AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Is there a flow of logic in these two statements?

We know when it was warmer in Greenland and When it wasn't

No, the records aren't "accurate"

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Is there a flow of logic in these two statements?

We know when it was warmer in Greenland and When it wasn't

No, the records aren't "accurate"

Of course there is. Tree's grow within a certain temperature band. In fact some can only grow within a certain temp and altitude band. If the temps are too cold they simply can't grow.

You guys like to fantasize that you can measure the global temperature within tenths of a degree C which is silly. So in that respect the temp record is not "accurate". But it IS accurate in terms of relationships with current temps.

Your buddy Mann has built an entire "record" based on upside down trends of tree rings that are really adept at measuring the amount of WATER that the tree received...but not so good at telling us the temperatures...that is based on a whole lot of hand waving...as evidenced by the demolition of his statistical methods...

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I do agree with you about variations within one tenth of one degree. And of course the further we go back the less accurate the records are, particularly once we start combining data compiled from different methodologies. I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I do agree with you about variations within one tenth of one degree. And of course the further we go back the less accurate the records are, particularly once we start combining data compiled from different methodologies. I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed.

You find research based on a single tree, within a rather large grove of trees, useful? Why?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I'm never sure whether this is an issue of literacy in that you sometimes simply do not understand what is posted, but if you wish to discuss something I posted - try to find something that I did actually post.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I'm never sure whether this is an issue of literacy in that you sometimes simply do not understand what is posted, but if you wish to discuss something I posted - try to find something that I did actually post.

You said you find Manns "research" interesting. I'm asking why you find it interesting based on the fact that it is basically non-existant. Feel free to do your own research on his methodology, I suggest you look at more than just revisionist sites, they don't do a very good job of reporting the current state of affairs as regards him......I wonder if his support for those sites might color their reporting?

What do you think about that?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

Please read what I posted, and respond to that.

I simply can not respond to questions or comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Please read what I posted, and respond to that.

I simply can not respond to questions or comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted.

I believe you wrote this...yes?

"I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed"

I asked why you found it interesting when it has been shown to be crap.

 

[IanC]

here are emission curves for three different temps in the star range.

it is easy to see that each curve has almost the exact same range of wavelengths as the others, although the higher temps produce more radiation and the average wavelength is in a higher energy band.

this type of graph makes the second law of thermodynamics easy to understand when dealing with radiation. although the range is almost exactly the same for each temperature, the amount of radiation at any particular wavelength is always larger for the hotter object. this is why heat alway flows from warmer to cooler. if you subtract the graph of the cooler object from the warmer one you get a visual amount of radiation which is available to be transfered to the cooler object. note well that all three curves produce photons in the full range, with the exception of very few extra high photons at the very left side. a 500nm photon produced by any of the temps is indistinguishable from the others.

here is a graph for temps more likely to be found under earthly conditions. same basic shape, same relationship as to why heat flows one way, towards the cooler because the warmer object is always producing more radiation in every range.


are the earth's surface and atmosphere perfect black bodies? of course not. I reccomend Glickstein at WUWT (Google Image Result for http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gw-heat-light-detail.jpg or the guy at Science of Doom (Google Image Result for http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/goody-p4.png?w=500) depending on which blogs you read. better yet, read both sets of article. better still read the comments after the articles as well. and the other articles on the same subject by the authors. and more articles on the subject by different authors. etc, etc, etc, until you understand the basics, understand the differences according to which side is talking, and then make up your own mind.

For now just a short response, because I`m certain the AGW spammers will bury it with as much of their garbage which has zilch to do with what you just posted. There is nothing wrong with any of your statements in this post.
However:
If you just "eyeball" the emission curves then they appear more similar than they really are..
Look at the Y-axis "Relative Brightness" and note the wavelength where each curve peaks.
If you got a CAD drag that graph into a window and examine each curve a little bit closer:

The 350 nm peak of the 7500 K curve has a Rel.Br. which is 11 times higher than the 650 nm peak of the 4500 K curve.
It only takes a few mouse clicks with a CAD program and you get the integral for each curves.
The relation ship is the same as for the relative peak values.
But none of that takes into consideration what should be the third dimension, which is completely missing on that graph.
And that is the energy increase of photons as the wavelength gets shorter. You could draw in that line yourself .
A 350 nm photon carries ~ 1.9 times the energy of a 650 nm photon.
Plot that relationship on the Z-axis which is not on that graph and then you can cube the graph which the familiar E= proportional relation ship with T in fact does.
From that extrapolate down to 20 C and the 15 000 nanometer photons that CO2 "re-emits" or "back radiates" with each of these photons .Then cube that graph again and you will notice that the CO2 "back radiation" effect is as miniscule as a fly having a head on collision with a freight train going in the opposite direction.
Last not least be aware that this graph is for IDEAL black bodies in a theoretical IDEAL vacuum. Only under IDEAL condition can an object convert heat energy quantitatively into light with that spectral distribution.
In the real world a 30mW Laser 532 nanometers needed 250mW at 650 nm for equal brightness.
That's 8.3 times more power...way more than what it would take with an ideal black body for a wavelength spectral span of only 118 nanometers...which is only 1 tick unit increment on the X-axis on that 2 dimensional graph

I should paste in what the Siamese cat and "Saigon" buried yesterday within minutes after I posted it:
The distinguishing difference between the terms kinetic energy and thermal energy is that thermal energy is the mean energy of disordered, i.e. random, motion of the particles or the oscillations in the system. The conversion of energy of ordered motion to thermal energy results from collisions.

For gaseous systems, the factor f, the number of degrees of freedom, commonly has the value 3 in the case of the monatomic gas, 5 for many diatomic gases, and 7 for larger molecules at ambient temperatures. In general however, it is a function of the temperature of the system as internal modes of motion, vibration, or rotation become available in higher energy regimes
Today's narrow definition of heat in physics contrasts with its use in common language, in some engineering disciplines, and in the historical scientific development of thermodynamics

sqrt (3 * Kelvin * Blz. constant(1.3805*10^- 23 J/K) divided by molecular mass of air 28.9 g/mol (4.799*10^-26) =average V is 500 meters per second at 300 K.
When you heat a gas by 1 deg then the average molecular speed increases by almost 30 meters per second and expands in an open system as a consequence.
It does so against a 1 atm pressure and that means work was performed, consuming energy...which in turn is no longer available to produce it`s energy equivalent in photons

thanks for a short and concise comment (by polarbear standards).

the virial theorum (sp?) for maximizing efficiency between kinetic and potential energy in the atmosphere is an underutilized tool for understanding. I am still holding out for a Nobel to be given to the mad hungarian.

the interesting and useful thing about Planck curves is that they keep their basic shape and relationship throughout the range of temperatures. a twenty degree difference in temp looks the same at 300 or 3000, just the position on the x axis is different. most temperature differentials that drive the climate are small, especially if you are looking at microscopic reactions and distances. the idea that radiation is somehow forbidden from the nominally lower temp area is preposterous.

polarbear, your discussion about different laser wavelengths is interesting but not really applicable to earth conditions. not many 3000K temperature differentials exist for any appreciable amount of time. but 0.003K differentials are as common as grains of sand on a beach.

....

someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.

how could you tell the difference between a reflected, naturally emitted or simply transversed photon? any form would be measured as radiation from the Sun, therefore it has 'added' to the Sun's total energy, even if it is a totally insignificant portion.

 

[IanC]

Westwall -

I do agree with you about variations within one tenth of one degree. And of course the further we go back the less accurate the records are, particularly once we start combining data compiled from different methodologies. I have always found Mann's research interesting and quite useful when taken as evidence of general trends, but of little value for anything more detailed.

You find research based on a single tree, within a rather large grove of trees, useful? Why?

Saigon- Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.

and this rather pertinent comment-

Guest comment by Caleb:
I’ve worked outside since I was a small boy in the 1950’s, and have cut down hundreds of trees. I always check out the rings, for every tree has its own story.
I’ve seen some rather neat tricks pulled off by trees, especially concerning how far they can reach with their roots to find fertilizer or moisture. For example, sugar maple roots will reach, in some cases, well over a hundred feet, and grow a swift net of roots in the peat moss surrounding a lady’s azalea’s root ball, so that the azalea withers, for the maple steals all its water.
I’ve also seen tired old maples perk right up, when a pile of manure is heaped out in a pasture a hundred feet away, and later have seen the tree’s rings, when it was cut down, show its growth surged while that manure was available.
After fifty years you learn a thing or two, even if you don’t take any science classes or major in climatology, and I’ve had a hunch many of the tree-ring theories were bunkum, right from the start.
The bristlecone records seemed a lousy proxy, because at the altitude where they grow it is below freezing nearly every night, and daytime temperatures are only above freezing for something like 10% of the year. They live on the borderline of existence, for trees, because trees go dormant when water freezes. (As soon as it drops below freezing the sap stops dripping into the sugar maple buckets.) Therefore the bristlecone pines were dormant 90% of all days and 99% of all nights, in a sense failing to collect temperature data all that time, yet they were supposedly a very important proxy for the entire planet. To that I just muttered “bunkum.”
But there were other trees in other places. I was skeptical about the data, but until I saw so much was based on a single tree, YAD061, I couldn’t be sure I could just say “bunkum.”
YAD061 looks very much like a tree that grew up in the shade of its elders, and therefore grew slowly, until age or ice-storms or insects removed the elders and the shade. Then, with sunshine and the rotting remains of its elders to feed it, the tree could take off.
I have seen growth patterns much like YAD061 in the rings of many stumps in New Hampshire, and not once have I thought it showed a sign of global warming, or of increased levels of CO2 in the air. Rather the cause is far more simple: A childhood in the under-story, followed by a tree’s “day in the sun.”
Dr. Briffa should spend less time gazing at computer screens, and actually get out and associate with trees more. At the very least, it might be good for his health.

 

[SSDD]

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

1.) I`m not like you and don`t sit here all day and read everything every person on your lengthy hate list writes.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings polar bear. I am a grown up and don't get my panties in a wad if someone doesn't agree with me.

As to the radiation, I may not have correctly phrased what I think. The second law says that heat won't move from a cool object to a warm object. relatively speaking, a red star is a cooler object than a blue star so heat won't move from the red star to the blue star if the second law of thermodynamics can be believed. My take on that is that radiation from the cooler source simply doesn't move in the direction of the warmer source just like a marble placed on an incline won't roll up. Maybe the red star does radiate in the direction of the blue star but doesn't ever get there since the cooler object can not transfer heat or energy to the warmer object. I find simply not radiating along those particular vectors easier to explain that the energy starting out in that direction and not making it to the blue star.

In any even, energy can't move from the red star to the blue star...how that happens exactly doesn't require explanation any more than gravity...which we also can't fully explain even though we have great experience with it.

 

[SSDD]

Read up on Greenland, M.

Climate helped drive Vikings from Greenland | Brown University News and Events

It wouldn't do for him to read up on the history of Greenland...it doesn't mesh with his beliefs. In that respect...warmers are a lot like 6000 year old earth fundamentalist Christians. They beleive what the believe even though the evidence just doesn't support their beliefs..

 

[SSDD]

Read up on Greenland

It's warmer now in Greenland than it was during the Medieval Warm Period

Oh, you didn't know that? You probably should read up on Greenland.

I think it is you who should read up a bit:

Perner, K., Moros, M., Lloyd, J.M., Kuijpers, A., Telford, R.J. and Harff, J. 2011. Centennial scale benthic forminiferal record of late Holocene oceanographic variability in Disko Bugt, West Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 2815-2816.

.....where one of the warm intervals was said by them to constitute "the time period of the 'Medieval Climate Anomaly'," which they graphically identify as occurring over the period AD 1000-1500. And their proxy-temperature graph indicates that that entire period was significantly warmer than the Current Warm Period has been to date, due to the huge cooling that was experienced during the Little Ice Age.

Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307.

it can be seen that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period peaked and hovered around -18.5°C for three centuries between ~AD 800 to 1100. Temperatures of the Current Warm Period also peaked at around the same temperature, but only for a few short decades in the early 1900s. Presently, temperatures based upon this method are about 1.5°C colder than the peak warmth of Medieval Times.

Kaplan, M.R., Wolfe, A.P. and Miller, G.H. 2002. Holocene environmental variability in southern Greenland inferred from lake sediments. Quaternary Research 58: 149-159.

Results indicate that neoglacial cooling began around 2000 years ago, but was interrupted by two reversals, one between 650 and 1050 AD (the Medieval Warm Period) and another between 1450 and 1670 (the Little Medieval Warm Period). Based upon biogenic silica data plotted by the authors in their Figures 4 and 5 (Figure 5 reproduced below), from which relative temperature can be inferred, it is clear that the current warm period has not attained the warmth of Medieval times.

Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E. and White, J. 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16: 299-307.

it can be seen that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 800-1100) were about 1°C warmer than those of the Current Warm Period.

Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Reech, N., Gundestrup, N., Clausen, H.B. and Hammer, C.U. 1975. Climatic changes, Norsemen and modern man. Nature 255: 24-28.

From the authors' Figure 2, we have identified the Medieval Warm Period as a time of significant warmth between approximately AD 730 and 1030. Also, since the authors' data ended in 1974, we used more recent (1979-2005) temperatures derived from satellite data to extrapolate the temperature difference between medieval and modern times, estimating that peak Medieval Warmth was about 0.6°C greater than it is presently.

Jennings, A.E. and Weiner, N.J. 1996. Environmental change in eastern Greenland during the last 1300 years: evidence from foraminifera and lithofacies in Nansen Fjord, 68°N. The Holocene 6: 179-191.

Results of the analyses revealed the presence of a Medieval Warm Period that occurred between about AD 730 and 1110. The authors describe the climate during this time as "the warmest and most stable in the last millennium including the present day," in which sea-ice in the fjord was "never or rarely" present in the summer.

Thes are only a few studies indicating that the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature. These specifically apply to Greenland. It is the overwhelming body of evidence like this that makes mann's claim of a local MWP so idiotic.

 

[SSDD]

Saigon- Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.

You can bet that they don't hear much about that tree over at SS....or any of the other wacko sites where they get spoonfed.

 

[IanC]

Do you think SSDD is correct or incorrect?

1.) I`m not like you and don`t sit here all day and read everything every person on your lengthy hate list writes.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings polar bear. I am a grown up and don't get my panties in a wad if someone doesn't agree with me.

As to the radiation, I may not have correctly phrased what I think. The second law says that heat won't move from a cool object to a warm object. relatively speaking, a red star is a cooler object than a blue star so heat won't move from the red star to the blue star if the second law of thermodynamics can be believed. My take on that is that radiation from the cooler source simply doesn't move in the direction of the warmer source just like a marble placed on an incline won't roll up. Maybe the red star does radiate in the direction of the blue star but doesn't ever get there since the cooler object can not transfer heat or energy to the warmer object. I find simply not radiating along those particular vectors easier to explain that the energy starting out in that direction and not making it to the blue star.

In any even, energy can't move from the red star to the blue star...how that happens exactly doesn't require explanation any more than gravity...which we also can't fully explain even though we have great experience with it.

radiative photons (think light), once created to shed energy from an excited bit of matter, exist until they interact with another bit of matter.

reactive photons (force carriers for electromagnetic fields), only become real if there is a particle of matter able to accept it.

interference patterns along a vector from one star to another only exist if you measure them with, you guessed it, a detector made of matter. and similar to water waves, the light wave exits the interference area with the same characteristics as before it entered. there is no extinguishing of photons or transfer of energy.

 

[IanC]

Saigon- Westwall is referencing the single tree (YAD061) that singlehandedly gives the Yamal proxy its hockey stick shape after being massaged by Mann's rather bizarre methodology. Yamal is also one of the proxies that has not been updated with additional cores even though they are available, quite likely because the new info does not tell the 'right story'.

You can bet that they don't hear much about that tree over at SS....or any of the other wacko sites where they get spoonfed.

indeed! but every time they have to twist in the wind trying to explain the 'curiosities' of methodology, like in the recent Marcott paper, everyone gets further informed about just how weak the evidence is, even the warmers. it is easy to get taken in when an expert uses confidence and jargon, all out of proportion to the strength of the evidence. a lot of them will be pissed when the whole doomsday scenario gets scaled down to next-to-nothing.

 

[polarbear]

someone commented on how the Sun would not be able to absorb an IR photon because there are no ground state electrons available to interact. interesting idea. what are the possibilities for the photon? 1. absorption of the photon with the energy stored for later emission. 2. reflection. 3. the photon traverses the Sun and comes out the other side.

how could you tell the difference between a reflected, naturally emitted or simply transversed photon? any form would be measured as radiation from the Sun, therefore it has 'added' to the Sun's total energy, even if it is a totally insignificant portion.

Good morning to you.
B.t.w. My driveway got snowed under again today, so I`m waiting for the snowplow yet again and while I do,... I`ll respond.
Interesting question.
I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.
The only thing I did do was when the first dual channel AA, a Jarell Ash 800 came out was tuning one monochromator to the absorption line and the other to the emission line with multi element hollow cathodes while aspirating K, Na or Ca solutions.
On the absorption bands you got next to no absorption from the source unless you add an ionization suppressing agent.
Then you can measure absorption but on the 2.nd channel which was tuned to one of the emission lines of that element you can indeed see an increase in emission.
I have no way of telling if these additional photons made it straight through the sample path and came directly from the hollow cathode source or if they were first absorbed at the emission band an re-emitted along with the rest of the photons that were emitted by the hot enough atoms in the sample path.
It`s hard to to, because for absorption you turn the burner head so it`s aligned with the light path and for emission you turn it 90 degrees to get more light....no matter which way I played around with it the results were the same, but I doubt it that the photons from the cathode lamp "heated up" speak excited the electrons at the emission band frequency any more than they were already pumped up with the air-acetylene flame.
Was that short enough for you, by your standards...
Hey you are not that critical about the lengths of of the texts you quote in this forum. I always read the entire thing. You should see how long a single chapter is in the ASTM (forensic analysis) regulations how to do a spectral analysis for on element so that it can be accepted in a court of law

 

[polarbear]

I think the best way to settle this "back radiation" argument in this forum once and for all, is by doing the Roy Spencer "Yes Virginia though experiment" for real. I can go to the U and beg one of my old friends at the chem faculty to lend me a lab desiccator

Then I`ll suspend a transistor for a base line experiment without the heat sink and in the "back radiation " mode with the heat sink.

It`s no problem to run wires through the vacuum pump connector and I can run power through the transistor.
I got all kinds of power transistors and heat sinks that have enough fins that should "back radiate" at each other and heat the transistor more than without the heat sink according to Roy and AGW "scientists" in general.
I got a vacuum pump that can get it down to about 8 mm Hg and that should be good enough to kill the "but it was convection" argument...which is the usual reality denier response.
I know the outcome because I tried it out over 10 years ago while I was in a lab, but never bothered to record it on video.
Any suggestions?
I`ll do it in about a month after we all agreed on the parameters and will adhere to them + have a witness authenticating it on camera.

 

[mamooth]

I never had the chance to be on the other side of a fusion reactor while somebody on the other side turns on an IR source and measure how much IR is coming through the plasma in addition to the emission of the plasma.

I have. These fusion reactors are called "stars".

If one star is behind another relative to earth, the light from it doesn't go through the other star. Not on any frequency band.

So, by direct observation, we know with 100% certainty that all of the radiation of the one star is absorbed by the other star, and does not pass through.

Hence we also know with 100% certainty that a cooler object can radiate heat to a warmer object.

If you disagree, please explain why a star isn't transparent in the IR band to a star behind it.

 

[mamooth]

I got all kinds of power transistors and heat sinks that have enough fins that should "back radiate" at each other and heat the transistor more than without the heat sink according to Roy and AGW "scientists" in general.

But no AGW scientists ever made that claim. You're the only one who ever made such an insane claim. Essentially, you're planning to run an experiment to prove your own claim is wrong.

It's obvious the heat sink will lower the temp of the transistor, even in a vacuum. The heat sink provides more area for radiation. Therefore, the temperature of it doesn't have to be as high to radiate the same energy as a hotter bare transistor.

If you wanted an experiment to measure back radiation, it would be tricky. You'd have to have two very differently shaped heat sinks, but with exactly the same surface area. One with fins, and one without. Very difficult to pull off, because of the odd shapes involved. If one could set up such a thing, the one with the fins would run slightly hotter in a vacuum.