Remember me
▼ Content

Vapour is not a greenhouse gas



Page 1 of 212>
Vapour is not a greenhouse gas15-06-2017 22:54
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(74)
Ok, I did show here before, how nocturnal cooling is completely depending on cloud conditions. A reasonable overcast condition will easily reduce emissivity by 85%. If we simply assumed Earth was covered to 30% by clouds, and average emission rate was somewhat less then 390W/m2 (depending on clear sky albedo), we would already get around 100W/m2 for cloud forcing, and NOT 24-31W/m2 as some apologetics suggest. Then we get pretty much the same outcome if we take the more sophisticated approach I have presented in my essay.


So while we see a very precise and distinct pattern of nocturnal cooling, demonstrating the close correlation between cooling and cloud condition, it has been suggest this could only mirror the effects of vapour, or humidity.
Even tough this argument seems a way odd, indeed there will be a correlation between humidity and cloudiness. So while I did not sympathize with the argument, I also saw the opportunity to test it. I would not need to change a lot on the scripts I was already using.

So again it is Parkersburg, this time however cooling rates are plotted against relative humidity. We can instantly tell, that the impact of relative hmuidity is much weaker than the one of clouds. This is important, as the much stronger cloud effect can not be a result of this relatively weaker correlation.


Then, obviously, those nights with the highest humidity are indeed showing a much lower cooling rate. However these 90%+ values for humidity are typically associated with rain fall, and rain falls from clouds. So I am afraid, these samples only represent the effect that clouds have, and have little too nothing to do with humidity.
All the other samples show no corrlation at all. Indeed the second lowest cooling rate occurs in the dryest(!!) sample, which is small however. All other samples completely fail to show a reasonable correlation between humidity and cooling rate, that is emissivity.

I also ran the test on Palm Springs, which features very dry scenarios.


Again we see the same pattern. Lower cooling rates associated with rainfall and clouds, but otherwise no reasonable correlation. A closer look at these data also showed specific seasonal patterns, which are affecting the chart responsible for the unsystemic variations here. Anyhow, there is no reasonable correlation between humidity and emissivity.

So these results confirm what I have discovered before.
1. Clear sky albedo is far lower than 1 (~0.84 or -62W/m2 as opposed to a PBB )
2. Clouds reduce emissivity by another 100W/m2
3. There is no GHE
4. there can not be GHGs
5. for this reason vapour can not be a GHG
6. The hypothetical GHE is at its lowest at the equator, where the "GHG" vapour has its maximum, thereby falsifying the claim vapour served as a GHG
7. and finally we see from the data presented here, how vapour has no effect on emissivity.
16-06-2017 00:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leitwolf wrote: Ok, I did show here before, how nocturnal cooling is completely depending on cloud conditions.

You did no such thing.

The dark side of earth radiates per its temperature, whether there are clouds or not.


Leitwolf wrote: A reasonable overcast condition will easily reduce emissivity by 85%.

Tell me, to the best of your understanding of science, what effect will a lower emissivity have on a body?


Leitwolf wrote: ... we would already get around 100W/m2 for cloud forcing, and NOT 24-31W/m2 as some apologetics suggest.

I take it you think 'cloud forcing" Is a real thing, ... like it's science.

You certainly are gullible.

Leitwolf wrote: Then, obviously, those nights with the highest humidity are indeed showing a much lower cooling rate.

Will I be the first to tell you that correlation is not causation?

Are you not able to understand that warmer temperatures cause higher humidity, as opposed to higher humidity causing the higher temperatures?

Might I recommend you brush up on that whole "cause/effect" concept?




Leitwolf wrote: I also ran the test on Palm Springs, which features very dry scenarios.

Let me guess ... the higher temps in Palm Springs also brought higher incidence of rainfall and clouds, yes?

Leitwolf wrote: So these results confirm what I have discovered before.

A discovery is its own confirmation.

Your strange conclusions are NOT discoveries.

You have not shown any of your strange conclusions.

Tell me more about your understanding of emissivity.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-06-2017 01:14
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I did show here before, how nocturnal cooling is completely depending on cloud conditions. A reasonable overcast condition will easily reduce emissivity by 85%. If we simply assumed Earth was covered to 30% by clouds, and average emission rate was somewhat less then 390W/m2 (depending on clear sky albedo), we would already get around 100W/m2 for cloud forcing, and NOT 24-31W/m2 as some apologetics suggest. Then we get pretty much the same outcome if we take the more sophisticated approach I have presented in my essay.


So while we see a very precise and distinct pattern of nocturnal cooling, demonstrating the close correlation between cooling and cloud condition, it has been suggest this could only mirror the effects of vapour, or humidity.
Even tough this argument seems a way odd, indeed there will be a correlation between humidity and cloudiness. So while I did not sympathize with the argument, I also saw the opportunity to test it. I would not need to change a lot on the scripts I was already using.

So again it is Parkersburg, this time however cooling rates are plotted against relative humidity. We can instantly tell, that the impact of relative hmuidity is much weaker than the one of clouds. This is important, as the much stronger cloud effect can not be a result of this relatively weaker correlation.


Then, obviously, those nights with the highest humidity are indeed showing a much lower cooling rate. However these 90%+ values for humidity are typically associated with rain fall, and rain falls from clouds. So I am afraid, these samples only represent the effect that clouds have, and have little too nothing to do with humidity.
All the other samples show no corrlation at all. Indeed the second lowest cooling rate occurs in the dryest(!!) sample, which is small however. All other samples completely fail to show a reasonable correlation between humidity and cooling rate, that is emissivity.

I also ran the test on Palm Springs, which features very dry scenarios.


Again we see the same pattern. Lower cooling rates associated with rainfall and clouds, but otherwise no reasonable correlation. A closer look at these data also showed specific seasonal patterns, which are affecting the chart responsible for the unsystemic variations here. Anyhow, there is no reasonable correlation between humidity and emissivity.

So these results confirm what I have discovered before.
1. Clear sky albedo is far lower than 1 (~0.84 or -62W/m2 as opposed to a PBB )
2. Clouds reduce emissivity by another 100W/m2
3. There is no GHE
4. there can not be GHGs
5. for this reason vapour can not be a GHG
6. The hypothetical GHE is at its lowest at the equator, where the "GHG" vapour has its maximum, thereby falsifying the claim vapour served as a GHG
7. and finally we see from the data presented here, how vapour has no effect on emissivity.


You have to explain your scales on your charts to me.

Clouds are not water vapor but H2O droplets. Liquid water absorbs approximately 10 times the energy as water vapor. Layers of clouds are quite thick and any outgoing radiation, conduction or convection are trapped in or below the cloud layer.

Water in it's vapor stage absorbs so much less energy that it should be no surprise that a cloudy sky at night means a warmer night.

You are making the common mistake of thinking that "greenhouse effect" is some sort of radiation effect other than simply holding heat in.
16-06-2017 02:33
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(74)
Oh sorry, I intended to add all the little details, but then forgot about it anyhow. As before the x-scale gives time in minutes times 10 and the y-axis temperature in K, with starting temperature = 1.
The info part gives relative humidity in % and the sample size in parenthesis.

With the original cloud analysis it is 0 to 8, indicating the intensity of cloudiness. With 0 for clear sky and 8 for all overcast.
16-06-2017 15:54
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Leitwolf wrote:
Oh sorry, I intended to add all the little details, but then forgot about it anyhow. As before the x-scale gives time in minutes times 10 and the y-axis temperature in K, with starting temperature = 1.
The info part gives relative humidity in % and the sample size in parenthesis.

With the original cloud analysis it is 0 to 8, indicating the intensity of cloudiness. With 0 for clear sky and 8 for all overcast.


Thanks. Are sure you mean temperature in K and not C?

Otherwise I pretty much agree with your paper. To paraphrase - it requires nothing more than a low level cloud cover to account for the additional heating.

But I am doubtful there is any heating to account for. As I showed elsewhere the curve being presented as wild heating does not occur in the satellite record and could be easily accounted for as urban heat island effect. And I mean the ENTIRE heating from 1886.

What bothers me is the presentation of possibly unrelated things as being causative and then using scaling to present them as related.

I am seeing more and more "science" that is little more than gamesmanship in order to gain research grants. To me this means we have far too many "scientists". The Universities are becoming little more than diploma farms. Real scientists have a calling and not a profession.
17-06-2017 06:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, I did show here before, how nocturnal cooling is completely depending on cloud conditions. A reasonable overcast condition will easily reduce emissivity by 85%. If we simply assumed Earth was covered to 30% by clouds, and average emission rate was somewhat less then 390W/m2 (depending on clear sky albedo), we would already get around 100W/m2 for cloud forcing, and NOT 24-31W/m2 as some apologetics suggest. Then we get pretty much the same outcome if we take the more sophisticated approach I have presented in my essay.


So while we see a very precise and distinct pattern of nocturnal cooling, demonstrating the close correlation between cooling and cloud condition, it has been suggest this could only mirror the effects of vapour, or humidity.
Even tough this argument seems a way odd, indeed there will be a correlation between humidity and cloudiness. So while I did not sympathize with the argument, I also saw the opportunity to test it. I would not need to change a lot on the scripts I was already using.

So again it is Parkersburg, this time however cooling rates are plotted against relative humidity. We can instantly tell, that the impact of relative hmuidity is much weaker than the one of clouds. This is important, as the much stronger cloud effect can not be a result of this relatively weaker correlation.


Then, obviously, those nights with the highest humidity are indeed showing a much lower cooling rate. However these 90%+ values for humidity are typically associated with rain fall, and rain falls from clouds. So I am afraid, these samples only represent the effect that clouds have, and have little too nothing to do with humidity.
All the other samples show no corrlation at all. Indeed the second lowest cooling rate occurs in the dryest(!!) sample, which is small however. All other samples completely fail to show a reasonable correlation between humidity and cooling rate, that is emissivity.

I also ran the test on Palm Springs, which features very dry scenarios.


Again we see the same pattern. Lower cooling rates associated with rainfall and clouds, but otherwise no reasonable correlation. A closer look at these data also showed specific seasonal patterns, which are affecting the chart responsible for the unsystemic variations here. Anyhow, there is no reasonable correlation between humidity and emissivity.

So these results confirm what I have discovered before.
1. Clear sky albedo is far lower than 1 (~0.84 or -62W/m2 as opposed to a PBB )
2. Clouds reduce emissivity by another 100W/m2
3. There is no GHE
4. there can not be GHGs
5. for this reason vapour can not be a GHG
6. The hypothetical GHE is at its lowest at the equator, where the "GHG" vapour has its maximum, thereby falsifying the claim vapour served as a GHG
7. and finally we see from the data presented here, how vapour has no effect on emissivity.


You have to explain your scales on your charts to me.

Clouds are not water vapor but H2O droplets. Liquid water absorbs approximately 10 times the energy as water vapor. Layers of clouds are quite thick and any outgoing radiation, conduction or convection are trapped in or below the cloud layer.

You can't trap radiation.

Liquid water conducts heat better than dry air.

Convection if still the same. It may be greater even, causing the clouds to form.

Wake wrote:
Water in it's vapor stage absorbs so much less energy that it should be no surprise that a cloudy sky at night means a warmer night.
Absorbing more energy from the ground would result in a COOLER night, not warmer.
Wake wrote:
You are making the common mistake of thinking that "greenhouse effect" is some sort of radiation effect other than simply holding heat in.

You can't hold or trap heat.

Liquid water has a high specific heat compared to dry air. It is among the highest of common materials. That's what makes it such a great coolant for automobile engines.

If a cloud is at the same temperature as the air, it ALREADY has a high amount of energy in it due to the specific heat of liquid water. It is capable of taking longer to cool down than dry air. It is also capable of taking longer to heat up than dry air.

Clouds are best thought of as a thermal anvil floating there in the sky.


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2017 18:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(590)
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7
Edited on 17-06-2017 19:28
17-06-2017 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.


No, clouds ARE liquid water (or ice). The droplets are small enough to stay suspended in the air. They are not water vapor (which is essentially not visible).

Rain occurs when these droplets combine into sizes large enough to fall.

How large do they have to be? Since every cloud is an updraft, that depends on how strong that updraft is.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2017 15:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.
18-06-2017 18:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.


If H2O is so light, why does it rain?


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2017 02:39
litesong
★★★★☆
(1505)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:If H2O is so light, why does it rain?

Maybe oxygen & nitrogen would rain in the outer planets with their temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero.
22-06-2017 15:54
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.


If H2O is so light, why does it rain?


Your ability to think is exceeded only by your ability to read.
22-06-2017 17:36
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
It have been raining new insights in my calculations, which now includes correct predictions of temperature distribution for Mars and, wait for it,.....................Venus!
I guess that a calculation of surface temperature of Venus with the thermodynamic relationships of a heat engine and geometry is kind of like a trophy, since climate science have pointed at the dense co2 on Venus as some sort of confirmation for the GH-effect. They didn´t bother to explain how that would work, and we all know that it is because they can´t. The surface temperature is not even a surface temperature. Co2 on Venus is so dense it behaves as a liquid, dragging stones across the surface. So it has to be treated as sub-surface. TSI(2601W/(4/3)^3)*4^2=17552W/m^2=745K.

Anyways, I realized that my analysis of the geometry and structure of earth produced the exact same equations as for a charged shell of a hollow sphere with a conducting core, positioned in an electric field:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html#c3

Look at the identical structure and properties. Earth has the charged shell and the conductive core with a potential in gravity, -T^4. I don´t mean the actual core here, just the space between the shell of the atmosphere and the surface. Such a hollow sphere will not have the electric field in the space between surfaces, but it has a gaussian surface: the effective temperature emission. Which led me to Gauss law of gravity, which confirms that it is correct to use units for surfaces for gravity, Nm^2, and it makes use of the divergence theorem in the volume integral that is the sum of sources for the surface flux of gravity. Just like I have been treating heat flow, with the result of having no other option than to include gravity in 2 and 3 dimensions instead of it being a point force. You can see some new equations here:https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

As you can see, it seems like solar irradiance accounts only for surface emission and gravity in a loop which is driven by the potential -T, +T. In both ends of the volume. The similarity to the electric field is striking. I am starting to wonder, is earth even heated by the sun?
If the behaviour is equal to a hollow charged sphere in an electric field, then wouldn´t the vacuum be that field? With heat emission from the core, apparently separated from irradiation and responsible for earth emission observed by satellites, an electric field would explain the heating of the core to solar surface temperatures, and an independent emissive power of the earth.

On topic: The calculations might put water vapor in a new light. As I wrote in the blog-post, it puts thunderstorms in a new perspective. This is not a conclusion I wanted to make, since there are a group of people talking about "electric universe" that I don´t want to be associated with. But I am a fan of logic and calculations that are accurate, and now everything points to an explanation where the solar system is electric. It would make dust of dark matter and other fantasies. And it is in line with my approach, where I use the most conservative, logical and rational explanation that can be made. I start with a question: With our present state of ignorance, what would the circumstances HAVE TO BE(!), in order to explain observations with only rational and logic terms of known, proven physics. Reluctantly I must say, the similarity to an electric field can not be ignored. And I think water in all of the phases should be analyzed against an electric background, if not confirming the idea, it could falsify it.

It explains why my calculations of only radiative transfer is a perfect match to reality. Electric potentials leave no other possible solution. Everything out must equal everything in, + work. And it has to have the equal of the speed of light.

Standing on the surface with mass "m" in a heat flow from the sun at the speed c, combined with emission from the surface at the speed c, leaves only one equation to explain the state: E=mc^2.
Gravity is not even surprising in that situation. Linear flow of energy into 3 dimensions of emission, a standing wave at the speed of light, seen as an atmosphere of excited molecules in a shell.

Have you ever been standing in front of a breaking wave? I guess you all have at some point in your life.

The suction you feel towards the wave as it is closing in but moving in opposite direction to the suction, that is probably the best analogy to gravity.

I wonder what we are going to do with all the unemployed climate scientists? We know one thing for sure, they must not be allowed to do any science. They ****ed up bad.
Edited on 22-06-2017 18:21
22-06-2017 18:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.


If H2O is so light, why does it rain?


Your ability to think is exceeded only by your ability to read.


You don't know, eh?

Maybe it has something to do with your lack of understanding about water in the atmosphere and how it behaves.


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2017 20:43
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
It have been raining new insights in my calculations, which now includes correct predictions of temperature distribution for Mars and, wait for it,.....................Venus!
I guess that a calculation of surface temperature of Venus with the thermodynamic relationships of a heat engine and geometry is kind of like a trophy, since climate science have pointed at the dense co2 on Venus as some sort of confirmation for the GH-effect. They didn´t bother to explain how that would work, and we all know that it is because they can´t. The surface temperature is not even a surface temperature. Co2 on Venus is so dense it behaves as a liquid, dragging stones across the surface. So it has to be treated as sub-surface. TSI(2601W/(4/3)^3)*4^2=17552W/m^2=745K.

Anyways, I realized that my analysis of the geometry and structure of earth produced the exact same equations as for a charged shell of a hollow sphere with a conducting core, positioned in an electric field:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesph.html#c3

Look at the identical structure and properties. Earth has the charged shell and the conductive core with a potential in gravity, -T^4. I don´t mean the actual core here, just the space between the shell of the atmosphere and the surface. Such a hollow sphere will not have the electric field in the space between surfaces, but it has a gaussian surface: the effective temperature emission. Which led me to Gauss law of gravity, which confirms that it is correct to use units for surfaces for gravity, Nm^2, and it makes use of the divergence theorem in the volume integral that is the sum of sources for the surface flux of gravity. Just like I have been treating heat flow, with the result of having no other option than to include gravity in 2 and 3 dimensions instead of it being a point force. You can see some new equations here:https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/

As you can see, it seems like solar irradiance accounts only for surface emission and gravity in a loop which is driven by the potential -T, +T. In both ends of the volume. The similarity to the electric field is striking. I am starting to wonder, is earth even heated by the sun?
If the behaviour is equal to a hollow charged sphere in an electric field, then wouldn´t the vacuum be that field? With heat emission from the core, apparently separated from irradiation and responsible for earth emission observed by satellites, an electric field would explain the heating of the core to solar surface temperatures, and an independent emissive power of the earth.

On topic: The calculations might put water vapor in a new light. As I wrote in the blog-post, it puts thunderstorms in a new perspective. This is not a conclusion I wanted to make, since there are a group of people talking about "electric universe" that I don´t want to be associated with. But I am a fan of logic and calculations that are accurate, and now everything points to an explanation where the solar system is electric. It would make dust of dark matter and other fantasies. And it is in line with my approach, where I use the most conservative, logical and rational explanation that can be made. I start with a question: With our present state of ignorance, what would the circumstances HAVE TO BE(!), in order to explain observations with only rational and logic terms of known, proven physics. Reluctantly I must say, the similarity to an electric field can not be ignored. And I think water in all of the phases should be analyzed against an electric background, if not confirming the idea, it could falsify it.

It explains why my calculations of only radiative transfer is a perfect match to reality. Electric potentials leave no other possible solution. Everything out must equal everything in, + work. And it has to have the equal of the speed of light.

Standing on the surface with mass "m" in a heat flow from the sun at the speed c, combined with emission from the surface at the speed c, leaves only one equation to explain the state: E=mc^2.
Gravity is not even surprising in that situation. Linear flow of energy into 3 dimensions of emission, a standing wave at the speed of light, seen as an atmosphere of excited molecules in a shell.

Have you ever been standing in front of a breaking wave? I guess you all have at some point in your life.

The suction you feel towards the wave as it is closing in but moving in opposite direction to the suction, that is probably the best analogy to gravity.

I wonder what we are going to do with all the unemployed climate scientists? We know one thing for sure, they must not be allowed to do any science. They ****ed up bad.


I really don't follow much of what you're saying here. 745K for Venus? Isn't that about 881 F? That's approximately the surface temperature of Venus.

Since electrodynamics and thermal energy follow more or less the same laws I suppose you could find some sort of equal ground there but I don't follow your application of gravity.

For one second I think that you're saying that the Earth is heated by an exchange of electrical fields but then you shove gravity in there which doesn't follow the same rules.
22-06-2017 21:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(590)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.


If H2O is so light, why does it rain?


Your ability to think is exceeded only by your ability to read.


You don't know, eh?

Maybe it has something to do with your lack of understanding about water in the atmosphere and how it behaves.


Vapor turns into condensation.
22-06-2017 21:27
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.
22-06-2017 23:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
deleted post except to say that chances are that rain clouds are a dense formation of water vapor and that when vapor condenses into liquid then it becomes rain.

The link is to a "cool" funnel that I took a picture of. Have never seen anything like it except for that one time.
https://goo.gl/photos/jSvWHoT46byxYQYL7


As the convection of humid air carries humidity into the middle troposphere it cools and condenses into water micro-droplets. H2O is a very light material being lighter than O2 or N2. So these droplets will sit atop the convection layer until the cooling brings them down to the surface not as rain usually but as dew. Or if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection.


If H2O is so light, why does it rain?


Your ability to think is exceeded only by your ability to read.


You don't know, eh?

Maybe it has something to do with your lack of understanding about water in the atmosphere and how it behaves.


Vapor turns into condensation.


It can, under the right conditions. The result is a cloud, not rain.


The Parrot Killer
22-06-2017 23:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 06:24
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?
23-06-2017 08:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 15:39
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.
23-06-2017 17:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 17:57
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


So backing out when you can back up not one iota of what you claim? You are one large fool that thinks that running away to fight another day is a man's way of doing things. Tell us some more of how you don't supply references just because there aren't any.
23-06-2017 18:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


So backing out when you can back up not one iota of what you claim? You are one large fool that thinks that running away to fight another day is a man's way of doing things. Tell us some more of how you don't supply references just because there aren't any.


Attempted redefinition of 'water vapor' as 'liquid water'.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2017 20:08
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


So backing out when you can back up not one iota of what you claim? You are one large fool that thinks that running away to fight another day is a man's way of doing things. Tell us some more of how you don't supply references just because there aren't any.


Attempted redefinition of 'water vapor' as 'liquid water'.


Your inability to read the posting is appearing more idiotic by the moment.
24-06-2017 20:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.

Still pushing your paradox, eh?


The Parrot Killer
24-06-2017 20:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


So backing out when you can back up not one iota of what you claim?
No one is backing out. I stand by my statement.
Wake wrote:
You are one large fool that thinks that running away to fight another day is a man's way of doing things. Tell us some more of how you don't supply references just because there aren't any.

You do your own footwork you lazy ass. You are making the argument of ignorance, a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-06-2017 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Vapor turns into condensation.


When I wrote "if the water load is high enough the micro-droplets will combine into drops that eventually grow into drops heavy enough to overcome the convection." apparently Mr. Night couldn't understand that.

It seems plain enough to you.


Vapor isn't water droplets.


As I said elsewhere you haven't even the faintest clue of high school physics or chemistry. If you don't know what the hell you're talking about why do you talk incessantly?


Doesn't change what I said. Stooping to insults is not making an argument.


This is not an insult unless you chose to take it so. You are so ignorant of simple everyday process on this Earth that you think you can blather on in any manner you like and people will somehow be convinced. Well, the little fat kid that no one liked doesn't change because he is hidden by a anonymous Internet link.


Paradox noted. Moving on. There is no discussion here anymore.


So backing out when you can back up not one iota of what you claim? You are one large fool that thinks that running away to fight another day is a man's way of doing things. Tell us some more of how you don't supply references just because there aren't any.


Attempted redefinition of 'water vapor' as 'liquid water'.


Your inability to read the posting is appearing more idiotic by the moment.


Your inability to understand water in the atmosphere is quite apparent.


The Parrot Killer
24-06-2017 23:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:Your inability to understand water in the atmosphere is quite apparent.


And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.
25-06-2017 03:08
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(74)
Wake wrote:
And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.


Well it has in the way, that high levels of relative humidity (measured on the ground) in the 90%+ range are typically associated with rain. But that is probably not what you were discussing.

What I wanted to add to this discussion is something I ran into recently. The Sahara (and affiliated Arabia) is an interesting subject for climatology. Temperatures there tend to be higher then anywhere else - on average!
That is despite this area receives somewhat less solar input than equatorial regions, and despite the low concentration of vapor. Now if vapor was a greenhouse gas, that should not be. And finally despite strong temperature variations that cause a pseudo anti-GHE. This is due to the overproportional emissions during peak temperatures.
For instance, if a place had either 290 or 310K, it would emit 0,67% more radiation as if it had 300K throughout. (290^4 + 310^4) / (300^4*2) = 1.0067. Just saying..

Now it is one of the urban myths, that temperatures would turn very cold in the desert during night time. You may want to check for yourself if these minima are "very cold" by your definition..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau#Climate

Though the narrative is pretty simple. As it is very dry in the desert, there is very little vapor to block infrared radiation, and so temperatures need to fall off sharply during night. And indeed they do.
Temperature variations are typically in the 15+ Centigrade magnitude. It may be up to 18 Centigrade. Which is pretty large. But no way unusual.

In fact we easily reach such magnitudes all over the planet, as long as there is a clear sky and no clouds, despite much higher humidity. In fact lower average temperature variations are very much associated with a) proximity to water (which strongly stabilizes temperatures) and b) average cloudiness. Landlocked places are showing just a strong variation if the sky is clear.

For instance in Europe, and I know it not any different North America, during summer time we easily go from a maximum of 35C to a minimum of 15C. Again, if the sky is clear. And I will not compare cold to conditions, for we know that absolute humidity is strongly depending on temperature.

Btw. that is also the reason why I used relative humidity in the beginning. It has been suggested, that the extremely strong correlation between cloud condition and temperature variation was due to the correlation between clouds and humidity. But clouds are only correlated to relative humidity, not absolute. And as there is no correlation between relative humidity and temperature variation, or nocturnal cooling, that argument should have been nullified.

So...
1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.
3. Temperature variations between daily high and low are completely explained by cloud covers (or their absence), which leaves zero scope for vapor.
25-06-2017 03:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leitwolf wrote:1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.

So where there is more "greenhouse gas" there is less "greenhouse effect"?

Leitwolf wrote:
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.

I was sure Death Valley was hotter than the equator.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-06-2017 07:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Your inability to understand water in the atmosphere is quite apparent.


And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain.


It doesn't. You can't have rain with just water vapor.


The Parrot Killer
25-06-2017 15:55
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(74)
IBdaMann wrote:
I was sure Death Valley was hotter than the equator.
.


No quite. It may get extremely hot during summer time, but annual average is just about 25°C. But for 36°N in latitude this is yet super hot of course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park#Climate

However there are very specific reasons to it all, which will and cannot apply to more global considerations.
1. The valley itself works like a parabolic disc, virtually collecting heat and concentrating it in its center.
2. It is a depression, yielding some extra high temperatures due to adiabatic compression.
3. As air moves over the tall surrounding mountains, you constantly have some Foehn winds, maximizing point 2.
25-06-2017 16:14
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.


Well it has in the way, that high levels of relative humidity (measured on the ground) in the 90%+ range are typically associated with rain. But that is probably not what you were discussing.

What I wanted to add to this discussion is something I ran into recently. The Sahara (and affiliated Arabia) is an interesting subject for climatology. Temperatures there tend to be higher then anywhere else - on average!
That is despite this area receives somewhat less solar input than equatorial regions, and despite the low concentration of vapor. Now if vapor was a greenhouse gas, that should not be. And finally despite strong temperature variations that cause a pseudo anti-GHE. This is due to the overproportional emissions during peak temperatures.
For instance, if a place had either 290 or 310K, it would emit 0,67% more radiation as if it had 300K throughout. (290^4 + 310^4) / (300^4*2) = 1.0067. Just saying..

Now it is one of the urban myths, that temperatures would turn very cold in the desert during night time. You may want to check for yourself if these minima are "very cold" by your definition..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau#Climate

Though the narrative is pretty simple. As it is very dry in the desert, there is very little vapor to block infrared radiation, and so temperatures need to fall off sharply during night. And indeed they do.
Temperature variations are typically in the 15+ Centigrade magnitude. It may be up to 18 Centigrade. Which is pretty large. But no way unusual.

In fact we easily reach such magnitudes all over the planet, as long as there is a clear sky and no clouds, despite much higher humidity. In fact lower average temperature variations are very much associated with a) proximity to water (which strongly stabilizes temperatures) and b) average cloudiness. Landlocked places are showing just a strong variation if the sky is clear.

For instance in Europe, and I know it not any different North America, during summer time we easily go from a maximum of 35C to a minimum of 15C. Again, if the sky is clear. And I will not compare cold to conditions, for we know that absolute humidity is strongly depending on temperature.

Btw. that is also the reason why I used relative humidity in the beginning. It has been suggested, that the extremely strong correlation between cloud condition and temperature variation was due to the correlation between clouds and humidity. But clouds are only correlated to relative humidity, not absolute. And as there is no correlation between relative humidity and temperature variation, or nocturnal cooling, that argument should have been nullified.

So...
1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.
3. Temperature variations between daily high and low are completely explained by cloud covers (or their absence), which leaves zero scope for vapor.


Of course your treatise is correct but remember that conduction and convection are the chief means of heat energy transmission into the Tropopause even though the means of transfer from the solid ground to the atmosphere is through radiation. "Low" humidity is not "no" humidity. Even in the Antarctic which is the atmospheric driest spot on Earth the humidity is high enough to form the ice sheets over the centuries.

So radiation off of the ground is very soon captured mostly by water vapor and then transferred via conduction to the other gases which in turn cause the convection cycle.

At the top of the Tropopause the atmospheric density grows low enough that the major way of losing heat energy then is radiation.

Always remember that Earth is a water planet and that the entire cycle of climate/life is dependent almost entirely on water.
25-06-2017 17:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.


Well it has in the way, that high levels of relative humidity (measured on the ground) in the 90%+ range are typically associated with rain. But that is probably not what you were discussing.

What I wanted to add to this discussion is something I ran into recently. The Sahara (and affiliated Arabia) is an interesting subject for climatology. Temperatures there tend to be higher then anywhere else - on average!
That is despite this area receives somewhat less solar input than equatorial regions, and despite the low concentration of vapor. Now if vapor was a greenhouse gas, that should not be. And finally despite strong temperature variations that cause a pseudo anti-GHE. This is due to the overproportional emissions during peak temperatures.
For instance, if a place had either 290 or 310K, it would emit 0,67% more radiation as if it had 300K throughout. (290^4 + 310^4) / (300^4*2) = 1.0067. Just saying..

Now it is one of the urban myths, that temperatures would turn very cold in the desert during night time. You may want to check for yourself if these minima are "very cold" by your definition..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau#Climate

Though the narrative is pretty simple. As it is very dry in the desert, there is very little vapor to block infrared radiation, and so temperatures need to fall off sharply during night. And indeed they do.
Temperature variations are typically in the 15+ Centigrade magnitude. It may be up to 18 Centigrade. Which is pretty large. But no way unusual.

In fact we easily reach such magnitudes all over the planet, as long as there is a clear sky and no clouds, despite much higher humidity. In fact lower average temperature variations are very much associated with a) proximity to water (which strongly stabilizes temperatures) and b) average cloudiness. Landlocked places are showing just a strong variation if the sky is clear.

For instance in Europe, and I know it not any different North America, during summer time we easily go from a maximum of 35C to a minimum of 15C. Again, if the sky is clear. And I will not compare cold to conditions, for we know that absolute humidity is strongly depending on temperature.

Btw. that is also the reason why I used relative humidity in the beginning. It has been suggested, that the extremely strong correlation between cloud condition and temperature variation was due to the correlation between clouds and humidity. But clouds are only correlated to relative humidity, not absolute. And as there is no correlation between relative humidity and temperature variation, or nocturnal cooling, that argument should have been nullified.

So...
1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.
3. Temperature variations between daily high and low are completely explained by cloud covers (or their absence), which leaves zero scope for vapor.


Of course your treatise is correct but remember that conduction and convection are the chief means of heat energy transmission into the Tropopause even though the means of transfer from the solid ground to the atmosphere is through radiation. "Low" humidity is not "no" humidity. Even in the Antarctic which is the atmospheric driest spot on Earth the humidity is high enough to form the ice sheets over the centuries.

So radiation off of the ground is very soon captured mostly by water vapor and then transferred via conduction to the other gases which in turn cause the convection cycle.

At the top of the Tropopause the atmospheric density grows low enough that the major way of losing heat energy then is radiation.

Always remember that Earth is a water planet and that the entire cycle of climate/life is dependent almost entirely on water.


Water not needed.

Consider Venus, Jupiter, Mars, etc. They have either very little to NO water, yet they have a temperature profile in the atmosphere just like Earth does. How do you suppose these planets lose heat to their atmosphere or to space?


The Parrot Killer
25-06-2017 18:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leitwolf wrote: No quite. It may get extremely hot during summer time, ...

Isn't that getting hotter than the equator?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-06-2017 23:45
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.


Well it has in the way, that high levels of relative humidity (measured on the ground) in the 90%+ range are typically associated with rain. But that is probably not what you were discussing.

What I wanted to add to this discussion is something I ran into recently. The Sahara (and affiliated Arabia) is an interesting subject for climatology. Temperatures there tend to be higher then anywhere else - on average!
That is despite this area receives somewhat less solar input than equatorial regions, and despite the low concentration of vapor. Now if vapor was a greenhouse gas, that should not be. And finally despite strong temperature variations that cause a pseudo anti-GHE. This is due to the overproportional emissions during peak temperatures.
For instance, if a place had either 290 or 310K, it would emit 0,67% more radiation as if it had 300K throughout. (290^4 + 310^4) / (300^4*2) = 1.0067. Just saying..

Now it is one of the urban myths, that temperatures would turn very cold in the desert during night time. You may want to check for yourself if these minima are "very cold" by your definition..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau#Climate

Though the narrative is pretty simple. As it is very dry in the desert, there is very little vapor to block infrared radiation, and so temperatures need to fall off sharply during night. And indeed they do.
Temperature variations are typically in the 15+ Centigrade magnitude. It may be up to 18 Centigrade. Which is pretty large. But no way unusual.

In fact we easily reach such magnitudes all over the planet, as long as there is a clear sky and no clouds, despite much higher humidity. In fact lower average temperature variations are very much associated with a) proximity to water (which strongly stabilizes temperatures) and b) average cloudiness. Landlocked places are showing just a strong variation if the sky is clear.

For instance in Europe, and I know it not any different North America, during summer time we easily go from a maximum of 35C to a minimum of 15C. Again, if the sky is clear. And I will not compare cold to conditions, for we know that absolute humidity is strongly depending on temperature.

Btw. that is also the reason why I used relative humidity in the beginning. It has been suggested, that the extremely strong correlation between cloud condition and temperature variation was due to the correlation between clouds and humidity. But clouds are only correlated to relative humidity, not absolute. And as there is no correlation between relative humidity and temperature variation, or nocturnal cooling, that argument should have been nullified.

So...
1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.
3. Temperature variations between daily high and low are completely explained by cloud covers (or their absence), which leaves zero scope for vapor.


Of course your treatise is correct but remember that conduction and convection are the chief means of heat energy transmission into the Tropopause even though the means of transfer from the solid ground to the atmosphere is through radiation. "Low" humidity is not "no" humidity. Even in the Antarctic which is the atmospheric driest spot on Earth the humidity is high enough to form the ice sheets over the centuries.

So radiation off of the ground is very soon captured mostly by water vapor and then transferred via conduction to the other gases which in turn cause the convection cycle.

At the top of the Tropopause the atmospheric density grows low enough that the major way of losing heat energy then is radiation.

Always remember that Earth is a water planet and that the entire cycle of climate/life is dependent almost entirely on water.


Water not needed.

Consider Venus, Jupiter, Mars, etc. They have either very little to NO water, yet they have a temperature profile in the atmosphere just like Earth does. How do you suppose these planets lose heat to their atmosphere or to space?


If you would bother to study it for even one second you would discover that the surface temperatures of these planets is totally different and that the temperature profile of the planets happen to match one another because these temperatures are controlled by the atmospheres they contain.

If you remember I'm the one that demonstrated the temperature profiles at the points of equal PRESSURES and not altitudes.
26-06-2017 08:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
And yet you don't have any idea of what you have been saying - apparently water vapor has no connection with rain. We of course ALL knew that. Or at least someone as incredibly stupid as you does.


Well it has in the way, that high levels of relative humidity (measured on the ground) in the 90%+ range are typically associated with rain. But that is probably not what you were discussing.

What I wanted to add to this discussion is something I ran into recently. The Sahara (and affiliated Arabia) is an interesting subject for climatology. Temperatures there tend to be higher then anywhere else - on average!
That is despite this area receives somewhat less solar input than equatorial regions, and despite the low concentration of vapor. Now if vapor was a greenhouse gas, that should not be. And finally despite strong temperature variations that cause a pseudo anti-GHE. This is due to the overproportional emissions during peak temperatures.
For instance, if a place had either 290 or 310K, it would emit 0,67% more radiation as if it had 300K throughout. (290^4 + 310^4) / (300^4*2) = 1.0067. Just saying..

Now it is one of the urban myths, that temperatures would turn very cold in the desert during night time. You may want to check for yourself if these minima are "very cold" by your definition..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau#Climate

Though the narrative is pretty simple. As it is very dry in the desert, there is very little vapor to block infrared radiation, and so temperatures need to fall off sharply during night. And indeed they do.
Temperature variations are typically in the 15+ Centigrade magnitude. It may be up to 18 Centigrade. Which is pretty large. But no way unusual.

In fact we easily reach such magnitudes all over the planet, as long as there is a clear sky and no clouds, despite much higher humidity. In fact lower average temperature variations are very much associated with a) proximity to water (which strongly stabilizes temperatures) and b) average cloudiness. Landlocked places are showing just a strong variation if the sky is clear.

For instance in Europe, and I know it not any different North America, during summer time we easily go from a maximum of 35C to a minimum of 15C. Again, if the sky is clear. And I will not compare cold to conditions, for we know that absolute humidity is strongly depending on temperature.

Btw. that is also the reason why I used relative humidity in the beginning. It has been suggested, that the extremely strong correlation between cloud condition and temperature variation was due to the correlation between clouds and humidity. But clouds are only correlated to relative humidity, not absolute. And as there is no correlation between relative humidity and temperature variation, or nocturnal cooling, that argument should have been nullified.

So...
1. At the equator the GHE is at its lowest, despite the strongest GHG has its maximum there.
2. The one region that is even hotter than the equator is the Sahara / Arabian desert, where vapor is very low.
3. Temperature variations between daily high and low are completely explained by cloud covers (or their absence), which leaves zero scope for vapor.


Of course your treatise is correct but remember that conduction and convection are the chief means of heat energy transmission into the Tropopause even though the means of transfer from the solid ground to the atmosphere is through radiation. "Low" humidity is not "no" humidity. Even in the Antarctic which is the atmospheric driest spot on Earth the humidity is high enough to form the ice sheets over the centuries.

So radiation off of the ground is very soon captured mostly by water vapor and then transferred via conduction to the other gases which in turn cause the convection cycle.

At the top of the Tropopause the atmospheric density grows low enough that the major way of losing heat energy then is radiation.

Always remember that Earth is a water planet and that the entire cycle of climate/life is dependent almost entirely on water.


Water not needed.

Consider Venus, Jupiter, Mars, etc. They have either very little to NO water, yet they have a temperature profile in the atmosphere just like Earth does. How do you suppose these planets lose heat to their atmosphere or to space?


If you would bother to study it for even one second you would discover that the surface temperatures of these planets is totally different and that the temperature profile of the planets happen to match one another because these temperatures are controlled by the atmospheres they contain.

If you remember I'm the one that demonstrated the temperature profiles at the points of equal PRESSURES and not altitudes.

It doesn't matter that the surface temperature is any different. What does matter is the temperature profile of the atmosphere of that planet, just as you are again trying to make a point about.

What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


The Parrot Killer
26-06-2017 15:16
Wake
★★★★★
(2226)
Into the Night wrote: What do you think the primary source of heat for these atmospheres is? It's the surface, just like Earth.


And again Nightmare shows that he cannot understand simple science. The source of heat for these planets is the Sun.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Vapour is not a greenhouse gas:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?305-10-2017 02:36
Greenhouse Gases8004-10-2017 22:29
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law12928-09-2017 22:25
Greenhouse Gases Are Real15417-09-2017 19:05
What is the Greenhouse Effect?16614-09-2017 22:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact