tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post5256404618844671542..comments2024-03-28T09:40:46.354-07:00Comments on The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage: Continuing Vain Climate DebatesHarry Dale Huffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-18338554318611740862012-01-31T15:29:11.433-08:002012-01-31T15:29:11.433-08:00"increasing carbon dioxide or water vapor can..."increasing carbon dioxide or water vapor can only increase the efficiency, or speed, with which local temperature variations are dissipated by heat transfer, both vertically and around the planet (the temperature on Venus's dark side is just as hot as on the sunlit side, due, I claim, to the nearly pure carbon dioxide atmosphere there)."<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />I have been saying for several years that changes in the air circulation and changes in the speed or volume of the water cycle prevent any increase in system energy content from any cause other than increased mass or increased solar input.<br /><br />The observation that drove me in that direction was that during the late 20th century warming period I noted the poleward drift of the climate zones but around 2000 that poleward drift stopped and since then I have formed the view that they are drifting equatorward once more.<br /><br />It seemed to me that the most likely reason was that those shifts in the climate zones were actually regulating the speed of energy flow from surface to space so as to maintain system stability in the face of variability both from solar and oceanic sources.<br /><br />So it isn't 'vertical' or 'around the planet' movement that matters. Instead it is latitudinal shifting of the climate zones and variations in the size, position and intensity of all the components of the atmospheric circulation.Stephen Wildehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07357171106480483956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-35792231131439045122011-12-28T04:44:16.046-08:002011-12-28T04:44:16.046-08:00Good Morning, Paul,
I have approached the problem...Good Morning, Paul,<br /><br />I have approached the problems in climate science, and a proper understanding of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere, differently than most. Instead of trying to concoct and put before the world a detailed theory, a complete physical picture, in one swell foop as they say (because I have assured myself that the "foop" we have received, and continue to receive, from climate scientists is not "swell" at all) I focus upon the definitive facts as I find them, so metaphorically speaking, I am always assured I am on solid scientific ground, even if it is seemingly small patches of solid ground, in the middle of an otherwise deep swamp of physical uncertainties. I try to assemble a correct, coherent picture, piece by piece (and it is not my life's work, so I am slow, and intentionally so). I deliberately avoid theoretical extrapolations, otherwise known as speculations, as far as I am able, and I also avoid falling into the habit of using the past speculations, or theories, or even rote phrasing, of others, since they have failed so miserably to this point, in the light of what I so simply uncovered with my Venus/Earth comparison.<br /><br />So in answering you, I will content myself with a few basic facts I have gleaned, that contradict some of what you say, without judging your picture overall.<br /><br />First, I would not say that CO2 makes only minor changes to absorption, in the context of those top-of-tropopause LW radiation spectra. Instead, I would only say that any absorption of upwelling LW radiation does NOT heat the atmosphere, it only provides a radiational path for that upwelling, which I call heat transfer (rather than heating) over the hydrostatically-established vertical temperature gradient. I would not say the atmosphere is "largely opaque" to 255K (or any other K) blackbody radiation, but only because I reject the Earth's surface, or any level in the Earth's atmosphere, as the surface of a blackbody. The effective blackbody temperature of the Earth-plus-atmosphere system is 279K, not 255K. I would agree, in the context of the governing temperature lapse rate, that "whether the atmosphere is warmed directly by absorbed incoming solar radiation or by ...(whatever)... is largely immaterial, as are the effects of clouds", except that, for the Earth and Venus, the atmosphere IS fundamentally warmed ONLY by direct absorption of solar radiation. Basically, I would replace all of what you have said by, "The Standard Atmosphere, with its hydrostatic vertical temperature gradient, is confirmed by my Venus/Earth temperature comparison as the equilibrium state of the atmosphere, and deviations from that state constitute the weather as we know it." And I will continue to face the facts in order to learn the truth, because I don't know it all.Harry Dale Huffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03210275295826050501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-456970430923597281.post-36471803956424451052011-12-27T20:46:24.980-08:002011-12-27T20:46:24.980-08:00If I understand your explanations, the atmosphere ...If I understand your explanations, the atmosphere is largely opaque to electromagnetic radiation at the frequency range characteristic of the 255 K blackbody temperature, with CO2 especially making only minor changes to absorption or lack of absorption in a narrow frequency window. The atmosphere only becomes thin enough to let the radiation out at altitude, and the compression heating between that altitude and ground level, also known as the lapse rate, is the 30K that the ground is on average warmer than 255K?<br /><br />That should mean that whether the atmosphere is warmed directly by absorbed incoming solar radiation or by conduction from the oceans or from the ground is largely immaterial, as are the effects of clouds on outgoing radiation immaterial. The effective blackbody radiation layer is somewhere in the mid to upper troposphere where the temperature is 255 K on average, and the temperature profile from that level down to the ground is controlled by the lapse rate on account of the convective mobility and mising of the air, where the lapse rate is the consequence of compression heating, modified somewhat by the latent heat of moist air (difference between "wet" and "dry" lapse rate).<br /><br />Do I have that right?Paul Milenkovichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06817697567562510756noreply@blogger.com