APL.

I've been quiet for too long in this thread. If you want to play 'cat and mouse' with these guys that's fine by me, but I think it's also unfair. Don't want to spoil your fun, but!!!


Son of Mulder.

Quote.
APL my answers in bold embedded below
quote:
Are you saying there is a physical thermal barrier between the stratosphere and the troposphere? If so what is it called and how does it work?

NO troposphere is lower atmosphere and stratosphere is higher. You could define stratosphere as the upper atmosphere that cools while the lower stratosphere is warming

What do you mean by 'troposphere has warmed to equilibrium'? When it is not warming or coolingHow and when is equilibrium ever reached? Also what is this equilibrium value exactly? When heat arriving at top of the atmosphere equals the heat leaving the atmosphere

If you were to place an insulating substance between a warm body and a 'cooling' body then yes for a short time the 'cooling' body would continue to cool whilst heat found it way through the insulating substance. But that is a very incorrect model to explain the relationship between the stratosphere and troposphere, simply because (a)there is not a physical thermal barrier that (b) has just appeared to interfere with heat flow, that I know of. If CO2 is increasing in the lower atmosphere then that is equivalent of adding a distributed additional barrier
EOQ.

I understand your accidental statement of "lower stratosphere" instead of "lower troposphere" in your 'first' bold type (though the first statement was also correct due to strato forcing from the tropo following the recent increase in altitude of the tropo).

The stratosphere is a bit more complicated than that. It's still 'hotter' at its highest altitude than it is at its lowest altitude. This is because the upper regions of the stratosphere include the 'ionosphere' where incoming radiation from the sun strips electrons from atoms (thus ionic reactions and dry electrochemistry) and breaks up molecules (in a similar way that hydrocarbons are 'cracked'). Thus, a heating effect is seen as the signature of these events in the ionosphere, or upper stratosphere (it also takes a lot of energy to cause temperature change at this altitude of the atmosphere as it's more widely 'open to space').

IR radiation has little, or no, part in this process as it does not posses the 'wavelength' that can provide a 'harmonic resonance' able to effect these processes with the efficiency observed in the upper stratosphere. It is evident that we need to account for any 'wave harmonic' properties of radiation on the irradiated subject under scrutiny, together with any possible 'resonant interactive outcome'.

This 'math mod' is too complex for the IPCC to consider, as I don't believe the 'full science' is there yet (apart from some LASER tec), so we are only offered the IR 'math mod' employed by them (the, so called, 'radiation budget'). This is woefully inadequate!

Son of Mulder. What you say about IR is true, but don't underestimate 'other effects' outside of the IPCC radiation budget model (or within it for that matter). That model - with respect to CO2 - will only show an 'imbalance' in the budget during 'absolute changes' of absorptive gasses and the 'absolute change' in H2O completely SWAMPS any 'detectable' changes caused by CO2! The 'math mod' registers only a part of the overall chaos! It may be useful, but I doubt it's accuracy without the inclusion of other definitive 'math mods' that can improve definition.

Again, this begs the question! IPCC Are Fiddling The Facts - Again?

Respectfully, suricat.

Well look at that! The bold font didn't paste again! Sorry.

Suricat, Thanks for adding this information to my post. I think it moves the statement "CO2 is responsible for stratospheric cooling" to a lower confidence level. I'd already been involved in the debate about how ozone hole can similarly cause cooling in the stratosphere (because it doesn't stop so much UV) and your point about the top stratosphere being unresponsive to IR in a way to me simplifies things in so much that it restricts CO2 effects to lower areas of the atmosphere (with it's cooling effect on the stratosphere only being while the troposphere is warming). As global average temperature increases seem to have flattened over the last few years we ought to be seeing the lower stratosphere warming now.

How does the ionosphere boundary area tie in with the points Leokor is making about solar wind causing heating (or is this the same thing)?

Son of Mulder.

First of all, I think that APL would probably 'second' my last post (at least I hope he'll agree with most of it).

Secondly, don't take anything for granted. Check it for yourself and don't 'rely' on what I say.

The 'top stratosphere' is not 'unresponsive to IR', but IR can't and doesn't, cause the temperatures that are evident in this region. CO2 will interact with a component of IR wherever they meet.

If I 'must' deal with CO2 I need to firstly state that the PPM levels seen in the troposphere are much higher than the PPM levels seen in the stratosphere. CO2 is one of the first gasses to diffuse into cloud condensate (water at 15C dissolves about its own volume of CO2 at atmospheric pressure). Thus, CO2 is 'washed' out of the troposphere with rainfall (diffusion pump principle). I don't know why the IPCC give this gas such a long 'half life' because it's quite heavy as well. The reason CO2 is more abundant in the tropo is that it is being pumped downwards by rainfall and when it escapes from the water (water evaporates) the upward movement of water vapour, together with wind movement, helps to buoy the gas upwards again. CO2 is 'recycled' within the troposphere! The degree of PPM difference was first realised when CO2 monitors were fitted to commercial passenger aircraft that flew through the stratosphere (concorde?). The flight crew realised that they knew they'd left the troposphere with more confidence by reading the CO2 monitor than reading the altimeter!

If any 'average' PPM value needs to be considered for atmospheric CO2, this should be set at a suitable 'stratospheric altitude'.

With regard to UV + O3 and CO2 + IR. They are two different issues and the discussion of the two in the same thread is confusing.

I am both intrigued and confounded by the 'math mods' that leokor proposes. I've no problem with 'electrical theory', or 'magnetic inductance' ('reluctance' etc), but I can't see where the 'dielectric', or 'capacity', aspects are derived from. However, I can't really comment on this and until I at least read on the subject I'm not qualified. However, "joule heating" , as near as I can tell is the same thing as 'sensible heat'.

Regards, suricat.

JL(SFC58,AFCB)

Good to see you back in this forum. I don't know if you picked up on this reference but it seems pretty supportive of the statistical comments you've made in other posts. It was originally posted by APL via Climate Audit (which seems to be missing now).

Forecasting

If the mods delete the reference then it can be googled by searching for warmaudit31. It sounds pretty damning of the forecasting process used by IPCC and I'd be interested in your opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
JL(SFC58,AFCB)

Good to see you back in this forum. I don't know if you picked up on this reference but it seems pretty supportive of the statistical comments you've made in other posts. It was originally posted by APL via Climate Audit (which seems to be missing now).

Forecasting

If the mods delete the reference then it can be googled by searching for warmaudit31. It sounds pretty damning of the forecasting process used by IPCC and I'd be interested in your opinion.

Or even RealClimate's! They've just blasted it out of the water.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/g...c-forecast/#more-460

Interestingly one of their links mentioned a journal not known for the highest standards of science.

QUOTE
If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy & Environment.
UNQUOTE

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
If the manuscripts of climate-change skeptics are rejected by peer-reviewed science journals, ...

For "peer review" read "reviewed by mates"

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
JL(SFC58,AFCB)

Good to see you back in this forum. I don't know if you picked up on this reference but it seems pretty supportive of the statistical comments you've made in other posts. It was originally posted by APL via Climate Audit (which seems to be missing now).

Forecasting

If the mods delete the reference then it can be googled by searching for warmaudit31. It sounds pretty damning of the forecasting process used by IPCC and I'd be interested in your opinion.

Thanks. I've been away on holiday, and now I've got such a stack of work. I hope I can get around to reading it soon.

quote:

Originally posted by JL(SFC58,AFCB):

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

Forecasting

.... It sounds pretty damning of the forecasting process used by IPCC and I'd be interested in your opinion.

Thanks. I've been away on holiday, and now I've got such a stack of work. I hope I can get around to reading it soon.

SoM

I've had a quick run through of this article. One of my "complaints" (for lack of a better word) about much of the climate science field is that there seems to be a lack of scientific rigour, with the result that a lot of work (I presume good work) is wasted because of one or both of two fundamentals:

a failure to produce falsifiable hypotheses. It often seems as though the production of the model itself is seen as the important part, rather than the production of methods of verification/falsifiability being an integral part of the process

b insufficient attention to the statistics. The question I always ask (under my breath) is "how does this differ from a collection of random numbers". If the article etc does not tell me that, then, with some reluctance, I have to conclude that it is just a collection of random numbers.

Both of these gripes come through also in the article, and o that extent I would agree with it (obviously )

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Or even RealClimate's! They've just blasted it out of the water.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/g...c-forecast/#more-460

No not really this comment sums the article up well:

"Gavin,

A pity you chose to pen a petulant, silly and smug response to their paper. Real scientists interested in putting forward a lasting scientific contribution would have reviewed this paper carefully and responded appropriately. These authors are serious heavyweights in their field. They have a legitimate role to play to improve forecasts such as used in the IPCC paper. They have opened the paper up for discussion, so why not be serious about it. One can only conclude that you haven’t got the guts or the science behind you to respond in proper scientific terms to their paper."

Is it me or are there more questions raised than answers when reading RealClimate stuff?

You have to remember that these are the same people that brought us the 'hockey stick' nonsense and are entrenched in the IPCC politics.

Have a read of Bob Carters article here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_my..._climate_change.html

Also for those who are interested in some climate history there are some 'Inconveneint Truths' regards previous trends to be found here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_my...e_change/page-5.html

Notice that over the last 60 million years naturally occurring CO2 has been very much higher than today.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
APL my answers in bold embedded below [QUOTE]Are you saying there is a physical thermal barrier between the stratosphere and the troposphere? If so what is it called and how does it work?

NO troposphere is lower atmosphere and stratosphere is higher. You could define stratosphere as the upper atmosphere that cools while the lower stratosphere is warming

So what actually prevents the transfer of heat from the warmer troposphere to the cooler stratosphere?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
What do you mean by 'troposphere has warmed to equilibrium'? When it is not warming or coolingHow and when is equilibrium ever reached? Also what is this equilibrium value exactly? When heat arriving at top of the atmosphere equals the heat leaving the atmosphere

This is over simplistic nonsense for a start the heat arriving will always be greater than the heat leaving on the sunny side , and the reverse on the dark side. What you describe may occur briefly at some point between the two but this will not reflect the surface and it is much more accurate to say that equilibrium is never reached.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
If you were to place an insulating substance between a warm body and a 'cooling' body then yes for a short time the 'cooling' body would continue to cool whilst heat found it way through the insulating substance. But that is a very incorrect model to explain the relationship between the stratosphere and troposphere, simply because (a)there is not a physical thermal barrier that (b) has just appeared to interfere with heat flow, that I know of. If CO2 is increasing in the lower atmosphere then that is equivalent of adding a distributed additional barrier

No it isn't altering the atmospheric mix overtime is not anything like adding an insulating layer. The reality is that even if CO2 were to retain heat at the levels suggested, first it is very likely that CO2 increases would proportionately apply to the stratosphere, and second there would be no thermal barrier. So a cooler stratosphere would result in a cooler troposphere.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
APL.

I've been quiet for too long in this thread. If you want to play 'cat and mouse' with these guys that's fine by me, but I think it's also unfair. Don't want to spoil your fun, but!!!

Ahh - caught me.

I need to bring your detailed and interesting points back to the fundamentals in that heat will always flow from the hotter to the cooler no matter what the means is - in this I hope we agree.

Having said that we can look at the various mechanisms for heat transfer but these mechanisms must fit within the fundamental framework if it does not then something is wrong.

Unfortunately, certain so called climate scientists seem to want to disregard these and other facts without providing reasonable answers as to why, relying instead on part truths and convoluted explanations that is not science.

Your points regarding the stratosphere being hotter at the highest altitude poses an interesting question - as in by how much?

Is it not reasonable to assume that the heat emitted will also warm the lower stratosphere to some degree as well as vent into space?

If the the ozone is depleted is it also not reasonable to assume that the stratosphere's interaction with UV is lessened and therefore generates less heat so the upper stratosphere is cooler as a result, which causes less heating in the lower stratosphere which in turn becomes cooler?

And not because there is more CO2 in the troposphere as has been suggested.

Again this is simplistic I know and would need the numbers but it is a better fit with the fundamental thermodynamic principals than the CO2 causes a warmer troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere nonsense - which could only possibly apply is it can be shown that the properties of CO2 alters drastically at altitude which I very much doubt.

The other stuff regards leokor's arguments I am like you this sounds feasible but would need to know more and again it would require knowing the numbers involved. Yet we do know that huge amounts of electricity accumulate in the atmosphere and that energy I am sure would dissipate in a number of ways and not just by arcing to earth or into space.

APL

quote:

So what actually prevents the transfer of heat from the warmer troposphere to the cooler stratosphere?

Remember I'm saying this is while CO2 is increasing ie it will absorb more heat from the surface while that means less gets to the stratosphere. But if equilibrium is reached because CO2 stops increasing then once saturated with heat so the stratosphere would warm again. So in that sense it's a transient effect because CO2 is rising.

It's conservation of energy - if overall energy in is constant then energy out + energy absorbed by increasing CO2 must equal energy in so less out energy gets out to the stratosphere during this time hence it cools.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Remember I'm saying this is while CO2 is increasing ie it will absorb more heat from the surface while that means less gets to the stratosphere.

But this would mean that CO2 is acting like a coolant - would it not? And that is certainly not how it is portrayed by the pro-AGW.

Also you cannot suggest that there is a physical barrier between the stratosphere and troposphere so an increase in the amount of CO2 in the troposphere would also increase the amount of CO2 in the stratosphere to some proportion.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
But if equilibrium is reached because CO2 stops increasing then once saturated with heat so the stratosphere would warm again. So in that sense it's a transient effect because CO2 is rising.

No - from a systems point of view you are suggesting a controlling mechanism - what is this mechanism? Given what I said earlier, what is it that stops and starts the heat flow between the stratosphere and the troposphere?

Also any changes in temperature caused by an increase in CO2 is so small that it can be masked by naturally occurring activity - the only way that the thermal properties of CO2 can be described in this way is by making a huge amount of assumptions, one of which is that the mix of CO2 in the troposphere across the globe at any given time is constant - it is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
It's conservation of energy - if overall energy in is constant then energy out + energy absorbed by increasing CO2 must equal energy in so less out energy gets out to the stratosphere during this time hence it cools.

You can only make this statement if you know all those factors that influence the amount of energy in and the energy out - tell me what they are and I'll show you an incomplete list.

quote:

But this would mean that CO2 is acting like a coolant - would it not? And that is certainly not how it is portrayed by the pro-AGW.

Yes it is. Observations of stratospheric cooling, in line with the CO2 theory, are one of the strengths of the CO2 theory (versus, say, the solar theory). AGW theory people regularly shout this from the rooftops.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

But this would mean that CO2 is acting like a coolant - would it not? And that is certainly not how it is portrayed by the pro-AGW.

Yes it is. Observations of stratospheric cooling, in line with the CO2 theory, are one of the strengths of the CO2 theory (versus, say, the solar theory). AGW theory people regularly shout this from the rooftops.

I do not see how this is a strength of the 'CO2 is causing GW' argument never mind the AGW theories.

If CO2 acts as a coolant in the stratosphere it equally acts as a coolant in the troposphere because of the same heat retention capabilities.

It therefore cannot be said that CO2 heats the troposphere and cools the stratosphere because it absorbs heat any more than can be suggested that the temperature of the stratosphere does not effect the temperature of the troposphere.

Roughly speaking, CO2 causes warming in the lower troposphere and thus prevents some of that extra energy from reaching the stratosphere.

It is more complicated but CO2 does act to cool the stratosphere. A solar forcing would warm both parts of the atmosphere, so its difficult to see why the Sun is relevant.

quote:

Originally posted by podbod:
Roughly speaking, CO2 causes warming in the lower troposphere and thus prevents some of that extra energy from reaching the stratosphere.

This statement is the typical pro-AGW contradiction. How does CO2 cause warming if it retains heat?

quote:

Originally posted by podbod:
It is more complicated but CO2 does act to cool the stratosphere.

If that is the case then the cooler stratosphere would result in a cooler troposphere hence the gist of the original argument.

quote:

Originally posted by podbod:
A solar forcing would warm both parts of the atmosphere, so its difficult to see why the Sun is relevant.

It is the main source of the Earth's heat for one - I think that makes it relevant.

APL.

You've a lot of paragraphs. That means a lot of questions! I'll do what I can, para by para.

Para 1.
High energy always falls to low energy (high flows to low)! I don't agree that low energy attracts high energy (this is an inversion)! However, the energy in question must be in a form that can 'relate' with 'the other' energy system and provide a continuum of the thermodynamic (with respect to sensible [or latent] heat)! Hot to cold is fine by me.

Para 2.
As above, sensible heat follows the natural laws of thermodynamics (I assume this is the fundamental framework to which you allude).

Para 3.
It seems that you are here for most of the same reasons that I am.

Para 4.
I am not here to provide data. I am here to question the logic of statements made to me via 'the media' etc. Perhaps data supplied by NASSA, or another source, could provide this. I'm sure you don't want to 'Google' this and I fully realise that any source I offer would probably 'be found wanting' in some respect (no disrespect intended, it's healthy to be sceptical like me).

Para 5.
I agree with reserve. Radiation into an increasing density travels less distance before interaction than radiation into a decreasing density. Thus, the most efficient travel direction for radiation is outwards, but inward radiation also occurs.

Para 6.
I concur with reserve. I've already stated that the bias of insolation from UV has altered (in this thread?). This is not to say that the lower stratosphere becomes 'cooler', to the contrary. Any UV that is no longer intercepted in the stratosphere, must make its way into the troposphere and interact either there, or at planet surface (or below in the case of ice and water). Any thermal increase in the troposphere shall exert a 'positive forcing' effect on the lower stratosphere.

Para 7.
CO2 has little to do with this. Why do you ask?

Para 8.
The properties of CO2 are, what the properties of CO2 are! These are the truths. I don't know what you allude to. I can only 'imagine' that you refer to the PPM differential between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If you want, I'll try to post you a reference. However, as I have stated before, CO2 is recycled in the troposphere and is proportionately more abundant in this region than in any other part of the Earth's atmosphere (you'll be more convinced if you find this for yourself).

Para 9.
I concur. Though I'm beginning to look upon the Earth atmosphere as a 'gargantuan amorphous semiconductor locked into a magnetic field' type of structure. A bit like an 'FET' (field effect transistor).

But all this has little to do with the 'IPCC Are Fiddling The Facts - Again?'

Unless you look at their mandatory considerations of UV!

Guys, this is confusing!

You are discussing two entirely different effects here and treating them as one.

1. The UPPER stratosphere is heated by solar insolation. Since the reduction in ozone, the UPPER stratosphere has cooled and more UV strikes deeper into the atmosphere before interacting (the UV and ozone issues certainly seem to be either the cause, or an effect, of this observed cooling of the UPPER stratosphere).

2. The altitude of the troposphere has increased and is now forcing the LOWER stratosphere. The global average temperature has increased a little causing more overall water vapour and probably some gas expansion. This is the total opposite of insolation, it's IR out!

These are two entirely different issues!

APL

quote:

So what actually prevents the transfer of heat from the warmer troposphere to the cooler stratosphere?

The rate of transfer of IR from / through the troposphere is slowed because more photons are captured by the extra CO2 and cause kinetic vibration between the atoms of that triatomic molecule. So a growing amount of energy sits there as kinetic before moving through to the Stratosphere and back down to the surface so stratosphere will cool.

quote:

This is over simplistic nonsense for a start the heat arriving will always be greater than the heat leaving on the sunny side , and the reverse on the dark side. What you describe may occur briefly at some point between the two but this will not reflect the surface and it is much more accurate to say that equilibrium is never reached.

So what you do is integrate over the whole surface shell at a chosen level and look at what the balance of radiative flux is there. hence you'll be able to find the height (shell) where the sum of flux is zero over the whole shell for a particular and thus could define the volume outside as stratosphere and inside as troposphere. We're talking about averages overall.

quote:

No it isn't altering the atmospheric mix overtime is not anything like adding an insulating layer. The reality is that even if CO2 were to retain heat at the levels suggested, first it is very likely that CO2 increases would proportionately apply to the stratosphere, and second there would be no thermal barrier. So a cooler stratosphere would result in a cooler troposphere.

It's not just about warmer and cooler it's about kinetic vibrational energy, it's about latent heat of evapouration of water etc etc.

You can have water at 100 dec C and you can have water vapour at 100 deg C so same temperature but water vapour contains massive amounts of latent heat of evapouration. So look at the energy flows and sinks and sources.

And yes I know it is far more complex overall because of the points about UV and depleted Ozone that Suricat is making and Joule heating that Leokor brings to the table. My aim was to try and explain as simply as possible a mechanism of how adding CO2 could cause heating of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere.

You would probably realise from my other postings that my current belief is that I have not seen strong enough evidence to convince me that CO2 is the predominant driver of our current climate or that our climate is heading for a catastrophic shift to our detriment. And why? Because of uncertainties and complexities built in and missing from the models.