The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > England is whistling in the wind > Comments

England is whistling in the wind : Comments

By Anthony Cox, published 13/2/2014

Matthew England has written a new paper which supposedly shows that increasing trade winds are responsible for the hiatus in temperature increase, except the evidence is wind strength is decreasing.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All
Quote
Cohenite
¨warmair, water plays a large part in convection, a wet lapse rate is different from a dry one, but I don't get the connection with emissivity.¨

Convection and water vapour via latent heat deliver most of the heat from the surface to the upper levels of the troposphere where the inversion layer stops convection. If for some reason the cloud tops or the thermals reach a higher level then they will be colder and as the amount of radiation that is emitted is proportional to temperature OLR will decrease.

This does not conflict with standard greenhouse theory, it is just part of the dynamics of the atmosphere. The important level in the atmosphere is the altitude where OLR and ISR are equal and this occurs where the atmosphere is -18 Deg C, typically some 5 to 6Km or around 550 Mb above the surface. You can estimate water vapour content for a wide variety of places, at height using the aerological diagrams.
Just click a location on the map here:-
http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/observations/aerological-diagrams/
or
Here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Dewpoint.jpg

Quote
Cohenite
¨The graph shows that backradiation from CO2 is only present when WV is less than 1% humidity.¨

For any particular place you will find that at 5 to 6 Km above the surface the water vapour content is somewhere around 0.5 and 3 grams/Kg or between 0.05% and 0.2% which is well below the 1% figure you quoted above and therefore CO2 becomes important.

http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/02/water-vapor-trends
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/

I would doubt that Miskolczi is right he appears to confuse emission with emissivity in relation to Kirchhoff law. He also argues that water vapour will fall as GHGs increase which seems unlikely given Clausius-Clapeyron law which governs the relationship between rising temperatures and evaporation. The data does not appear to support him either, total precipitable water vapour TPW is estimated to be increasing at a rate of about 0.9 +or- 0.06 mm/decade .

http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/soden-et-al-2005-water-vapor-ssmi.png
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 19 February 2014 4:41:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miskolczi was and still is a leading atmospheric physicist; I don't think he confuses emission with emissivity; consider his 2004 paper written under the auspices of NASA about the Optical Depth, OD, of the atmosphere which goes to the point:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/Clear.pdf

The issue is has Water vapour declined. Pierece et al in 2006 thought not:

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~pierce/papers/Pierce_et_al_AIRS_vs_models_2006GL027060.pdf

Paltridge et al in 2009 thought so:

http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf

Dessler, who is AGW's 'water' man contradicted Paltridge who replied here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/dessler-2010-how-to-call-vast-amounts-of-data-spurious/#comment-125086

Soloman, who is definitely AGW mainstream thought SH, particularly high SH was declining with a cooling effect:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

And then there is the reanalysis results of SH considered here by van Andell:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/

The point is, there is considerable evidence, the constant OD, a declining SH and an increasing OLR, to explain flat temperatures. Either the CO2 effect is real and is being countered by natural factors or the CO2 is insignificant to begin with.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 20 February 2014 7:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn, that first paper by Pierce et al, showed SH declining!
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 20 February 2014 7:23:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy