nzucker Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 AMSU Ch.5 global temps still lagging far behind 2010 and staying in the middle of the pack. 2012:-19.24 2010:-18.86 difference=-0.38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Excellent.....Hence the term "GHG BLANKET"........ Blankets tend to trap heat and hold it close to the surface....... I never really liked the term blanket or trapped. That isn't entirely true of what the CO2 particles are doing. I think the term "space heater" is more scientifically correct. Every particle from the atoms in your computer to the atoms of CO2 absorb and radiate energy in a constant continuous cycle. A particle is doing all three major forms of energy transfer at the same time, they are absorbing, reflecting, and radiating. Paricles are like banks, they are either absorbing faster than the are radiating (positive flux) which the particles then take on net energy or vise versa. I hear it all the time in meteorology at clouds being blankets at night, which is misleading. The clouds are constantly absorbing and radiating energy throughout the day, but when the sun goes down and clouds advance over a location overnight, "downwelling" commences. The cloud is radiating in all directions from the net absorbed energy taken in from the heating during the day.A partical never stops radiating, well unless its absolute zero I guess Heck, even cold objects right now are radiating energy, because believe it or not, that icecube in the freezer is radiating "heat" as an ice cube would transer its "heat" to an object cooler than itself. https://courseware.e...ection4p05.html https://courseware.e...urf_rad0405.gif More CO2 molecules are just like any other molecule for the most part and still act like these water molecules in helping to add more downwelling energy. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong in this thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I never really liked the term blanket or trapped. That isn't entirely true of what the CO2 particles are doing. I think the term "space heater" is more scientifically correct. Every particle from the atoms in your computer to the atoms of CO2 absorb and radiate energy in a constant continuous cycle. A particle is doing all three major forms of energy transfer at the same time, they are absorbing, reflecting, and radiating. Paricles are like banks, they are either absorbing faster than the are radiating (positive flux) which the particles then take on net energy or vise versa. I hear it all the time in meteorology at clouds being blankets at night, which is misleading. The clouds are constantly absorbing and radiating energy throughout the day, but when the sun goes down and clouds advance over a location overnight, "downwelling" commences. The cloud is radiating in all directions from the net absorbed energy taken in from the heating during the day.A partical never stops radiating, well unless its absolute zero I guess Heck, even cold objects right now are radiating energy, because believe it or not, that icecube in the freezer is radiating "heat" as an ice cube would transer its "heat" to an object cooler than itself. https://courseware.e...ection4p05.html https://courseware.e...urf_rad0405.gif More CO2 molecules are just like any other molecule for the most part and still act like these water molecules in helping to add more downwelling energy. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong in this thinking. Correct, blanket is just a term to convey the message better...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I never really liked the term blanket or trapped. That isn't entirely true of what the CO2 particles are doing. I think the term "space heater" is more scientifically correct. Every particle from the atoms in your computer to the atoms of CO2 absorb and radiate energy in a constant continuous cycle. A particle is doing all three major forms of energy transfer at the same time, they are absorbing, reflecting, and radiating. Paricles are like banks, they are either absorbing faster than the are radiating (positive flux) which the particles then take on net energy or vise versa. I hear it all the time in meteorology at clouds being blankets at night, which is misleading. The clouds are constantly absorbing and radiating energy throughout the day, but when the sun goes down and clouds advance over a location overnight, "downwelling" commences. The cloud is radiating in all directions from the net absorbed energy taken in from the heating during the day.A partical never stops radiating, well unless its absolute zero I guess Heck, even cold objects right now are radiating energy, because believe it or not, that icecube in the freezer is radiating "heat" as an ice cube would transer its "heat" to an object cooler than itself. https://courseware.e...ection4p05.html https://courseware.e...urf_rad0405.gif More CO2 molecules are just like any other molecule for the most part and still act like these water molecules in helping to add more downwelling energy. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong in this thinking. Particles of bulk matter (including atmospheres) always radiate, because they are in constant motion and collide with one another. The collisions rob the particles of kinetic energy and convert that energy to radiation. This is thermal radiation. Left to itself the loss of thermal energy cools the bulk matter. The atmosphere is constantly loosing radiation to space in this manor, day and night. The radiation is in all directions, day and night. The net radiation vector is out to the cold reaches of space where it is lost forever. The radiation directed toward the surface is delayed in it's final escape to space, and so keeps the surface somewhat warmer for a longer period of time. If we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, these gases are capable of absorbing some of the thermal radiation passing through the atmosphere. Now, even more radiation is being prevented from directly escaping to space. The greenhouse gas molecule then spontaneously radiates the absorbed energy (exactly the same amount as was absorbed) in all directions, half back towards the surface. So, an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases, holds on to thermal energy longer than an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. The warmest layer of that bulk atmosphere near the surface stays warmer longer. The greenhouse effect has slowed the loss of heat energy to space. Low clouds will do the same thing adding to the greenhouse effect. A blanket essentially does the same thing, but rather than slowing radiation (which it still does because your body must first warm the blanket), the larger effect is to prevent air in direct contact with your body from convecting your body heat away. The atmosphere can not convect heat to the vacuum of space so the loss is all radiative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The atmosphere can not convect heat to the vacuum of space so the loss is all radiative. However, the atmosphere (primarily at the tropical latitudes) can convect an enormous amount of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, thus increasing the effective heat loss (through radiative processes) of the atmosphere as a whole. This is PART of the uncertainty that many skeptics would like to see resolved more accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 However, the atmosphere (primarily at the tropical latitudes) can convect an enormous amount of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, thus increasing the effective heat loss (through radiative processes) of the atmosphere as a whole. This is PART of the uncertainty that many skeptics would like to see resolved more accurately. Not if the lower GHG blanket is getting thicker and prevents that heat transfer to the upper atmosphere, the upper atmosphere may actually cool more because of it because it can't get back out to space......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 However, the atmosphere (primarily at the tropical latitudes) can convect an enormous amount of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, thus increasing the effective heat loss (through radiative processes) of the atmosphere as a whole. This is PART of the uncertainty that many skeptics would like to see resolved more accurately. You are arguing that the lapse rate feedback has a mitigating effect on the net greenhouse effect in the tropics. This is correct, the lapse rate feedback in the tropics is expected to be negative. It's funny though, snowlover123 was here last week arguing the lapse rate feedback is positive as a way of 'proving' upper air water vapor has been decreasing. So which way is it. Can the skeptics get on the same page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 You are arguing that the lapse rate feedback has a mitigating effect on the net greenhouse effect in the tropics. This is correct, the lapse rate feedback in the tropics is expected to be negative. It's funny though, snowlover123 was here last week arguing the lapse rate feedback is positive as a way of 'proving' upper air water vapor has been decreasing. So which way is it. Can the skeptics get on the same page? I'm talking temp..not WV....can't doomers follow a point on a page? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclonebuster Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm talking temp..not WV....can't doomers follow a point on a page? More Temp. creates more Water Vapor which also traps more heat........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 More Temp. creates more Water Vapor which also traps more heat........... Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Proof? HyperPhysics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Hey Friv, does the global temp being in the middle of the pack, and well below 2010 for this date disprove AGW as the main cause? Except these are at record warm levels without the powerful Nino's. It's more proof of GHG forcing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 http://www.skeptical...d-1910-1940.htm What a joke. You are using century trends in the warming to try and hide that these warming periods were the same. If you used the DECADAL trend in temperatures, you will see that there is no statistically significant difference between the two trends, according to Skeptical Science's own trend calculator. The fact that there are bigger error margins for the century trends also makes one wonder if Skeptical Science is deliberately trying to mislead it's viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Hey Friv, does the global temp being in the middle of the pack, and well below 2010 for this date disprove AGW as the main cause? The middle of what pack? You mean the last decade which is already near the top of any recorded pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 At 25,000 feet on AMSU, 2012 is now the 3rd coldest, and at 14,000 feet it is running in the middle of the pack. Both are running well below 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc0605 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 However, the atmosphere (primarily at the tropical latitudes) can convect an enormous amount of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, thus increasing the effective heat loss (through radiative processes) of the atmosphere as a whole. This is PART of the uncertainty that many skeptics would like to see resolved more accurately. This has been known since at least the pioneering work of Manabe and Wetherald in the 1960's, who were the first to put together good enough spectroscopy with a correct conceptual framework for computing surface temperature (including the effects of convection). Indeed, an atmosphere (at least Earth's atmosphere) with only radiative heat transport would be unstable to convection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The middle of what pack? You mean the last decade which is already near the top of any recorded pack. Since 2002 on AQUA at 14,000 feet. Friv was gleefully hyping that 2012 was tied with 2010 and made a ridiculous claim that this was proof of the GHG forcing. Since then, we are now a half degree below 2010 at all altitudes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good blog post on Watt's site today. Shows once again the effects of UHI. Another thorn in the side of the alarmists. WOW, look at those temps in the 30's and 40's. Hmmm.... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/28/the-uhis-of-texas-are-upon-you/#more-66378 Where is the hockey stick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good blog post on Watt's site today. Shows once again the effects of UHI. Another thorn in the side of the alarmists. WOW, look at those temps in the 30's and 40's. Hmmm.... http://wattsupwithth...you/#more-66378 Where is the hockey stick? Stop the presses! The Urban Heat Island Effect IS Real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Hey Friv, does the global temp being in the middle of the pack, and well below 2010 for this date disprove AGW as the main cause? At 25,000 feet on AMSU, 2012 is now the 3rd coldest, and at 14,000 feet it is running in the middle of the pack. Both are running well below 2010. Since 2002 on AQUA at 14,000 feet. Friv was gleefully hyping that 2012 was tied with 2010 and made a ridiculous claim that this was proof of the GHG forcing. Since then, we are now a half degree below 2010 at all altitudes. While 2012 temperatures have stalled on some levels and nearly stalled on channel 5. channel 5 is currently .339C behind 2010 channel 6 is currently .435C behind 2010 channel 7 is currently .384C behind 2010 channel 8 is currently .310C behind 2010 channel 9 is currently .093C behind 2010 channel 10 is currently.053C behind 2010 Then we leave the Troposphere. But no where is there a half degree difference. 2012 is going to be 3rd on UAH for June. Honestly, saying I was gleeful over this is sad, don't put that crap in my mouth again. 2012 is about to go up quite a bit regardless. And will catch back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Particles of bulk matter (including atmospheres) always radiate, because they are in constant motion and collide with one another. The collisions rob the particles of kinetic energy and convert that energy to radiation. This is thermal radiation. Left to itself the loss of thermal energy cools the bulk matter. The atmosphere is constantly loosing radiation to space in this manor, day and night. The radiation is in all directions, day and night. The net radiation vector is out to the cold reaches of space where it is lost forever. The radiation directed toward the surface is delayed in it's final escape to space, and so keeps the surface somewhat warmer for a longer period of time. If we add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, these gases are capable of absorbing some of the thermal radiation passing through the atmosphere. Now, even more radiation is being prevented from directly escaping to space. The greenhouse gas molecule then spontaneously radiates the absorbed energy (exactly the same amount as was absorbed) in all directions, half back towards the surface. So, an atmosphere containing greenhouse gases, holds on to thermal energy longer than an atmosphere with no greenhouse gases. The warmest layer of that bulk atmosphere near the surface stays warmer longer. The greenhouse effect has slowed the loss of heat energy to space. Low clouds will do the same thing adding to the greenhouse effect. A blanket essentially does the same thing, but rather than slowing radiation (which it still does because your body must first warm the blanket), the larger effect is to prevent air in direct contact with your body from convecting your body heat away. The atmosphere can not convect heat to the vacuum of space so the loss is all radiative. Ok thanks for clarifying that for me I wasn't really questioning the process, just a little confused. Hey I'm here to learn afterall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good blog post on Watt's site today. Shows once again the effects of UHI. Another thorn in the side of the alarmists. WOW, look at those temps in the 30's and 40's. Hmmm.... http://wattsupwithth...you/#more-66378 Where is the hockey stick? The hockey stick is in the global temperature record and not in the Texas temperature record. If your point is valid, why do you have to lie to make it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The hockey stick is in the global temperature record and not in the Texas temperature record. If your point is valid, why do you have to lie to make it? So AGW picks and chooses where and when it wants to warm? So it isn't global warming so much as it is selective warming? Ohh and I looked at my own state, Tennessee, no hockey stick there either. If you really want to find those that are lying you need to contact the individuals that concocted that silly hockey stick graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 mods, PLEASE ban bethesdaboy. you know it's him with a proxy IP using the screen name of a former eastern member--BB constantly posted crap from WUWT and is at it again. Mods please ban Trixie for being a constant troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Good blog post on Watt's site today. Shows once again the effects of UHI. Another thorn in the side of the alarmists. WOW, look at those temps in the 30's and 40's. Hmmm.... http://wattsupwithth...you/#more-66378 Where is the hockey stick? I went to NOAA's NCDC website and the only other comparable state I could find with a similar temperature trend was Louisiana. Some states had a temperature increase of 2+/decade, while other states such as South Carolina showed a decline of 0.4C?decade so you can't use one state as justification for the whole US, let alone the entire globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I went to NOAA's NCDC website and the only other comparable state I could find with a similar temperature trend was Louisiana. Some states had a temperature increase of 2+/decade, while other states such as South Carolina showed a decline of 0.4C?decade so you can't use one state as justification for the whole US, let alone the entire globe. I don't know what you are looking at but I didn't see a state in the southeast that had a warming trend line. Florida at +.04 was the only one. The places that have warmed seem to be mostly in the northern west to northern midwest. Mo. through Pa. shows very little warming as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Contiguous U.S. I love the way denialist cherry-pick a data set and make lofty arguments. Wyoming Do you think Wyoming(pop 550k) is suffering with heat island effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I don't know what you are looking at but I didn't see a state in the southeast that had a warming trend line. Florida at +.04 was the only one. The places that have warmed seem to be mostly in the northern west to northern midwest. Mo. through Pa. shows very little warming as well. Sorry I misread the trends as per decade when in reality it was per century. I also see that there isn"t a clear warming trend across the south. But there is a strong warming trend across the northern US and I'll look up why that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Sorry I misread the trends as per decade when in reality it was per century. I also see that there isn"t a clear warming trend across the south. But there is a strong warming trend across the northern US and I'll look up why that's the case. But you menton one state you should mention others as well. Hell you should use the entire US with the same data source that was used for Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Contiguous U.S. I love the way denialist cherry-pick a data set and make lofty arguments. Wyoming Do you think Wyoming(pop 550k) is suffering with heat island effect? Thanks Vergent you beat me to the contiguous US graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.