|
Let me emphasise the point that others have made. If you have something which absorbs IR in the troposphere this is going limit the amount of IR reaching the stratosphere. Less IR in the stratohphere equals stratospheric cooling. The 'something' are greenhouse gases which, as I've already pointed out, are concentrated in the troposphere due to its mass distribution properties. There is less GHG in the stratsophere so by virtue of this point the greenhouse effect can't warm the stratsophere as effectively and to the extent to counteract the reduced IR flux from the troposphere.
Is that clear?
|
| |
|
|
APL quote: I agree but I cannot accept the views that:
1. CO2 can cause cooling through heat absorption in the stratosphere but not in the troposphere. And if CO2 behaves this way to such an extent to cause this cooling then since there is more CO2 in the troposphere it should contribute to more cooling.
2. That a cooler stratosphere is caused by a warmer troposphere such that it ignores the fundamental thermodynamics that the warmer troposphere is not cooled by the cooler stratosphere.
Now unless someone can explain where the extreme pressure differences are in our atmosphere and the properties in CO2 that enable refrigerator like behaviour to exist in our climate then I cannot accept it.
Think of a trickle of water and 2 sponges in a line on a slope. The first sponge absorbs water and some passes through when it is fully soaked at a steady rate to reach the 2nd sponge which also becomes saturated and water passes through and onward. Now add an extra sponge with the 1st sponge, it absorbs extra water until saturated and while this is happening there is less water getting to the 2nd sponge so the 2nd sponge loses water. Best simple analogy I can think of. |
| |
|
|
APL.
That isn't quite what I meant.
One can't discus Solar UV insolation and Earth black body IR radiation in the same breath without causing confusion. The two are separate subjects until any final energy comparison and we don't have adequate stats for UV. So I'll drop the subject of a change in insolation bias. It seems there is only interest in CO2 and IR here anyway, the next thing you know someone will claim the thermosphere is cooling because of CO2.
No, sunspot maxima have nothing to do with it! Do they?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Think of a trickle of water and 2 sponges in a line on a slope. The first sponge absorbs water and some passes through when it is fully soaked at a steady rate to reach the 2nd sponge which also becomes saturated and water passes through and onward. Now add an extra sponge with the 1st sponge, it absorbs extra water until saturated and while this is happening there is less water getting to the 2nd sponge so the 2nd sponge loses water. Best simple analogy I can think of.
The initial problem with this analogy is that it is unidirectional. Eventually the second sponge will receive the full amount of water, heat transfer does not work this way since it is multi directional (an important point too often overlooked). Also the first sponge has an absorption rate if that rate is exceeded then the water will flow past along the path of least resistance to the next sponge, so the first sponge will not necessarily be saturated before the second sponge. Nor will the first sponge retain it's water until it is saturated it will slow the flow but not stop it and may never become saturated. |
| |
|
|
APL quote: The initial problem with this analogy is that it is unidirectional. Eventually the second sponge will receive the full amount of water, heat transfer does not work this way since it is multi directional (an important point too often overlooked). Also the first sponge has an absorption rate if that rate is exceeded then the water will flow past along the path of least resistance to the next sponge, so the first sponge will not necessarily be saturated before the second sponge. Nor will the first sponge retain it's water until it is saturated it will slow the flow but not stop it and may never become saturated.
OK extend the analogy to a cone with water coming out of the top and flowing down the cone. Encircled by 2 doughnut shaped sponges of differing internal radius so the larger one will lie below the smaller one around the cone. But ensure the smaller one has a much larger radius of the ring so overall it contains more sponge. They also have small water pistols that squirt upwards onto the cone as well as allowing gravity to cause water to fall. They will get to a state of equilibrium (whether saturated ot not). Then add 3rd sponge slightly smaller than the smaller one so it rests higher up the cone but touches it. As it fills the flow down will slow and the lower sponge will lose water until steady state again when as much water will reach the lower as was happening before the introduction of the 3rd sponge. But if you keep adding to the higher sponges then the lower sponge will continue to lose water. I shall analogise on this no more. |
| |
|
|
Miami Vice was ace wasn't it
|
| |
|
