I’m taking the rest of the weekend off – for two reasons:
1. With 100million views under my belt, I’ve earned it.
2. I’m rebuilding my home personal computer as it is becoming flakey, and such things take three times as long as you figure. Windows doesn’t take well to new mobos, and backup/prep must be done. So I’ll be down anyway.
Talk quietly amongst yourselves on any topic within site policy – don’t make me come back here until late Sunday night whenI start my regular work week. 😉 – Anthony
UPDATE: Sunday AM – My computer rebuild went well, and I learned some valuable things that I’ll share in an upcoming post. I went from an old AMDx2 64 dual core to a Intel I5 quad core CPU, doubled my memory speed, doubled my video card speed, and went from a SATA2 to SATA3 SSD. I can blog even faster now. Speaking of which, my email load this morning contained two stories (one quite dramatic) that I’ve put on auto-scheduled publishing that will appear soon. I’m still taking the rest of the day off though. – Anthony
R. Gates says:
January 8, 2012 at 6:28 am
Sorry, but this is rediculous. If you look at the patterns of sea level changes and match them up with prevailing winds and warm water over a long time period you get a nearly direct match.
=======================================================
The only thing that’s ridiculous, is falling for that load you just posted.
There’s no dam for the water to push against. Something has to be holding it there, consistently.
Satellites are fairly accurate, it’s the people juggling the numbers that are FUBAR…….
Pull up a sea floor volcano map……compare it to a SST map…..compare it to a sea level map
The sea level maps even pick up the small sea floor volcano that caused the tsunami in Japan, also the ones off the extreme SW coast of south America…..
The sea level maps are actually very good maps of sea floor volcanoes………….
Here, James has made it easy for you….
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/discussion-so-far/
“Since [broken record] has taken over this thread, to brake monotony here is something different from Jackson California, official permitted by the governor himself:”
Thanks! [Unlike “broken record”] Some may very well have “learned” something today.
Thanks Jim Murphy for this lead:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/04/postenvironmentalism-and-technological-a
And Jimmy Haigh for some interesting other threads.
But especially to Anthony for allowing us to share these many ideas for these past few years.
Obviously it is foremost the sun, then H2O in all its forms, a number of atmospheric and geological processes, and somewhere below that some of the other gases. All to a degree important. But the devil is in the “degree”. Let’s keep digging for the degree but not get politically distracted before we find it.
Bernie
evilincandescentbulb – “You increase the temperature of the atmosphere inside a greenhouse by preventing convection and, of course, by allowing convection, “distributing the energy to the atmosphere” must mean from the ‘warm’ to the ‘cool’ atmosphere.”
How it works is that the warm planet surface heats the air it is in direct contact with and that warm air transfers kinetic energy via convection to other air molecules. Gravity compresses the gases closest to the surface and the Ideal Gas Law takes over from there, precisely explaining the lapse rate.
Except for warming the planets surface, radiation doesn’t play a role in warming 99.5% of the atmosphere.
Convection is what warms the atmosphere. Not Radiation.
climatereason says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:46 am
I think CO2’s mass is too high to permit much, if any, of this at Earth-like temperatures and gravity (correct me if I’m wrong). H2 & He definitely escape. Sorospedia has a decent introduction to the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
climatereason says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:46 am
…..
An erudite consideration of the subject at:
http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/ATM2022/Section1_02.pdf
G. Karst says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:41 am
“Maybe we should call this an R. Gates thread, as most comments seem to be addressed to him…”
I quite like watching as R. Gates writhes about trying to defend the indefensible on WUWT threads. He is so out of touch with reality that he doesn’t even know how much he’s helping the sceptical cause, as the usual avalanche of contrary arguments destroy both his case and his credibility as an impartial ‘semi-sceptic’ looking for the truth… 🙂
Keeping R. Gates here is probably the best thing that we, who know CAGW is a myth, can do to win our case. The truth will always out!
David Socrates says:
January 8, 2012 at 2:29 am
“An excellent question, fellow skeptic, but do please get the numbers right.”
“ . . . with the large increase in man-made atmospheric CO2 that also happened to occur during that same time span.”
Good comments, except . . .
large increase It is so easy to get caught up in the word choice of one’s adversary. Draw a box with ppm on the Y-axis starting at zero. For the last 100 years plot the ppm of the gases of the atmosphere. Highlight the part that demonstrates a “large increase” in CO2. [Roy Spencer posted such a ‘look’ a few years ago – currently I can not find that posting.] Seriously, try it. Scale is a concept about which the CAGW crowd hasn’t a clue.
——————————————————
Genghis says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:00 am
“If you [R. Gates] want some really fun proof of that I would love to take you flying some day : )”
Please don’t. The wax of his wings would melt and he would crash onto Earth’s surface. WUWT skeptics would lose the voice that keeps them in top form.
——————————————————
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:32 am
“Actually I owe Ghengis an apology. He is correct that it is mostly convection (plus evapo-transpiration) which heats the atmosphere. Gravity is the underlying force which determines the distribution of that heat; cooler on top, warmer near the surface.”
However, your wording implies Gravity is responsible for the cooler on top and warmer below bit. Actually warming air (at Earth’s surface; with conduction) makes it more buoyant and it rises. The more dense cooler air descends to replace that upward moving air. Under normal circumstances the atmosphere is unstable. It turns over and mixes – the meaning of the Greek word tropos.
That’s why it is called the Troposphere.
Genghis says:
January 8, 2012 at 9:17 am
“How it works is that the warm planet surface heats the air it is in direct contact with and that warm air transfers kinetic energy via convection to other air molecules. Gravity compresses the gases closest to the surface and the Ideal Gas Law takes over from there, precisely explaining the lapse rate. ”
I would say it differently: When the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium, every gas molecule has the same energy, and it is the sum of potential and kinetic energy. So molecules higher up have a higher potential energy and therefore a lower kinetic energy. Lower kinetic energy manifests itself in lower temperature. Temperature =/= Energy.
In practice, the thermal equilibrium is never really reached in the lower atmosphere but that is just a disturbance on top of the equilibrium situation.
pochas says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:59 am
“. . . that scourge of mankind CO2 gets to slow down outgoing LW and keep things a little warmer.”
Very funny. My own experience suggests that the CO2 needs help from H2O to make a noticable difference. (“Clear nights are cold nights.” –my mom.) Researchers use the concept of ‘just noticable difference’ (jnd) but I’ve not seen it applied to a carbon dioxide free sky.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 8, 2012 at 9:43 am
“However, your wording implies Gravity is responsible for the cooler on top and warmer below bit. Actually warming air (at Earth’s surface; with conduction) makes it more buoyant and it rises. The more dense cooler air descends to replace that upward moving air. Under normal circumstances the atmosphere is unstable. ”
Imagine no solar energy coming in and no radiative energy going out to space so we would have endless time to reach equilibrium. After a long time a stable state must be reached. But probably the system would oscillate for quite a while.
I agree and I have defended his right to comment, as such, since he first “appeared”, and will continue to do so. I look forward to his explanation of the TEAM’S scientific and professional behavior, and how advocates are able to erase it’s implications. GK
If you’re ever feeling a deficiency of R. Gates wisdom, there is a clone that hangs out at Gather who will tap dance for your amusement.
And the science unequivocally demonstrates that the planet is warming and that human activity is the main driver. This is undeniable and is based on decades of research by thousands of scientists worldwide publishing tens of thousands of peer reviewed studies and based on 100 years of well-known basic physics developed from physical principles known for 200 years.
– David K.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980982722
Like Gates, David K is a master of spin and has a vested interest.
tallbloke says:
January 8, 2012 at 7:32 am
“Actually I owe Ghengis an apology. He is correct that it is mostly convection (plus evapo-transpiration) which heats the atmosphere. Gravity is the underlying force which determines the distribution of that heat; cooler on top, warmer near the surface.”
Yes he’s right, evapo-transpiration is the biggie at the top of the list. It warps the lapse rate the greatest. I’ll use TFK2009’s figures for an example of how ‘my’ energy budget works and this is going to come from my “sailplane pilot” side.
There is 239 net TSI inbound after albedo removed. Take 239 – 80 evapo-transpiration away to give 159.
Next in line is that solar SW absorbed by the atmosphere itself of 79 Wm-2. That leaves us 159 – 79 or 80.
Next is the “window” LW from the 16 degC surface. This does nothing and zips right out to space. That leaves us 80 – 40 or 40 Wm-2.
Next is the LW from the 16 degC surface that is spread into the atmosphere, mostly very low. That leaves us 40 – 23 or 17 Wm-2. That’s right, it is correct by Trenberth’s figures, a mere 23 W/m^2.
Coming in last is the sensible thermals that I’ve spent many hours playing in them, couple them with a little condensation and you’ll have a great day. Too much condensation, land. Remember all of this energy is warping the lapse rate exactly where it is being absorbed and usually it is spread smooth and even, downward if incoming, upward if outgoing, like butter spread on bread. The lapse should show linear slopes at that altitude. So that leaves us 17 – 17 or 0. Da.da.dada… That’s it all folks, 239 Wm-2 has gone into space.
You might want to know where the 40 and 23 came from being 63 Wm-2. It is Trenberth’s large 396 of infrared from the surface minus the low level 333 Wm-2 of infrared instantly coming right back, these are not high or mid troposphere numbers per Trenberth, more like the bottom 100 meters just above you. 396 – 333 = 63 – 40 = 23. They are all of the LW that really is pertinent, 40 wm-2 of window radiation and 23 wm-2 absorbed by the atmosphere and it all moves upward and out. These are NET figures, no downward fluxes involved. And both the 396 and the 333 are manufactured numbers, there are no black bodies in reality. Subtract something appropriate from both of them, really anything up to 333 Wm-2 will do, that subtraction does nothing except move both somewhere into reality.
What about GRAVITY and the lapse rate? That 9.8 K/km is what each column will move toward if and only if there is no energy flowing into or outward the air, which is basically never, but that force is real as the Loschmidt experiment has shown, but that move toward equilibrium is slow and steady and always present.
Oh, the overview. The only thing that could ever affect us humans related to temperatures is 1) the sun gets much brighter for any reason 2) the albedo decreases markedly 3) that 63 Wm-2 were to decrease but that is exactly what Dr. Miskolczi carefully measured, level for 61 years, nothing happening there. (most of this is for others to read, learn and think about, tallbloke)
That’s how I slice and dice the science about our climate. The rest is weather.☺
As AGW fades myself and a few friends would like to learn more about pure weather.
Close to your view?
(if anyone except tallbloke and friendlies have a problem with this, ok, just don’t go stripping any out of context when you comment on it, it is definitely atomic, please deal with it as a unit)
climatereason says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:46 am
“Several years ago I read somewhere that CO2 molecules can escape the earth’s gravitational field and disappear into space if they achieved sufficient velocity.”
Anything that attains ‘escape velocity’ is able to break free of the earth’s gravitational field, be it a rocket ship or a molecule of gas. Escape velocity is about 25,000 mph. The velocity of molecules in the atmosphere do not normally approach this speed but some do and as a result the earth’s atmosphere is slowly bleeding away. But it will take a few billion years, so we can all worry about something else. The distribution of velocities of gas molecules in the atmosphere can be seen here
http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2045/lectures/lec_d.html
Heavy molecules such as CO2 and O2 are even less likely to break free, but gases such as hydrogen and helium have long gone. The fraction of CO2 that escapes this way is, I believe, negligible, and so we are stuck with it.
climatereason @ur momisugly 8:46 am
Temperature is fundamentally a measure of the -average- velocity of particles in an imaginary box. The distribution of velocities is quite wide, and having gas molecules exceed ‘escape velocity’ is not uncommon in your living room. Escape velocity normally means “This thing has enough raw velocity to not only reach orbit, but to escape the pull of Earth’s gravity altogether.” The thing is: in the lower portions of the atmosphere, those ‘fast’ molecules manage to hit -something- in a miniscule amount of time. Guaranteed. (Think ‘one in a googleplex’ for the probability of escape.) They transfer and redistribute their energy via collision with another molecule or two. (Two particle collisions happen ridiculously often, three particle collisions happen reasonably often, four+ particle collisions can only be described as ‘rare, super-rare, or pink-elephants’. So ignore 4+ collisions outside of solids, liquids, super-high pressure fluids, etc.)
In the upper atmosphere the pressure is much, much lower. So the average distances and times between collisions can be much higher. The -temperature- is much lower, so the average velocities are -also- much lower. But there are still high velocity particles, and there -are- ‘escapees’. There are far more “Ha! I made it to space! But… I’m still captured by gravity and I’ll fall back into the ‘atmosphere’ in a couple of days!”
But escape velocity is a function of the particle’s -mass-. Hydrogen -atoms- escape frequently. (Wait: Why atoms? The incoming solar radiation combined with collisions occasionally breaks -something- into bits. And the low, low pressure means that the ‘bits’ have a reasonable amount of time before they’re gobbled back up into more stable molecules. Hydrogen becomes water in an oxygen atmosphere pretty darn quick … unless the time between collisions is pretty darn long – that is: the pressure is very low.) Even Helium is -4x- as massive though. Carbon -atoms- are 12x as massive. Carbon dioxide is (12 + 2×16 =) 44x as massive. And the fact that it is a molecule means that some of the collision energy that -could- help it escape is frequently absorbed in the vibration of the molecule. (Bonds aren’t sticks, think springs instead.)
This very calculation is why we end up with a very thin Martian atmosphere and a very thick Venusian atmosphere. On Mars, the much lower escape velocity means the upper atmosphere loses all the light atoms quite readily, and the smaller molecules (H2, O2, N2, CH4) have decent chances to escape. And over astronomical time scales, they do exactly that. Venus has a much -higher- escape velocity. It retains much more of even the lightest atoms and molecules. Earth is in the middle: we’re losing H, H2 & He at a modest pace. But mostly everything ‘heavier’ is much, much more likely to be sticking around.
So after all of that: Yes, we are losing CO2 to space, but the amount is -so- trivial that everyone is -quite- justified in ignoring it. Think along the lines of you -personally- exhaling more CO2 than has managed to escape Earth’s gravity field this year.
Someone posting here is as irritating as a bag of itching powder dumped down the back.
Please put the CO2 back into its magic bottle and see how warm it makes you.
Somebody here is very addicted to that AGW kool-aid.
I am happy to listen to warmers but a certain poster here is annoyingly deaf.
I would reply to Genghis if not prevented by this site …
[REPLY: You will not be prevented from replying here as long as you abide by site policy. -REP]
Genghis says:
January 8, 2012 at 8:58 am
” Radiation travels through the atmosphere, it doesn’t warm it and the atmosphere doesn’t cool by radiation.”
Radiation emitted from the earth’s surface is in the long wave infrared region. Depending on its precise wavelength, some of it is intercepted by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases initially absorb the energy and then, in turn, pass this on to the inert gases such as O2 and Co2 by collisions – a process called thermalisation. So all the atmosphere is warmed by radiation. The warm atmosphere becomes a source of radiation back to the earth’s surface. So at low altitudes, the action of greenhouse gases is to warm the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. At high altitudes, the greenhouse gases help cool the atmosphere by ‘collecting’ energy through collisions with other atmospheric gases and radiating this to space.
Convection and evaporation also play a part in re-distributing heat throughout the atmosphere.
For R Gates—-It’s still the sun ——Think Clean Air Acts in US and Europe where most of the measurements are taken.—–Oleburt
If policy allows I would point out that the Sun does heat the air above the Earth. Of course a lot of the Sun’s energy is reflected away and much of the Sun’s energy in the spectrum of invisible light is not absorbed by the air at all. Most cooling is due to evaporation as most of the Earth is covered by water.
[REPLY: Policy covers courtesy, thread-jacking and not kicking Anthony’s dog. Sciencey statements tend to get evaluated by the commenters. -REP]
“”just noticeable difference’”(jnd) but I’ve not seen it applied to a carbon dioxide free sky.”
100.00 molecules in a clear night sky: 0.04 are CO2. Significantly a “carbon dioxide free sky.” Your mom is right.
The title of the thread is “Open Weekend Thread.” As with the climate the degree of ‘openness’ appears to be relative.
[REPLY: At this point I have no idea what you are going on about. The policy page is here. Comments that do not violate policy are approved. Comments that complain about policy, such as this one, will not be approved. If you feel that a comment was wrongly snipped, you can contact Anthony using the contact option on the About pull down menu at the top of the page. Sometimes comments simply get lost for reasons beyond our control, but all the moderators at WUWT try to be scrupulously fair and even bend over backwards to give each commenter his voice. There have been occassions where a moderator has accidentally deleted a comment that he intended to approved and has contacted the commenter to apologize and ask him to resubmit. -REP]
evilincandescentbulb says:
January 8, 2012 at 11:25 am
“The title of the thread is “Open Weekend Thread.” As with the climate the degree of ‘openness’ appears to be relative.”
Bulb, sometimes a comment is sorted into the spam bin by wordpress automatically and wrongly. The mods do their best to fish them out. Happens to all of us from time to time.
My final comments here on the “Open Weekend Thread” (big sigh of relief for some I’m sure):
Here’s a rough breakdown of where the heat in atmosphere comes from:
Short-wave radiation from the sun……………11.9%
Heat to atmosphere from condensation…………14.4%
Heat to atmosphere from convection/conduction… 4.4%
Long-wave radiation from earth………………69.4%
The atmosphere is hardly “transparent” to radiation (even Sir Hoyle knew that), either SW or LW, but certainly absorbs far more LW than SW as the above percentages indicate. To those who think and can prove that gravity and the ideal gas law explain the whole thing, there is a Nobel Prize in Physics waiting for you, and your name will be as famous as Newton and Einstein. Good luck…