Remember me
▼ Content

Temperature variation may be the key


Temperature variation may be the key21-09-2017 19:18
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau
21-09-2017 19:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau


I'm really not all that sure what you're trying to say - the hottest spot on Earth is the Sahara Desert and it's normal temperature variations from day to night are typically 15 - 20 degrees C. And a change of as much as 50+ degrees has been observed.

You have to realize that the ground is a terrific insulator as shown by the fact that most desert animals are burrowers. Just a foot underground the temperature is fractions of what it can be on the surface. This means that there isn't a lot of heat stored in the ground and hence this can be conducted off by both conduction and radiation quite rapidly.

So pretty wild temperature swings in desert areas is common.
21-09-2017 20:25
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Well .. there was a second part to it, but I have cut it short. We generally do not measure surface temperatures on Earth, but rather air temperatures. They need to be taken at least 2m above the soil. Otherwise the temperature record would not be 56.7°C taken at the death valley in 1913(!). Desert sand easily reaches >80°C in the Sahara, likely up to 90°C.
If we consider the effect of convection (aka air cooling), one might imagine that otherwise Earth could run just as hot as the moon (up to 120°C), which is an interesting detail on its own. But that is a different subject.
Also it is completely irrelevant what weather changes can do in some occasions. We are talking about climate, that are long term averages.
21-09-2017 22:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well .. there was a second part to it, but I have cut it short. We generally do not measure surface temperatures on Earth, but rather air temperatures. They need to be taken at least 2m above the soil. Otherwise the temperature record would not be 56.7°C taken at the death valley in 1913(!). Desert sand easily reaches >80°C in the Sahara, likely up to 90°C.
If we consider the effect of convection (aka air cooling), one might imagine that otherwise Earth could run just as hot as the moon (up to 120°C), which is an interesting detail on its own. But that is a different subject.
Also it is completely irrelevant what weather changes can do in some occasions. We are talking about climate, that are long term averages.


What is this business about "Temperature Variations may be the key"?
22-09-2017 06:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Leitwolf wrote:
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau


Water vapor is considered the #1 GHG. The experiment that I am pursuing will hopefully demonstrate that CO2 and H2O have a natural attraction to one another.
And your observation about clouds (water vapor) is right on the money.
It is possible that CO2 gets so much attention is for that very reason that you mentioned.
22-09-2017 09:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau


I'm really not all that sure what you're trying to say - the hottest spot on Earth is the Sahara Desert and it's normal temperature variations from day to night are typically 15 - 20 degrees C. And a change of as much as 50+ degrees has been observed.

Not the hottest spot on Earth. That title belongs to Death Valley, which recorded a temperature of 134 degF in 1913.

Still considerably colder than the daylit side of the International Space Station (which reaches 250 degF), which has no 'greenhouse' gas to warm it.

Wake wrote:
You have to realize that the ground is a terrific insulator as shown by the fact that most desert animals are burrowers. Just a foot underground the temperature is fractions of what it can be on the surface. This means that there isn't a lot of heat stored in the ground and hence this can be conducted off by both conduction and radiation quite rapidly.

This statement is a paradox

1) The ground is a good insulator.
2) The ground easily conducts heat out of it to remain cool.

1) is true. 2) is not. The ground only a little beneath the surface simply remains cool. It is never directly warmed by the Sun anyway. It doesn't have to 'cool off'.

Glad to see you have finally accepted the fact that the top surface of the ground conducts AND radiates heat away.


Wake wrote:
So pretty wild temperature swings in desert areas is common.



The Parrot Killer
22-09-2017 09:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau


Water vapor is considered the #1 GHG. The experiment that I am pursuing will hopefully demonstrate that CO2 and H2O have a natural attraction to one another.
And your observation about clouds (water vapor) is right on the money.
It is possible that CO2 gets so much attention is for that very reason that you mentioned.


The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't isolate the effect of air moving in from somewhere else.

Marine areas get an almost continuous supply of air coming from the sea, particularly on the west coast. Liquid water has a high specific heat, so this air tends to be generally a close range of temperatures.

Deserts do NOT get marine air (or they wouldn't be deserts!). They tend to get airflows from the leeward side of mountain ranges, which can get quite cold I hear. They can also get quite hot from those same winds (if they're the right speed and angle to the range), producing a compression wave, heating the air.

Then there's the effect of the difference of emissivity between bare sand and rock, and vegetation.

Your experiment has a lot of influencing factors that could easily lead you to wrong conclusions.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2017 16:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:


The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't isolate the effect of air moving in from somewhere else.

Marine areas get an almost continuous supply of air coming from the sea, particularly on the west coast. Liquid water has a high specific heat, so this air tends to be generally a close range of temperatures.

Deserts do NOT get marine air (or they wouldn't be deserts!). They tend to get airflows from the leeward side of mountain ranges, which can get quite cold I hear. They can also get quite hot from those same winds (if they're the right speed and angle to the range), producing a compression wave, heating the air.

Then there's the effect of the difference of emissivity between bare sand and rock, and vegetation.

Your experiment has a lot of influencing factors that could easily lead you to wrong conclusions.


All nonsensical. It's like Into the Night saying he farted and then smelled his breath. I think it's about the same thing.
22-09-2017 18:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
There is an urban myth telling us, that it gets very cold in the desert during night. Why so? Well because the sky is clear and dry, so there is no blanket to keep it warm. In the context of the GHE theory the myth is being revived, as the lack of water vapour would naturally cause much more extreme temperatures. Solar radiation will be less impaired, but most of all, infrared could radiate much more efficiently into space. Under such unusual circumstances, something spooky is to be expected and it comes in the unparalleled drop in temperatures once the sun is gone.
German Wikipedia tells us on the Atacama desert, that temperatures go from +30°C during daytime to a frosty -15°C during night. Now that is really extreme!

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama-W%C3%BCste

Well .. none of that is true. In fact it is complete bullshit. In reality we see temperatures varying by up to 20° Centigrade, and not more. I have looked onto hundreds of climate diagrams from the Sahara, the Tibetian plateau or the Atacama desert. None of these places show significantly higher variations as we see them in the US or Europe under a clear sky. Clouds make all the difference, GHGs however do not.

Imagine a place on the Tibetian plateau like "Xainza", 4.700m above sea level. Almost half of the atmosphere is behind it, water vapour (above it) runs extremely low, and "back radiation" should be minimized. Under these circumstances one would expect a very lose regime of radial update and emission and accordingly extreme variations in daily temperatures. However reality looks surprisingly moderate.

http://www.meteo365.de/klima,xainza,898.html

As I have shown before (and as we should know anyhow), clouds have a massive impact on daily temperature variations and can reduce them by a 80%+. Now we can look to the other side. Though we can not simply withdraw GHGs from a place, but we can look at the alterations of relative humidity. Surprisingly they seem to have no impact at all.
Finally, and that is what I am doing here, we can look at the driest and highest places on Earth. We need to use common climate diagrams this time, as other data are not available. As the named myth and the theory of the GHE suggests, the absence of GHGs should provide extreme daily variations. However it is not so, and that is pretty remarkable.
Sure one could argue radial opaqueness of the atmosphere would not have much effect on temperature variations, but the impact of clouds proves the opposite. But if it has, the effect is completely lacking with GHGs. I would love to discuss this and have some suggestions.

Some more examples..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Pedro_de_Atacama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faya-Largeau


I'm really not all that sure what you're trying to say - the hottest spot on Earth is the Sahara Desert and it's normal temperature variations from day to night are typically 15 - 20 degrees C. And a change of as much as 50+ degrees has been observed.

You have to realize that the ground is a terrific insulator as shown by the fact that most desert animals are burrowers. Just a foot underground the temperature is fractions of what it can be on the surface. This means that there isn't a lot of heat stored in the ground and hence this can be conducted off by both conduction and radiation quite rapidly.

So pretty wild temperature swings in desert areas is common.


Yesterday it put 2" of powder on the high ridges in the Sierra Nevada's. This new snow fell on snow left over from last year.

Damn, it must be that global warming.
22-09-2017 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't isolate the effect of air moving in from somewhere else.

Marine areas get an almost continuous supply of air coming from the sea, particularly on the west coast. Liquid water has a high specific heat, so this air tends to be generally a close range of temperatures.

Deserts do NOT get marine air (or they wouldn't be deserts!). They tend to get airflows from the leeward side of mountain ranges, which can get quite cold I hear. They can also get quite hot from those same winds (if they're the right speed and angle to the range), producing a compression wave, heating the air.

Then there's the effect of the difference of emissivity between bare sand and rock, and vegetation.

Your experiment has a lot of influencing factors that could easily lead you to wrong conclusions.


All nonsensical. It's like Into the Night saying he farted and then smelled his breath. I think it's about the same thing.


The results of the experiment would be challenged on these things. You had better make sense of it!


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2017 05:57
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't isolate the effect of air moving in from somewhere else.

Marine areas get an almost continuous supply of air coming from the sea, particularly on the west coast. Liquid water has a high specific heat, so this air tends to be generally a close range of temperatures.

Deserts do NOT get marine air (or they wouldn't be deserts!). They tend to get airflows from the leeward side of mountain ranges, which can get quite cold I hear. They can also get quite hot from those same winds (if they're the right speed and angle to the range), producing a compression wave, heating the air.

Then there's the effect of the difference of emissivity between bare sand and rock, and vegetation.

Your experiment has a lot of influencing factors that could easily lead you to wrong conclusions.


All nonsensical. It's like Into the Night saying he farted and then smelled his breath. I think it's about the same thing.


The results of the experiment would be challenged on these things. You had better make sense of it!


I think my last post got it right. You have nothing better to do than to waste people's time with your .b.s.
Edited on 23-09-2017 06:03
23-09-2017 19:29
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Discussions here are very straight to the point
)))

Maybe my post was too complicated, but it is always hard to communicate a thought which has not been heard before. So let me put it in simple words.
When the sky is overcast, temperatures change by less than 5°C between daily peak and daily lowest temperatures. If the sky is clear, that goes easily up to 15-20°C. And of course I am talking about statistical averages, not one time weather events. The effect is very well observable throughout different levels of "cloudiness".

This is obviously due to clouds making the atmosphere more oqaque do radiation, which is just what GHGs (to which clouds are wrongly counted) should do to a much larger extend.

So if the theory of the GHE and GHGs works, we should able to identify their finger print in daily temperature variations. But there is none! Truly, nothing at all. They might have an impact which is so small that I can not identify it, but that will not make much of a difference.

I do not deny that there may be some "back radiation", or even a lot of it. I am pretty sure the atmosphere will emit some. But the logical conclusion this would cause a GHE seems to be flawed and the empiric data I named are the best evidence for it.
23-09-2017 22:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't isolate the effect of air moving in from somewhere else.

Marine areas get an almost continuous supply of air coming from the sea, particularly on the west coast. Liquid water has a high specific heat, so this air tends to be generally a close range of temperatures.

Deserts do NOT get marine air (or they wouldn't be deserts!). They tend to get airflows from the leeward side of mountain ranges, which can get quite cold I hear. They can also get quite hot from those same winds (if they're the right speed and angle to the range), producing a compression wave, heating the air.

Then there's the effect of the difference of emissivity between bare sand and rock, and vegetation.

Your experiment has a lot of influencing factors that could easily lead you to wrong conclusions.


All nonsensical. It's like Into the Night saying he farted and then smelled his breath. I think it's about the same thing.


The results of the experiment would be challenged on these things. You had better make sense of it!


I think my last post got it right. You have nothing better to do than to waste people's time with your .b.s.

Well, since you have no intention on actually carrying out your experiment (you just talk about it), it matters little. Such an experiment is going to get challenged on the points I made, but you won't be doing the experiment anyway.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2017 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Leitwolf wrote:
Discussions here are very straight to the point
)))

Maybe my post was too complicated, but it is always hard to communicate a thought which has not been heard before. So let me put it in simple words.
When the sky is overcast, temperatures change by less than 5°C between daily peak and daily lowest temperatures. If the sky is clear, that goes easily up to 15-20°C. And of course I am talking about statistical averages, not one time weather events. The effect is very well observable throughout different levels of "cloudiness".

Not really. You are failing to take into account the reason for cloudiness in the first place.
Leitwolf wrote:
This is obviously due to clouds making the atmosphere more oqaque do radiation, which is just what GHGs (to which clouds are wrongly counted) should do to a much larger extend.

Clouds are liquid water (or ice). Liquid water has a much higher specific heat value when compared to dry air.
Leitwolf wrote:
So if the theory of the GHE and GHGs works, we should able to identify their finger print in daily temperature variations.

Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, or any other Holy Gas has a specific heat value similar to any other gas in the atmosphere such as oxygen or nitrogen.
Leitwolf wrote:
But there is none! Truly, nothing at all.

Because there isn't any.
Leitwolf wrote:
They might have an impact which is so small that I can not identify it, but that will not make much of a difference.

We already know the specific heat value of these materials.
Leitwolf wrote:
I do not deny that there may be some "back radiation",

You cannot heat the surface with a colder substance.
Leitwolf wrote:
or even a lot of it.

Makes no difference. You cannot heat the surface with a colder substance.
Leitwolf wrote:
I am pretty sure the atmosphere will emit some.

The atmosphere does emit infrared light, just the same as the surface does. Because the atmosphere is much thinner and lighter than the surface, and because it is generally colder than the surface, that light is much dimmer than that emitted by the surface and slightly shifted to lower frequencies.
Leitwolf wrote:
But the logical conclusion this would cause a GHE seems to be flawed and the empiric data I named are the best evidence for it.

Science is not data. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. Logic is not being used here. Philosophy is. The only (somewhat distantly) related part of logic is the failure in formal logic that is informally known as the argument of ignorance.

It is philosophy that defines both science and logic (as well as mathematics), and gives the reasoning for those definitions.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2017 22:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Discussions here are very straight to the point
)))

Maybe my post was too complicated, but it is always hard to communicate a thought which has not been heard before. So let me put it in simple words.
When the sky is overcast, temperatures change by less than 5°C between daily peak and daily lowest temperatures. If the sky is clear, that goes easily up to 15-20°C. And of course I am talking about statistical averages, not one time weather events. The effect is very well observable throughout different levels of "cloudiness".

This is obviously due to clouds making the atmosphere more oqaque do radiation, which is just what GHGs (to which clouds are wrongly counted) should do to a much larger extend.

So if the theory of the GHE and GHGs works, we should able to identify their finger print in daily temperature variations. But there is none! Truly, nothing at all. They might have an impact which is so small that I can not identify it, but that will not make much of a difference.

I do not deny that there may be some "back radiation", or even a lot of it. I am pretty sure the atmosphere will emit some. But the logical conclusion this would cause a GHE seems to be flawed and the empiric data I named are the best evidence for it.


Well, I don't believe you're really offering any proof beyond the speed of conduction in the troposphere.

For instance, Mars has a very slight atmosphere and hence has very rapid radiation of daytime heat into a night time sky. If memory serves on the order of 60 or 70 degrees C.

Because of the density of Earth's atmosphere the heat must be rid to outer space by firstly being conducted into the stratosphere and then the atmosphere is thin enough that individual molecules can gain enough or lose enough to radiate heat into outer space. To explain this more plainly - the heated molecules rise. If they conduct their heat to the other surrounding molecules they begin falling via the act of convection. Those that had gained enough energy via conduction must sooner or later exceed the specific heat of the molecule and radiate energy away. Simple geometry will show that the majority of the radiation will go into space and not back into the lower atmosphere which would then conduct it back into the stratosphere anyway.

So what you're talking about is this speed of conduction in a relatively dense atmosphere.

You can't use things like the temperature differences day/night in Denver and Death Valley because the difference between these places is only 2 km whereas the troposphere is 12 km thick. And consequently they have almost identical loss of temperature at night.

I was hoping that you had a good test but I don't think so.
Edited on 23-09-2017 22:54
24-09-2017 01:32
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Thanks for noting Mars! I really forgot to look it up and just concentrated on the moon. Stupid..

Mars very well supports my point, which it seems has not transpired yet. Does not matter anyhow. Mars of course offers the comfort of a similar long day as compared to Earth. And the martian atmosphere is extremely rich in CO2. That means it must be moderately opaque for infrared, despite the lack of H2O, the surface is "covered" by 40times as much CO2.

To put that into perspective. At roughly 4.500m on the Tibetian plateau, only about 5% of H2O remain in the atmosphere above, as compared to sea level. So it is a very clean sky, with much lower levels of CO2 anyhow.
I will not try to quantify these effects and certainly there would be not point in guessing that the Tibetian atmosphere would be similarly opaque as the martian. But I can tell for sure, that the extreme lack of the GHG H2O has little or no effect as the data show.

Then on Mars air temperatures go up and down by about 70°C on average, soil temperatures by almost 100°C. As low levels of H2O will not increase this gap, as Earth shows, and CO2 can not be responsible, as there is much more of it on Mars, it clearly isolates convection as the one responsible factor.

The thinner the atmosphere, the weaker the convection. A reduction by 45%, as on the Tibetian plateau, is not quite enough to have much of an impact. GHGs could and should (in theory) play a huge role, but completely fail to do so. Clouds on the other side do demonstrate that such effects does exist, but it obviously only works with the reflection of radiation, not the absorption. This must be the key misunderstanding that there is with the concept of a GHE.
24-09-2017 02:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Thanks for noting Mars! I really forgot to look it up and just concentrated on the moon. Stupid..

Mars very well supports my point, which it seems has not transpired yet. Does not matter anyhow. Mars of course offers the comfort of a similar long day as compared to Earth. And the martian atmosphere is extremely rich in CO2. That means it must be moderately opaque for infrared, despite the lack of H2O, the surface is "covered" by 40times as much CO2.

To put that into perspective. At roughly 4.500m on the Tibetian plateau, only about 5% of H2O remain in the atmosphere above, as compared to sea level. So it is a very clean sky, with much lower levels of CO2 anyhow.
I will not try to quantify these effects and certainly there would be not point in guessing that the Tibetian atmosphere would be similarly opaque as the martian. But I can tell for sure, that the extreme lack of the GHG H2O has little or no effect as the data show.

Then on Mars air temperatures go up and down by about 70°C on average, soil temperatures by almost 100°C. As low levels of H2O will not increase this gap, as Earth shows, and CO2 can not be responsible, as there is much more of it on Mars, it clearly isolates convection as the one responsible factor.

The thinner the atmosphere, the weaker the convection. A reduction by 45%, as on the Tibetian plateau, is not quite enough to have much of an impact. GHGs could and should (in theory) play a huge role, but completely fail to do so. Clouds on the other side do demonstrate that such effects does exist, but it obviously only works with the reflection of radiation, not the absorption. This must be the key misunderstanding that there is with the concept of a GHE.


Just shooting from the hip, Mars atmosphere contains approximately the same amount of CO2 as Earth contains. But it is all there is. Other gases are trace amounts.

Also the emissions from the Sun reaching the surface of Mars are something like half the level they are on Earth and so saturation was reached almost from the word CO2. What's more, the common dust storms throw particles above the thin atmosphere which prevent the Sunlight from ever striking the ground to be converted from visible light to IR.

So we're back to the actual density or "blanketing" effect.

I'm still waiting for SpaceX to have colonizing missions to Mars. We have get ride of a lot of snowflakes forever.
Edited on 24-09-2017 02:52
24-09-2017 04:48
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Well.. the CO2 on Mars.
atmospheric pressure.. 6.36e-3 bar or 0.636% of Earth
gravity ..3.79m/m2
CO2 concentration .. 960,000ppm

0.00636 * (9.78/3.79) * 960,000 / 400 = 39.4

So .. sorry for my imprecision, Mars has not 40 but just 39.4 times as much CO2.
24-09-2017 18:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well.. the CO2 on Mars.
atmospheric pressure.. 6.36e-3 bar or 0.636% of Earth
gravity ..3.79m/m2
CO2 concentration .. 960,000ppm

0.00636 * (9.78/3.79) * 960,000 / 400 = 39.4

So .. sorry for my imprecision, Mars has not 40 but just 39.4 times as much CO2.


It isn't the amount - it's the pressure which determines the distance between molecules and also the absorbed emissions from the sun which determine the temperature to which the surface will heat.

If the temperature is outside of the absorption bands of CO2 it won't matter if the CO2 has the pressure of one bar.

And since the temperature of the surface in full sunlight at the equator is still very low Mar's simply doesn't have very much energy in the CO2 absorption bands. What's more, since the air is so thin radiation of the available energy is so rapid that there is nothing to hold.
24-09-2017 19:10
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Well .. no. Temperatures in the sun are not quite that low, in fact they tend to be > 0°C. There will be a very similar IR emission spectrum as compared to Earth.
During night times, when temperatures turn low, that will be different, but emissions run low too. At the lowest temperatures, emissions will only be a fifth as opposed to day time, as (300K/200K)^4 = 5. So the CO2 spectrum should be very significant.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/images/20070612/20070612_Spirit_SA4_plot_2.jpg
24-09-2017 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
Because of the density of Earth's atmosphere the heat must be rid to outer space by firstly being conducted into the stratosphere and then the atmosphere is thin enough that individual molecules can gain enough or lose enough to radiate heat into outer space.

Everything radiates to space...all the time. There is no threshold for a molecule to begin radiating, other than being above absolute zero.
Wake wrote:
To explain this more plainly - the heated molecules rise. If they conduct their heat to the other surrounding molecules they begin falling via the act of convection.

Convection is BOTH rising and falling air.
Wake wrote:
Those that had gained enough energy via conduction must sooner or later exceed the specific heat of the molecule and radiate energy away.

Go look up specific heat. It is not a threshold hold to begin radiance. It does not even mention radiance at all.
Wake wrote:
Simple geometry will show that the majority of the radiation will go into space and not back into the lower atmosphere which would then conduct it back into the stratosphere anyway.

Generally true, but also because of quantum effects. You cannot heat a warmer material with a colder one.
Wake wrote:
So what you're talking about is this speed of conduction in a relatively dense atmosphere.

Conduction is not the only form of heat.
[quote]Wake wrote:
You can't use things like the temperature differences day/night in Denver and Death Valley because the difference between these places is only 2 km whereas the troposphere is 12 km thick. And consequently they have almost identical loss of temperature at night.[quote]

Tropopause temperatures are constant because the tropopause is the point where the stratosphere begins. It rises and falls in altitude depending on day or night, the seasons, etc. It is where the jetstream lives and where jet aircraft are most efficient.

The stratosphere is a more constant temperature, due to it's proximity with space surrounding Earth and due to the chemical reactions still going on within it, day or night. (The Chapman cycle) and the natural decay of ozone.

It is also only 24% of the atmosphere.

Above that, there is so little atmosphere it is barely there at all. There is no 'upper boundary' to the atmosphere. What we call space is largely up to us. The space surrounding Earth is not empty. It contains wiffs of hydrogen and other materials. Our atmosphere just fades away into the general surrounding space. As it does, the temperature at that altitude becomes more and more constant.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2017 23:23
24-09-2017 23:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Thanks for noting Mars! I really forgot to look it up and just concentrated on the moon. Stupid..

Mars very well supports my point, which it seems has not transpired yet. Does not matter anyhow. Mars of course offers the comfort of a similar long day as compared to Earth. And the martian atmosphere is extremely rich in CO2. That means it must be moderately opaque for infrared, despite the lack of H2O, the surface is "covered" by 40times as much CO2.

To put that into perspective. At roughly 4.500m on the Tibetian plateau, only about 5% of H2O remain in the atmosphere above, as compared to sea level. So it is a very clean sky, with much lower levels of CO2 anyhow.
I will not try to quantify these effects and certainly there would be not point in guessing that the Tibetian atmosphere would be similarly opaque as the martian. But I can tell for sure, that the extreme lack of the GHG H2O has little or no effect as the data show.

Then on Mars air temperatures go up and down by about 70°C on average, soil temperatures by almost 100°C. As low levels of H2O will not increase this gap, as Earth shows, and CO2 can not be responsible, as there is much more of it on Mars, it clearly isolates convection as the one responsible factor.

The thinner the atmosphere, the weaker the convection. A reduction by 45%, as on the Tibetian plateau, is not quite enough to have much of an impact. GHGs could and should (in theory) play a huge role, but completely fail to do so. Clouds on the other side do demonstrate that such effects does exist, but it obviously only works with the reflection of radiation, not the absorption. This must be the key misunderstanding that there is with the concept of a GHE.


Just shooting from the hip, Mars atmosphere contains approximately the same amount of CO2 as Earth contains. But it is all there is. Other gases are trace amounts.

Also the emissions from the Sun reaching the surface of Mars are something like half the level they are on Earth and so saturation was reached almost from the word CO2. What's more, the common dust storms throw particles above the thin atmosphere which prevent the Sunlight from ever striking the ground to be converted from visible light to IR.

So we're back to the actual density or "blanketing" effect.

I'm still waiting for SpaceX to have colonizing missions to Mars. We have get ride of a lot of snowflakes forever.

Air is mass, whether on Mars or on Earth. More mass means more thermal energy that it happens to have. Temperature indications go up.

Which is why you have generally warmer temperatures in low altitude places like Death Valley (currently the record holder).

It is not a 'blanketing' effect. It is simply the presence of more mass in a given volume.

Mass takes time to heat and cool. The more mass, the more time. This is why specific heat is measured to a given unit of mass (usually a gram).

Go look up 'specific heat', Wake, since you have a lot of trouble understanding what it is.

Mars heats and cools quickly because the atmosphere has so little mass compared to Earth.

The Moon is even worse. It's atmosphere (yes, it does have one) is so thin most people ignore it. Temperatures on the Moon can swing from +250degF during the day to as low as -250degF at night. It's basically the same as the outer skin temperature of the ISS.

Of course the Moon itself is considerably more massive than the ISS. It also has considerably higher surface area to absorb and radiate from. Neither has an atmosphere to worry about. There are no 'greenhouse' gases around neither. There is at Mars, but that doesn't help it much. The mass of that CO2 is like any other mass in any other atmosphere. It can help moderate temperature swing at the surface some.

During the day, CO2 is just part of the atmosphere that keeps the surface considerably COOLER than the ISS outer skin temperature. The Church of Global Warming calls CO2 a gas that warms the Earth. How can this be if the surface is COLDER than the ISS skin temperature?

During the night, CO2 is just part of the atmosphere that keeps the surface considerably WARMER than the ISS outer skin temperature. The Church of Global Warming depends on magick bouncing photons to cause their 'warming' effect. How can this effect explain why the surface is warmer than the ISS skin temperature WITHOUT THE SUN?

It's actually just about mass. CO2 is simply part of that mass. Big deal.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 23:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Well.. the CO2 on Mars.
atmospheric pressure.. 6.36e-3 bar or 0.636% of Earth
gravity ..3.79m/m2
CO2 concentration .. 960,000ppm

0.00636 * (9.78/3.79) * 960,000 / 400 = 39.4

So .. sorry for my imprecision, Mars has not 40 but just 39.4 times as much CO2.


It isn't the amount - it's the pressure which determines the distance between molecules and also the absorbed emissions from the sun which determine the temperature to which the surface will heat.

If the temperature is outside of the absorption bands of CO2 it won't matter if the CO2 has the pressure of one bar.

And since the temperature of the surface in full sunlight at the equator is still very low Mar's simply doesn't have very much energy in the CO2 absorption bands. What's more, since the air is so thin radiation of the available energy is so rapid that there is nothing to hold.


Temperatures on Mars (that have been observed by landed craft which have actual thermometers in them) ranges from a high of 67 deg F, to -243 deg F. All of these temperatures will emit infrared light. CO2 is sensitive to certain frequencies of infrared light. CO2 is still absorbing energy from the surface, just as it does on Earth. Like heating by conduction, it is just another way for the surface to lose energy. CO2 also loses energy by radiance into space.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 23:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Well .. no. Temperatures in the sun are not quite that low, in fact they tend to be > 0°C. There will be a very similar IR emission spectrum as compared to Earth.
During night times, when temperatures turn low, that will be different, but emissions run low too. At the lowest temperatures, emissions will only be a fifth as opposed to day time, as (300K/200K)^4 = 5. So the CO2 spectrum should be very significant.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/images/20070612/20070612_Spirit_SA4_plot_2.jpg


http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2014/03/co2-on-mars-vs-earth.html
25-09-2017 03:28
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Well .. no. Temperatures in the sun are not quite that low, in fact they tend to be > 0°C. There will be a very similar IR emission spectrum as compared to Earth.
During night times, when temperatures turn low, that will be different, but emissions run low too. At the lowest temperatures, emissions will only be a fifth as opposed to day time, as (300K/200K)^4 = 5. So the CO2 spectrum should be very significant.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/images/20070612/20070612_Spirit_SA4_plot_2.jpg


http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2014/03/co2-on-mars-vs-earth.html


You should have read the comments below. The article got it completely wrong, "alan Fitzgerald" is right. Mars has in total 10times more CO2 than Earth, and a surface which is only about 1/4 of it. So ... 10 * 4 = 40. Just as I told you.
25-09-2017 17:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Well .. no. Temperatures in the sun are not quite that low, in fact they tend to be > 0°C. There will be a very similar IR emission spectrum as compared to Earth.
During night times, when temperatures turn low, that will be different, but emissions run low too. At the lowest temperatures, emissions will only be a fifth as opposed to day time, as (300K/200K)^4 = 5. So the CO2 spectrum should be very significant.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/images/20070612/20070612_Spirit_SA4_plot_2.jpg


http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2014/03/co2-on-mars-vs-earth.html


You should have read the comments below. The article got it completely wrong, "alan Fitzgerald" is right. Mars has in total 10times more CO2 than Earth, and a surface which is only about 1/4 of it. So ... 10 * 4 = 40. Just as I told you.


What "comment below"? I looked back through the postings and saw no reference to anything.

Looking at NASA's site they state that: "Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg" - this is the same figure that "environmental forest" used. And since the atmosphere is composed of less CO2 than 100%.......
25-09-2017 17:11
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
He states that:
0.0608% mass x 5.1 x 10e18 kg = 3.101 x 10e17 kg CO2
WRONG!

0.0608% x 5.1 x 10e18 = 0.000608 x 5.1 x 10e18 = 0.003101 x 10e18 = 3.101 x 10e15
RIGHT!

The reference you were missing was the one to mathematical accuracy.
25-09-2017 17:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
He states that:
0.0608% mass x 5.1 x 10e18 kg = 3.101 x 10e17 kg CO2
WRONG!

0.0608% x 5.1 x 10e18 = 0.000608 x 5.1 x 10e18 = 0.003101 x 10e18 = 3.101 x 10e15
RIGHT!

The reference you were missing was the one to mathematical accuracy.


Do you have trouble reading?

According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480×10^18 kg"

environmental forest: "Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5.1 x 10^18 kg"

NASA: "Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg"

environmental forest: "Martian atmosphere has a mass of 2.5 x 10^16 kg"

Is there some reason you should misrepresent environmental forest?
25-09-2017 18:15
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Guess you are running out of brain..
))
25-09-2017 19:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Guess you are running out of brain..
))


Running over his figures I note that he made a mistake in his math which puts the total CO2 in the Martian atmosphere at about 24 times what it is on Earth. But the mistake was in total volume. Calculating mass instead of volume was silly to begin with.

You still misrepresented what was said on that site. So perhaps we now know who is running out of brains and who isn't.

The temperature of Mars goes from very cold to way colder. The temperature swings aren't powered by the speed of conduction as it is on Earth but purely by radiation.

The question is what were you trying to say when you started this thread in the first place? As far as I can see - nothing.
25-09-2017 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
The temperature of Mars goes from very cold to way colder.

Mars temperatures range from 67 deg F to -243 deg F, as measured by landed craft with thermometers on board.
Wake wrote:
The temperature swings aren't powered by the speed of conduction as it is on Earth but purely by radiation.

They are powered by neither.

It is simply the lack of mass in the atmosphere.

The specific heat of carbon dioxide is about the same as any other gas.
The conductivity of carbon dioxide is about the same as any other gas.
This means the 'speed of conduction' as you put it, is about the same as any other gas.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 20:05
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Into the Night wrote:
Mars temperatures range from 67 deg F to -243 deg F, as measured by landed craft with thermometers on board.


Mars' temperatures, especially the highest ones, very much depend on seasonal effects. Next to (longer) summers and winters, Mars' orbit is pretty elliptical, which a difference of up 43 Mio. km. That is the average distance between Earth and Venus orbit, and means a difference of roughly 30°C.

Into the Night wrote:
The Moon is even worse. It's atmosphere (yes, it does have one) is so thin most people ignore it. Temperatures on the Moon can swing from +250degF during the day to as low as -250degF at night. It's basically the same as the outer skin temperature of the ISS.


250F = 121C = 279 * 4^0.25 - 273
A remarkable incidence. It means both the hull of the ISS and the moon turn just as hot as perfect black body would. That is despite they are not PBBs, and have absorptivities that are <1. So unless emissivity offsets that factor by being equally lower than 1, we were starring at a mystery. Of course, as I said many times over, A tends to equal E.
Next to that, we know for instance from cars, that convection aka "air cooling" will lower temperatures in the bright sun by over 30°C. Also desert sands can reach temperatures up to 90°C, despite air cooling. Adding up both, Earths surface would likely reach ~121C in the absence of convection just as well.

Into the Night wrote:
Our atmosphere just fades away into the general surrounding space. As it does, the temperature at that altitude becomes more and more constant.


And that is the most interesting part. I do have one example of a weather station located on a mountain top in the Alps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoher_Sonnblick

At 3100m above sea level it is not that elevated. The mountain itself and the elevated alpine territory around it will provide a significant "ground factor". So it is only a very limited probe into atmospheric temperatures, if you will. Yet we can see very well how temperature variations run extremely low already. It is less than 5°C between high and low.
I am pretty confident, that this gap would almost become zero, if we had a station 3000m above the soil. Btw. if by chance you happened to know about such data please tell me.
The point is, as temperatures within the atmosphere do not or hardly react to the day/night cycle, that leaves just one logical conclusion. Air hardly absorbs or emits radiation. It is as simple as that. And of course this contradicts the GHE concept.
26-09-2017 22:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Leitwolf wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Mars temperatures range from 67 deg F to -243 deg F, as measured by landed craft with thermometers on board.


Mars' temperatures, especially the highest ones, very much depend on seasonal effects. Next to (longer) summers and winters, Mars' orbit is pretty elliptical, which a difference of up 43 Mio. km. That is the average distance between Earth and Venus orbit, and means a difference of roughly 30°C.

Unknown. We do not know the temperature of Mars. A few thermometers that made it to the surface are not sufficient to determine the temperature of Mars.
Leitwolf wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Moon is even worse. It's atmosphere (yes, it does have one) is so thin most people ignore it. Temperatures on the Moon can swing from +250degF during the day to as low as -250degF at night. It's basically the same as the outer skin temperature of the ISS.


250F = 121C = 279 * 4^0.25 - 273
A remarkable incidence. It means both the hull of the ISS and the moon turn just as hot as perfect black body would. That is despite they are not PBBs, and have absorptivities that are <1. So unless emissivity offsets that factor by being equally lower than 1, we were starring at a mystery. Of course, as I said many times over, A tends to equal E.

Absorptibity and emissivity are the same...always. Albedo is merely the inverse of emissivity.
Leitwolf wrote:
Next to that, we know for instance from cars, that convection aka "air cooling" will lower temperatures in the bright sun by over 30°C.

Actually, replacing air by any means will do so. It doesn't have to be by convection.
Leitwolf wrote:
Also desert sands can reach temperatures up to 90°C, despite air cooling.

I know of no desert sands that get anywhere near that hot. I grew up in the desert, too. I say this number is BS.
Leitwolf wrote:
Adding up both, Earths surface would likely reach ~121C in the absence of convection just as well.

a) Why are you creating such an example?
b) Why are you ignoring the mass of the atmosphere?
c) Why are you ignoring the rotational speed of Earth?
Leitwolf wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Our atmosphere just fades away into the general surrounding space. As it does, the temperature at that altitude becomes more and more constant.


And that is the most interesting part. I do have one example of a weather station located on a mountain top in the Alps.

...deleted redundant link...

At 3100m above sea level it is not that elevated. The mountain itself and the elevated alpine territory around it will provide a significant "ground factor". So it is only a very limited probe into atmospheric temperatures, if you will. Yet we can see very well how temperature variations run extremely low already. It is less than 5°C between high and low.

They actually will often see daily temperature variations of 11 degC (or 20 degF). This is normal at that altitude.
Leitwolf wrote:
I am pretty confident, that this gap would almost become zero, if we had a station 3000m above the soil.Btw. if by chance you happened to know about such data please tell me.

We do. Aircraft. They routinely measure temperature as they fly at or just above the tropopause. They also measure temperature as the climb and descend from there. Many smaller aircraft that don't fly that high measure air temperature and report it. They see the same variances as the Alps ground station (about 20 deg F).

You ARE correct that temperatures vary less with altitude, particularly when you get up in to the stratosphere (the Alps stations isn't).

Leitwolf wrote:
The point is, as temperatures within the atmosphere do not or hardly react to the day/night cycle, that leaves just one logical conclusion. Air hardly absorbs or emits radiation. It is as simple as that. And of course this contradicts the GHE concept.

This is mostly correct.

Air does emit and absorb infrared light. It is much thinner than the surface itself, however, which absorbs and emits most of the infrared light.

In other words, for the same band of light, the surface Planck radiance is much brighter than it is for the atmosphere.

You must understand that Wake does not understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law. He keeps trying to change it.

You are also correct about GHE. The whole 'greenhouse effect' concept simply doesn't work.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 22:49
Leitwolf
★☆☆☆☆
(91)
Sand temperatures - not sure if they actually reach 90°C, but they get very closed to.

https://books.google.at/books?id=fqussIGJ0NcC&pg=PA158&dq=Port-Sudan+84+%C2%B0C&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DUklVfD6HY3gaqy0gZAH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Port-Sudan%2084%20%C2%B0C&f=false
27-09-2017 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Leitwolf wrote:
Sand temperatures - not sure if they actually reach 90°C, but they get very closed to.

https://books.google.at/books?id=fqussIGJ0NcC&pg=PA158&dq=Port-Sudan+84+%C2%B0C&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DUklVfD6HY3gaqy0gZAH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Port-Sudan%2084%20%C2%B0C&f=false


That only came through a bit in French. It said 84 C. Then reading a little closer it said 83.5 C was the high. That wouldn't take a whole lot of focusing to boil water. That's 181 F. You couldn't live out in that.
27-09-2017 02:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Leitwolf wrote:
Sand temperatures - not sure if they actually reach 90°C, but they get very closed to.
...deleted link to book...


I don't put very much stock in any author that throws in with the IPCC like this one does.


The Parrot Killer
27-09-2017 02:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Sand temperatures - not sure if they actually reach 90°C, but they get very closed to.

...deleted reference...


That only came through a bit in French. It said 84 C. Then reading a little closer it said 83.5 C was the high. That wouldn't take a whole lot of focusing to boil water. That's 181 F. You couldn't live out in that.


The reference is to a book, not any kind of measurement. The author of that book throws in with the IPCC.

Death Valley currently holds the record as the hottest place on Earth, and the sand there doesn't reach any 90 degC (194 degF). The number is bullshit.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Temperature variation may be the key:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Temperature207-08-2019 05:59
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Is climate China's key to global domination?2904-05-2019 02:07
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact