expert in the subject if the scientific community agrees with that statement.
The physics of the atmosphere are really not in contention, are they?
yes, I'm contesting both. net thermal radiation is an oversimplified term, as the radiation is going to be a variable of angle of incidence (latitude and tilt and time of day). Perhaps you simplify by assuming that, since the radius of the earth is large (and thus its curvature is small), you can treat it as a flat body. Then that's an OVERESTIMATE at any point other than perhaps the equator. Perhaps you assume a specific latitude at a specific time of year, etc. AM 1.5 is the popular assumption in the solar cell community (a highly technical scientific group). But, that's still an averaging that is really only remotely accurate near the equator as well. I mean, you'd be foolish to take those numbers and then imagine all of the solar power you could generate in an Alaskan winter..
I hadn't gotten there yet, but if you are suggesting there is a such thing as a "radiation balance," you're defeating the whole point of your greenhouse effect arguments. I'll say that there is an energy balance at work, but in my mind there is no reason why radiation into the atmosphere balances radiation hitting the planet (earth/water). There's all kinds of other things absorbing radiation in the atmosphere besides CO2.
See above on my issues of where those numbers come from. At this point, I'm really not suggesting that your numbers are inappropriate. I just think you're glossing over some information that I would like to know before I agree to use the numbers.
Sorry, but I can't help you. You need to buy the advanced textbook of The Physics of the Atmospheres. Then you can explain it to us.
I can't explain why E=MC2 but I have no doubt that it is accurate.
That's nice, Salty. In this case I've presented the two most likely simplifying assumptions that the author would have used (same kinds of assumptions that are used in graduate thermodynamics or transport, or used by solar energy scientists working on fuel cells) to estimate the net radiative flux if he/she were setting up a theoretical problem. And I suggested that both of those assumptions are piss-poor if you try to apply them on a global scale.
But perhaps they take the measurements? If I were to actually measure "net radiative flux," I'd try to quantify the total UV, IR, visible photons that hit a specific unit in a specific period of time. Again, this is very sensitive to location (same reasons as above), time of day, cloud cover, elevation, etc. Not to mention, you've got to identify which components of the spectrum of photons contribute to usable heat transfer (without doubt this requires simplification), you've got to assume that there are no other radiative energy sources other than the sun (or account for them, same effects as "urban heat islands" need to be considered), and you've got to assume some balance between what you are measuring on earth and what you are predicting at the top of the atmosphere.
Anyway you look at it, I'd say that your simplifying assumptions make the problem unworkable. And the fact that someone writes a textbook claiming these simplifications as fact just means the textbook is less credible.
I am sure that Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS doesn't give a rat's ass about your uninformed opinion.That's nice, Salty. In this case I've presented the two most likely simplifying assumptions that the author would have used (same kinds of assumptions that are used in graduate thermodynamics or transport, or used by solar energy scientists working on fuel cells) to estimate the net radiative flux if he/she were setting up a theoretical problem. And I suggested that both of those assumptions are piss-poor if you try to apply them on a global scale.
But perhaps they take the measurements? If I were to actually measure "net radiative flux," I'd try to quantify the total UV, IR, visible photons that hit a specific unit in a specific period of time. Again, this is very sensitive to location (same reasons as above), time of day, cloud cover, elevation, etc. Not to mention, you've got to identify which components of the spectrum of photons contribute to usable heat transfer (without doubt this requires simplification), you've got to assume that there are no other radiative energy sources other than the sun (or account for them, same effects as "urban heat islands" need to be considered), and you've got to assume some balance between what you are measuring on earth and what you are predicting at the top of the atmosphere.
Anyway you look at it, I'd say that your simplifying assumptions make the problem unworkable. And the fact that someone writes a textbook claiming these simplifications as fact just means the textbook is less credible.
that's right. he cares much more about funding and maintaining a public image, which it looks like he gained almost exclusively from his work with the IPCC.I am sure that Sir John Houghton CBE, FRS doesn't give a rat's ass about your uninformed opinion.
Wrong again, randerizer. The guy is a devote Christian who takes seriously his belief in his duty to take care of God's creation.
Hey, I gave you a big chance to explain what would happen if all CO2 was removed from the atmosphere. You would not respond.
Perhaps you would care to say why?
I told you it would probably be colder than it was now. But predicting the absolute temperatures is not nearly as straight-forward as you are trying to make it.
So "devout Christian" and "money- or fame-seeker" are mutually exclusive? Right. And "devout Christian" plus "scientist" equals right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote