How to lie statistically?

a reply to: melatonin

You're aiming too high
...
Go low, and then a little lower

That's what i like about you, mel. You're always good for a laugh.

Aim a little lower, buddy.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

And on the opposite side of the Earth at the time? What then?

A little thing called "thermal mass."

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Your calculations appear sound on the surface, but I fail to see where they disprove conduction/convection atmospheric heating. I have mentioned the high specific heat and heat of fusion of water many times to explain why the predictions of massive sea level rise are not realistic.

There is conduction/convection heating of the atmosphere, but there is also radiative emission occurring; the two are not mutually exclusive. There is some ice sheet melt occurring, and there is some not occurring. There is some absorption/re-emission of infrared emissions. None of that is in question; only how much is in question.

Assuming for the moment your 1000 W/m^2 figure (I was thinking it was closer to 1500, but that's not important right now), how many watts of energy are absorbed and how many are reflected (albedo)? What change in temperature will the absorbed energy create (specific heat)? What rate of heat transfer to the atmosphere will occur from this (conduction)? How much heat will escape as blackbody radiation? What will be the frequency spectra of this radiation? How much of this radiation will be absorbed/re-emitted by atmospheric gases? How much atmospheric heat will be dissipated by wind (convection)?

The answer is, we don't know. We have estimates being tested in computer models, but it is simply not possible to exactly calculate those variables. The albedo, for instance, can change drastically from one area to the next, even within a span of a few feet. The local thermal mass can shift drastically simply based on when it rained last. Blackbody radiation calculations are theoretical, meaning they are based on the perfect blackbody, which does not exist in reality.

Now, we can get some pretty close approximations on several of these variables, but there is also the question of what effect local variations have on the overall calculations. Wind, for instance, is primarily caused by uneven surface heating... wind contributes to convection heat exchange... so how do we calculate that? We really can't. It wasn't supposed to rain yesterday, but it did. We calculated the effects of the air masses moving through and made a guess, and the guess was wrong. If I had lived ten miles away, the guess would have been right. It was right for most people in this general area.

Do you see the problems with your theory?

Which theory? That the surface of the earth is warmed by solar radiation and heats the atmosphere through conduction/convection? That's not my theory; it's a proven fact.

It almost sounds like you are trying to prove that the fact that water evaporates is proof that carbon dioxide is heating the atmosphere because there's not enough solar radiation to do so. If so, that is ridiculous. Carbon dioxide does not produce heat; under the right circumstances, it can affect the direction of radiative heat energy through spectroscopic absorption/re-emission. It cannot produce heat.

TheRedneck

It is insufficient when the amount of energy striking the surface is barely enough to melt ice. This is part of the reason why it takes so long for the sea ice at the poles to melt despite sunlight all day long during their respective summers (another big part is the low angle).

I would hope the calculations are without too much error, but they're not about convection or conduction. You and the OP both seemed to have this idea that the Sun was enough to explain water vapor in the atmosphere. This is, by way of those calculations, clearly not so.

What screws around with the convection/conduction idea is the fact that the atmosphere does not get increasingly cooler with altitude as a rule - this only happens in some parts of the atmosphere, inverts in other parts of the atmosphere, and basically doesn't change in the pauses. Oh, and there's the fact that air isn't a very good conductor (double-panned glass ring any bells?); convection of course doesn't apply for warming the air from the surface - only to air itself moving around. Very little surface energy is lost due to conduction, though conduction does however make up virtually all of the relatively tiny transfer from the Earth's interior to the surface.

The 1000 W/m^2 figure is correct; the solar constant is less than 1500 W/m^2 as well... so that just ain't right. Atmospheric diffraction reduces the ~1370 W/m^2 to around 1000 W/m^2. Approximately 26% of albedo is from the atmosphere, with a 4-5% remainder from surface reflection. The 1000 W/m^2 is assuming a surface that is not reflecting, but also ignores downwelling radiation (as it's not directly from the Sun). I already calculated the temperature resulting from this in the previous post: 59°C (only at that spot though). Under 6% of heat is lost by the surface via conduction. Less than 16% of heat is lost by the surface via evaporation, which you neglect to mention. Nearly 80% of heat is lost by the surface via radiation, and a large chunk of this is when there isn't direct sunlight to counter the loss. Convection moves air whose temperature has changed by any of these mechanisms.

It is pretty late, and but I still think my facts are pretty straight.

Water vapor doesn't produce heat either (there is latent heat from condensation, but that heat came from the evaporation in the first place). What water vapor and carbon dioxide do, as greenhouse gases, is alter the movement of radiation. Instead of all that energy (remember, it's nearly 80% of the surface energy loss) radiating outwards and keeping the Earth at a chilly 255°K, it instead runs into a veritable minefield of molecules. This is primarily why the Earth is consistently warmer at the surface, and gets progressively cooler as altitude increases until it reaches the tropopause.

As you should clearly see the math just doesn't work for the Sun alone, how did water vapor come to exist in the atmosphere in quantities sufficient to induce a greenhouse effect?

a reply to: Greven

It is insufficient when the amount of energy striking the surface is barely enough to melt ice. This is part of the reason why it takes so long for the sea ice at the poles to melt despite sunlight all day long during their respective summers (another big part is the low angle).

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be comparing instantaneous energy rates with temperature (which is a measure of energy contained in the mass). That makes no sense mathematically/physically.

I would hope the calculations are without too much error, but they're not about convection or conduction. You and the OP both seemed to have this idea that the Sun was enough to explain water vapor in the atmosphere. This is, by way of those calculations, clearly not so.

Where, then, does this extra energy come from, if not the sun? Other energy sources, such as radioactive decay of trace elements in the planet or gravitational flexing, are negligible and inconsequential. Water vapor in the atmosphere exists (to a degree that has us in a flash flood warning at the moment), regardless of how many times someone calculates something that says differently.

When the math directly contradicts reality, the math is incorrect, either by virtue of a lack of understanding of mathematical applicablity, or by a lack of understanding of physical processes involved and modeled.

As for conduction/convection, yes, it occurs at a very slow rate due to the thermal resistance of air. Where did I dispute that air has a very high 'R' value? Trapped air is one of the best heat insulators we know of, and is the active insulating element in most insulation materials.

Thermal resistance does not prohibit conduction, however. High insulation values equate to the rate of heat transfer and only cover one part of the equation. The other part is the temperature differential. Trapped air will reduce that temperature differential quickly, allowing the thermal resistance to dominate the equation. Open air, however, convects the heat away from the source movement caused by density variations, keeping the temperature differential higher for a longer period. Thus, I included convection in the description.

What screws around with the convection/conduction idea is the fact that the atmosphere does not get increasingly cooler with altitude as a rule - this only happens in some parts of the atmosphere, inverts in other parts of the atmosphere, and basically doesn't change in the pauses.

No one is discounting radiative heat dissipation, which would occur in higher elevations than conduction/convection. Just because one may be responsible for the actions close to the surface, it does not discount the possibility that another is responsible for higher-elevation phenomena.

This is not an 'either-or' situation. There is more than one dynamic happening at the same time. It appears you want to treat it like a contest - "my action does everything; your action does nothing." Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. You're thinking of a sporting event. Math doesn't work well on those.

Water vapor doesn't produce heat either (there is latent heat from condensation, but that heat came from the evaporation in the first place). What water vapor and carbon dioxide do, as greenhouse gases, is alter the movement of radiation. Instead of all that energy (remember, it's nearly 80% of the surface energy loss) radiating outwards and keeping the Earth at a chilly 255°K, it instead runs into a veritable minefield of molecules. This is primarily why the Earth is consistently warmer at the surface, and gets progressively cooler as altitude increases until it reaches the tropopause.

As you should clearly see the math just doesn't work for the Sun alone, how did water vapor come to exist in the atmosphere in quantities sufficient to induce a greenhouse effect?

You just contradicted yourself in two adjacent paragraphs.

The first paragraph quoted above is correct: no gas creates heat energy, and all a 'greenhouse gas' does is slow radiative emissions through absorption/re-emission. But that then means that they cannot contribute to the amount of energy received, which means the only energy source is... the sun!

I know those equations are fun to play with, especially the one with the 4th-order term... wow, that is awesome! I thought so too the first time I saw it. However, proper use of mathematics require an understanding of the physical processes they describe and the applicability of the equations to those processes.

Physics is the subject under discussion. Mathematics is the language of physics.

If we were discussing English Lit, writing a book of nonsense doesn't 'prove' anything, even if it is written in English.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be comparing instantaneous energy rates with temperature (which is a measure of energy contained in the mass). That makes no sense mathematically/physically.

Where, then, does this extra energy come from, if not the sun? Other energy sources, such as radioactive decay of trace elements in the planet or gravitational flexing, are negligible and inconsequential. Water vapor in the atmosphere exists (to a degree that has us in a flash flood warning at the moment), regardless of how many times someone calculates something that says differently.

When the math directly contradicts reality, the math is incorrect, either by virtue of a lack of understanding of mathematical applicablity, or by a lack of understanding of physical processes involved and modeled.

As for conduction/convection, yes, it occurs at a very slow rate due to the thermal resistance of air. Where did I dispute that air has a very high 'R' value? Trapped air is one of the best heat insulators we know of, and is the active insulating element in most insulation materials.

Thermal resistance does not prohibit conduction, however. High insulation values equate to the rate of heat transfer and only cover one part of the equation. The other part is the temperature differential. Trapped air will reduce that temperature differential quickly, allowing the thermal resistance to dominate the equation. Open air, however, convects the heat away from the source movement caused by density variations, keeping the temperature differential higher for a longer period. Thus, I included convection in the description.

No one is discounting radiative heat dissipation, which would occur in higher elevations than conduction/convection. Just because one may be responsible for the actions close to the surface, it does not discount the possibility that another is responsible for higher-elevation phenomena.

This is not an 'either-or' situation. There is more than one dynamic happening at the same time. It appears you want to treat it like a contest - "my action does everything; your action does nothing." Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. You're thinking of a sporting event. Math doesn't work well on those.

You just contradicted yourself in two adjacent paragraphs.

The first paragraph quoted above is correct: no gas creates heat energy, and all a 'greenhouse gas' does is slow radiative emissions through absorption/re-emission. But that then means that they cannot contribute to the amount of energy received, which means the only energy source is... the sun!

I know those equations are fun to play with, especially the one with the 4th-order term... wow, that is awesome! I thought so too the first time I saw it. However, proper use of mathematics require an understanding of the physical processes they describe and the applicability of the equations to those processes.

Physics is the subject under discussion. Mathematics is the language of physics.

If we were discussing English Lit, writing a book of nonsense doesn't 'prove' anything, even if it is written in English.

TheRedneck

I'm giving you rather high benefit of the doubt.

Sure, temperature is a way to measure how energetic a mass is. However, this can be determined by how much radiation it is emitting (infrared thermometers, for example). This also means that temperature can be calculated from the radiation absorbed by a surface. The calculations I've done are rather generous towards your apparent viewpoint - solar insolation averages under 5.8kWh/m^2 each day (~240 W/m^2 per hour) - and most of the U.S. averages below that.

Obviously water vapor does exist in the atmosphere. What I've asked you repeatedly about is why it exists in the atmosphere, given that the atmosphere should be 255°K. Hand-waving ain't gonna cut it.

Enlighten me.

You didn't mention either evaporation or radiation; in fact you repeatedly mentioned conduction/convection as if it were the only significant means by which the surface lost heat.

Heat is radiated all over, not just at high altitudes. Even you radiate heat. Point a thermal imager at yourself and see. Here you are discounting it again and saying nobody is discounting it.

Where do you get these bizarre notions? Quite obviously there are multiple ways that the surface loses heat because I mentioned several different mechanisms of surface heat loss when you were only focused on convection/conduction. Recall, you claimed:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

So, what warmed the Earth such that water vapor can exist?

That's simple...

Solar radiation warms the surface of the planet. Heat is transferred to the lower atmosphere by conduction/convection.

Radiation is not the only way heat can travel. The very fact that the lower levels of the atmosphere are so much warmer than the upper layers indicates conduction/convection is the primary method of heat dissipation at the surface... not radiation.

TheRedneck

This is just wrong. Instead, you meet this with demeaning remarks and mockery. How quaint.

I most certainly did not contradict myself. Obviously the Sun is what provides energy to the Earth. Literally nobody questions that. It's simply that greenWhat I've been trying to lead you towards is the impact that carbon dioxide has on the Earth. As you say, gases don't create energy from nothing. It would violate the laws of physics.

What do you make of the perpetual existence of water vapor in the atmosphere, if you believe CO2 isn't particularly significant? Water vapor is pretty sensitive to temperature, if you'll recall.

a reply to: Greven

You asked a specific question, Greven:

originally posted by: Greven

So, what warmed the Earth such that water vapor can exist?

I answered the sun warmed the earth and the lowest parts of the atmosphere by direct conduction/convection. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the higher one gets the more radiation is responsible and the less conduction/convection is.

I know what you're trying to do: you're trying to twist the debate around so you can 'catch' me on some detail that can be disputed under shifted parameters. It's an old trick used by Global Warming advocates since the whole thing started years ago. It's intellectually dishonest, and does not behoove you.

There are multiple pathways for heat energy to dissipate into and away from the planet. You seem to be enamored that only one, radiation, is important. That, sir, is wrong. All the different pathways are important, in varying degrees depending on their quantitative effects in the area under consideration. This is the disconnect that destroys the Global Warming argument. This is the misinterpretations that are slowing progress on climate models. This is the entire issue: ignorance of inconvenient factors. Al Gore was projecting when he named his 'masterpiece'; the inconvenience is a lack of comprehension of the dynamics of the system.

Is carbon dioxide capturing and re-emitting infrared photons back to earth? YES. That is not the question. Is radon gas present under my house? YES. I am not worried. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, just as the amount of radiation re-emitted back to earth by carbon dioxide is not a significant amount.

What do you make of the perpetual existence of water vapor in the atmosphere, if you believe CO2 isn't particularly significant?

I make that there is apparently enough energy coming from the sun, and enough mechanisms to contain that heat, to allow liquid water to exist on the planet.

And forgive me if you see this as demeaning, but I have to add a "duh!" on the end. Ask a silly question, then argue a silly construct to deny the answer to said silly question, and you get those.

My turn: In the morning, as the sun rises, it shines through my east-facing window. The air temperature inside my house will rise at least 10 degrees in less than an hour. Explain that using ONLY carbon dioxide as a mechanism.

TheRedneck