Remember me
▼ Content

NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.



Page 13 of 16<<<1112131415>>>
28-07-2022 02:02
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
I like the greenhouse analogy. The relative warmth of the stratosphere creates an inversion, putting a cap on upward convection within the troposphere. The glass in a greenhouse has the same effect - caps upward convection.

And like the atmospheric greenhouse, a glass greenhouse still allows heat transfer to the outside via thermal radiation (the "outside" being space WRT the atmospheric GH).

I realize this is a bit different than how the analogy is usually used.
28-07-2022 07:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
Dorothy wrote:I like the greenhouse analogy.

The greenhouse reduces convection that would otherwise occur.

There is no convection that would ever occur with the vacuum of space. The atmosphere doesn't reduce any heat. Nothing in the atmosphere reduces any heat.

Dorothy wrote: The relative warmth of the stratosphere creates an inversion,

Warmth is not what the stratosphere has. It's F'-ing cold.

Dorothy wrote:... putting a cap on upward convection within the troposphere.

There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere. The atmospheric "layers" are entirely notional. Air does not come with layers.

Dorothy wrote: The glass in a greenhouse has the same effect - caps upward convection.

A greenhouse does this. The atmosphere does not.

Dorothy wrote:And like the atmospheric greenhouse,

There is no atmospheric greenhouse.

.
28-07-2022 11:02
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
"There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere. The atmospheric "layers" are entirely notional. Air does not come with layers."

UBDaMoron
28-07-2022 12:49
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Hi Dorothy.I see you have met the UBDaMoron.I like him and ITN.Because of this pair I have learned what Gaslighting on the Internet is.I am curious as to your thoughts on AGW/CC.I have been looking in to it for over 3 years and at this point do not believe humans are changing the weather and certainly not to an existential level.
28-07-2022 13:06
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So now hot air does not rise.

Not necessarily.
duncan61 wrote:
Serious people?

Seriously.
duncan61 wrote:
On a hot day you can see it.

You cannot see rising air. You can only see the effects of it.
duncan61 wrote:
Hot air balloons do not go up.

Sometimes they don't.
duncan61 wrote:
Possibly do not exist even though I have been in one at York?

Hot air balloon pilots are well trained to know when the conditions are good enough for their balloons. They don't always fly.


I called Perth hot air balloon rides and the operator stated that his balloon always goes up regardless.If weather conditions are bad of course they don't fly.There has never been a time where he has cancelled because the balloon will not go up no matter how much gas he burns.On the descent it is easy to control the gas burner and gently touch down.If the gas goes out there are sand bags that can be jettisoned to slow the descent.


duncan61
28-07-2022 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
So now hot air does not rise.

Not necessarily.
duncan61 wrote:
Serious people?

Seriously.
duncan61 wrote:
On a hot day you can see it.

You cannot see rising air. You can only see the effects of it.
duncan61 wrote:
Hot air balloons do not go up.

Sometimes they don't.
duncan61 wrote:
Possibly do not exist even though I have been in one at York?

Hot air balloon pilots are well trained to know when the conditions are good enough for their balloons. They don't always fly.


I called Perth hot air balloon rides and the operator stated that his balloon always goes up regardless.If weather conditions are bad of course they don't fly.There has never been a time where he has cancelled because the balloon will not go up no matter how much gas he burns.On the descent it is easy to control the gas burner and gently touch down.If the gas goes out there are sand bags that can be jettisoned to slow the descent.

Because the atmosphere rarely gets as hot as the inside of the balloon.


Convection will occur in any fluid. Warmer fluid will rise, while cooler fluid descends to fill the space underneath. Hot air balloons are simply riding this same convection. They cannot fly unless there is colder air to fill the space of the rising balloon, just as warmer air rising because somewhere else air is descending. Convective heating is about BOTH flows of the fluid, not just the warmer fluid.

It takes energy for a balloon to rise. That energy comes from the burner, by converting chemical energy into thermal energy.

Heat does not rise. Heat has no temperature. Convective heating is one form of heat. It involves the movement of both warm and cold fluid. As always, you can only heat from hot to cold. As any fluid rises, it cools. It cannot rise unless there is colder fluid to replace it.

In a greenhouse, with the roof vents closed, convection is reduced. Therefore heat is reduced. Radiant heat from the Sun is still absorbed by materials inside, and radiant heat from the materials inside still exit the greenhouse. The only type of heat that is reduced is convective heat. Opening the roof vents allows more of this to occur, cooling the greenhouse.

At night, the greenhouse reaches the same temperature as everything else. Radiant heating still occurs. Just as the greenhouse accumulated more thermal energy during the day, more energy is lost by radiant heating during the night.

The same thing happens to many cars with their windows rolled up and parked in Sun

No gas or vapor reduces convective heating. No gas or vapor reduces radiant heating.

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any way.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Insulation also reduces heat. Among some of the best designs is a Dewer flask (or Thermos jug). Putting something hot or cold in the jug will stay hot or cold for awhile because the jug is so good at reducing heat. These jugs were originally designed to hold liquified gases at very cold temperatures. They became common ways of storing drinks for lunches.

A coat does not make you warmer. It reduces heat so your body does not have to work as hard to maintain it's temperature. People are warm blooded critters, so their own temperature tends to remain the same whether they are wearing a coat or not. It is, of course, possible to overwhelm the body's ability to maintain it's temperature. This can be easily life threatening. Wearing a coat on a hot day is not a good idea. You can overwhelm the body's ability to cool itself that way.

Every warm blooded critter has cells that act as a thermometer, typically located in the skin, the gut, the heart, and other important locations throughout the body. All of these are monitored by the brain, which can reroute blood flow, tighten up the skin (raising the hair in it to improve insulation), produce sweat to cool the body by evaporation, and other methods to maintain body temperature, particular for itself as well as other important body organs.

No insulation creates energy. Putting a coat on a rock will not make it warmer.

No insulation reduces entropy. Your refrigerator can only stay cold because of energy supplied from outside. Unplug the refrigerator and the interior will reach room temperature anyway.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 28-07-2022 19:12
28-07-2022 19:21
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
IBdaMann wrote:

There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere. The atmospheric "layers" are entirely notional. Air does not come with layers.



GazGuzzler proved it did. Why there are anvil clouds. And yet ozone, CH4, etc. that are in the stratosphere cannot move into the tropopause. When the tropopause is -51º or -60º F. why does none of the warmer air in the troposphere or the stratosphere move into it?
The tropopause shows that the troposphere is similar to a greenhouse that has gasses contained within a specific area.
Attached image:

28-07-2022 19:23
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
IBdaMann wrote:

There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere.



Really?
Attached image:

29-07-2022 00:00
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Hi Duncan,
I'm in a wait and see mode regarding AGW/CC.

More importantly, Into the Night has discovered that putting a blanket on a rock will not make it warmer. He deserves a hat tip for this remarkable finding!
29-07-2022 00:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere. The atmospheric "layers" are entirely notional. Air does not come with layers.



GazGuzzler proved it did.

Word stuffing. Attempted proof by word stuffing.
James_ wrote:
Why there are anvil clouds. And yet ozone, CH4, etc. that are in the stratosphere cannot move into the tropopause. When the tropopause is -51º or -60º F. why does none of the warmer air in the troposphere or the stratosphere move into it?
The tropopause shows that the troposphere is similar to a greenhouse that has gasses contained within a specific area.

Illiteracy: Questions end with a question mark, not a period. Redundant items in list. List boundary removed for fixed list.
Science illiteracy: Air is not heat. Air is not energy. Warmer air both above and below the tropopause do heat the tropopause.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 00:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere.



Really?

Really. Convection is throughout the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi Duncan,
I'm in a wait and see mode regarding AGW/CC.

More importantly, Into the Night has discovered that putting a blanket on a rock will not make it warmer. He deserves a hat tip for this remarkable finding!

Considering that a lot of people in the Church of Global Warming say that a blanket causes warming, you are just assuming a contextomy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 00:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There is no cap placed on any convection within the atmosphere. Convection remains totally unhindered at all points of the atmosphere.
Really?

Without belaboring the point, your question is really stupid and shows that you don't belong participating in this discussion at the adults' table.

The picture you posted is not of any atmospheric layer inhibiting convection. Your picture shows a clear delineation of the altitude at which the convection ceased for that particular event. This happens for all convection events. A temperature increase initially causes a fluid to increase in pressure and to expand, increasing in buoyancy and thus rising. As it rises, it cools and decreases in pressure. At a certain point the temperature and pressure has decreased to match the ambient temperature and pressure and no further convection occurs.

In your picture, I can see where the cloud that was originally rising ... stopped rising because it reached the same temperature and pressure of the ambient atmosphere. Perhaps you can see it as well if your eye is keen and you look closely enough.


.
29-07-2022 02:01
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
hin·drance
A thing that provides resistance, delay, or obstruction to something or someone.

Example:
"At a certain point the temperature and pressure of the surrounding atmosphere became a hindrance to further convection."
29-07-2022 04:13
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
IBdaMann wrote:


In your picture, I can see where the cloud that was originally rising ... stopped rising because it reached the same temperature and pressure of the ambient atmosphere.


.



The temperature above it is colder. Can you imagine it might be something close to pure nitrogen in the tropopause? There might be a logical explanation for it.
Just think, another force acting on tropospheric gasses to trap heat in the troposphere. And this would be a literal barrier being formed by nitrogen. How "cool" is that. A double entendre is meant as the tropopause is rather cold and is one of my favorite places. It seems that scientists don't find the science of "nothing" as in nothing of consequence happens there.
And I'd like to Thank my good friend GazGuzzler for pointing this out, that heat doesn't have to rise but can expand outward.
29-07-2022 05:08
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.
29-07-2022 06:33
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.



I'm not speculating. In saying warm air stops rising because of adiabatic cooling
is speculation. The pressure decreases that much when a cold inversion called the tropopause is reached. Right? Why is the tropopause cold when the stratosphere is warmer? What happened to adiabatic cooling?
If you consider that CO2, CH4 and O3 are all in both the stratosphere and the troposphere but not the tropopause, why? Adiabatic cooling, right? If a sudden dramatic pressure drop is what creates an anvil cloud then why does an even lower pressure in the stratosphere not have the same effect?

At the moment these guys know that I have some things that I'm pursuing. Can we consider something for fun? This gets into atmospheric chemistry if you will.
I'm playing the Devil's advocate or Luci on Lucifer, okay?

...Planet..............distance from Sun................temperature
Venus.................67 million miles........................867º F.
Earth..................94.4 million miles.....................57º F.


Nothing in common, right? Venus is 15.2 times hotter. Just nothing to consider.
What if we say

..planet.................temperature
Venus.....................737 kelvin
Earth.......................258 kelvin


Science states that the Sun's gravity accelerates 1.85 faster at Venus' orbit than it does at the Earth's orbit. So if we multiply 1.85 x 258 = 477.3.
Still not close to Venus' temperature. But then CO2 is about 1.53 times denser than the Earth's atmospheric gasses. And 1.53 x 477.3 = 730. Then if you consider solar radiation and the solar wind, it might be fairly accurate. And I know, it's not what's taught in school.
But by just saying distance from the Sun, it's gravitational field strength and the composition/mass of atmospheric gasses shouldn't be this close. Then when solar radiation could account for the discrepancy in atmospheric temperatures, I find it intriguing.

And I accept that there is no relationship between the Earth's atmospheric temperature and Venus'.
Edited on 29-07-2022 07:11
29-07-2022 07:55
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.



I have my own research that I'm pursuing. These guys know that I am pursuing an experiment to explain what the IPCC has observed but does not understand. And this gets into that the tropopause has a role that it plays in our atmosphere that scientists do not understand yet.
I'll clue you in, okay? If I am right then the #1 and #2 greenhouse gasses (water vapor and CO2) in the troposphere are what is allowing for what the IPCC has observed in the stratosphere. I might prove this because then scientists would have to consider what an actual solution would entail.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Edited on 29-07-2022 07:55
29-07-2022 08:42
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.


Are the different layers in the atmosphere defined by the temperature like a thermocline in water or by position?.I have never considered the atmosphere in layers just as a whole mass that takes time to heat and cool


duncan61
29-07-2022 11:24
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.



I tend to agree with this;

Tropopause

The tropopause is an important boundary layer in Earth's atmosphere dividing the lowermost atmospheric layer, the troposphere, from the stratosphere.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/tropopause


They do not explain why its lapse rate is different from both the troposphere and stratosphere where temperature changes with altitude.
Edited on 29-07-2022 11:25
29-07-2022 18:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James
I'm afraid you have it backwards. Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere. Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.



I have my own research that I'm pursuing. These guys know that I am pursuing an experiment to explain what the IPCC has observed but does not understand. And this gets into that the tropopause has a role that it plays in our atmosphere that scientists do not understand yet.
I'll clue you in, okay? If I am right then the #1 and #2 greenhouse gasses (water vapor and CO2) in the troposphere are what is allowing for what the IPCC has observed in the stratosphere. I might prove this because then scientists would have to consider what an actual solution would entail.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases.
https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

Ozone is neither carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nor methane. There is no carbon in ozone. There is no nitrogen in ozone.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 19:04
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Into the Night wrote:

Ozone is neither carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nor methane. There is no carbon in ozone. There is no nitrogen in ozone.



What I want to find out is if 2CO2 through atmospheric forcing can become
C, C, O and O3 (ozone). This of course would involve other atmospheric gasses, hence the term atmospheric forcing.
What you and your friends IBHu-man (think a Ferengi talking here) and GazGuzzler don't like is that a layer of the atmosphere is almost all nitrogen (N2). I'm aware of this because the IPCC, NOAA as well as NASA has forgotten or overlooked the basic fact that mixing between the stratosphere and the tropopause requires a jet stream. Otherwise only a small amount of gases will pass through the tropopause.
In this image it shows subsidence and ascent, how gasses mix. This image is showing the jet stream. Then in the upper troposphere if CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2
then this is just to be correct
2CO2 + 2H2O > 2CH2O + 2O2
then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4 while 2O2 can become O + O3 if those gasses ascend to the stratosphere. And then what the IPCC scientists has observed will make sense.
See how easy this is ITN? Of course if the IPCC scientists couldn't figure this out then maybe it's not such an easy problem to solve?
The real question is why is the tropopause mostly N2 type nitrogen.

Am sorry all, I've wasted too much time on this so for me it's pretty basic.

p.s., with the image, if you notice the subsidence side is lower than the ascent side, that would be the altitude of the troposphere/tropopause/stratosphere layering has changed. Since I am familiar with this, I get it and mention this so you'll understand what the image hasn't mentioned.
Attached image:


Edited on 29-07-2022 19:11
29-07-2022 19:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
James_ wrote:The temperature above it is colder.

Likely.

James_ wrote:Can you imagine it might be something close to pure nitrogen in the tropopause?

Nope. It's the same kind of air that is in the troposphere, i.e. about 20% is oxygen, except that the percentage of CO2 is lower because CO2 is heavier than O2 or N2 and settles towards the ground/surface/sea level.

James_ wrote:There might be a logical explanation for it.

I think you mean that there might be wild speculation for it that denies all data acquired by the Air Force Research Laboratory. It turns out that air doesn't come with layers.

James_ wrote: Just think, another force acting on tropospheric gasses to trap heat in the troposphere.

Who do you believe the troposphere is gassing and what do you believe is additionally forcing the issue? What do you misunderstand heat to be such that you believe it can be trapped?

James_ wrote:And this would be a literal barrier being formed by nitrogen.

How do you believe that nitrogen became so segregationist?

.
29-07-2022 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12963)
Dorothy wrote:Yes, the bottom of the stratosphere is very cold, but it's actually warmer than the top of the troposphere.

The bottom of the stratosphere *is* the top of the troposphere. It is exactly the same temperature as itself.

Dorothy wrote:Where the two meet, the tropopause, is more a boundary than a separate layer.

Exactly, the tropopause is the top of the troposphere and the bottom of the stratosphere. It is whatever temperature it is.

Dorothy wrote:This is meteorology 101, well understood and widely available in textbooks or internet sources. No need to speculate.

Bingo.
29-07-2022 19:57
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:And this would be a literal barrier being formed by nitrogen.

How do you believe that nitrogen became so segregationist?

.



It's boiling point.
29-07-2022 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Ozone is neither carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nor methane. There is no carbon in ozone. There is no nitrogen in ozone.



What I want to find out is if 2CO2 through atmospheric forcing can become
C, C, O and O3 (ozone).

The atmosphere is not a force.
James_ wrote:
This of course would involve other atmospheric gasses, hence the term atmospheric forcing.

The atmosphere is not a force.
James_ wrote:
What you and your friends IBHu-man (think a Ferengi talking here) and GazGuzzler don't like is that a layer of the atmosphere is almost all nitrogen (N2).

The atmosphere is not almost all nitrogen. Only about 78% of it is nitrogen.
James_ wrote:
I'm aware of this because the IPCC, NOAA as well as NASA has forgotten or overlooked the basic fact that mixing between the stratosphere and the tropopause requires a jet stream.

Nope. Gases are free to mix anywhere in the atmosphere, and they do.
James_ wrote:
Otherwise only a small amount of gases will pass through the tropopause.

All gases pass through the tropopause, other than those heavier than air, such as propane, R12 or R134a refrigerant, etc.
James_ wrote:
In this image it shows subsidence and ascent, how gasses mix. This image is showing the jet stream.

No. This image shows random shit.
James_ wrote:
Then in the upper troposphere if CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2
then this is just to be correct
2CO2 + 2H2O > 2CH2O + 2O2
then 2CH2O > CO2 + CH4 while 2O2 can become O + O3 if those gasses ascend to the stratosphere.

Not spontaneous reactions. Learn some chemistry, dude.
James_ wrote:
And then what the IPCC scientists has observed will make sense.

The IPCC is a government agency. It is not science.
James_ wrote:
See how easy this is ITN?

Yeah. It's easy the way you make up shit and technobabble.
James_ wrote:
Of course if the IPCC scientists couldn't figure this out then maybe it's not such an easy problem to solve?

The IPCC is a government agency. It is not science.
James_ wrote:
The real question is why is the tropopause mostly N2 type nitrogen.

Because the atmosphere is mostly nitrogen.
James_ wrote:
Am sorry all, I've wasted too much time on this so for me it's pretty basic.

p.s., with the image, if you notice the subsidence side is lower than the ascent side, that would be the altitude of the troposphere/tropopause/stratosphere layering has changed. Since I am familiar with this, I get it and mention this so you'll understand what the image hasn't mentioned.

The image doesn't mention anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 22:13
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Into the Night wrote:

The atmosphere is not a force.
James_ wrote:
This of course would involve other atmospheric gasses, hence the term atmospheric forcing.

The atmosphere is not a force.
James_ wrote:
What you and your friends IBHu-man (think a Ferengi talking here) and GazGuzzler don't like is that a layer of the atmosphere is almost all nitrogen (N2).

The atmosphere is not almost all nitrogen. Only about 78% of it is nitrogen.



The tropopause is most likely over 99% nitrogen. It could be less but it is much more than 78%.
Atmospheric forcing is when 2 or more different molecular gasses interact and become new gasses. An example is your CnH2n+2 for hydrocarbons where n is any positive integer. When it interacts with NOx which is the same as NOn then the hydrogen and the carbon in the hydrocarbon because of atmospheric forcing can become other gasses like O3.

@Dorothy, on a good day this forum is only toxic. These exchanges do help me to learn. And while they'll never admit it they're also learning. And for people who visit the forum, they might learn something as well. Kind of why I'm here.
These guys know I like free speech. They have it and I have it. People don't have to listen and some people do abuse it.
29-07-2022 22:40
Dorothy
☆☆☆☆☆
(9)
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053460

You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better. Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.
29-07-2022 22:44
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053460

You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better. Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


I never had a little brother or sister. It might be the same thing? Yes?
Edited on 29-07-2022 23:11
29-07-2022 23:19
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Dorothy wrote:
Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


Free speech is a bitch. ITN says Salish Sea while I say Puget Sound. Is the Duwamish a tribe or a river?
IBDM is most likely eastern European. ie., slavic. And the common ground is what?
You should stay if you like science.
Edited on 29-07-2022 23:21
29-07-2022 23:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The atmosphere is not a force.
[quote]James_ wrote:
This of course would involve other atmospheric gasses, hence the term atmospheric forcing.

The atmosphere is not a force.
James_ wrote:
What you and your friends IBHu-man (think a Ferengi talking here) and GazGuzzler don't like is that a layer of the atmosphere is almost all nitrogen (N2).

The atmosphere is not almost all nitrogen. Only about 78% of it is nitrogen.

The tropopause is most likely over 99% nitrogen. It could be less but it is much more than 78%.
James_ wrote:
Atmospheric forcing is when 2 or more different molecular gasses interact and become new gasses.
[quote]James_ wrote:
An example is your CnH2n+2 for hydrocarbons where n is any positive integer. When it interacts with NOx which is the same as NOn then the hydrogen and the carbon in the hydrocarbon because of atmospheric forcing can become other gasses like O3.

The atmosphere is not a force. It does not cause this reaction either. Ozone has no nitrogen or carbon.
James_ wrote:
@Dorothy, on a good day this forum is only toxic. These exchanges do help me to learn. And while they'll never admit it they're also learning. And for people who visit the forum, they might learn something as well. Kind of why I'm here.

You are not here to learn.
James_ wrote:
These guys know I like free speech. They have it and I have it. People don't have to listen and some people do abuse it.

The government is not outlawing what you post.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 23:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.

Don't take his technobabble seriously. He really has no clue.
Dorothy wrote:
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

This is correct.
Dorothy wrote:
You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better.

Nah. They really don't.
Dorothy wrote:
Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals

So you think 'better' is throwing insults around. Gotit.
Dorothy wrote:
that debate science

Science isn't a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Dorothy wrote:
via endless nitpicking and handwaving.

Nah. That's being done by both Duncan and James.
Dorothy wrote:
The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit.

Theories of science and mathematics ain't horseshit, gal.
Dorothy wrote:
I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.

It does take effort to learn. It's worth it though.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 23:48
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Into the Night wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.

Don't take his technobabble seriously. He really has no clue.
Dorothy wrote:
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

This is correct.
Dorothy wrote:
You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better.

Nah. They really don't.
Dorothy wrote:
Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals

So you think 'better' is throwing insults around. Gotit.
Dorothy wrote:
that debate science

Science isn't a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Dorothy wrote:
via endless nitpicking and handwaving.

Nah. That's being done by both Duncan and James.
Dorothy wrote:
The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit.

Theories of science and mathematics ain't horseshit, gal.
Dorothy wrote:
I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.

It does take effort to learn. It's worth it though.



Think if I had a little brother or sister.
29-07-2022 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
James_ wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


Free speech is a bitch.

Why?
James_ wrote:
ITN says Salish Sea while I say Puget Sound.

Nah. I say Puget Sound.
James_ wrote:
Is the Duwamish a tribe or a river?

Both.
James_ wrote:
IBDM is most likely eastern European. ie., slavic. And the common ground is what?

Your point......?
James_ wrote:
You should stay if you like science.

Agreed. Too bad you deny and discard it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-07-2022 23:49
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


Free speech is a bitch.

Why?
James_ wrote:
ITN says Salish Sea while I say Puget Sound.

Nah. I say Puget Sound.
James_ wrote:
Is the Duwamish a tribe or a river?

Both.
James_ wrote:
IBDM is most likely eastern European. ie., slavic. And the common ground is what?

Your point......?
James_ wrote:
You should stay if you like science.

Agreed. Too bad you deny and discard it.


If I had a younger sibling, you're to be expected.
30-07-2022 03:55
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053460

You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better. Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


So the layers are defined by temperature.Thank you for the moral support.Maybe IBDm and ITN are 100% correct with every post but the delivery could do with some tuning.I disagree with some of the issues raised and boom I get cyberbullied and gaslite out of town.I have left this forum before because of it however failed to find a forum similar.I am very much in to real evidence and polar bears were my first go to.They are fine now we stopped culling them.Sea level rise was my next baby and I took a measurement at the sea wall at left bank Swan river on a 1.1 tide and it was exactly 400mm to the water.If it had gone up 200 mm since 1967 it would have been at 200mm.I also called the port Authority and they had 168 years of tidal records and it has not gone up 1mm.Same in Sydney Harbour.ITN will respond with it can not be measured however if it had gone up 200mm you would see it on the shoreline.Trigg island was an Island that you had to wade to now in summer it is out the water quite a bit but that is sand getting put on the beach and every winter it washes away again.The Barrier reef is in excellent condition and has more mass now than when satellite records began.The Alarmists should really go have a look.I have done the greenhouse test and had no temperature rise in the test model at 3000ppm for half an hour.I have a CO2 meter and there has been little change since I have had it.It goes between 380-420ppm.All this is making it hard to panic


duncan61
Edited on 30-07-2022 03:57
30-07-2022 05:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19757)
duncan61 wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Hi James,
Sorry for saying you need to read up on the subject - you've clearly read a lot more than my meteorology 101 level, where the tropopause is often described as a sharp boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere.
As you know the reality is not so simple:

"Over the past decades, it has become clear that tropopause is an atmosphere layer, rather than a sharp surface, that is between troposphere and stratosphere and has properties of both the troposphere and the stratosphere."

This more nuanced definition states that the tropopause begins where the environment lapse rate in the troposphere falls to 2C/km. As best I can tell, and I could be wrong, the top of the tropopause is where ambient temperature falls to its lowest, above which the temperature begins to rise (marking the bottom of the stratosphere).

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053460

You have some interesting ideas and I admire your curiosity, but like you said, this thread is toxic. You and Duncan deserve better. Into the night and HeBDaMoron are intolerable - obnoxious jackals that debate science via endless nitpicking and handwaving. The stuff they get right is so obviously mixed with a generous serving of horseshit. I don't have the patience.

Good luck with your project.


So the layers are defined by temperature.

More by lapse rate. Temperature itself varies in the tropopause, just like anywhere else in the atmosphere.
duncan61 wrote:
Thank you for the moral support.Maybe IBDm and ITN are 100% correct with every post but the delivery could do with some tuning.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for someone that ignores theories of science or discards mathematics or logic.
duncan61 wrote:
I disagree with some of the issues raised and boom I get cyberbullied and gaslite out of town.

LIF. You are describing yourself. Theories of science aren't 'gaslight'.
duncan61 wrote:
I have left this forum before because of it however failed to find a forum similar.I am very much in to real evidence and polar bears were my first go to.They are fine now we stopped culling them.Sea level rise was my next baby and I took a measurement at the sea wall at left bank Swan river on a 1.1 tide and it was exactly 400mm to the water.If it had gone up 200 mm since 1967 it would have been at 200mm.I also called the port Authority and they had 168 years of tidal records and it has not gone up 1mm.Same in Sydney Harbour.

Fine. That's Sydney Harbor.
duncan61 wrote:
ITN will respond with it can not be measured

WRONG. Word stuffing. I said global sea cannot be measured. Get yer quotes right, dude.
duncan61 wrote:
however if it had gone up 200mm you would see it on the shoreline.

Why? Sydney Harbor isn't the world.
duncan61 wrote:
Trigg island was an Island that you had to wade to now in summer it is out the water quite a bit but that is sand getting put on the beach and every winter it washes away again.The Barrier reef is in excellent condition and has more mass now than when satellite records began.

Coral grows.
duncan61 wrote:
The Alarmists should really go have a look.

They won't. They would rather pass around pictures of dead coral.
duncan61 wrote:
I have done the greenhouse test and had no temperature rise in the test model at 3000ppm for half an hour.I have a CO2 meter and there has been little change since I have had it.It goes between 380-420ppm.All this is making it hard to panic

No surprise since no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-07-2022 02:27
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
Duncan, with the layers of the atmosphere, this link will explain everything to you.
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/stratosphere

With the tropopause, it has nothing in common with the troposphere or the stratosphere so am not sure why they consider it to be a part of the stratosphere. And when you read about PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds), the experiment that I'm pursuing might help scientists to understand why they form. At the moment they don't know. And they'll know that I consider the tropopause to be its own layer of the atmosphere because it basically takes a jet stream to allow gasses in the troposphere and the stratosphere to mix.
31-07-2022 06:45
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
With this;
The stratosphere is very dry air and contains little water vapor. Because of this, few clouds are found in this layer and almost all clouds occur in the lower, more humid troposphere. Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) are the exception. PSCs appear in the lower stratosphere near the poles in winter. They are found at altitudes of 15 to 25 km (9.3 to 15.5 miles) and form only when temperatures at those heights dip below -78° C. They appear to help cause the formation of the infamous holes in the ozone layer by "encouraging" certain chemical reactions that destroy ozone. PSCs are also called nacreous clouds.


PSCs and holes in the ozone layer whether in the northern or southern hemisphere occur when the Earth is at its furthest distance from the Sun. And when I showed a relationship between the temperatures of the Earth and Venus, the strength of the Sun's gravitational field was a factor.
And when there was no hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, one formed over the Arctic. The gasses responsible for PSCs migrate. And this would have to do with the temperature of the stratosphere.
This is where if I can show that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2, I'll most likely be changing science.
There is no Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics field in science.
31-07-2022 16:56
James_
★★★★☆
(1139)
I got something backwards, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica opens when the Earth's orbit is move closer to the Sun. And the Arctic PSCs are in March and has been observed earlier with no hole over Antarctica.
This brings up why when sunlight is moving closer to shining on both the northern and southern hemisphere equally does the stratosphere drop below -78º C.
It'd be interesting to find out if the strength of the Sun's gravitational field plays a role in things. But the shift in the amount of solar radiation in one hemisphere is obvious. Basically they're associated with spring in both hemispheres.
And since it takes time for gasses to migrate, they might start moving towards the north or south pole in winter. In a sense like CO2 displaces oxygen in a container if there is little air circulation in that container. This would suggest that when the holes in the ozone layer are caused by PSCs that it's a delayed effect of winter.
Of course when Texas froze that was when there was no hole over Antarctica.

And just for fun. The Earth's orbit varies by about 3 million miles or 4.8 million km.
The Earth seems to be within it's average distance from the Sun of 93,000,000 miles or 150,000,000 km when holes in the ozone layer form. And this is with increased solar radiation. Just an interesting aspect of the chemistry of the Earth's atmosphere. This is where scientists who study PSCs and why they form might find this interesting.
Edited on 31-07-2022 17:14
Page 13 of 16<<<1112131415>>>





Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Net Metering710-12-2020 14:37
https://www.waclimate.net/perth-sea-levels.html627-11-2020 01:24
Confirmed: Convection is a Factor in Thermal Energy Flow728-06-2020 04:12
thermal radiation and EM radiation901-03-2020 23:36
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact