Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
On WUWT, Bob Tisdale recently examined the disparity of results between IPCC models in “No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models” and wrote that
“There are astonishing differences in the modeled estimates of the past, present and future imbalances and the three components that make up the top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy budget.”
There were several earlier studies, but the supposed accuracy improved after satellite data became available. Rossow and Zhang did a study similar to Tisdale in a 1995 article titled, “Calculation of surface and top of atmosphere radiative fluxes from physical quantities based on ISCCP Data sets 2. Validation and first results.”
Our validation studies suggest that the specification of cloud effects is no longer the dominant uncertainty in reconstructing the radiative fluxes at the top of atmosphere and at the surface. Rather cloud property uncertainties are now roughly equal contributors to the flux uncertainty, along with surface and atmospheric properties.
Erhard Raschke did a similar study in 2005 titled, “How well do we compute the insolation at TOA in radiation climatologies and in GCMs.” He found that,
In the spatial and temporal variations of the insolation at TOA as computed by 20 models participating in the AMIP-2 project and for the ISCCP data-set we discover that none of the models reproduced accurately the prescribed TSI value of 1365 Wm−2.
Some of the factors listed as problematic were
Some models ignore leap years. Moreover, leap years are included in different ways either leading to a small increase (0.34 Wm−2) or decrease (0.92 Wm−2) of the annual mean of insolation at TOA.
Most models produce seasonal insolation fields at TOA that deviate from their zonal means. More importantly, the corresponding latitudinal profiles (of zonal averages) differ, as illustrated by deviations to a “reference profile” (here: ISCCP data set). These different latitudinal gradients of insolation are expected to affect the atmospheric circulation in integrations over multiple years. The largest deviations exceed ±5 Wm−2 (in conjunction with extended low sun-elevation times) at high latitudes and polar regions.
Figure 1 is a graph of the latitudinal discrepancies.
Figure 1
These discrepancies compare unfavorably to an absolute accuracy requirement for all radiation quantities at the TOA of 1.5 Wm−2 [Ohring et al., 2004].
Tisdale’s material shows that nobody, including the IPCC, dealt with Raschke’s recommendations.
We recommend that in all climate models and in all “radiation climatologies” the incoming solar radiation at TOA must be identical for any given time period and area on the globe. Modelers should use the real length of the tropical year. Since a similar analysis of IPCC AR4 simulations shows qualitatively the same deficiencies as described here for the AMIP simulations, we think, that there is a need for sensitivity tests that investigate impacts of detected differences in the TOA insolation on circulation structures developing in the model’s climate system.
The Real Problem
Maybe the problem is the same one associated with climate models in general. They are built on inadequate data and inadequate understanding of the structure and mechanisms of the real world. These problems are then exacerbated and aggravated by creating mechanisms to hide, ignore or even falsify the situation. As Raschke notes in a paper titled, “How accurate did GCMs compute the insolation at TOA for AMIP2?”
All models should reproduce the known major state and related fluxes of energy, mass and momentum with high accuracy. But quite large disagreement was found in various quantities, in particular at higher latitudes over both hemispheres [Gates et al., 1999].
Recently other articles (here, here, here and here) discussed the TOA, but they don’t tell you what or where it is. Here is one description that provides an explanation, but as with most climate science measures, it only adds to the confusion.
Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth’s atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the “top of the atmosphere.” The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth’s energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth’s average temperature. The ability of greenhouses (sic) gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about.
Consider the implication that TOA is a line 100km above the surface and equidistant around the Earth. Now look at the known structures of the atmosphere and factors that affect weather and climate.
Most weather occurs in the Troposphere, and that is far from uniform or spherical. There is inadequate horizontal surface data to construct the General Climate Models (GCM) and even less in the vertical. More layers make no difference if you have no data. William Ferrell proposed a three-cell model of circulation within the Troposphere in the 1850s (Figure 2). It is still in many textbooks, with the middle cell named after Ferrell, Figure 2 is from 2012.
Figure 3 is a more recent approximation of what is going on within the Troposphere. Notice the Ferrell cell is now an “Indirect Cell”. There is a debate about whether it exists because the diagram shows an average condition. The Polar Front shifts seasonally, from approximately 38°N in the winter to 65°N in the summer. The Southern Hemisphere range is from 40°S to 65°S because of the land/water ratio difference
The top of the Tropopause also changes seasonally. The height at the Equator ranges between 17 and 18 km while it is 7 to 10 km at the Poles because of the greater seasonal temperature range. As the diagram shows, the Tropopause is a distinctive but not continuous boundary with breaks associated with the Jet Streams. All these factors affect the energy flows between the surface and the TOA. It is like trying to cross a very turbulent, fast flowing, constantly changing river. I suggest it is impossible to model such a complex dynamic system with virtually no data. There are serious limitations with accurate measures at high latitudes from the surface up.
Then there is the problem of the different direction of incoming solar radiation and outgoing irradiation. The Earth is a rotating sphere and that complicates everything. Figure 4 shows that solar energy strikes only half the Earth and varies considerably in the angle of incidence. The outgoing long wave passes through considerably different depths of the atmosphere with constantly varying constituencies including clouds, aerosols and gas levels.
Figure 4.
The Ozone layer also lies within the 100 km TOA. Usually, it is dealt with as a homogenous zone but in reality the interaction between ultraviolet radiation and oxygen varies considerably at different levels. It is not unusual for ozone levels to increase at one level while decreasing at another. It also varies considerably spatially as the so-called ozone hole attests.
Another important factor essentially ignored is magnetism and its influence on numerous components of the energy balance. I wrote about one possible relationship in a previous WUWT article. A Danish study by Mads Faurschou Knudsen and Peter Riisager showed a relationship between precipitation patterns and geomagnetism. They attribute the relationship to the same mechanism identified by Svensmark.
Their work, which only looks at Earth’s magnetism, does not include the distortion of the entire atmospheric system from the magnetosphere on down by the pressure of the solar wind. Figure 5 shows the impact on the upwind side and the elongation on the downwind side, but again this is a static image. In reality, the area of maximum pressure is constantly moving as the earth rotates.
In their introduction Mads et al., underline the general problems
It remains difficult to capture the complexity of Earth’s climate system in numerical models. A meaningful discussion of past and future climate variability cannot, therefore, rely solely on mechanistic computer models, but must, at least to some extent, be based on actual climate observations. Because the instrumental records are too short to elucidate several aspects of the climate system, new insights often have to rely on crude comparisons between climate-proxy records and potential climate-forcing factors recorded in geological archives. The controversial role of the Sun as a driver of climate change represents a good example, as geological proxy records are important for our endeavor to understand climate variability.
Tisdale focuses on the modeled oceans as one source of discrepancy in the TOA numbers. As he notes,
We can simply add ocean heat accumulation and TOA energy imbalance to the list of things that climate models do not simulate properly.
A very good indication of the complexity of the problem of creating accurate models for the energy balance at the TOA is the fact Raschke noted a variation in results of plus (0.34 Wm−2) or minus (0.92 Wm−2) or a range of 1.26 Wm−2. Also, he found that
The largest deviations exceed ±5 Wm−2 (in conjunction with extended low sun-elevation times) at high latitudes and polar regions.
To put this in perspective, Lenaert Bengtsson, previously the Director of Research at ECMWF and Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology noted,
…the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases (including methane, nitrogen oxides and fluorocarbons) has increased by 2.5 watts per square meter since the mid-19th century.
As with most climate measures, the supposed impact of all greenhouse gases is less than the error factor in a multitude of the inadequate data sources.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Spherical Surface area
6,371 Radius, km
15.8 Atmos Ht, km
6,387 km
A = 4 * PI() * r^2
5.13E+14 sq m
Relative to the radius of the earth ToA is paper thin .25%. Much blather about zip.
Three Legged Stool of CAGW: 1) Anthropogenic 2) Radiative Forcing 3) GCMs
Leg the 2nd
Radiative forcing of CO2 warming the atmosphere, oceans, etc.
If the solar constant is 1,366 +/- 0.5 W/m^2 why is ToA 340 (+10.7/- 11.2)1 W/m^2 as shown on the plethora of popular heat balances/budgets? Collect an assortment of these global energy budgets/balances graphics. The variations between some of these is unsettling. Some use W/m^2, some use calories/m^2, some show simple %s, some a combination. So much for consensus. What they all seem to have in common is some kind of perpetual motion heat loop with back radiation ranging from 333 to 340.3 W/m^2 without a defined source. BTW additional RF due to CO2 1750-2011, about 2 W/m^2 spherical, 0.6%.
Consider the earth/atmosphere as a disc.
Radius of earth is 6,371 km, effective height of atmosphere 15.8 km, total radius 6,387 km.
Area of 6,387 km disc: PI()*r^2 = 1.28E14 m^2
Solar Constant……………1,366 W/m^2
Total power delivered: 1,366 W/m^2 * 1.28E14 m^2 = 1.74E17 W
Consider the earth/atmosphere as a sphere.
Surface area of 6,387 km sphere: 4*PI()*r^2 = 5.13E14 m^2
Total power above spread over spherical surface: 1.74E17/5.13E14 = 339.8 W/m^2
One fourth. How about that! What a coincidence! However, the total power remains the same.
1,366 * 1.28E14 = 339.8 * 5.13E14 = 1.74E17 W
Big power flow times small area = lesser power flow over bigger area. Same same.
(Watt is a power unit, i.e. energy over time. I’m going English units now.)
In 24 hours the entire globe rotates through the ToA W/m^2 flux. Disc, sphere, same total result. Total power flow over 24 hours at 3.41 Btu/h per W delivers heat load of:
1.74E17 W * 3.41 Btu/h /W * 24 h = 1.43E19 Btu/day
Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by the air.
Mass of atmosphere: 1.13E+19 lb
Sensible heat capacity of air: 0.24 Btu/lb-°F
Daily temperature rise: 1.43E19 Btu/day/ (0.24*1.13E19) = 5.25 °F / day
Additional temperature due to RF of CO2: 0.03 °F, 0.6%.
Obviously the atmospheric temperature is not increasing 5.25 °F per day (1,916 °F per year). There are absorbtions, reflections, upwellers, downwellers, LWIR, SWIR, losses during the night, clouds, clear, yadda, yadda.
Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by the oceans.
Mass of ocean: 3.09E21 lb
Sensible heat capacity: 1.0 Btu/lb °F
Daily temperature rise: 1.43E19 Btu/day / (1.0 * 3.09E21 lb) = 0.00462 °F / day (1.69 °F per year)
How would anybody notice?
Suppose this heat load were absorbed entirely by evaporation from the surface of the ocean w/ no temperature change. How much of the ocean’s water would have to evaporate?
Latent heat capacity: 970 Btu/lb
Amount of water required: 1.43E19 Btu/day / 970 Btu/lb = 1.47E+16 lb/day
Portion of ocean evaporated: 1.47E16 lb/day / 3.09E21 lb = 4.76 ppm/day (1,737 ppm, 0.174%, per year)
More clouds, rain, snow, etc.
The point of this exercise is to illustrate and compare the enormous difference in heat handling capabilities between the atmosphere and the water vapor cycle. Oceans, clouds and water vapor soak up heat several orders of magnitude greater than GHGs put it out. CO2’s RF of 2 W/m^2 is inconsequential in comparison, completely lost in the natural ebb and flow of atmospheric heat. More clouds, rain, snow, no temperature rise.
Second leg disrupted.
Footnote 1: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 83, No C4, 4/20/78, Ellis, Harr, Levitus, Oort
Please see Joe Postma’s model, rotating earth, correct TOA etc.. And realistic temperatures sans the GHE.
Ref.- Copernicus meets the Greenhouse Effect. J. Postma.
There is an obvious problem with more raw data for TOI irradiance.
See Kopp & Lean and wonder at how this scatter can be excused, going into one happy curve.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/grlkopp.jpg
Thanks, Dr. Ball. Very interesting article, bringing many interesting comments.
There are two nameable altitudes of the “top of atmosphere” as far as greenhouse gases are concerned.
There is a higher altitude that has nearly enough all greenhouse gases and their radiative interactions below it. The lower altitude is a “representative altitude” that represents where greenhouse gas molecules are best at emitting thermal infrared photons towards outer space, with these infrared photons not being absorbed (and likely re-radiated, maybe downward) by another greenhouse gas molecule.
The lower level, or a determination of which is used for radiation balance between “top of atmosphere” and the sun and outer space, seems to me as being in the upper troposphere, usually around the 400 to 350 millibar level.
Let me propose that TOA should be defined at the level where air pressure decreases to 1/2 of that on the surface (average at about the height of 5 km). It is where average atmospheric temperature equals that calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann equation, with known output from the Sun and Earth assumed to be a grey body of albedo ~0,3.
But Mr. Alkalaj, that sounds more like the center, than the top.
The 500 millibar level has as much air above it as below.
Thunderstorms can rise to three times this high…and more that four times this high at the ITCZ.
I think the idea is to choose a level which will simplify calculations, not make them impossible.
Not only the TOA problem but where is the surface? Certainly not where the temperature is measured.
Arguing ToA is akin to arguing angel count on a pin head.
It does not matter!!!!
People, John Kerry explains the top of the atmosphere. (at about 8:30)
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221704.htm
Where is Sturgis Hooper?
🙂
I justgot back from geologizing in a part of the world without electricity, let alone cell towers or Internet service.
Thanks for asking.
IMO the top of the atmosphere is where the gas molecules are too far apart to interact meaningfully. Above 100 miles, the molecules are so few and far between that sound waves can’t be transmitted But I’d place the effective top even lower than that, down around 60 miles.
Best wishes.
As a practical matter attempts to measure or estimate from model’s absolute energy unbalance at the TOA are doomed to fail because of the errors involved relative to the small changes of interest. Regarding the important question of global warming from increased CO2, it makes more sense to estimate the change in energy balance from it only because it might be unbalanced from natural changes. Furthermore the unbalance at any time from more CO2 depends on how fast the planet has already warmed to respond to the unbalance.
The only thing that makes sense is to estimate global average temperature changes from the recent time when CO2 was nearly constant using simple energy balance models and estimated feedbacks, but not those from the complex computer models that have been shown to be grossly inadequate. The delay form ocean heat storage can then be estimated with a simple global model. High latitude areas and other places with less water vapor will warm more, and others less, but that correction can be added as a final step.
Actually, according to greenhouse warming from more CO2, the reduction in radiation to space because the CO2 final escape altltude moves up to to a higher, colder region (except around the 15 micron wavelength where it may get warmer) first warms the atmosphere around 10 km. The warming later trickles down layer by layer to the surface because of reduced convection and increased back radiation. Ocean heat storage delay of the surface temperarture will not delay the atmosphere warming. So this is more reason to not expect a noticeable unbalance at the top of the atmosphere from CO2. With CO2 increasing only about 0.55% year, the warming atmosphere can follow it and will only have a slight, undetectable delay. Any unbalance in measurements from CO2 is probably sampling error or sensor noise. And with the large computer model variations among themselves, it is obvious they mean nothing regarding the small difference in incoming and outgoing radiation.
Why not just say the mesopause?
This used to be considered to occur at around 85 km, but more recently there appears to be a second, stronger temperature minimum at around 100 km, however modeling is involved, so approach with caution.
Xu, Jiyao; Liu, H.-L.; Yuan, W.; Smith, A. K.; Roble, R. G.; Mertens, C. J.; Russell, J. M.; Mlynczak, M. G. “Mesopause structure from Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere, Energetics, and Dynamics (TIMED)/Sounding of the Atmosphere Using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER)”. Journal of Geophysical Research 112 (D9).
Not to be confused with menopause, which features hot flashes rather than cold minima.
GHG idea is ridiculous
COPY AND STUDY IN YOUR OWN TIME
The CREATOR has not made gases for GHE to warm the earth. They are great coolant of one of many cooling systems of the nature. Gases are freely moving molecules. So, they can’t form ‘green house’. Only solid materials can be fixed to make four walls. Solid transparent materials like plastics and glasses are used to make green houses, so that the sunlight goes through to heat inside the green houses.
So GHG idea is metaphorical, ridiculous, fake, imaginary, spurious and greatest fraud in the history of science. Gases are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission all the time and man has no control over the process. Therefore, don’t blame gases for GHE.
We can reduce the use of fossil fuel to almost zero percent for electricity by making correction in the hydropower engineering.
(Details in the following post include- Part I about climate science with explanation of the cause of Climate Change and Part II – solution to Power Crisis ).
CC or GW due to gases is ridiculous. gases are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission.
Part I CC due to gases is impossible and Part II solution to power crisis
I. I. CLIMATE SCIENCE
Key factor in climate system of Nature is Rain cycle, not gases. The best mitigation due to CC is to stop it or control it. We can control climate or present climate change is reversible (B3)
CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY, WATER AND FOOD PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED SIMULTANEOUSLY and almost immediately. WE DON’T NEED FOSSIL FUEL OR BUCLEAR FOR ELECTRICITY. WE HAVE UNLIMITED HYDROPOWER AND WIND POWER.
CC is manmade but not due to gases.
Updated from time to time, the following list includes only the established known science and facts. No point is my opinion or assumption as GHG / GHE due to gases is imaginary. So if anybody could find any point wrong, I will be very much thankful. Hereby, I also request to state meaningful science instead of meaningless comments.
(Dev – Retired science teacher educator; earned Ph.D. from Nottingham University (1986), NG7 2RD England, UK, for developing a training program for science teacher –”Radicalization of science education in Nepal.” – development of an innovation, a study in education technology.)
A. GHG / GHE idea is ridiculous fake science. Worst, disgusting, embarrassing fraud in the history of science.
1. Green house. It requires solid transparent materials to form a green house.
2. GASES are freely moving molecules.
3. Gases can’t form green house.
4. They can’t be fixed to make walls / roof of a structure like ‘green house’.
5. All matter / gases in Nature can hold Heat, so they can absorb heat like any gas e.g. CO2.
6. Convection method of heat transmission. Heat is always transmitted from higher to lower temperature.
7. O2 is 700 times more than CO2.
8. N2 is 2700 times more than CO2.
9. CO2 is not a pollutant. We carry the gas in our blood since birth and live throughout
the life with the gas.
10. Plants use the gas to prepare food. Then, HOW CAN THE GAS BE A POLLUTANT?
11. If GW were due to ‘green house effect” (GHE), the upper layer of the Troposphere (our climatic atmosphere) should be warmer than the flat land areas because warm air goes up. So the top of the MT. Everest should be hot zone. The earth would have never been colder than the beginning 4 billion years ago.
12. Our atmosphere is not closed like a green house but open to space.
13. Our climatic atmosphere (Troposphere) should be always warm as the Sun always shines on the half of the Earth.
14. It wouldn’t be cold during night (after the sun set and before the sun rise).
15. Minimum temperature is recorded about half an hour earlier than the sun rise.
16. We know it is always colder during night than during sunny days.
17. REFLECTION: gases don’t reflect. They are transparent. Light pass through too small particles.
18. Materials become opaque when they reflect light.
19. Every molecule radiates absorbed heat when the surrounding is colder. It absorbs heat when the surrounding is hotter. All objects at a place try to equalize temperature.
20. Foggy, smoggy, and cloudy days are colder than bright sunny days.
21. Gases are not layered in the Troposphere; it is a homogenous mixture of gases. If it were layered the heaviest gas, CO2 would be at the bottom not on top. Then animals wouldn’t survive. We need O2 to be alive.
22. Gases of atmosphere should be still (no breeze, no wind) to be layered. Breezes, winds, hurricane, tornadoes, convection current or any motion thoroughly mixes all the gases.
23. Molecules of fluids move upwards when heated and downwards when cooled – the convection current.
24. CO2 is transparent, colorless, odorless, and heaviest gas of the atmosphere. It does not make shadow as clouds do.
25. If something does not allow going out means does not allow getting in as well. GHE applies only with the solid transparent materials like glasses and plastics not for the fluids (gases and liquids).
26. Methane is negligible, only traces.
27. Insulation traps heat partly. Gases alone can’t trap heat. Gases can’t work as an insulator in the open space. Our atmosphere is not insulating the earth. it should be air tight for effective insulation. The clothes we put on, the four walls and roofs etc. work as insulator, lesser the passage for air to pass through in and out the more effective is the insulation.
# Physical properties of fluids (gases and liquids) and atmosphere don’t support them on GHG idea at all scientifically. GHG / GHE idea is metaphorical/ fake.
B.1 Causes of CC
(Just because you (NASA and IPCC) did not know or could not explain the cause of CC you are creating fake, imaginary, false, spurious and so on science to mislead the world.
GW is not the problem but water.
Here is the explanation for the cause of the CC. I challenge all the scientific institutions / organizations especially NASA and IPCC that support GHG / GHE idea to prove my scientific analysis is wrong. CC due to gases is impossible instead they are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission.)
So they don’t have proofs. My Scientific analysis is 100% proof
So gases are not responsible for global warming but cooling the earth.
Only purpose of the Quito protocol (only a propaganda or misinformation, jargon, cant, hoax and so on.) is for monopolizing the industry by the developed rich countries – saying indirectly to the poorer countries to stop industrialization; and, instead they would support the developing world by donations.
B2. Mistaken Reason for CC –
The main reason for global warming is due to the mistake done by human being for explaining the rain cycle wrong way that it occurs by the evaporation of the sea water. If it were so, now-a-days we should have rains more often than in the old days – global warming and expansion of the sea surface, both are favorable for evaporation needed for rain cycle. Sea surface temperature (average 15C) is not hot enough to lift water vapour to form cloud needed for the rain cycle. If that is possible we will have rains all the time, (even during winter we have that temperature in Nepal on the average). Water vapour evaporated from the sea surface must come over land to get lifted as the land surface gets heated by the sun and air moves upward as air current.
We are making more and more land areas drier and drier by urbanization – covering land by concretes, black top roads, deforestation, and expanding deserts. So evaporation from the land areas is decreasing, as a result cooling of the land areas is decreasing significantly. Land areas are hotter than sea surface temperature.
B3. We can control climate or present climate change is reversible
– Just by determining how much land surface area of the earth to keep moist. More the land surface moist, the more is rain cycle and cooler earth surface.
WE MAY NEED LOTS OF POWER TO PUMP WATER FROM RIVERS OR OTHER SOURCES. SECTION II SOLUTION TO POWER CRISIS SHOWS WAYS TO HARNESS LIMITLESS HYDROPOWER
For the development of water supply net works so that we can keep every inch of earth’s surface moist, we need to pump water every where from rivers or other sources of water. For that we may need lot of power supply. Hereis the solution to power crisis (section II).
I shall be grateful to you if you could go through my blog for details and share with your friends.
C. Ozone depletion is not possible
Ozone as such can’t exist as a layer. It is extremely unstable and heavier than O2. It breaks into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms (if not kept pressurized in a closed container).It is formed when oxygen molecules breaks into atoms with heat of high temperature (UV). Stratosphere is tremendously cold zone and extremely low pressure. Ozone formed breaks down into oxygen atoms as soon as it forms and releases heat. Even at sea level at NTP ozone is unstable. So ozone layer exists only in theory. Intermittently forming of ozone will continue until the oxygen is in the atmosphere and we receive UV from the sun. So ozone depletion is not possible. Ozone formation is a step to return heat back to space.
It is not ozone that blocks heat but O2 and in the process O3 is formed to release the heat absorbed by O2
D. Don’t blame CFC (too scarce and too heavy to reach the stratosphere) for thinning stratosphere. In reality, Millions of jet flights everyday are consuming too much of oxygen of the layer.
Copy my list, go to NASA / IPCC and tell them about my challenge. Or, at least talk to your elementary sc. teacher to find out true sc. I will reward you for your efforts. Thus,
Present CC is reversible and we can control climate
WE MAY NEED LOTS OF POWER TO PUMP WATER FROM RIVERS OR OTHER SOURCES. SECTION II SOLUTION TO POWER CRISIS SHOWS WAYS TO HARNESS LIMITLESS HYDROPOWER
II. SOLUTION TO POWER CRISIS: RUNNING TURBINES IN SERIES
BLUNDER IN HYDROPOWER ENGINEERING: CORRECTION MEANS END OF
POWER CRISIS.
(concise water meters to apply to )
If we make correction of the mistake there has been on hydropower engineering we wouldn’t need any other sources of power at all. The cleanliest power will be available by cheapest possible way we can think of. Please avoid the most dangerous power source.
At present we are tapping only minimum hydropower by applying the principle of still water column that it exerts highest pressure at the bottom, so we run only one turbine at the bottom of the running water column. The property applies in standing still water column only . It is a blunder in hydropower engineering.
In hydropower we have the running water condition. The pressure effect in a running water column is uniform through out, from intake to discharge points. Considering the properties of uniformly running water column, it is possible to run many turbines in series along a single uniform penstock pipe.
We have to keep water running consistently to maintain constant revolution of the turbines. Uniformly running water column has uniform velocity and pressure throughout, from intake to the discharge points (Bernoulli Theory). So we can install turbines at any position of the running water column. And, by maintaining uniformity of the water column before, through and after the installed turbine, the velocity of the water column can be maintained constant.
Turbines rotate with the same velocity as running water column. So there is no change in the velocity of water after running a turbine(s). Therefore the turbines don’t decrease the power of running water. So we can install as many turbines in series along a single uniform penstock pipe as space allows.
Application of the properties of uniformly running water column can open the door for unlimited hydropower. Only limitation is the space required for placing turbines. This method not only can end the power crisis but will also help to reverse the present climate change as the power will be available to pump water from rivers as much as we need to keep the land surface always moist, recharge ground water, boost rain cycle and eventually reduce sea level rise.
So we must consider the principle of running water column for installing turbines.
Applying the property of standing still water column to a running water condition has been a blunder in hydropower engineering. Considering the fluid properties of water (pressure is exerted equally in all direction) and the nature of gravitational force (at a given point never reduced nor blocked nor shifted) multiple turbines can be installed in series along only one water running pipe. The turbines don’t decrease the power of running water, because the turbine rotates with the same velocity as the running water.
DEMONSTRATION
Water meter is a good example of miniature turbine. Many water meters can be connected along the same UNIFORM water supplying pipe in series and run all of them uniformly.
(please scroll down for demo video clips in my blog)
THUS IT IS POSSIBLE TO HARNESS many folds more hydropower than done by present practice.
Engineering works has to be developed differently so that the running water column is uniform before the turbine, inside the turbine and after the turbine.
Hydro power can be installed without reservoir / by runoff type, but making lakes as much as possible will hold water in and on land – will be eco friendly, cool climate, aquatic life, lower sea level rise, water sports, transports, greenery, enhance rain cycle, make water easily available in the nooks and corners etc. From the reservoirs we can install turbines as run off type water supply.
NAMING ‘HYDROPOWER’ IS ITSELF WRONG. IT IS NOT POWERED BY HYDRO BUT ‘G’. WATER IS USED AS A TOOL TO CAPTURE ‘G’ FORCE. SO IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED G-POWERED ELECTRICITY. ANOTHER FLUID IF THERE WERE AVAILABLE ABUNDANTLY COULD ALSO BE USED INSTEAD OF WATER.
Retired science teacher educator; earned Ph.D. from Nottingham University (1986) England, UK, for developing a training program for science teacher –”Radicalization of science education in Nepal.” – development of an innovation, a study in education technology.
@indrdev200
Your post discusses the wrong greenhouse effect. Apparently you don’t even know about the one that operates in the atmosphere. I suggest you read up on its physics..which doesn’t depend n ‘closed spaces’ in the atmosphere. Rather, it depends on the molecular response to IR frequency radiation, and has been well known by science since the 19th century.
Menicholas,
warrenlb always ignores the fact that global warming stopped almost twenty years ago.
That fact alone deconstructs everything he’s been preaching. The endless alarmist predictions were that a rise in CO2 would cause runaway global warming, resulting in climate disruption. There is no credible way around it: that prediction was flat wrong, which falsifies their conjecture.
A stand-up guy would admit his prediction was wrong, and then work with scientific skeptics to figure out why it was wrong. Then maybe they could come up with an alternate hypoithesis that explains why global warming stopped, while CO2 continues to rise.
That’s how honest science works. But since it would require warrenlb’s side to admit they were wrong, they will never work with other scientists on a new hypothesis. They simply cannot admit they were wrong, and that the hated skeptics were right.
You said “hypoithesis”
Nitwit, the turbines slow the water down. If they were in series, the water would be moving so slowly the turbines would be LESS efficient.
It is not ust the weight if the water, it is it’s velocity that lets the turbines create the power they do…it is given clear run to build up velocity…turbines are expensive, why have several that each only produce a fraction of what one produces.
The energy contained in water is not limitless!
What are ya, a puddinhade?
The potential energy has to be converted to kinetic energy and then rotational energy and then electrical energy.
The total potential energy is given by the mass of water times the height of the head times g, the gravitational constant.
This is first year physics…for non-majors!
If you ever took even one such class and still believe the crap you are spewing, you should demand a refund…you wuz robbed.
BTW, my credentials are: Just a guy, who knows a thing or two, and who is real glad that the people who taught the classes I took were not instructed by anyone you trained.
Sorry to be this way…but nonsense has to be countered in the strongest terms, or some poor souls might happen across it and be misinformed.
We do not need to propagate such nonsensical drivel.
You may also visit my blog: devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
The popular IPCC GHE dismisses water vapor. It’s not man caused. The LWIR/SWIR perpetual heat loop violates thermo laws. The 2 W/m^2 of the CO2 added between 1750 and 2011 is trivial in comparison to the total heat balance. Without water vapor a greenhouse becomes an oven. It’s water vapor that runs the climate not CO2.
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. IPCC is uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. IPCC is uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. IPCC is uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. IPCC is uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 18 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should serve as the death certificate for AGW/CCC.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/dr-bill-gray-responds-to-pope-francis/
Tim
From when I studied Astrophysics at university I remember that TOA is often where the opacity changes in a star. In fact all the radiative transfer stuff comes from stellar physics, which is why you see things like blackbody approximations in “layers” of gas. Things that don’t apply to cold gases directly.
So as far as I remember the TOA is dependent on the gas. For a star it is basically around the photosphere as you only need to consider H ions. For a multicomponent atmosphere each spectral component will have it’s own TOA and also should not on first glance have emissions that behave like blackbodies. It’s going to be more complicated as you say.
Earth’s atmosphere is 78% N2, 21% O2 and one percent everything else, mostly Ar.
Those numbers are for dry air only Gloria…an important addendum.
Well, I can’t find the head of the long, long thread on the TSI/4, so I’m posting this here:
Trick August 31, 2015 at 7:15 am
That’s true, Trick, but it goes in the “Difference that doesn’t make a difference” file for me. The WGS-4 ellipsoid has the following radii:
Equatorial radius (ER): 6,378.1370 kilometers (3,963.1906 mi).
Polar radius (PR) : 6,356.7523 kilometers
So looked at from the poles, the cross-sectional area intercepting sunlight is 2 π ER^2, or . And looked at from the plane of the equator, the area is approximately 2π ( ( ER + PR ) / 2 )^2. This works out to a difference of about three-tenths of a percent. However, that’s for the whole difference, polar vs equatorial view. But the axis tilt is only 23.45°, so the actual difference is even smaller than that. In either case it is certainly small enough to ignore in the type of analyses under discussion.
Bart August 31, 2015 at 8:08 am
Willis Eschenbach @ur momisugly August 30, 2015 at 8:36 pm
Thanks, Bart, but you must use gedanken experiments much differently than I do. On my planet at least, gedanken experiments are used to determine the effects of real physical laws and real physical constraints on imagined situations. They are NOT used to explore “what if we totally ignore physics” fantasies like a planet rotating a star while ignoring the conservation of angular momentum and the gyroscopic effect …
True, that would make a difference … but why on earth would I assume that? Neither Chilingar nor any of us are discussing such a situation.
w.
Because, Willis, that is how you get a sense of the range of possible solutions. Good grief, dude. This is Research 101.
Einstein did gedanken experiments, e.g., supposing he were in a train traveling near the speed of light. Maxwell had demons in his. These impossible details were immaterial to the point being made. Why are you quibbling like this? Are you interested in thinking seriously about the issue, or just in stymieing discussion?
Bart August 31, 2015 at 2:05 pm
I’m sorry, but imagining how things would be if we violate the laws of physics can only give us a sense of the range of impossible solutions …
But heck, let’s play it your way. Let’s imagine a world with different physical laws, one free of the gyroscopic effect so that a planet can revolve around a sun with its axis always pointed towards the sun.
Now, explain to me how that will help us decide if the proper calculation for the earth is TSI/4 or TSI/ 3.6215?
On my planet at least, imagining that the laws of physics have been suspended is generally not known as “thinking seriously about a question”.
But if that is “thinking seriously” on your planet, then just how does your impossible no-gyroscopic-effect planet rotation solve the TSI/4 question?
Finally, you say:
Let me try again to explain the difference. As I said before (emphasis mine):
And that is exactly what Einstein did. He assumed he was in a train near the speed of light. That is an imagined situation. But Einstein did NOT then say “now imagine that momentum is no longer conserved” or “now imagine that the gyroscopic effect no longer exists”. He looked at the effects of real physical laws on his imagined situation inside the train.
You, on the other hand, want to look at the effects of violating physical laws on an imagined situation, which is not the same thing in any sense. All that can give us is a range of impossible solutions.
w.
Willis – Thanks for the workout you beat me to it. Think you mean WSG-84 though.
Note the published monthly anomaly is like 0.2K out of 288K. Looking for scraps even church mice leave behind. And Chilingar has it closer to 12% when considering polar regions vs. equatorial on this oblate spheroid for some yet to be uncovered reason (may end up Holders inequality). Need to find p. 475 for Chilingar et. al. full reasoning.
World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84 or sometimes WGS 84)
https://confluence.qps.nl/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=29855173
Trick August 31, 2015 at 4:04 pm
True ‘dat, thanks, typing fast.
I’ll pass on Chilingar’s full reasoning. The reasoning of anyone who thinks the answer is other than TSI/4 is of no interest to me.
All the best,
w.
Hockeystick writes ,
“Very simple, and known since at least Maxwell’s book Theory of Heat 1872. The only radiative forcing that enters the picture is that from the Sun, the only source of energy; there is no “radiative forcing” from GHGs creating a 33C increase in temperature, it is solely gravito-thermal.”
There may not have been many man mad forcing’s back in 1872 . But 1872 isn’t 2015 were man has learnt to control radiation http://www.mpoweruk.com/radio.htm
verdeviewer
August 31, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Given an axial tilt of 90° with an axis pointing to the sun and a precession of 1 year, wouldn’t one pole of a planet always point to the sun?
I can’t imagine how that would work, although I’ve been trying since I saw your post. Earth’s axial precession takes c20,000 years, and describes a cone. “The gravitational force between the Sun and moon induces the precession in Earth’s orbit” –Wiki
What you describe would require two or more massive bodies exerting their mutual gravitational forces on your hypothetical planet – I think – so that the result would be something like a gyroscope doing a midair sommersault, but a planet’s angular momentum would strongly resist that, and any bodies massive enough to exert the necessary force on said planet would probably tear it apart before the flips started.
Others here will no doubt give a better answer, but meanwhile, please refer to the diagram Willis has posted upstream, while I pull my neck back in:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/29/where-is-the-top-of-the-atmosphere-toa/#comment-2017940
(Once again, that doggone reply button has fragmented this interesting discussion into subthreads that are now very difficult to follow, and very time-consuming in the bargain, even if you manage the feat.)
Steve G, thanks for the reply to what’s obviously an esoteric question.
My speculation was that, with a certain combination of planetary orbit, solar rotation, influence from other orbiting bodies, and internal dynamics, such a thing would be possible. But I lack the math skills to model it.
Certainly Uranus and Saturn interact, and internal dynamics might influence Uranus’s stability. When Voyager 2 passed by, the magnetic axis was tilted 59° to the apparent axis of rotation, suggesting a different spin on the planet’s interior.
And then there’s the question of what set Uranus on its side. There are now at least three theories on that, the latest being the loss of a large moon.
Apologies, Steve P, for misspelling your last initial!