Medieval Warm period due to NAO
Discussion
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Given that carbon dioxide is bugger all of total greenhouse gas, it follows that doubling it is still bugger all.Given that most of it occurs naturally, mankind produces bugger all of bugger all.
Please explain how this leads to catastrophic armageddon in simple terms, for a simple lad.....
So a doubling of C02 concentration would go from approx 2.8% bv of greenhouse gases to about 5.6% bv.
turbobloke said:
hairykrishna said:
Do you not have a source that doesn’t involve me tracking down and contacting the bloke directly? That figure came from somewhere.
From a presentation sent by D'Aleo via an intermediary, I would imagine by now it's on the internet somewhere but looking for it or contacting D'Aleo is your job if you're interested enough. What I have is what you saw, with D'Aleo on it.For anybody wanting correlation coefficient practice, try a fag packet exercise as here:
Carbon dioxide:
Temperature:
Get the actual numbers (temperature sources given, carbon dioxide as here or Mauna Loa) and apply the requisite formula for the last 10 years.
If your answer doesn't have a negative sign in front, try again.
Just some quick objections to your post
1) CO2 graph concentrations starting at 340 ppm
2) different year ranges on CO2 plot and temp plot.
3) Cherry picking start year of temp plot (try 1980 too)
4) Ignoring natural forcings: as I've already showed Tom(Guam) the IPCC is aware that the man made change is superimposed on natural variation, which can be of a similar magnitude.
Now I've got guests waiting so I've had to keep this short. I'll be back.
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Given that carbon dioxide is bugger all of total greenhouse gas, it follows that doubling it is still bugger all.Given that most of it occurs naturally, mankind produces bugger all of bugger all.
Please explain how this leads to catastrophic armageddon in simple terms, for a simple lad.....
So a doubling of C02 concentration would go from approx 2.8% bv of greenhouse gases to about 5.6% bv.
Some people think that because CO2 is only 380 parts per million of the atmosphere it can't have any significant greenhouse effect. However only 10,000 parts per million of the atmosphere are significant greenhouses gases.
Pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 2.8% of greenhouse gases. Now can you see the analogy with beer?
If you still are having difficulty, please let me know which bit you don't understand and I'll try again.
Jasandjules said:
nigelfr said:
Actually the alcohol beer concentration scenario is right on the money when you consider that 990,000 ppm of the atmosphere has no greenhouse effect to speak of.
Uh, no. AS per my previous post on this.One is parts per million, one is parts per hundred. Double each, and one will have a greater effect on the overall value whilst the other will not. I think you can guess which is which, yet you attempt to compare the two as having the same effect. Therefore, your analogy was poor and your claim now that it is valid is baseless and trite, not very worthy even of comment but for the fact I would suggest that when one is in a hole, stop digging.
"Alle Ding sind Gift, und nichts ohn Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist."
"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."
25 mg of hydrocyanic acid whether by itself or diluted in a litre of water (25ppm) probably won't kill you. 50 mg even in a litre of water so at 50 ppm probably will.
Edited to sort out formatting of quotes
Edited by nigelfr on Thursday 9th April 16:34
Guam said:
By The way Nige you didnt show me anything I didnt already know ( i just chose not to get into it because of the Topex thing) 
Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
Sorry Tom but I really think that you're way off the mark with that. Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
For one thing the first IPCC report was published almost 20 years ago: of course it's not surprising that the predictions have changed, because new data has become available.
Do you really expect them to cling blindly to data, models and theories and not pay attention to the real world. It sounds like you've got a win win situation for yourself: either the IPCC changes projections to reflect new data, in which case you can accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, or they don't change their predictions and are accused of not taking new facts into account.
And where's this 3 m sea level rise you're talking about from?
If you're going to accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, I think that you had better post the predictions from the IPCC that you find so offensive.
And your claim that no one on the AGW "side" ever thought of natural forcings until the sceptics pointed them out is so way out. Take a look at some of the natural forcings, that you know of and Google who developed them and when. Some pre date AGW by decades if not centuries. The IPCC would have to be pretty stupid to think that nobody would notice natural forcings.
I admire your diligence in looking for the accuracy of the satellite sea level measurements, but only wish that you were so diligent in investigating the accusations that you make about the IPCC.
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
NWTony said:
nigelfr said:
mybrainhurts said:
nigelfr said:
following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.
Given that carbon dioxide is bugger all of total greenhouse gas, it follows that doubling it is still bugger all.Given that most of it occurs naturally, mankind produces bugger all of bugger all.
Please explain how this leads to catastrophic armageddon in simple terms, for a simple lad.....
So a doubling of C02 concentration would go from approx 2.8% bv of greenhouse gases to about 5.6% bv.
Some people think that because CO2 is only 380 parts per million of the atmosphere it can't have any significant greenhouse effect. However only 10,000 parts per million of the atmosphere are significant greenhouses gases.
Pre-industrial CO2 concentration was about 2.8% of greenhouse gases. Now can you see the analogy with beer?
If you still are having difficulty, please let me know which bit you don't understand and I'll try again.
king pint (to continue the anology), you're saying that for a 3C rise in global temperature CO2 concentration has to double. fantastic reasoning. Of course, I'm sure this has happened before, I mean it's not as if the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere has varied much in the past, so I'm pretty sure all the empirical data will support your argument by assertion.
The reason you analogy to beer doesn't work, if I can spell it out in simple terms for you, is that the alcohol (nasty CO2 boo hiss) which is known to make you drunk (increase temperature) is at such a low level, that any difference at the 0.035 level, even a doubling to export strength (0.070) will still be insufficient to get you more pissed. The dilution affect of the rest of the pint, the 999,965ppm of basically water will mean that a state of drunkeness will never be achieved. Ever. For the alcohol (CO2 still) to get you mullered (warm) you would have to take it in isolation, remove it from the context of the beer.
Gosh this is hard work. The beer analogy sucks.
Now look at what was said in the second imbedded post... about CO2 being bugger all of greenhouse gases. (My bold) Yes you can make the beer analogy invalid if you include the whole atmosphere. But that isn't the point that it addresses.
Guam said:
nigelfr said:
Guam said:
By The way Nige you didnt show me anything I didnt already know ( i just chose not to get into it because of the Topex thing)
Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
Sorry Tom but I really think that you're way off the mark with that. Whatever the Ipcc claim this week, or last week will, now just be an attempt to justify their existence. The fact is they have made all sorts of claims Nige; none of them would stand close scrutiny, the fact they are trying to salvage credibility, by re-packaging the message a little, does nothing to help the acceptability of a case, that is increasingly being viewed as a "busted flush".
To try and say words to the effect well we have always accepted that there are natural forcings in play and the evidence may get lost in the background noise (my words) is just another attempt at smoke and mirrors. They had made hard claims for various climate projections over the years which however they may try to spin them never hold up in the light of day.
A number on here have been consistent in our criticisms of their ability to make the projections, the basis on which those projections were being made, the flaws in the modelling processes and the assumptions being made during the building of the models (not an exhaustive list of criticisms by any means ). However hard any supporter can try to spin their position it still comes unglued (rather like the 3 metre Sea rise projections).
I can turn around and project a string of events a thousand years in the future claiming to be Nostrodamus incarnate, doesnt make it so and as none of us will be around to check it out, its an easy claim to make. the IPCC appear no different to me with their accolytes continually pushing the timing of certain doom further and further into the future, in order to have no one left to prove them wrong, when it does get seen for what it is.
Scurrillous behaviour IMHO.
Cheers
For one thing the first IPCC report was published almost 20 years ago: of course it's not surprising that the predictions have changed, because new data has become available.
Do you really expect them to cling blindly to data, models and theories and not pay attention to the real world. It sounds like you've got a win win situation for yourself: either the IPCC changes projections to reflect new data, in which case you can accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, or they don't change their predictions and are accused of not taking new facts into account.
And where's this 3 m sea level rise you're talking about from?
If you're going to accuse them of scurrilous behaviour, I think that you had better post the predictions from the IPCC that you find so offensive.
And your claim that no one on the AGW "side" ever thought of natural forcings until the sceptics pointed them out is so way out. Take a look at some of the natural forcings, that you know of and Google who developed them and when. Some pre date AGW by decades if not centuries. The IPCC would have to be pretty stupid to think that nobody would notice natural forcings.
I admire your diligence in looking for the accuracy of the satellite sea level measurements, but only wish that you were so diligent in investigating the accusations that you make about the IPCC.
I made similar contentions regarding the publicised threatened coming Ice age during the seventies and was roundly condemned for such nonsensical heresay untill a line of other people formed to show I was far from being wrong and it was as I have described.
You and your compatriots are very good at requesting others do the legwork (ludos cobblers about having the accuracy data to hand on the topex thing for example).
Whether the IPCC is now choosing to distance itself from the "lunatic fringe" all of a sudden and re-invent itself as a "sound scientific organisation" is almost a seperate thread in itself. The reality is such wild claims have been made, the FACT is we have been repeatedly warned that WE were killing the planet (encouraged and driven by the IPCC) I am not going on another Bunny hunt to save you the work this time.
You can Google as well as I can and if you want to have addittional fun use the internet wayback machine to find the internet information that some may have hoped would have vanished forever
Unless someone else wants to Nigels Legwork for him and take their turn at bat.
Cheers
Your '70's global cooling myth has been debunked comprehensively as it is mainly based on media reports. Just Googling "debunk global cooling myth" lead me to this: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
And what is the point you're trying to make with the global cooling myth? In Science, as new facts and data become available, theories are advanced to explain them. If it's wrong, Science rejects that hypothesis and moves on. It doesn't sit around pointing a finger saying, "Nah, nah loser, you were wrong before so you can't be right now."
turbobloke said:
I'd like to have a go at explaining where the logarithm issue comes from and in doing so, combine some ideas about carbon dioxide forcing in the discussion up to this point,naturally it'll take a bit of space in terms of forum column-length so if it's of no interest to you, head over to The Lounge or wherever on PH takes your fancy - note, this is a long post advisory. ...
TB then out lines the theory of CO2 and the greenhouse effect from the early to mid part of the 1900's.Note that he said this "only 8% of radiation from the surface of the Earth is at a correct wavelength for absorption by carbon dioxide while 92% sails on by." This seems to show that he is using the surface up approach that treats the atmosphere as one layer.
Modern understanding uses the top down approach which looks at how energy travels from (different) layers.
I'll let someone more qualified than I am bring us up to date...
"What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.
While that may sound fairly simple once it is explained, the process is not obvious if you have started by thinking of the atmosphere from below as a single slab. ...
Modern data show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth’s surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily. Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.
Through the first half of the 20th century, however, hardly any of the few scientists who took an interest in the topic thought in this fashion. They were convinced by the subtly flawed viewpoint that looked at the atmosphere as a single slab."
See here for more, written so that almost anyone can understand it: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_01...
Jasandjules said:
nigelfr said:
And what is the point you're trying to make with the global cooling myth? In Science, as new facts and data become available, theories are advanced to explain them. If it's wrong, Science rejects that hypothesis and moves on. It doesn't sit around pointing a finger saying, "Nah, nah loser, you were wrong before so you can't be right now."
Perhaps I am being somewhat trite. But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth? Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Interesting that you bring up the tax myth: think on this: if there wasn't global warming, would the Governments want less tax revenue or would they just raise other taxes to keep their income the same? If anyone thinks that by making AGW disappear they'll pay less tax, they really are naive.
Of course there is the possibility that global warming is a myth, and there are plenty of researchers who are trying to prove it so. Unfortunately, they haven't found any evidence yet. (Please avoid the temptation to present me with some cherrypicked data to prove me wrong. Whatever you think you've found as proof, do us all a favour: put the word debunk in front of it and google it. If you don't find anything already debunking it, then feel free to post it.)
Skeptic Arguments
This is a list of every skeptic argument encountered online
1 It's the sun
2 Climate's changed before
3 There is no consensus
4 It's cooling
5 Models are unreliable
6 Surface temp is unreliable
7 Ice age predicted in the 70s
8 It hasn't warmed since 1998 3.
9 We're heading into an ice age
10 Al Gore got it wrong
11 CO2 lags temperature
12 Global warming is good
13 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
14 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming
15 It's freaking cold!
16 Mars is warming
17 1934 - hottest year on record
18 It's cosmic rays
19 Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming
20 Greenland was green
21 Other planets are warming
22 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
23 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
24 Hockey stick was debunked
25 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
26 We're coming out of an ice age
27 It cooled mid-century 1
28 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
29 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use
30 Glaciers are growing
31 Oceans are cooling
32 There's no empirical evidence 1
33 Climate sensitivity is low
34 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
35 If scientists can't predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?
36 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice
37 Neptune is warming 0
38 Jupiter is warming
39 It's Pacific Decadal Oscillation
40 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof)
41 It's the ocean
42 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
43 CO2 measurements are suspect
44 It's aerosols
45 Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
46 It's methane
47 It's Solar Cycle Length
48 Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed
49 Water levels correlate with sunspots
50 Solar cycles cause global warming
51 The sun is getting hotter
52 It's the ozone layer
53 It's satellite microwave transmissions
Taken from here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php Feel free to make up your own argument if you like.
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Edited by nigelfr on Friday 10th April 13:18
turbobloke said:
nigelfr said:
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
...But if science had a Global Cooling myth, is there no chance at all to your mind that there is a global warming myth?
Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
Including tax from music makers Though of course given that this one makes billions of pounds in tax revenue for the Govts who pay for the IPCC...............
The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
The Clash “London Calling” 1979
Line 1 The ice age is coming, the sun's zooming in
So according to your reasoning TB, if the Sun gets closer the Earth is going to cool
Specsavers Calling - new song title
turbobloke said:
Sure.
The media consensus of global cooling and the scare over a possibly imminent ice age in the 1970s, as discussed in this thread, inspired lyrics by The Clash in a song called London Calling.
Media consensus? Well, that's more accurate than scientific consensus so some progress is being made.The media consensus of global cooling and the scare over a possibly imminent ice age in the 1970s, as discussed in this thread, inspired lyrics by The Clash in a song called London Calling.
Lucky we don't have to rely on lyric writers for Science.
FWIW, London Calling was a great 1970's protest song that managed to cover a lot of the issues that were around then: - racial tension and civil unrest in first verse,
- Line 1 of the chorus refers to both an ice age and global warming,
- line 2 to the Three Mile Island nuclear power station and over population/famine,
- line 3 to oil running out and the Thames barrier
- Second verse is about drug use.
- Third verse is a reference to old radio broadcasts
At least that's how I remember it. Many thanks to TB for the trip down memory lane.
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
I'd like to have a go at explaining where the logarithm issue comes from and in doing so, combine some ideas about carbon dioxide forcing in the discussion up to this point,naturally it'll take a bit of space in terms of forum column-length so if it's of no interest to you, head over to The Lounge or wherever on PH takes your fancy - note, this is a long post advisory.
<some misleading stuff about CO2>
You don't actually believe this do you turbobloke? Don't you have a physics degree? Why are you posting stuff that you know is wrong?<some misleading stuff about CO2>
turbobloke said:
3)The proportion of radiation re-emitted from the ground available to carbon dioxide is ~8% of black body radiation emitted by the ground
This shows the three main peaks at which carbon dioxide absorbs, mine showed a weaker 4th absorption that's barely infra-red just to be thorough.
Still only dealing with surface re-emission.This shows the three main peaks at which carbon dioxide absorbs, mine showed a weaker 4th absorption that's barely infra-red just to be thorough.
Absorption spectra change with temperature, pressure and composition:
You can't take the details at ground level and apply them to the whole atmosphere.
Here's a pic:
In the top bit you can see how the black body radiation changes depending on the temperature you're dealing with. Between the two shown there, there is a different one for each temperature.
The bottom shows the different absorption spectra at 11Km and ground level. Notice that they're different so that what is not absorbed at sea level may be absorbed at 11km.
I haven't managed to find a pic that shows how the concentrations of the Greenhouse gases varies with altitude. But water vapour doesn't make it to the top of the atmosphere, so CO2 has a greater effect there.
Now think of all the different levels that the radiation has to go through before it escapes to space and you will see why TB's explanation is hopelessly out-dated and way too simple.
Let's keep it really simple.
The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
Jasandjules said:
nigelfr said:
Let's keep it really simple.
From what you have just posted there, either you have very little understanding of the correct processes or I do...... My knowledge is only based on A Level physics mind, but I have in mind one of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics... Heat flows from hot to cold......... nigelfr said:
Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface.
Now any more moths that wish to self immolate in the flame of my argument better get in there quick, before I make the obvious dénouement? How about you TB? Or do you know the answer already?
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
Let's keep it really simple.
The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
This is truly simplistic nonsense. Why post garbage when a quick google would disabuse you of your silly notions?The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
Check out the temperature of the stratosphere, or even better the thermosphere. Still think the outer part of the atmosphere is the temperature of 'outer space'?
I'll reveal the answer in the next hour or so.
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
Let's keep it really simple.
The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
This is truly simplistic nonsense. Why post garbage when a quick google would disabuse you of your silly notions?The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
Check out the temperature of the stratosphere, or even better the thermosphere. Still think the outer part of the atmosphere is the temperature of 'outer space'?
I'll reveal the answer in the next hour or so.
TB's calculation uses average incoming solar radiation etc and looks plausible, but at night there's no incoming solar radiation. In addition, his altitude vs temp plot is no longer valid at night.
It even gives the game away in the Wiki articles I pointed out to you.
ETA I'm using "outer space" to donate where there is no atmosphere. There is no discontinuity between where the atmosphere ends and outer space begins, therefore the temperature of the outermost limit of the atmosphere is the same as that of outer space. About 3 K, but I didn't want to get embroiled in an argument about the exact figure.
Edited by nigelfr on Friday 10th April 21:01
turbobloke said:
s2art said:
nigelfr said:
Let's keep it really simple.
The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
This is truly simplistic nonsense. Why post garbage when a quick google would disabuse you of your silly notions?The Sun warms the surface of the planet and the surface of the planet warms the atmosphere. Now because nett heat flows from hot to cold, then the atmosphere must be cooler than the surface. The rate of heat flow is dependant on the temperature difference between the two. If the difference is large, the rate of heat flow is large. If the difference is smaller the rate of heat flow is smaller. Heat transfers from layer to layer of different composition, temperature and pressure until it reaches "outer space."(Very cold)
The outermost part of the atmosphere is always at the temperature of "outer space". If you add a bit of CO2 to that bit of atmosphere it will be a tiny bit warmer, so you need "another layer" of atmosphere between it and outer space.
However the original layer is now warmer and so are all the preceding layers back down to the surface. So the bit nearest the surface of the Earth is a tiny bit warmer. This mean that the temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere is reduced. So less heat can escape the surface which warms up until the earlier rate of heat flow is reached.
Check out the temperature of the stratosphere, or even better the thermosphere. Still think the outer part of the atmosphere is the temperature of 'outer space'?
Don't tell me they didn't have a Sun when you got your degrees.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff