Empirical Falsification Of the CAGW meme.

[Billy_Bob]

As ambient air temperature drops water re-nucleates and water vapor decreases. In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed.

Attenuation Caused by Water Vapor and Oxygen

What current modeling does not take into account is how water vapor reacts and how it is a COOLING effect not a positive warming one..

And then wee need to address the mass/mass of our atmosphere. A 0.00000400 object can not drive a 20.8 pound object..

 

[IanC]

noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

A good primer.

Even Ian admits there is a 5-7um shift in spectral output as a molecule cools. Water is no exception. The graph below is of CO2 with a 20deg K drop. Water is far more pronounced

I never 'admitted' anything of the sort. Please directly quote me in the future.

The graph is not for CO2 but for blackbodies to show the general changes as temperature of the object goes up. What are the general changes? Increased production of radiation at every wavelength, and a slight trend towards higher energy wavelengths.

This is the visual explanation as to why 'heat' always flows from warm to cool. There is always an excess of radiation at every wavelength for the warmer object. During the exchange or radiation between the two objects all of the cooler radiation is cancelled out (in effect not existence), leaving the excess to perform the work of heating the cooler object.

 

[Billy_Bob]

noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

A good primer.

Even Ian admits there is a 5-7um shift in spectral output as a molecule cools. Water is no exception. The graph below is of CO2 with a 20deg K drop. Water is far more pronounced

I never 'admitted' anything of the sort. Please directly quote me in the future.

The graph is not for CO2 but for blackbodies to show the general changes as temperature of the object goes up. What are the general changes? Increased production of radiation at every wavelength, and a slight trend towards higher energy wavelengths.

This is the visual explanation as to why 'heat' always flows from warm to cool. There is always an excess of radiation at every wavelength for the warmer object. During the exchange or radiation between the two objects all of the cooler radiation is cancelled out (in effect not existence), leaving the excess to perform the work of heating the cooler object.

YOU POSTED THE GRAPHING SHOWING THE SHIFT!

Just wow... Your making some wild assumptions that are not shown by empirical evidence..

 

[IanC]

YOU POSTED THE GRAPHING SHOWING THE SHIFT!

Just wow... Your making some wild assumptions that are not shown by empirical evidence

This graph?

This is for a full 20C difference in temperature. The maximum power peak has shifted by at most 2 um. The absolute max by less than 1 um. Over the range of 95, or even 99% of the power there is direct correspondence of wavelengths. The only differences are that the warmer object produces slightly more radiation at a very slightly higher average wavelength.

The difference in temperature between the skin of the ocean and the water directly beneath it is on the order of 1C. There are no significant changes of the wavelengths being emitted.

 

[IanC]

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I guess we need to go back to high school level science for a bit.

Water tension boundary. Fill a cup until it is full and then slowly add drop after drop until the glass is over full yet water is above the rim in a bubble shape. This is called surface tension. It is the molecular bond that water molecules have with each other and the evaporation of water which creates a thin skin of particulate matter and water in its fluid/vapor state.

This boundary is about 10 microns thick. When LWIR is introduced only the boundary is affected and it creates a fast exchange of energy back into the atmosphere. This cools the water below more than the skin was warmed to create the reaction.

It is well known that temperatures at the sea surface are typically a few-tenths degrees Celsius cooler than the temperatures some tens of centimeters below [Saunders, 1967; Paulson and Simpson, 1981; Wu, 1985; Fairall et al., 1996; Wick et al., 1996; Donlon et al., 2002]

If you are concerned about transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean, get yourself an electrical heat gun and hold it over a bucket of water at about 16 inches for 5 minutes. Light wind and LWIR will be all that interacts. No heat transfer. The reason, surface tension. NO heat transfer period.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way from hot to cold.
Since the atmosphere is colder (average radiating temperature of ~ -10 C) than the ocean surface (~ 17 C), the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that heat can only be transferred one-way from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, not the other way around.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The recent paper by Roy Clark, PhD also discusses the physics and concludes;
"Application of Beer’s law to the propagation of solar and LWIR [long-wave infrared] flux through the ocean clearly shows that only the solar radiation can penetrate below the ocean surface and heat subsurface ocean layers. It is impossible for a 1.7 W.m−2 increase [predicted by the IPCC due to man-made greenhouse gases] in downward ‘clear sky’ atmospheric LWIR flux to heat the oceans." (p. 196). Increasing levels of IR-active 'greenhouse gases' would instead be expected to cause increased evaporative surface cooling of the oceans."

 

[IanC]

Surface tension is caused the attractive force between water molecules in the liquid phase. It has nothing to do with evaporation. Any blob of water will take on a spherical shape if there is no gravity to deform it, because a sphere has the least amount of surface to volume. The meniscus above the rim of the glass is simply an artifact of this tendency fighting the effect of gravity. The meniscus would be higher on top of Mt Everest, where gravity is weaker.

 

[IanC]

Evaporation is a function of the temperature of the water. If a molecule gathers enough speed by random collision, in the right direction, and close to the surface, it will break away and become water vapour in the air, taking away its above normal energy. A water vapour molecule, given the threshold speed, orientation and proximity to the surface will become part of the liquid again, adding energy.

I couldn't be bothered to describe how humidity and pressure affect the rate of evaporation.

Radiation has no direct effect on evaporation until it has been absorbed and thermalized. ie the radiation adds potential energy to a molecule which is then transformed into kinetic energy via molecular collision. Of course the reverse is also happens but the wavelength is limited by the temperature.

 

[IanC]

Note well that absorption is not limited by temperature but emission is. Water can absorb visible light (poorly) but it cannot emit it because it is not hot enough.

 

[SSDD]

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian? You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer? You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face. If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen. In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position. How circular is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian? You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer? You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face. If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen. In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position. How circular is that?

Nailed it!

They use the SB equations as their "proof"

 

[IanC]

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian? You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer? You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face. If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen. In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position. How circular is that?

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian? You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer? You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face. If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen. In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position. How circular is that?

Somewhat off topic but here is a video showing how a cool object can make a warm one even warmer.



Unfortunately it glosses over how the energy required to warm the objects is acquired by reducing energy loss to the environment until the new equilibrium is achieved.

I haven't looked at the video, but let me guess...another thought experiment...another string of calculations based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models.

I bet what they don't show is an actual observed, measured example of a cool object making a warm object warmer...why do you suppose that is ian? You don't think we have thermometers sensitive enough to measure a warm object getting warmer? You think science just hasn't advanced far enough to measure such a thing?

BULLSHIT ian...it is bullshit on its face. If the phenomena happened out here in the real world, someone would have demonstrated it by now as a result of all the discussion the topic has generated.

It simply does not happen because it can't happen. In fact, it seems that most of what you believe has never been observed...it is all the product of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, and when you are presented with objections, you present more unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical models as evidence in support of your position. How circular is that?

The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.

There are two types of redistribution of energy that I classify as either passive or active.

Passive is a fixed amount of energy, that decays by entropy. The warmest object gives up energy to objects around it, which in turn give up their energy to objects around them, etc, until all the energy is released into space. Everything is cooling except space. Entropy increases until there is no order left and every object has the same temperature.

Active means there is an energy source that is adding energy and reversing entropy. This energy can be electricity, fossil fuels,etc but the original source is the nuclear reactor at the centre of the Sun. When you continuously add a fixed amount of energy to an object it warms up until it reaches a point where it is releasing as much energy as it is taking in. Thermal equilibrium.

This is an overview. Typically we are interested in smaller local systems, such as a house. If we want the house to have an average temperature higher than the colder outside then we have to actively add energy to replace the energy being lost. But you can reduce the active energy required by reducing the amount of energy lost by the enclosure. More insulation results in the same inside temperature from less active heating.

This is where cool objects result in making warm objects warmer if, and only if, there is a source of energy being inputted. If you turn off the furnace the house cools by passive redistribution of energy but at a slower rate than it would without insulation.

So where do we see obvious examples of adding a second 'plate'? Double pane windows for one. Drawing the drapes across the window is another. Putting on a sweater allows the body to maintain it's core temperature without burning as much food. Adding a coat further lessens the loss of body heat to the environment.

This is where some idiot will chime in with 'insulation reduces conduction and convection not radiation'. It reduces all three. All three pathways are happening at the same time, depending on local conditions. Redistribution of energy takes the most efficient combination of the three.

I have little doubt that experiments have been done in a vacuum to remove the effects of convection and conduction, leaving only energy transfer by radiation. Do I have a link to one? No. That doesn't mean they haven't been done, or that mind experiments do not show the basic mechanism. Newton's laws are next to impossible to prove by experiment, should we toss them aside?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evaporation is a function of the temperature of the water. If a molecule gathers enough speed by random collision, in the right direction, and close to the surface, it will break away and become water vapour in the air, taking away its above normal energy. A water vapour molecule, given the threshold speed, orientation and proximity to the surface will become part of the liquid again, adding energy.

I couldn't be bothered to describe how humidity and pressure affect the rate of evaporation.

Radiation has no direct effect on evaporation until it has been absorbed and thermalized. ie the radiation adds potential energy to a molecule which is then transformed into kinetic energy via molecular collision. Of course the reverse is also happens but the wavelength is limited by the temperature.

Ian,

I cant help you. You are locked into a loop of circular logic. Until you break this your lost. I used very basic tenets of science to show you what it is and why it will not work. But you insist..

 

[IanC]

Ian,

I cant help you. You are locked into a loop of circular logic. Until you break this your lost. I used very basic tenets of science to show you what it is and why it will not work. But you insist..

Hahahaha. As if you could help anyone with science of any sort!!! Hahahaha.

You are not only a dunce but a blowhard as well. You claim to be a meteorologist and a post graduate student. Neither are possible given your inane and often hilarious wrong comments. I seldom make fun of posters here because it is unseemly and probably habit forming. But let's look back into the recent history of this thread.

 

[IanC]

As ambient air temperature drops water re-nucleates and water vapor decreases. In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed.

Attenuation Caused by Water Vapor and Oxygen

What current modeling does not take into account is how water vapor reacts and how it is a COOLING effect not a positive warming one..

And then wee need to address the mass/mass of our atmosphere. A 0.00000400 object can not drive a 20.8 pound object..

"In just the first 30 feet above the surface air temps can drop 10-20 deg F or 4 deg K, depending on wind speed."

The dry adiabatic lapse rate is 10C (can also be called 10K) per kilometre of height. The moist rate is only roughly half that, at 6C/km. Moisture ATTENUATES cooling with height because it releases heat as it changes phase back to liquid (or ice). Why do you convert a range of temperature in Farenheit to a single value in Kelvin? Why does the temperature in Kelvins not even exist in the Farenheit range? A change of 4K equals a smidge over 7F. You are pathetic and uninformed, with no concept of how to describe things scientifically.

And then you top it off at the end with
"And then wee need to address the mass/mass of our atmosphere. A 0.00000400 object can not drive a 20.8 pound object."

WTF is this supposed to mean? We're you trying to describe 400 parts per million in the first part, because you specifically mentioned mass? If you were, then you are off by a factor of 100.

Then you mention 20.8 pounds. What is it that weighs 20.8 pounds? The atmosphere weighs about 15 pounds per square inch at sea level, so that's not it. A cubic metre of air weighs about 3 pounds at sea level so that's not it either.

Dude... Your verbal diarrhea makes no sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

At best, Silly Billy is a burger flipper. His posts on science are absolutely hilarious. He has even tried to put the Alps in Australia.

 

[SSDD]

The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.

If it were even the smallest fraction as ubiquitous as you claim, then the phenomenon would be observed, measured, and quantified.

What is ubiquitous is the belief in the phenomenon without the first observed instance of it in reality.

You are a believer...you don't question what you believe with anything like rational skepticism...you have your faith..you have your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and you will ride right over the cliff clinging to them as if they represented reality. You are a lost cause.

I may not be able to explain the fundamental mechanism of the reality that I accept, but every damed observation, measurement and quantification ever made supports me...while you believe your models explain the fundamental mechanism of what you believe while there doesn't exist a single measurement or observation of it ...ever.

 

[SSDD]

Hahahaha. As if you could help anyone with science of any sort!!! Hahahaha.

Anyone who is able to accept reality over unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models is a step ahead of you ian and therefore in a position to help you. You are locked in a fantasy that doesn't exist in reality...anyone who has at least a foot in reality can help you.

 

[IanC]

The mechanism is ubiquitous. I cannot fathom why you refuse to acknowledge it.

If it were even the smallest fraction as ubiquitous as you claim, then the phenomenon would be observed, measured, and quantified.

What is ubiquitous is the belief in the phenomenon without the first observed instance of it in reality.

You are a believer...you don't question what you believe with anything like rational skepticism...you have your faith..you have your unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models and you will ride right over the cliff clinging to them as if they represented reality. You are a lost cause.

I may not be able to explain the fundamental mechanism of the reality that I accept, but every damed observation, measurement and quantification ever made supports me...while you believe your models explain the fundamental mechanism of what you believe while there doesn't exist a single measurement or observation of it ...ever.

Throw a towel over your computer tower. In half an hour both the tower and the towel will be much warmer. The energy needed to warm both came from the energy not released into the environment.

If there was a power outage, turning off both the computer and heating to the room, everything would start to cool. But the computer would cool more slowly with the towel than without.

An easy experiment that anyone can do. The variations are endless.