On May 14, 8:03 am, Claudius Denk
sbcglobal.net> wrote:> On May 13, 10:07 pm, neutral...@
gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 11:56 am, Bill Ward
REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:>
>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:48:33 -0700, neutralino wrote:
>>>> On May 12, 2:38 am, Bill Ward
REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:>>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:35:36 -0700, neutralino wrote:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>> "The energy that is not reflected back to space is absorbed by the
>>>>>> Earth’s surface and atmosphere. This amount is approximately 240
>>>>>> Watts per square metre (W m–2). To balance the incoming energy, the
>>>>>> Earth itself must radiate, on average, the same amount of energy back
>>>>>> to space. The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation.
>>>>>> Everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously. That is the
>>>>>> heat energy one feels radiating out from a fire; the warmer an object,
>>>>>> the more heat energy it radiates. To emit 240 W m–2, a surface would
>>>>>> have to have a temperature of around –19°C. This is much colder
>>>>>> than the conditions that actually exist at the Earth’s surface (the
>>>>>> global mean surface temperature is about 14°C). Instead, the
>>>>>> necessary –19°C is found at an altitude about 5 km above the
>>>>>> surface. The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence
>>>>>> of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave
>>>>>> radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the
>>>>>> natural greenhouse effect.
>
>>>>> So far, so good, but you omit the effect of convection of the latent
>>>>> heat of water up from the surface to the radiating level you mention
>>>>> (cloud tops). My understanding is that most of the energy is carried
>>>>> there by latent and sensible heat, not radiation.
>
>>>> Bill, I pasted that from chapter 1 of the latest IPCC report.
>
>>> Sorry, I didn't recognize it. I assumed it was your writing.
>
>>>> Do you
>>>> honestly think that everyone involved in the compilation of scientific
>>>> understanding, along with everyone involved in the research behind it
>>>> simply forgot about convection?
>
>>> I'm honestly not sure. I doubt they "forgot it", but whether they don't
>>> understand it, or think they do understand it and deliberately omit it
>>> from their "explanation", it's equally troubling.
>
>> If you feel that you understand convection better than the experts in
>> the field, please publish your results so scientific understanding can
>> continue to iterate towards accuracy..
>
> The issue is that the experts are pretending to understand it when
> they don't. And you are too naive to realize this.
Denk, one day you should learn to support your assertions.
> If you feel that convection
>
>> was left out of the climate models, well...you would be incorrect.
>> The latest models even take into consideration atmospheric chemical
>> reactions, ocean circulation, and effects of vegetation. It's a far
>> cry from the crude models made in the 70's.
>
>>>>> What evidence is there that CO2
>>>>> plays any significant role, compared to the phase changes and
>>>>> absorption spectrum of water? Can you cite any climate models that
>>>>> accurately compute the mechanisms of convection? My understanding is
>>>>> that they are generally considered inadequate, particularly in that
>>>>> respect.
>
>>>> Define "accurate".
>
>>> By "accurate", I mean able to predict the climate in advance, instead of
>>> postdicting the past.
>
>> How about predicting the known past? Such as, feeding the model the
>> data up to 1980, and seeing how well it predicts the next 20 years.
>> Remember that the model doesn't "know" that we actually have the next
>> 20 years of measurements. You could also look at what was done when
>> Pinatubo blew its top. The existing climate models had the event
>> inserted into them and were able to predict the results reasonably
>> accurately. Not perfectly, of course, but it was hardly a
failure.http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_02/
>
> Climate/weather are predictable at best maybe 48 hours in advance.
> (BTW, don't fall for that notion that climate is different that
> weather. It's plainly absurd.)
Sorry, denk. It's a fact. Deal with it.
>
>>>> No model is ever 100%% accurate. Did you bother to
>>>> try and answer the question for yourself, or are you more comfortable
>>>> with your ignorance of the topic. I don't mean to be insulting by
>>>> pointing out areas you may be ignorant in; ignorant just means that you
>>>> don't know.
>
>>> I looked through some of the models, and the common theme seems to be
>>> the failure to handle convection. I believe the main problem is the lack
>>> of understanding of chaos. Even very simple chaotic systems are not long
>>> range predictable. The climate system is arguably the most complex
>>> chaotic system on Earth (the prototype, actually), so even if all the
>>> variables and mechanisms were understood, I doubt models will ever be
>>> capable of even getting the sign right.
>
>> The funny thing about chaotic systems is that they show a surprising
>> level of order.
>
> Retard.
What a well thought out, reasoned, and supported refutation of my
claim.
> As long as you don't obsess over the details, such as
>
>> the precise temperature in a specific time and place, you can watch
>> the higher order patterns emerge. That was always the most
>> fascinating thing I found when I made a study of chaotic systems.
>
> Well gee golly. Why do you think this is relevant?
>
>
>
>>> And, yes, I make it a practice to be aware of my areas of ignorance.
>
>> Good. That's more than can be said about most of the warming
>> deniers. It would also be a good idea to remember that others are not
>> necessarily as ignorant about various topics as you are. That's why
>> we hire professionals. Someone who has studied the dynamics of
>> climate and weather for half their life will have a far better
>> understanding of the models, and their limits, than you or I ever
>> will.
>
> They are pretending to understand it better than it can possibly be
> understood and dimwits like yourself are incapable of realizing this.
> IPCC and realclimate are comprised of scam artists.
Support your claim, denk.
>>>>>> The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon
>>>>>> dioxide. The two most abundant constituents of the atmosphere –
>>>>>> nitrogen and oxygen – have no such effect. Clouds, on the other
>>>>>> hand, do exert a blanketing effect similar to that of the greenhouse
>>>>>> gases; however, this effect is offset by their reflectivity, such
>>>>>> that on average, clouds tend to have a cooling effect on climate
>>>>>> (although locally one can feel the warming effect: cloudy nights tend
>>>>>> to remain warmer than clear nights because the clouds radiate
>>>>>> longwave energy back down to the surface).
>
>>>>> During the day, clouds are often formed by convecting water vapor up
>>>>> from the surface to the condensation level. The resulting cloud
>>>>> radiates the transferred latent heat to space as IR and reflects
>>>>> incoming solar energy. Both mechanisms cool the surface.
>
>>>> But only one of them can actually get energy to leave the planet.
>
>>> Cloud tops radiate and reflect. Both mechanisms remove energy from the
>>> planet, just at different wavelengths.
>
>> Neither of those functions is directly one of convection. The
>> question really becomes, what is the net result of all the additional
>> forgings(with included feedbacks) being applied to the system.
>> Answering that question is something I prefer to leave to the
>> professionals.
>
>>>>> During the night, a low inversion layer often forms, blocking
>>>>> convection, and the WV or clouds reduce radiation from the surface to
>>>>> space, as you say above.
>
>>>>> The combination of the two effects stabilizes the surface temperature,
>>>>> as when it's "too hot" during the day, convection cools it, and when
>>>>> it's "too cold" at night, the IR greenhouse reduces cooling, keeping it
>>>>> warmer.
>
>>>> The center point of this equilibrium has been measured, and has been
>>>> observed to be changing.
>
>>> Right now it seems to have cooled a bit. But you apparently miss the
>>> point about the negative feedback loop due to the surface temperature
>>> modulating the cooling rate. Averaging hides the feedback. Think about
>>> it a while.
>
>> You seem to be ignoring some of the positive feedback loops that are
>> there as well. Warmer temperatures also allow for more water vapor in
>> the atmosphere, which ends up being a positive feedback loop. The
>> real question is which of these feedback loops ends up being dominant.
>
>>>>> That combination results in a negative feedback (cooling rate increases
>>>>> with temperature), and reduces any effect of CO2 IR absorption that you
>>>>> refer to below. "On average", of course, this effect is hidden. But
>>>>> it's still there.
>
>>>> The issue is that the cooling rate has to match the average incoming
>>>> radiation. For this to happen, yes, the temperature goes up. This is
>>>> why it's called "global warming". Given the behavior of dynamic
>>>> systems, this change in average temperature, and the "path" that this
>>>> change takes, is called "global climate change".
>
>>> If the convective cooling rate increases with higher temperatures, as I
>>> explained above, then it's called "stabilized".
>
>> Please demonstrate that your "if" matches the world around us. Peer
>> reviewed or better, please. Also, remember that "stabilized" in this
>> case only means that it's not going to enter a runaway scenario, not
>> that the results of this new "stabilized" system isn't going to have
>> some disastrous social and economic consequences.
>
>>> You should know that most
>>> of the doomsday predictions require assumption of a positive feedback from
>>> water vapor.
>
>> Water vapor is a positive feedback, though I don't think it's going to
>> get to a runaway condition.
>
>>>>>> Human activities intensify the blanketing effect through the release
>>>>>> of greenhouse gases. For instance, the amount of carbon dioxide in
>>>>>> the atmosphere has increased by about 35%% in the industrial era, and
>>>>>> this increase is known to be due to human activities, primarily the
>>>>>> combustion of fossil fuels and removal of forests. Thus, humankind
>>>>>> has dramatically altered the chemical composition of the global
>>>>>> atmosphere with substantial implications for climate"
>
>>>>>> You can find a simpler explanation near the beginning of the video at
>>>>>> the other end of the following link. And no, I can't cut and paste
>>>>>> from a video into a text only medium.
>>>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqEYLvPt0lA>
>>>>> "Things should be explained as simply as possible, but no simpler." The
>>>>> video is so simple it looks like propaganda.
>
>>>> It's aimed at the high school level. Did you watch just that video, or
>>>> all six hours of it?
>
>>> I assume
>
>> ...
>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
