Open Thread Sunday

Smokey says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:13 pm
“Michael,
This graphic shows the relative amounts of atmosphere [on right], and total amount of water [on left], compared with the planet.”
Reduced to actual physical mass. Nice.
StuartMcL says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Query,
Can someone her give me a the size of the volume of the Earth in comparison to the volume of the Earth’s atmospheric climate?
Werner Brozek says: Wrote
January 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm
“Michael says:
January 23, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Query,
The square miles of the earths surface and the square miles of the Earth’s outer atmosphere would be nice also.”
Wow, Amazing. I didn’t think I would get great responses like this and so fast.
I can usually do the math but I’m currently occupied with 5 different thought processes at the same time and thought I’d defer to the math wiz kids these questions.
The thought experiment I was having has to do with the surface nuisance influence(us), to the sheer volume above us, and putting it into perspective.
“Layers of the Earth’s Atmosphere
The atmosphere is divided into five layers. It is thickest near the surface and thins out with height until it eventually merges with space.
1) The troposphere is the first layer above the surface and contains half of the Earth’s atmosphere. Weather occurs in this layer.
2) Many jet aircrafts fly in the stratosphere because it is very stable. Also, the ozone layer absorbs harmful rays from the Sun.
3) Meteors or rock fragments burn up in the mesosphere.
4) The thermosphere is a layer with auroras. It is also where the space shuttle orbits.
5) The atmosphere merges into space in the extremely thin exosphere. This is the upper limit of our atmosphere.
The Troposphere
The troposphere is the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The troposphere starts at Earth’s surface and goes up to a height of 7 to 20 km (4 to 12 miles, or 23,000 to 65,000 feet) above sea level. Most of the mass (about 75-80%) of the atmosphere is in the troposphere. Almost all weather occurs within this layer. Air is warmest at the bottom of the troposphere near ground level. Higher up it gets colder. Air pressure and the density of the air are also less at high altitudes. The layer above the troposphere is called the stratosphere.
The Stratosphere
The stratosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The stratosphere is the second layer, as one moves upward from Earth’s surface, of the atmosphere. The stratosphere is above the troposphere and below the mesosphere.
The top of the stratosphere occurs at 50 km (31 miles) altitude. The boundary between the stratosphere and the mesosphere above is called the stratopause. The altitude of the bottom of the stratosphere varies with latitude and with the seasons, occurring between about 8 and 16 km (5 and 10 miles, or 26,000 to 53,000 feet). The bottom of the stratosphere is around 16 km (10 miles or 53,000 feet) above Earth’s surface near the equator, around 10 km (6 miles) at mid-latitudes, and around 8 km (5 miles) near the poles. It is slightly lower in winter at mid- and high-latitudes, and slightly higher in the summer. The boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere below is called the tropopause.
The Mesosphere
The mesosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The mesosphere is above the stratosphere layer. The layer above the mesosphere is called the thermosphere. The mesosphere starts at 50 km (31 miles) above Earth’s surface and goes up to 85 km (53 miles) high.
As you get higher up in the mesosphere, the temperature gets colder. The top of the mesosphere is the coldest part of Earth’s atmosphere. The temperature there is around -90° C (-130° F)!
The Thermosphere
The thermosphere is a layer of Earth’s atmosphere. The thermosphere is directly above the mesosphere and below the exosphere. It extends from about 90 km (56 miles) to between 500 and 1,000 km (311 to 621 miles) above our planet.
Temperatures climb sharply in the lower thermosphere (below 200 to 300 km altitude), then level off and hold fairly steady with increasing altitude above that height. Solar activity strongly influences temperature in the thermosphere. The thermosphere is typically about 200° C (360° F) hotter in the daytime than at night, and roughly 500° C (900° F) hotter when the Sun is very active than at other times. Temperatures in the upper thermosphere can range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C (3,632° F) or higher.
The Exosphere
Very high up, the Earth’s atmosphere becomes very thin. The region where atoms and molecules escape into space is referred to as the exosphere. The exosphere is on top of the thermosphere.
Nearly all of the water vapor and dust particles in the atmosphere are in the troposphere. That is why most clouds are found in this lowest layer, too. The bottom of the troposphere, right next to the surface of Earth, is called the “boundary layer”. In places where Earth’s surface is “bumpy” (mountains, forests) winds in the boundary layer are all jumbled up. In smooth places (over water or ice) the winds are smoother. The winds above the boundary layer aren’t affected by the surface much.”
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/layers.html
“The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.” Interesting.
What do you mean by “height of atmospheric climate”? To the edge of the exosphere, where the climate of the Earth is being influenced and churned up to.
“The atmosphere has a mass of about 5×1018 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.” Interesting.
Earth’s surface area:
148,940,000 km2 land (29.2 %) The part the surface nuisance occupies.
361,132,000 km2 water (70.8 %)
510,072,000 km2(total)
“The Stratosphere (outer surface is 2.54% larger than the earth’s surface).
Comparison : 270,098,000,000 / 260,120,000,000 = 1.038
so the “atmospheric climate” is about 3.8% of the volume of the earth.”(to that level)
Query
So for argument sake, let’s not take the surface nuisance above the mesosphere, 53 miles high, when talking about climate change; a good thing. If you want, calculate to the edge of the Exosphere, go for it.
Subtract the volume of the earth below the earth’s crust in comparison. Volcanoes and such active in this layer. Then calculate just for the land mass. Mans active territory.
I’m trying to see the big picture here.

The sun rises two days early in Greenland, sparking fears that climate change is accelerating
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 4:29 PM on 14th January 2011
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1346936/The-sun-rises-days-early-Greenland-sparking-fears-climate-change-accelerating.html#ixzz1BvRnuaU5
So some alarmist scientist, towing the line for AGW theory, is going to suggest that the Sun rises 2 days early because massive amounts of ice melted in Greenland?
Really?
Really really ?
Just how much ice would need to be melted for the Sun to rise 2 days earlier..
I’ve heard it all now.

Test
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/giss1934-1998us2.jpg<a href="

I would also like everyone to know that there are two sides to every story, and that those with a lot of money tend to get their side of the story out furthest and fastest. There is a law for the rich and another for the poor. Never kid yourself about that. The skeptics have a long row to hoe yet. Most people will cave under the slightest threat, as has been shown. The tactics are dreadful and underhanded. The AGW proponents can slander and malign, but heaven help anyone that does it to them.

Test
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/mesosphere_diagram_sm.jpg
[it seems to have worked]

LOL,
I like the substance that makes twine and the mechanism that makes rope but the logic is the issue.
this… WUWT “Open Thread” seems to be loose twine in your time but odd substance.
throw me a rope, is there a point in all of this?

Re Greenland sunrise, its not rocket science, its just a reverse height of eye calculation. I could do it if I could remember the maths. But any astronomer could in two mins. Off the top of my head it would seem that several miles on vertical ice would have to melt assuming the observer was fixed.
My personal choice would be enhanced refraction caused by warmer than average air layers.

I’ve not a doubt in my mind Anthony is spending quality time with his lovely loved ones, because he’s a thoughtful and caring man. I was just clowning around, because these folks are great fun and don’t blow a gasket when you do.

The row about tonight’s BBC “Horizon” program has already begun, and it hasn’t even been broadcast yet. This is from today’s Guardian, who are clearly having a lot of fun over Delingpole’s bad interview:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/24/james-delingpole-tv-interview
“Nurse told me that he simply presented Delingpole with a hypothetical question: if a dear relative was suffering from a fatal disease, would he opt for the “consensus” treatment recommended by doctors, or advice to drink more orange juice offered by a fringe maverick quack? In terms of the science of climate change, that fringe maverick is analogous, of course, to Delingpole’s own position.
“Delingpole apparently found the line of questioning too much to handle and was purportedly lost for words. He at one point, according to Nurse, asked for the film crew to stop filming.
“Delingpole told the Guardian he denied asking the crew to stop filming. “The interview went on for about three hours – there were various points where I said ‘I’ve had enough, I want a tea break.’ There was no point where I felt that the interview had to be stopped because I was in any way uncomfortable with what Nurse was saying.” Asked if he had called the BBC to say he had been “intellectually raped” afterwards, he said: “I don’t think I would have said that, because he is incapable of intellectually raping me.”
“This vision of a shrinking violet is not the man who comes across in his bellicose Telegraph blog. In that medium he seems pretty keen to dish it out without the slightest provocation. In a recent post, for example, he referred to the people who run London zoo as having “eco-fascist leanings” for daring to suggest that climate change might be connected with the extinction of corals.
“To Delingpole, Roger Harrabin is the “the BBC’s High Priest of Gaian Worship and Climate Alarmism”. And in an outburst worthy of Sarah Palin, Delingpole reaches for his metaphorical semi-automatic:
“…the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition’s energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children’s schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council… Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”
“Delingpole is clearly a very angry man, but perhaps he should develop a thicker skin.”
…and so, one might add, should the Guardian, who spend most of their time deleting comments from the public that they don’t agree with!

Delingpole Puts His Side Of It
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/
Re. The BBC’s “Horizon” Program
The BBC’s Masterpiece of Editing Deception Triumphs Again
A three-hour interview ends up with all Delingpole’s anti-AGW reasoning cut out, and a few minutes of his surprised reaction to a fairly idiotic question included in the program. This is one of the reasons I never want to be interviewed by any BBC staffer about AGW:
“Nurse came to interview me at my home last summer, ostensibly – so his producer assured me – as a disinterested seeker-after-truth on a mission to discover why the public is losing its faith in scientists. “Not scientists,” I replied. “Just ‘climate scientists.’” But as is clear from the Horizon documentary Nurse had already made up his mind. That’s why about the only section he used out of at least three hours’ worth of footage is the one where he tosses what he clearly imagines is the killer question: Suppose you were ill with cancer would you wish to be treated by “consensus” medicine or something from the quack fringe?
“As you’ll see in the programme, this took me rather by surprise. Nurse had come posing as an open-minded investigator eager to hear why Climategate had raised legitimate doubts about the reliability of the “consensus” on global warming. Instead, the man I met was a parti-pris bruiser so delighted with his own authority as a proper Nobel-prizewinning scientist that he knew what the truth was already. And to prove it, here was a brilliant analogy which would rubbish the evil climate deniers’ cause once and for all!
“But Nurse’s analogy is shabby, dishonest and patently false. The “consensus” on Climate Change; and the “consensus” on medical care bear no similarity whatsoever.
“In the field of medicine, treatments are tested in a semi-open market. Those with more favourable outcomes (the patient gets better) will quickly gain popularity over those with less favourable outcomes (the patient gets worse). Sure there are market distortions (eg the vast marketing budgets and rampant greed of the big drug companies; inefficiency and incompetence in the public healthcare sector), but generally in the field of medicine, the “consensus” on what constitutes good, bad or indeed “quack” treatment is a fair representation of the facts as they are currently known and empirically tested.
“The “consensus” on ‘Climate Change’, by contrast, is a figment of Al Gore’s – and, I’m sorry to say, Sir Paul Nurse’s – imagination. It exaggerates the number of scientists who believe in Man Made Global Warming and it grotesquely underestimates the number who have many good reasons for suspecting that there is far, far more to “Climate Change” than anthropogenic CO2.
“What’s more such “consensus” as there is is an artificial construct. It has not been subjected to the rigour of an open or even semi-open market. It is the creation, almost entirely, of politically-driven funding from US government, from various UN bodies, from the EU, from left-leaning charitable foundations on a scale unprecedented in the history of science. So far, in real terms, no less than five times the amount of the Manhattan Project has been squandered on research into AGW. For that kind of money you can buy an awful lot of scientists prepared to suspend any belief they might have that global warming is anything other than man-made. (I put this point to Nurse but he wasn’t having it. As a scientist he just “knew” that scientists didn’t behave like that.)
“But you can’t say all that in a TV friendly sound bite. And even if I’d managed, it would no doubt have ended up with the rest of the three hours’ of reasonably cogent argument I made to Nurse – on the cutting room floor.
“At the end of the programme, Nurse argues that it is vital that the quest for scientific truth should be divorced from politics. I don’t think he’ll find anyone in the ’sceptic’ community who disagrees with him on that. What’s depressing is that he seems to have reached this conclusion in defiance of almost everything he has said in the previous hour.
“In Nurse’s Weltanschauung, NASA’s temperature records must correct because, well just look at all those spiffy satellite charts this nice man from NASA is showing me and he’s a proper scientist so he should know; and Phil Jones is clearly a man more sinned against than sinning, because look here he is all broken and rueful (and he’s a proper scientist, you know, unlike all those deniers) telling me why Climategate was about how a few innocent emails were distorted by horrid deniers.
“Meanwhile, according to Nurse and his execrable documentary, climate change “deniers” are on a par with people who don’t believe that AIDs is caused by the HIV virus and people who destroy GM crops (eh??? Since when did we have any truck with those eco-loons?). Is this really the level of intellectual sophistication we might have hoped for from the new president of the world’s most distinguished scientific association?
“Or rather, of the world’s ex- most distinguished scientific association. As I’ve reported before, the Warmist bias of the Royal Society has become such a standing joke that last year 43 of its fellows wrote in to complain. Under its two previous presidents, Lord May and Lord Rees, it has tossed aside its traditions of lofty neutrality and eagerly embraced a new role as political activist for the green lobby.
“Perhaps there was a time when this made some kind of warped sense. But with no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a succession of bitter winters, scandals cropping up every day about everything from Met Office incompetence to skullduggery in the EU carbon trading business, growing doubts in the scientific community about the validity of climate models, demands in the US for law suits against dodgy client scientists, and increasing public scepticism, it is only a matter of time before the AGW industry collapses and all those people who associated themselves with it suddenly look very foolish.
“With his new documentary Nurse has sent out a signal that, bright boy though he thinks he is, he is happy to be taken for one of those fools. If he wants to join the Warmist lemmings on their final dash, that’s his look out. But what a pity for the rest of us that he’ll be taking the credibility of the Royal Society over the cliff with him.”
…Nice one that – “deniers” are now being compared to AIDS deniers. Goebbels would be proud of Nurse.

In reply to Kate, if Delingpole had been quicker thinking on his feet, he could have said something like,
” Climate science is in its infancy, less developed than medical science was in 1790.
In 1799 George Washington was treated by the best doctors medical science had to offer. The consensus was to bleed him, thus killing him more quickly than if he had no medical treatment whatsoever”