Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing

In <7acd8cd1-942f-42b4-bfba-02d228d735ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
makolber@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 1, 8:01=A0am, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 1 feb, 03:39, makol...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Bill said

In fact the energy radiated to space should stay exactly the same, bu=
t
be radiated from a higher altitude - the exact altitude depending on
the infra-red wavelength being radiated. Because this radiation - in
total - has to match the energy absorbed from solar radiation (which
hardly changes at all), the temperature at the effective radiating
altitude has to remain the same, while the atmospheric column below
this altitude has to sustain the usual lapse rate of about 6.5C per
kilometre, so the temperature at the bottom of the column has to go up
a bit.

Bill,

If there were was an energy balance as you describe above (energy
radited to space exactly the same), then there would be no warming.
In order for the Earth (or anything) to warm, there has to be an
imbalance with more energy in then out.

Wrong. There may be a brief imbalance while the surface of the earth
warms up, but extra "greenhouse gases" don't warm the earth by
directly restricting the emission of infrared radiation, but rather by
raising the effective emitting altitude (which varies sharply with the
wavelength of the infra-red radiation) to a higher altitude within the
atmosphere. In order to continue radiating enough infra-ed radiation,
the air at this altitude has to warm up to the same temperature as the
air at the previous effective emitting altitude (when there was less
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere), and this warms the whole atmosphere
below the effective emitting altitude, right down to the surface.

from:
=A0http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#1979average

"An increase in the atmosphere=92s concentration of carbon dioxide is
also a climate forcing: it leads to a situation in which the planet
absorbs more solar radiation than it emits to space as longwave
radiation. This means the system gains energy. The globally averaged
temperature will increase as a result. This is in accord with a
fundamental principle of physics: conservation of energy."

Sure, but it is a transient effect. Once the surface and the lower
atmosphere has warmed up, the emitted infra-red radiation has to
exactly balance the visible and near-infra-red radiation absorbed from
the sun. In the artic, at the moment, the loss of sea ice and the
reduction of snow-cover on land decrease the local albedo, so the
region now absorbs a bit more solar fradiation than it used to, which
will push up the effective emitting altitudes even higher, but that's
a fairly minor effect.

So if the energy is in fact balanced as you detailed above, then there
can be no global warming.

Wrong. As seen from space, the temperature of the radiating surfaces
in the atmosphere of the earth won't change, but the temperature of
the surface, where we live, can go up more or less without limit -
look at Venus sometime. We didn't realise that it was hot until the
1960's, because all that we could see was the top of the atmosphere.


Yes Venus is in steady state and yes when the Earth is in steady state
the surface temperature can be any value relative to the high
atmosphere, so I agree with that part of what you are saying BUT that
does not address my point. If the temperature on Earth is RISING,
(not just steady at a higher value but CHANGING , i.e. WARMING) then
there would have to be an energy IMBALANCE. dT/dt is prop to the
energy imbalance. If there is no energy imbalance then dT/dt =3D 0 i.e.
at a steady state. Your agrument is that we can't tell what the
surface temp will be at steady state and fine that is NOT my point.
My point is that for the surface temp to INCREASE, there has to be an
energy imbalance with net inflow. A few posts ago you went into great
detail about how there is no energy imbalance so my point is if there
is no energy imbalance as you say, then there can be no WARMING.

The second part of my point is the temp is what it is now. We know
the inital condition. If all your reasoning about energy balance is
in fact correct and the energy is in fact in balance, no net inflow,
then there can be no CHANGE in temp, i.e. no warming.

Change in impedance/admittance to outgoing and/or incoming heat changes
the temperature that the globe would have to make outgo equal income!

You can't have it both ways.

Mark

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Return to No Stealth in Space
    ... And ISP scales as the square root of temperature, ... radiation field and thus will not emit any kind of blackbody ... about 10 to 30 keV for D-T fusion). ... If it has not radiated most of its energy by the ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: How much Co2 is in the atmosphere?
    ... greenhouse effect that raises surface temperature by about 33 degrees ... C is due to the direct effect of CO2. ... emitter/absorbent of radiation. ... Well try the atmosphere itself That too has an internal energy ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Stephans Law disproves theory of greenhouse gases
    ... Stephan's Law states that the total radiated energy is proportional to ... the temperature to the fourth power.The average temperature at the ... radiation retention per second must be maintained. ... frequencies absorbed. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Thermal imaging at scalehouse
    ... electrical or other radiation is being emitted from those panels? ... Thermal, or infrared energy, is light that is not visible because its ... The higher the object's temperature, ... making infrared cameras extremely cost-effective, ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Obliterating the Rocket Equation with a Torusail
    ... > assumptions that D-D fusion is a viable power source. ... >>as a fuel deuterium has the highest energy per unit mass ... > radiation of the same temperature. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)