On Dec 10, 5:44*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Stan and Dawlish

You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing, to
do with global warming.

Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?

Of course not. *No one is claiming that climate never changes. *It's the
contribution of CO2 that's in question. *You need to show a credible
mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the presence of an
excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.

So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.

You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. *There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely nothing
to do with global warming.

Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?

Lucrative grants?

Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last
century would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory
by now, so I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat
that takes longer to disperse!

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true.
CO2 has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of
IR radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that
condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both
are almost certainly untrue, as is this

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations
in global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts
far greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is
not the main driver of global temperature increases.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly
unconvincing - and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's
point of view about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable,
but there are so many scientists working in this field that I cannot
believe that the physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The
"Lucrative grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.

On Dec 10, 10:52*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:22:57 +0100, Rav1ng rabbit wrote:
JohnM wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:33 pm, Bill Ward wrote:

Since clouds are broadband radiators, they efficiently radiate that
heat as LWIR from the top of the cloud directly to space,

So clouds radiate from the top, but not from the sides or the bottom?

Correct. *The sides and bottom are in LTE optically thick air, so no net
radiation occurs.

I didn't ask about "net" radiation, but I'm sure you are aware of
that. So let's try again. Clouds radiate from the top, but not from
the sides or the bottom?

You can play the "back radiation" game if you want, but I think everyone
sees through it now.

I see you wrote "it" but, of course, you should've written "me"

Don't make it to complicated for Bill, please, don't.

Q assumes everyone is as easily confused as he.

In article 4d6cb661-317f-45a8-840e-d5f746599fc6
@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
says...

Correct. *The sides and bottom are in LTE optically thick
air, so no net
radiation occurs.

I didn't ask about "net" radiation, but I'm sure you are aware of
that. So let's try again. Clouds radiate from the top, but not from
the sides or the bottom?


Where did he say that? I can't find what you are referring to.

--
Alan LeHun

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:17:20 -0600, Bill Ward
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 10, 10:56Â*am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption that CO2 increases causes
temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases unless
other (natural) factors override the increase which is being caused by
increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a century ago.
Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will* increase absorption of
outgoing IR radiation and it will cause warming. That is accepted by
almost all climate scientists and physicists and whether you like it, or
not, it is. The greenhouse effect is well understood and the physics
behind it really are settled. The degree of warming that will be caused
caused by increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also
settled, unless you wish to change those physical laws.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the physics
is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is, given that
two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output) are in a state
that ought to mean that they are having a negative effect on
temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be causing cooling
and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest conditions in 130
years - unless the natural effects are *not* managing to override the
effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as the main driver of global
temperature increase. Unless I (and also the vast majority of climate
scientists) see something else affecting global temperatures in a
greater way than the physics shows the increases in CO2 should, I'm more
likely to strengthen my views on CO2 being the cause of GW, than not.

You might want to check your physics. Simple assertion that "it's
settled" went out with Al Gore. You need to account for WV, LTE,
convection, negative feedbacks, etc, before you will convince anyone.

Try explaining rather than just claiming.


If anybody wants it colder, they can just come
to Chicago and it will be.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/weather/

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:56 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:41 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.
Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.
GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?
Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.
Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.
I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.

I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.


You're joking aren't you?

If not, state what you (and the scientists
and physicists) think cools the atmosphere
after the sun warms it, the outgoing energy
has to equal the incoming.

[[Please note: I do not call rational scientists
names, it is the foul mouthed idiots posting
in alt.global-warming nonsense about absolute
certainty in AGW]]


Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20°c.

How is the facts of that statement derived,
is that minus 20 C?


This is the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have to
stick to averages and approximations.

To get anywhere in the science, specifics
are needed, not estimates of averages and guess
approximations.


So, at this altitude, we can say for simplicities sake that the LWR is
being emitted by the GHGs in the atmosphere at this altitude.


Sorry, LWIR can be leaving the Earth from
a lot of different levels at the same time.


(There is
also a component that gets through from the surface directly in certain
spectral bands, which we leave aside).


It is between 10 and 20 percent, a little too
much to leave aside.


That means that in a very
strange sense of the word, GHGs "cool" the atmosphere.


Not a strange sense at all, without GHGs,
the N2 and O2 could not cool much at all.



It's an
expression that denialists (sorry, sceptics) are fond of using even if
it doesn't really mean anything.


No, it is the basic physics, the only thing
that cools the atmosphere.

It's like saying that if I wear an
anorak, the anorak "cools" me because my body heat ultimately can only
escape from the surface of the anorak...


If your anorak had the properties of nitrogen,
you would have to open it up or have a heat stroke.


That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20°c level as a
result of the Lapse Rate.


Not as a result of the Lapse Rate, partly
because of the sun and partly because heat
is migrating from the center of the Earth.
And gravity and the mass of the atmosphere
is what causes the Lapse Rate.

While using an equivalent temperature
level may have a use in approximations, it
has no bearing on reality and the physics.


The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.


A lapse rate can exist without water vapor,
I assume you meant the amount or rate of LWIR
depends mostly on water vapor.


Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2, but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect.


And I will admit not much LWIR makes it
to space from exactly that altitude.


Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even lower.


I suppose the lower in the atmosphere,
the more strict the Local Temperature Equilibrium.

I submit that the GHGs alone could not
hold enough heat to prevent the temperature
from dropping more at night.

At higher altitudes the GHGs radiate more
to space than reaches low altitudes, trying to deny
that GHGs cool the atmosphere does not help the
AGW premise in the least.

Regardless of how these processes result
in retention of heat in the atmosphere, cooling
of the atmosphere is done totally and only
by the GreenHouse Gases.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:14:55 -0800 (PST), JohnM
wrote:

On Dec 10, 8:33Â*pm, Bill Ward wrote:

Since clouds are broadband radiators, they efficiently radiate that heat
as LWIR from the top of the cloud directly to space,

So clouds radiate from the top, but not from the sides or the bottom?


Clouds would/could receive more on the bottom
than they radiate, while at the top at night, LWIR BB
to 3 K space is substantial, in daylight, they reflect
enough to be a cooling factor overall.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44Â*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54Â*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Stan and Dawlish

You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing, to
do with global warming.

Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?

Of course not. Â*No one is claiming that climate never changes. Â*It's the
contribution of CO2 that's in question. Â*You need to show a credible
mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the presence of an
excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.

So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.

You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. Â*There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely nothing
to do with global warming.

Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?

Lucrative grants?

Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last
century would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory
by now, so I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat
that takes longer to disperse!

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true.
CO2 has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of
IR radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that
condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both
are almost certainly untrue, as is this

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations
in global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts
far greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is
not the main driver of global temperature increases.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly
unconvincing - and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's
point of view about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable,
but there are so many scientists working in this field that I cannot
believe that the physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The
"Lucrative grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.


It isn't very smart to deny that GHGs cool
the atmosphere, only GHGs cool the atmosphere.

While most scientists are conscientious and
honest they may be intimidated enough not to
rock the boat, but that isn't really an issue,
a number of factors could be both causing some
warming, and UHI may be a bigger factor in
raw data than admitted by the three major units.

I would guess sulfur emissions may be an
issue, I tried to find recent history, but no luck.

I just hope the AGW activists are enjoying
temperatures like I am (15 degrees below normal).

Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:56 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:41 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in
messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption that CO2 increases
causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over
a century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.

GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is what warms the
atmosphere?

Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that
some of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect.
Can you please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt
you but I know several people can read same article and all come up
with different conclusions due to selective reading, and may not
realise they are doing it, see my reply to article on greenhouse
effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at
bottom is not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your
point regarding too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently
is, given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar
output) are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a
negative effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They
should be causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of
the warmest conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects
are *not* managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically
leaves CO2 as the main driver of global temperature increase.
Unless I (and also the vast majority of climate scientists) see
something else affecting global temperatures in a greater way than
the physics shows the increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to
strengthen my views on CO2 being the cause of GW, than not.

Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would show more cooling, but
if you are cock-sure, no sense in exploring any possible
explanations.

I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global
climate should be showing, even with global warming, global average
temperature heading towards a trough, although with global warming I
would expect the min of the trough to be slightly higher than last
trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed
by rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures
have only slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are
starting to speed up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you
disagree on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is
talking a load of rubbish.


I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.

You're joking aren't you?

If not, state what you (and the scientists
and physicists) think cools the atmosphere after the sun warms it, the
outgoing energy has to equal the incoming.

[[Please note: I do not call rational scientists names, it is the
foul mouthed idiots posting in alt.global-warming nonsense about
absolute certainty in AGW]]


Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20°c. This is the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have to
stick to averages and approximations. So, at this altitude, we can say
for simplicities sake that the LWR is being emitted by the GHGs in the
atmosphere at this altitude. (There is also a component that gets
through from the surface directly in certain spectral bands, which we
leave aside). That means that in a very strange sense of the word, GHGs
"cool" the atmosphere. It's an expression that denialists (sorry,
sceptics) are fond of using even if it doesn't really mean anything.
It's like saying that if I wear an anorak, the anorak "cools" me because
my body heat ultimately can only escape from the surface of the
anorak...

Good analogy. If you were wearing a Dewar flask, you'd melt down,
because there'd be no way to lose the heat you generate.

That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20°c level as a
result of the Lapse Rate.
The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.

And the mass of the atmosphere.

Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2, but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect. Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even
lower.

Nice description, Tom. You included part of the WV effect, so you're
even closer than before. All you need to do now is ask yourself where
the WV went as it convected upward. I'm sure you'll immediately realize
it condensed into clouds and released the latent heat it absorbed from
the surface. Otherwise there'd have to be the same concentration aloft
as below.

Since clouds are broadband radiators, they efficiently radiate that heat
as LWIR from the top of the cloud directly to space, because, as you
pointed out, there is very little WV remaining at high altitudes to
absorb it.

The warmer the surface, the more WV (higher specific humidity), so the
condensation temperature (dew point) is higher, causing clouds and
radiation to occur at a lower altitude. That increases the radiated
power by the S/B T^4 relation, so forms a strong negative feedback. The
warmer the surface, the stronger the cooling effect.

Any small change in 15u CO2 emission is easily swamped out by that
regulating mechanism, so CO2 can't have much of an effect on surface
temperature. That's set by the properties of water and the mass of the
atmosphere, via the lapse rate.

Congratulations on your progress. You may be ready to try Miskolczi
again:

http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
(Dr. Noor van Andel)

http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
(Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi)



Bill, if you could finally get round to the idea that there are climate
researchers in the world, and Miskolczi is not one of them, you could
make a lot of progress.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:57:27 +0100, Tom P wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:56 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:41 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in
messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption that CO2 increases
causes temperature increases.

Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over
a century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.

GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is what warms the
atmosphere?

Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that
some of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect.
Can you please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt
you but I know several people can read same article and all come up
with different conclusions due to selective reading, and may not
realise they are doing it, see my reply to article on greenhouse
effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at
bottom is not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your
point regarding too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently
is, given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar
output) are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a
negative effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They
should be causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of
the warmest conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects
are *not* managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically
leaves CO2 as the main driver of global temperature increase.
Unless I (and also the vast majority of climate scientists) see
something else affecting global temperatures in a greater way than
the physics shows the increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to
strengthen my views on CO2 being the cause of GW, than not.

Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would show more cooling, but
if you are cock-sure, no sense in exploring any possible
explanations.

I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global
climate should be showing, even with global warming, global average
temperature heading towards a trough, although with global warming I
would expect the min of the trough to be slightly higher than last
trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed
by rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures
have only slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are
starting to speed up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you
disagree on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is
talking a load of rubbish.


I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.

You're joking aren't you?

If not, state what you (and the scientists
and physicists) think cools the atmosphere after the sun warms it, the
outgoing energy has to equal the incoming.

[[Please note: I do not call rational scientists names, it is the
foul mouthed idiots posting in alt.global-warming nonsense about
absolute certainty in AGW]]


Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20°c. This is the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have to
stick to averages and approximations. So, at this altitude, we can say
for simplicities sake that the LWR is being emitted by the GHGs in the
atmosphere at this altitude. (There is also a component that gets
through from the surface directly in certain spectral bands, which we
leave aside). That means that in a very strange sense of the word, GHGs
"cool" the atmosphere. It's an expression that denialists (sorry,
sceptics) are fond of using even if it doesn't really mean anything.
It's like saying that if I wear an anorak, the anorak "cools" me because
my body heat ultimately can only escape from the surface of the
anorak...

Good analogy. If you were wearing a Dewar flask, you'd melt down,
because there'd be no way to lose the heat you generate.

That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20°c level as a
result of the Lapse Rate.
The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.

And the mass of the atmosphere.

Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2, but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect. Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even
lower.

Nice description, Tom. You included part of the WV effect, so you're
even closer than before. All you need to do now is ask yourself where
the WV went as it convected upward. I'm sure you'll immediately realize
it condensed into clouds and released the latent heat it absorbed from
the surface. Otherwise there'd have to be the same concentration aloft
as below.

Since clouds are broadband radiators, they efficiently radiate that heat
as LWIR from the top of the cloud directly to space, because, as you
pointed out, there is very little WV remaining at high altitudes to
absorb it.

The warmer the surface, the more WV (higher specific humidity), so the
condensation temperature (dew point) is higher, causing clouds and
radiation to occur at a lower altitude. That increases the radiated
power by the S/B T^4 relation, so forms a strong negative feedback. The
warmer the surface, the stronger the cooling effect.

Any small change in 15u CO2 emission is easily swamped out by that
regulating mechanism, so CO2 can't have much of an effect on surface
temperature. That's set by the properties of water and the mass of the
atmosphere, via the lapse rate.

Congratulations on your progress. You may be ready to try Miskolczi
again:

http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introduction
(Dr. Noor van Andel)

http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
(Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi)



Bill, if you could finally get round to the idea that there are climate
researchers in the world, and Miskolczi is not one of them, you could
make a lot of progress.


Hey, research away, just don't ask me to
pay extra unless you can send some warmer
weather this direction, I will pay for warmer
weather gladly.

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:56 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:41 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.
Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.
GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?
Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.
Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.
I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.

I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.

You're joking aren't you?

If not, state what you (and the scientists
and physicists) think cools the atmosphere
after the sun warms it, the outgoing energy
has to equal the incoming.

[[Please note: I do not call rational scientists
names, it is the foul mouthed idiots posting
in alt.global-warming nonsense about absolute
certainty in AGW]]


Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20°c.

How is the facts of that statement derived,
is that minus 20 C?


This is the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have to
stick to averages and approximations.

To get anywhere in the science, specifics
are needed, not estimates of averages and guess
approximations.


So, at this altitude, we can say for simplicities sake that the LWR is
being emitted by the GHGs in the atmosphere at this altitude.


Sorry, LWIR can be leaving the Earth from
a lot of different levels at the same time.


(There is
also a component that gets through from the surface directly in certain
spectral bands, which we leave aside).


It is between 10 and 20 percent, a little too
much to leave aside.


That means that in a very
strange sense of the word, GHGs "cool" the atmosphere.


Not a strange sense at all, without GHGs,
the N2 and O2 could not cool much at all.



It's an
expression that denialists (sorry, sceptics) are fond of using even if
it doesn't really mean anything.


No, it is the basic physics, the only thing
that cools the atmosphere.

It's like saying that if I wear an
anorak, the anorak "cools" me because my body heat ultimately can only
escape from the surface of the anorak...


If your anorak had the properties of nitrogen,
you would have to open it up or have a heat stroke.


That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20°c level as a
result of the Lapse Rate.


Not as a result of the Lapse Rate, partly
because of the sun and partly because heat
is migrating from the center of the Earth.

Heat flux from the earth's core is egligible. Do a little research
before making such statements.
And gravity and the mass of the atmosphere
is what causes the Lapse Rate.

Correct! It's called the hydrostatic equation.


While using an equivalent temperature
level may have a use in approximations, it
has no bearing on reality and the physics.

Interesting statement. Perhaps you should tell that to a meteorologist.


The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.


A lapse rate can exist without water vapor,
I assume you meant the amount or rate of LWIR
depends mostly on water vapor.

Assume what you like, that's not what I said.


Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2, but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect.


And I will admit not much LWIR makes it
to space from exactly that altitude.
What is that supposed to mean?


Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even lower.


I suppose the lower in the atmosphere,
the more strict the Local Temperature Equilibrium.

I submit that the GHGs alone could not
hold enough heat to prevent the temperature
from dropping more at night.

The thermal inertia of the atmosphere is around 8 days, I have a
reference in a textbook somewhere, I'm travelling right now.

At higher altitudes the GHGs radiate more
to space than reaches low altitudes,

what does that mean?

trying to deny
that GHGs cool the atmosphere does not help the
AGW premise in the least.

Regardless of how these processes result
in retention of heat in the atmosphere, cooling
of the atmosphere is done totally and only
by the GreenHouse Gases.


? GHGs are also the reason why the atmosphere warms in the first place,
which you neglect to mention. Please explain exactly what you mean by
this statement, and what conclusion do you think we should all draw from
this statement. Are you perhaps trying to tell us that increasing the
amount of GHGs would increase the so-called cooling effect? In that case
you are trying to deceive us, because it is simply not true.