|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
|
#413
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 4:50:49 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article , says... On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote: I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by even 0.1K. It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset." Which means it cannot be used to find how much the ground temperatures changes due to a change in the amount of CO2, CH4, H2O, or whatever... It wasn't meant to do that. It predicts the heat flux escaping into space from a given ground temperature. You need solar power coming in to balance heat going out. So play with temperature offset until they balance. Btw it isn't just the local radiation circumstances which determines the local temperatures. The global circulation matters too. You accused the climate modelers for handling the imfluence from H2O improperly (without specifying what you consider to be a proper handling of H2O in our atmosphere) - and here you want to ignore the global circulation. Sorry, but our atmosphere doesn't work that way. Oh good grief!!! MODTRAN is a fairly simple app, but it does take into account H2O properly as well as other greenhouse gases, and it shows that additional CO2 has a minuscule effect on the outgoing heat flux. You REFUSE to understand what the model is trying to teach you. It's an INPUT for climate models but does demonstrate that the full models don't even handle CO2 properly, let alone H2O. So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that "changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature". You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output is "Upward IP Heat Flux." Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about 3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that? Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2? Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations? Did you even read my response? I tried CO2 amounts from 0 all the way to 999999, and they yielded fairly small changes in the upwards IR heat flux. Which is as it should be, because the average upwards IR heat flux, as seen from space or from a high enough altitude, must balance the downward flux of visible + IR from the Sun. Radiation balance, you know. Of course. Did you try varying the "temperature offset"? DUH! However, that says quite little about the ground temperature, since the IR radiation from the ground will be absorbed anr re-emitted a large number of times before part of it eventually reaches space, or even 70 km altitude. So you're saying you have evidence that the model doesn't account for that? I doubt it. It uses the temperature profile of the atmosphere in its calculations. Consider for instance the radiation temperature of the planet Venus as seen from space, compared to the ground temperature of Venus. Are the two of them equal? Positively NO !!!!! Non sequitur. It's the same with the Earth, but in case of the Earth the temperaure difference will be much smaller. You're not making any sense. Nobody has said ANYTHING about the "radiation temperature" of the earth from space, only the heat flux. I gotta go. Later. It's ok to be in a hurry. But why didn't you wait with your response until you had more time? You don't have to respond immediately. It seems I never have "more time" - only short periods. It's also ok to terminate the discussion if you would want to. But then, say so explicitly instead of giving some excuse like "I gotta go" ... Okay, terminate whatever that was about, or repeat it in small bites and maybe I'll have time to address it. |
#414
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 5:06:00 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:
In article , says... But ANYTHING that causes a temperature rise is amplified by water vapor, including the solar constant variations. Yes - but we cannot control the variations in the solar output. Not the point: the point is that solar output variations are about the same size as heat flux exhaust of MASSIVE changes in CO2 levels. Btw the Maunder minimum (of solar activity) for some 70 years centered around the year 1680 is believed to be an explanation for the Little Ice Age around and after those years. That's ONE explanation. The other is volcanic activity, but probably both. The question is how much is attributed to each. Why the Maunder minimum should contribute to global cooling was unexplained until the CLOUD experiment demonstrated nucleation of clouds by cosmic rays and the measurements that the cosmic ray flux has been increasing with the abatement of the solar wind. After all, the solar constant INCREASES when there are fewer sunspots. Pruitt himself, of course, ought to be able to explain where he got his ideas from. I don't know what his justification is, but the MODTRAN app Is MODTRAN also available as an app? Where can I download it? I'm only aware of it as an online "app." certainly confirms his position when a doubling of the CO2 level, which will take 200 years, produces enough direct effect to rival solar constant variations. Cloud cover has a VERY large effect, initially to reduce heat flux into space, but long-term to produce cooling by increasing earth's albedo. The effect of cloud cover for the local albedo, reducing incoming light and heat from the Sun to the ground, will be just as instantaneous as its effect of reducing heat flux from below into space. But clouds reduce the heat flux coming up from the surface. I played with different types of clouds and cumulus and altostratus reduced the outgoing flux by about 30 W/m^2 while nimbostratus only reduced it by about 6 W/m^2. So the effect of less power coming in is offset by more heat being retained, but eventually, that heat leaks out and a new balance is reached. The heat capacity of the earth delays the cooling effect. Furthermore, the initial effect of increased cloudiness has a warming effect, but the long-term trend is to lower temperature due to decreased input from the sun. Please explain why the clouds absorption and re-radiation of IR is more instantaneous than their reflection of visible light. Both of them ought to be just as instantaneous. When a cloud passes in front of the Sun, you'll feel the reduced light and heat from the Sun immediately, not several years later... I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat. |
#415
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Friday, 8 June 2018 13:50:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat. Read all abad id! "AGW denialist advocates moving Moon to achieve perpetual solar eclipse!" Cue 1437½ ? |
#416
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 11:11:15 PM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Friday, 8 June 2018 13:50:23 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote: I was amazed how cool it got during the total eclipse last year. But that or a cloud passing in front of the sun are LOCAL effects. And during the night, cooling is restrained by cloud cover which traps the heat. Read all abad id! "AGW denialist advocates moving Moon to achieve perpetual solar eclipse!" Cue 1437½ ? Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the moon, don't you think? I was playing with MODTRAN some more and found that cumulus clouds reduce the outgoing heat flux by about 10%. Interestingly, the albedo of clouds ranges from 10% to 90%, so at the high end of the range clouds result in significant cooling and at the low end of the range can cause some initial temperature rise but long term it will result in cooling because of less incoming heat. |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the moon, don't you think? It involves less *mass*, that's true. Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white. John Savard |
#418
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:42:45 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the moon, don't you think? It involves less *mass*, that's true. Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white. John Savard Since the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, and only 3% of the land is covered by infrastructure (including roads), that could have at most a 1% change in insolation. But it would be less than that because the of ocean is 0.07 and the albedo of land is about 0.2 http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...do_Surface.pdf (Table 3), so most of the earth's insolation comes from the oceans. Shall we paint the oceans white? :-) Was it you, John, that mentioned a project in Europe covering many hectares with used plastic film? Seems like space-based mylar mirrors in stationary orbit over the oceans would be a way to go ... Gary |
#419
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white. I imagine that in the near future we'll see most roofs covered with PV panels, so turning them into reflecting surfaces will not be productive. |
#420
|
|||
|
|||
Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.
Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 12:42:45 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: On Thursday, June 14, 2018 at 8:47:48 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: Well, I HAVE previously suggested putting up aluminized mylar mirrors in space to either reflect sunlight away from earth or reflect it TO earth to balance the heat flux in with heat flux out. Easier than moving the moon, don't you think? It involves less *mass*, that's true. Perhaps it would be even easier if we all just took our cue from one Caribbean island, and painted all our roofs white. John Savard Since the earth is 71% ocean and 29% land, and only 3% of the land is covered by infrastructure (including roads), that could have at most a 1% change in insolation. But it would be less than that because the of ocean is 0.07 and the albedo of land is about 0.2 http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/...do_Surface.pdf (Table 3), so most of the earth's insolation comes from the oceans. Shall we paint the oceans white? :-) Was it you, John, that mentioned a project in Europe covering many hectares with used plastic film? Seems like space-based mylar mirrors in stationary orbit over the oceans would be a way to go ... Gary No that was me. And it wasn’t a project. It was just farmers using greenhouses ( often makeshift) to grow crops. You may not be aware of a similar effect in the USA. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/...ts-own-weather But other crops can have the opposite effect and cause warming. At a large scale crops can affect CO2 as demonstrated by the fall in atmospheric CO2 from the rapid regrowth of the Amazon forest after the population collapse. This ended the medieval warm period. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 27th 17 11:41 AM |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 17 06:05 PM |
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 2nd 17 05:12 PM |
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | May 29th 07 05:25 AM |
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 4th 07 12:42 AM |