AGW: atmospheric physics

[polarbear]

So why don`t you tell me why every city under these "aerosol" domes as you call them, is warmer than the surrounding country side?

Because concrete and asphalt are dark, dumbass. And because they don't evaporate moisture.

Again, 4rth grade level science, and yet you can't grasp it.

Wrong answer.
Concrete has an albedo of 0.5 and trees have an albedo of 0.09 to 0.18 and worn asphalt has an albedo of 0.12.
How much "black asphalt" do you get to see from an airplane that flies over a city?

And because they don't evaporate moisture.

Water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" is it not? So then with the lower albedo and the higher moisture air layer over the forest, the forest should be warmer than the city according to your AGW oracle model religion...but it isn`t !...for a good reason that your religion keeps downplaying if not outright denying.
So what`s wrong with your religion`s testament ?

It`s 4rth grade level "science" as in the PBS cat in the hat TV show for little kids, can`t you grasp it ?
So try again dimwit.
Idiots like you are the reason that made Obama realize that the school system has been producing poor results and needs re-vamping.
Because you don`t have what it takes to do the math how much heat is transferred by convection.
You failed because you prefer to be spoon fed like Roy Spencer`s "Virginia" under the "radiation blanket" which keeps her warm in her bed while he`s reading her a story from the AGW bed time story book.

****************************************************************************************

Here is the right answer why cities under a smog dome of airborne particulate are hotter:
Temperature Inversion Layers

A layer of haze covers the Sydney, Australia skyline.
Inversion layers are significant to meteorology because they block atmospheric flow which causes the air over an area experiencing an inversion to become stable
Normally, air temperature decreases at a rate of 3.5°F for every 1000 feet (or roughly 6.4°C for every kilometer) you climb into the atmosphere. When this normal cycle is present, it is considered an unstable air mass and air constantly flows between the warm and cool areas.
During an inversion episode, temperatures increase with increasing altitude. The warm inversion layer then acts as a cap and stops atmospheric mixing. This is why inversion layers are called stable air masses.

http://www.enotes.com/atmospheric-inversion-layers-reference/atmospheric-inversion-layers

Denver's "brown cloud," the haze of air pollution that hangs over the city, is kept in place by atmospheric inversion layers. © Ted Spiegel/Corbis. Reproduced by permission.




Whenever an anomaly exists in the atmosphere in which an increase in temperature, humidity, or precipitation occurs where a decrease would be expected, there is an inversion, or reversal. An atmospheric inversion most commonly refers to temperature inversion where the temperature increases rather than decreases with increasing altitude.
Normally air temperature decreases with altitude at a rate of about 3.38°F (1°C) per 59 feet (180 m) because since the Sun's heating effect is greatest at the Earth's surface. There are three factors that alter this rate, causing the temperature to rise within the first few hundred meters of the ground. Inversions can occur as a result of radiative, or direct, cooling from the earth's surface. This occurs at night when the ground cools more rapidly than the air above it. The effects of an inversion are thus greatest during early morning, usually the coolest part of the day. Inversions also occur as a result of subsidence (sinking) of air in an anticyclone, or high pressure system, where the descending air warms adiabatically,
The mere presence of a city or factory often creates a microclimate of its own, creating a pocket of warm air within the cool ground layer. Smoke from a stack, instead of escaping upward or laterally, will descend to the ground, delivering a direct dose of pollution to residents of the area.

So tell us again how the "Chinese aerosol effect" is supposed to account for the missing heat that these stupid models had forecast

 

[Saigon]

Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?

 

[westwall]

Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?

Take a look in the mirror buckwheat. That applys to YOU more than any other.

 

[Oddball]

Why is it we don't seem to have any Deniers on this board who are literate and can post honestly?

You wouldn't know literacy and/or honesty if they kicked you in the nuts, tovarich.

 

[Saigon]

I'm sure you guys must see what I mean, even as you may be loathe to admit it.

In the past few weeks it is become more than evident that many posters would post anything at all from any source out of sheer desperation. The claims have become increasingly shrill, ludicrous and passed being embarassing some time back.

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.

And let's not forget that the same 4 - 6 posters who are arguing against science are the same 4 - 6 posters who were arguing against history last week.

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.

 

[Oddball]

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.

Then maybe it would behoove you to get in touch with intellect, history and science.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm sure you guys must see what I mean, even as you may be loathe to admit it.

In the past few weeks it is become more than evident that many posters would post anything at all from any source out of sheer desperation. The claims have become increasingly shrill, ludicrous and passed being embarassing some time back.

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.

And let's not forget that the same 4 - 6 posters who are arguing against science are the same 4 - 6 posters who were arguing against history last week.

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.

the artic ice changes constantly

at one point it stretched so far south

into North America that Europeans traveled along the ice barrier

from the artic to North America

 

[Saigon]

Jon -

the artic ice changes constantly

Indeed it does - it is amazing to look at some of the old images showing the extent of the ice.

Even in the past few years, the changes have been quite dramatic, as this image shows:

The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/seaice.html

 

[westwall]

Jon -

the artic ice changes constantly

Indeed it does - it is amazing to look at some of the old images showing the extent of the ice.

Even in the past few years, the changes have been quite dramatic, as this image shows:

The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record.

Quick Facts on Sea Ice

Indeed, here it is today.....funny how you post the year that the cyclones broke up the sea ice and then it accreted back together at a record rate afterwords...funny how you omit that little fact. You omit a lot I've found.

 

[SSDD]

Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?

Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.

You said that the greenhouse effect was the result of so called greenhouse gasses slow down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That is an entirely different senario than is claimed by climate science. Slowing down the rate of heat transfer means a slowed rate of cooling. A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming which is what climate science claims is happening when energy is reradiatied from the atmosphere to, and absorbed by the surface of the earth.

A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming. If you slow the rate of cooling to zero you have a static temperature...not warming. Your senario claims a slower rate of cooling.

The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though
I suggest you sleep without a blanket tonight to test that very peculiar claim.

The earth is just like a warm body, in terms of the CO2 analogy. It has heat energy it needs to radiate out, just like a body under the covers. Whether the heat comes from internal chemical reactions or the absorption of visible light is not relevant to the analogy.

And your body temperature doesn't increase as a result of being under the blankets. The air trapped under the blanket with you warms, but that is a result of blocking convection and conduction...two factors which have nothing at all to do with the claimed greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is based entirely on radiation.

Your claim violates the laws of thermodynamics. If an object keeps producing heat and the heat moves outward more slowly, the object will warm up.

No it doesn't. It only cools down more slowly. Cooling more slowly does not equal warming. When you put a hot liquid in a thermos and seal the top, the liquid then begins to cool more slowly than it would if it were in a cup on the counter. It's temperature never increases above the temperature it was at which you put it in the thermos...it begins losing temperature immediately but more slowly than in open air. Slower cooling still equals cooling.

Are you claiming that you get a fever when you get under the covers in your bed? Are you claiming that your hot coffee gets hotter when you put it in a thermos? The laws of thermodynamics predict what happens to the coffee in a thermos and what happens to your temperature when you get under the covers...neither will increase in temperature because neither the thermos nor your blanket are energy sources capable of warming anything.

You claim also violates common sense, as anyone who has used a blanket knows. If I stay outside the blanket, I get cold. I don't just feel cold, my skin actually gets colder. Under the blanket, my body temperature rises.

You violate common sense. Grab your thermometer...oral or rectal...place it in the proper orifice and wait for your temperature to increase. My bet is that in a couple of days you will die from lack of water because you can wait till the cows come home and that blanket will never cause your body temperature to increase. Do you really think that you get a fever every time you go to bed?

Do the experiment...prove to yourself that you are wrong.

And since a physical blanket clearly can do it, you've clearly been debunked concerning your claim that CO2 can't do it.

No it can't. It is a failure of logic on your part. Try this. Turn on a light bulb till it gets hot...measure its temperature. Turn it off and measure its temperature as it cools down arne record the results every minute. Now turn it back on till it gets hot again...turn it off and place an insulating blanket over it. Measure its temperature. It will cool down at a lower rate, but it will never get warmer than the temperature it was when you initially turned it off. Slowed rate of cooling does not equal warming.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.

Explain why, according to the experts, the oldest sea ice in the arctic is 10 years old or less if not for regular melting?

 

[polarbear]

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.

Then maybe it would behoove you to get in touch with intellect, history and science.

AGW gurus figure they can use computer models and data from the past to predict the future. If you don`t believe it that makes you a "denier".
The data they used is no better than what you would get from a random number generator that generates numbers between 1 and 6....as in the Marcott proxies.
Rolling the dice for 10 000 years "climatologists" averaged the numbers and it averaged 3. So they reason that future rolls of the dice should be 3 most of the time and everything else is an "Anomaly".
If they would have to put their money (instead of ours) where their mouth is they would loose 83% of the time betting on number 3.
A "denier " who knows math would wait out the first nine rolls and keep track which number came up the fewest time and do the math which number it would take so that the average stays at 3 and win over 60% of the time.
"Saigon" and the cat in the hat have of course no clue how the above related to the AGW empirical "proof", but that`s why none of the "oil-lobby conspiracy" scientists who know their math are surprised by the "missing heat" and the colder winters.
B.t.w. I`m still waiting for the cat in the hat to tell me how a pollen count is calibrated as a proxy thermometer...what`s the mathematical relation ship between the pollen count in 10 000 year old dirt and the temperature.

But he won`t be back for quite a while because he is too busy Googling what an inversion layer and a standard lapse rate is...(something he never heard about, I`m sure.)....or how convection works and what happens if convection is blocked, like the "greenhouse effect" of the roof on a greenhouse. Should be no problem, according to him that`s grade school stuff...yet he had no clue how a simple chimney works

but was trying to lecture us on "atmospheric physics" + the "global cooling effect of Chinese aerosols" and heat their influence on transfer rates

 

[IanC]

Jon -

the artic ice changes constantly

Indeed it does - it is amazing to look at some of the old images showing the extent of the ice.

Even in the past few years, the changes have been quite dramatic, as this image shows:

The 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum, on September 16, 2007, reached the lowest ice extent in the satellite record.

Quick Facts on Sea Ice

I think it is somewhat misleading to focus only on the minimum (or maximum) sea ice extent because they are the most influenced by weather systems and previous year's highs and lows.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s-3ADNlsxfw]Arctic sea ice 3-22-2013e 30fps - YouTube[/ame]

Cryosphere ? Sea Ice Video « the Air Vent

there is full satellite era coverage videos of both the Arctic and Antarctic at that web page.

 

[polarbear]

I don't know what this whole anti-intellectual, anti-History, anti-Science thing is about, but it doesn't make for terribly worthwhile discussion.

Then maybe it would behoove you to get in touch with intellect, history and science.

So you are an "anti-intellectual/anti Science denier" just like me who has a problem with CO2 back radiation and the "Chinese aerosol" effect which uses airborne particulates like perfectly aligned little mirrors that reflect only in the up direction while CO2 molecules aim down like little lasers.
Sun light is collimated light and objects cast sharp shadows.
In a city under a smog dome or under a cloud the light is dispersed in all possible directions quite often to a point that there are no distinct shadows,...not that there was`nt enough light.

We "deniers" say that IR re-emitted, speak dispersed by CO2 molecules does not behave any different either.
"Deniers" say that convective heat transfer goes exclusively in one direction and that`s up...and outpaces everything that CO2 molecules might re-disperse in the down direction.
Given the data "Deniers" can do the math for these transfer rates ...no problem...and the result is something entirely different from what the IPCC has been plugging in.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.

Explain why, according to the experts, the oldest sea ice in the arctic is 10 years old or less if not for regular melting?

Well, present some evidence, and let's take a look.

Expecting people to simply take your word for it doesn't seem a terribly useful starting point.

 

[Saigon]

I think it is somewhat misleading to focus only on the minimum (or maximum) sea ice extent because they are the most influenced by weather systems and previous year's highs and lows.
.

Rate of growth can be misleadling, in that growth tends to be fastest following years in which the melt has been greatest, but I think the fact that current minimums are so catastrophically low is hugely important.

To get the fully picture one has to look at the overall trend, which this site does very well:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[IanC]

Any particular reason you failed to understand the word "simplified"? Was it due to ignorance of the word, or deliberate misinterpretation?

Does simplified mean entirely different to you? The greenhouse effect as described by climate science is radiation from the atmosphere being absorbed by the surface of the earth and thereby warming the surface of the earth more than the sun alone could manage.

You said that the greenhouse effect was the result of so called greenhouse gasses slow down radiative heat transfer away from the earth. That is an entirely different senario than is claimed by climate science. Slowing down the rate of heat transfer means a slowed rate of cooling. A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming which is what climate science claims is happening when energy is reradiatied from the atmosphere to, and absorbed by the surface of the earth.

A slower rate of cooling does not equal warming. If you slow the rate of cooling to zero you have a static temperature...not warming. Your senario claims a slower rate of cooling.

The belief that a blanket can make an object beneath it warmer does though
I suggest you sleep without a blanket tonight to test that very peculiar claim.



And your body temperature doesn't increase as a result of being under the blankets. The air trapped under the blanket with you warms, but that is a result of blocking convection and conduction...two factors which have nothing at all to do with the claimed greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is based entirely on radiation.



No it doesn't. It only cools down more slowly. Cooling more slowly does not equal warming. When you put a hot liquid in a thermos and seal the top, the liquid then begins to cool more slowly than it would if it were in a cup on the counter. It's temperature never increases above the temperature it was at which you put it in the thermos...it begins losing temperature immediately but more slowly than in open air. Slower cooling still equals cooling.

Are you claiming that you get a fever when you get under the covers in your bed? Are you claiming that your hot coffee gets hotter when you put it in a thermos? The laws of thermodynamics predict what happens to the coffee in a thermos and what happens to your temperature when you get under the covers...neither will increase in temperature because neither the thermos nor your blanket are energy sources capable of warming anything.



You violate common sense. Grab your thermometer...oral or rectal...place it in the proper orifice and wait for your temperature to increase. My bet is that in a couple of days you will die from lack of water because you can wait till the cows come home and that blanket will never cause your body temperature to increase. Do you really think that you get a fever every time you go to bed?

Do the experiment...prove to yourself that you are wrong.

And since a physical blanket clearly can do it, you've clearly been debunked concerning your claim that CO2 can't do it.

No it can't. It is a failure of logic on your part. Try this. Turn on a light bulb till it gets hot...measure its temperature. Turn it off and measure its temperature as it cools down arne record the results every minute. Now turn it back on till it gets hot again...turn it off and place an insulating blanket over it. Measure its temperature. It will cool down at a lower rate, but it will never get warmer than the temperature it was when you initially turned it off. Slowed rate of cooling does not equal warming.

body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD's insistence that the Arctic is regularly ice-free based on a postcard - despite scientific research proving that the Arctic has not been ice-free for more than 5,000 years - is the argumentation of a child.

Explain why, according to the experts, the oldest sea ice in the arctic is 10 years old or less if not for regular melting?

Well, present some evidence, and let's take a look.

Expecting people to simply take your word for it doesn't seem a terribly useful starting point.

NASA data shows thickest and oldest Arctic ice is melting | Reuters

 

[SSDD]

body under a blanket, and planet under an atmosphere are fundementally different. a body regulates its temperature and uses less food to create heat under a blanket. a planet has a consistent heat source therefore the equilibrium temperature at the surface will change when radiation is impeded and thus a higher temperature is needed to force energy past the blockage.

Take a heating pad...roll it up...put a wireless grill thermometer (accurate to 0.1 degrees) inside....turn it on....give it time to reach whatever setting you put it on....then put the whole thing under as many blankets as you like and the temperature of that heating pad still won't increase. I did the experiment myself during a cookout last summer to prove to a luke warmer friend that a blanket can't make a warm object warmer. We put the heating pad under a total of 3 quilts and 2 down comforters, each folded in half and a second time with one of those thin mylar gold on one side silver on the other emergency blankets under the quilts and blankets after an objection was raised about the "reflective" qualities of cloth. That should have been enough coverage to cause the heating pad to get warmer than it was in open air if warming were physically possible.

If you turn the heating pad off and record its cool down period in the open air, and under blankets, it will cool down slower under the blaket, but again, reduced rate of cooling is not warming.

By the way, a planet does not have a consistent heat source. GCM's assume a consistent heat source, but real life is quite different. The output of the sun is variable....the amount of incoming radiation reaching the ground is variable due to clouds and other atmospheric phenomena...the amount of energy coming in is variable to the extreme due to the rotation of the earth....radiation from the surface is variable because of the physical geography of the planet...etc, etc, etc. The energy output of the planet is no more fixed and stable than that of your own body. It doesn't really matter though because the heating pad experiment proves that a blanket can not cause a self heating object to warm which takes the whole "body" question out of the picture.

 

[Saigon]

Explain why, according to the experts, the oldest sea ice in the arctic is 10 years old or less if not for regular melting?

Well, present some evidence, and let's take a look.

Expecting people to simply take your word for it doesn't seem a terribly useful starting point.

NASA data shows thickest and oldest Arctic ice is melting | Reuters

SSDD -

Thanks, that's an interesting article:

This is particularly shocking;

"Some 965,300 square miles (2.5 million sq kms) of perennial ice have been lost -- about one and a half times the area of Alaska -- a 50 percent decrease between February 2007 and February 2008, Meier said."

"The oldest "tough as nails" perennial ice has decreased by about 75 percent this year, losing 579,200 square miles (1.5 million sq kms, or about twice the area of Texas, he said."

The article also seemed to answer your question, here:

"Perennial ice is also vulnerable to a recurring pattern of swirling winds and currents known as the Arctic oscillation, which ejects the old ice out of the zone around the pole and aims it south where warmer waters will melt it."