Optical Depth of CO2 Explained

Here is a treat for those following the discussion of Miskolczi’s new theory of greenhouse warming. Noor van Andel has sent a simplified explanation of Miskolczi’s theory, put on Wikichecks here. Noor is actually in the greenhouse business!

Noor’s letter below refers to a history of the debate between Noor and another prominent scientist in the Netherlands Dr. Rob van Dorland. Rob has also graciously responded with explanations of the Cabauw data he collected, and a link to his thesis, in the previous post in this series.

I would like to remind people to remain calm in your discussions of this and other topics here.

Dear David,

My excuses; I was some weeks out of the running because the government of Curaçao had invited me & other experts into their Island to advise them on the possibilities to convert to sustainable energy.

In the attachment, that you are free to put on your web site [blog], you find the measurements you asked for. Please note that the measurements up to 200 m height, made from the radio transmitter tower at Lopik [Cabauw] in the Netherlands, are measurements made by Dr. Rob van Dorland, published in his PhD thesis. Rob is the major atmospheric IR radiation expert in the Royal Institute of Meteorology in the Netherlands, and a fervent and active supporter of the IPCC hypothesis of man-made global warming through CO2 emission.

I tried to maintain an e-mail discussion with him about Miskolczi’s radically different theory, but did not succeed. His emotional revulsion was so strong, that he was not able to think rationally about FM’s theory.

Now, I must confess that I cannot follow FM in his terms “radiation pressure”, his “Virial theorem” or his “Kirchhoff law”. But he is, in my opinion, right in his Hartcode results that all along the atmospheric height, there is Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium in that the absorbed part of the upward IR radiation is always equal to the downward IR radiation. This follows from the fact that the mean free path of the photons that interact with atmospheric components is so short that there are no appreciable temperature differences along this path [order of meters]. Not even higher up in the stratosphere. So almost all heat transfer [save direct IR radiation through the atmospheric window] from surface upwards is by vertical convection, with or without water condensation. This means a very efficient negative feedback of water vapor on surface temperature. When it is warm and therefor humid, the adiabatic temperature lapse is 5 K/km; when it is cold or dry, it is 10 K/km. So, over those parts of the Earth surface that are wet, sea or plant canopy, there is a factor of two increase in heat transfer upwards when you go from say 10 °C to 25°C. It is this thermostatic effect on our watery planet, that regulates its surface temperature. Low clouds amplify this effect even more by reflecting visible light. There is no effect of CO2 concentration in the troposphere. And the effective height from which the OLR radiates, lies well under the tropopause.

CO2 plays a role in the stratosphere, where water vapor is very low. And there, we see in radiosonde stratospheric humidity measurements that indeed, as CO2 rises, that water vapor decreases, just keeping the OLR at its maximum, as follows from FM’s solution of Eddington’s radiation equation in a bounded, semi-transparant atmosphere.

Noor

dr. ir. E. van Andel, Fiwihex BV, Wierdensestraat 74, NL 7604 BK Almelo, tel. +31 [0]546491106, fax +31[0]546491107, gsm +31[0]653286574,

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Optical Depth of CO2 Explained

  1. In the “Greenhouse heat transfer” section of the document “The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi” there is a typo. It says:

    Our atmosphere has, in the global and time-averaged mean value, a constant optical thickness, so, when more CO2 is injected, the atmosphere compensates this by increasing its water vapor content to regain the equilibrium.

    This should be “by decreasing its water vapor content”

  2. In the “Greenhouse heat transfer” section of the document “The new climate theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi” there is a typo. It says:

    Our atmosphere has, in the global and time-averaged mean value, a constant optical thickness, so, when more CO2 is injected, the atmosphere compensates this by increasing its water vapor content to regain the equilibrium.

    This should be “by decreasing its water vapor content”

  3. Hi Ken

    I Missed that one but found another.

    In the section “The New Theory”

    “When we increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases its water content about 5%”

    I think that should read the “atmosphere decreases”

  4. Hi Ken

    I Missed that one but found another.

    In the section “The New Theory”

    “When we increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases its water content about 5%”

    I think that should read the “atmosphere decreases”

  5. Thanks Ken I saw it earlier this afternoon but had to go out then forgot about it until I saw your post so thanks for the reminder.

    I do have another issue earlier in the same section

    “All three vary strongly with latitude, but ED = SU·[1-TA] on all places. FM calls this “Kirchhoff’s Law”, but it does not follow from the radiation equilibrium. It appears to be a special property of our atmosphere.”

    I’m not sure I agree with this I think it does follow from radiation equilibrium but perhaps it’s better termed Stewart’s Law which states “when an object is studied in thermal equilibrium it’s emission is equal to its absorption”.

    From Miskolczi’s Fig 2 it seems the E_D/A_A =1 relationship holds there too though he does not mention it again. So it’s not unique to earths atmosphere.

  6. Thanks Ken I saw it earlier this afternoon but had to go out then forgot about it until I saw your post so thanks for the reminder.

    I do have another issue earlier in the same section

    “All three vary strongly with latitude, but ED = SU·[1-TA] on all places. FM calls this “Kirchhoff’s Law”, but it does not follow from the radiation equilibrium. It appears to be a special property of our atmosphere.”

    I’m not sure I agree with this I think it does follow from radiation equilibrium but perhaps it’s better termed Stewart’s Law which states “when an object is studied in thermal equilibrium it’s emission is equal to its absorption”.

    From Miskolczi’s Fig 2 it seems the E_D/A_A =1 relationship holds there too though he does not mention it again. So it’s not unique to earths atmosphere.

  7. On the “typo”s about WV increasing – I don’t think they are typo’s; he’s quite consistent. For example, a more complete quote is

    We see that water vapor cools, the other two gases heat, like
    we saw in the graph of Rob van Dorland.
    When we increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases
    its water content about 5% to regulate back to an optical depth of 1.86. Water has a
    cooling effect, as shown in Van Dorland’s figure 2.4.

    The atmosphere can’t decrease it’s water content by 5%; there isn’t that much there. He may be wrong, but I think he’s saying what he means.

  8. On the “typo”s about WV increasing – I don’t think they are typo’s; he’s quite consistent. For example, a more complete quote is

    We see that water vapor cools, the other two gases heat, like
    we saw in the graph of Rob van Dorland.
    When we increase the CO2 to 3%, 100 times what we have now, the atmosphere increases
    its water content about 5% to regulate back to an optical depth of 1.86. Water has a
    cooling effect, as shown in Van Dorland’s figure 2.4.

    The atmosphere can’t decrease it’s water content by 5%; there isn’t that much there. He may be wrong, but I think he’s saying what he means.

  9. Nick #6

    “The atmosphere can’t decrease it’s water content by 5%; there isn’t that much there. ”

    Can you explain this please? The way I read it is if the atmosphere has 1% WV and it decreases by 5% we are left with .95%, do you think he means something else?

  10. Nick #6

    “The atmosphere can’t decrease it’s water content by 5%; there isn’t that much there. ”

    Can you explain this please? The way I read it is if the atmosphere has 1% WV and it decreases by 5% we are left with .95%, do you think he means something else?

  11. Nick #6

    “He may be wrong, but I think he’s saying what he means.”

    It’s the context “to regulate back to an optical depth of 1.86.”

    You don’t get that by increasing both absorbers if one goes up the other must go down. then there is this from the accompanying letter above

    And there, we see in radiosonde stratospheric humidity measurements that indeed, as CO2 rises, that water vapour decreases,

  12. Nick #6

    “He may be wrong, but I think he’s saying what he means.”

    It’s the context “to regulate back to an optical depth of 1.86.”

    You don’t get that by increasing both absorbers if one goes up the other must go down. then there is this from the accompanying letter above

    And there, we see in radiosonde stratospheric humidity measurements that indeed, as CO2 rises, that water vapour decreases,

  13. David #9

    I’m sure they are typos. It contradicts the general thrust and what he says elsewhere.

    Do we email him or will he see it here?

  14. David #9

    I’m sure they are typos. It contradicts the general thrust and what he says elsewhere.

    Do we email him or will he see it here?

  15. Do you have graph of optical depth, of laboratory accuracy column of gas, where increased concentration of one gas removes another ?

  16. Do you have graph of optical depth, of laboratory accuracy column of gas, where increased concentration of one gas removes another ?

  17. David: Hard to keep up on all this. Has anyone seriously “shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory? Is it still “in play?” My view, so far, is that it is the ONLY theory that matches empirical observations.

  18. David: Hard to keep up on all this. Has anyone seriously “shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory? Is it still “in play?” My view, so far, is that it is the ONLY theory that matches empirical observations.

  19. jae #13

    “Has anyone seriously “shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory?”

    I don’t know about David, but I’m still waiting.

  20. jae #13

    “Has anyone seriously “shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory?”

    I don’t know about David, but I’m still waiting.

  21. ““shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory?””

    Sharkfest of Miskolczi math and theory ended up with sharks needing extensive dental care. Rabbit Goulash Eli. Last school year promised, raypierre student paper rebuttal, not yet, raypierre into the wabbit ghoulash stew , along with gavin, and the Human Aggrevated Global Wrongers ?

    Pillars of physical theory, not just a house of cards, are soundly, firmly, attached to, by Miskolczi. The rest of the math and computer code give good results, even for Mars.

  22. ““shot down” Miscolsczi’s theory?””

    Sharkfest of Miskolczi math and theory ended up with sharks needing extensive dental care. Rabbit Goulash Eli. Last school year promised, raypierre student paper rebuttal, not yet, raypierre into the wabbit ghoulash stew , along with gavin, and the Human Aggrevated Global Wrongers ?

    Pillars of physical theory, not just a house of cards, are soundly, firmly, attached to, by Miskolczi. The rest of the math and computer code give good results, even for Mars.

  23. #14 Stil waiting for the promised RC rebutal. A lot of my questions have been answered by the ongoing discussion, about how the profiles were gathered, he general approach. Yes I am still waiting but I would like to see a definitive experimental confirmation.

    I have yet to read Noor’s paper in detail. I am on leave at the moment. If anyone wanted to go through and edit it, rather than just send a few corrections, we could send it back to him.

  24. #14 Stil waiting for the promised RC rebutal. A lot of my questions have been answered by the ongoing discussion, about how the profiles were gathered, he general approach. Yes I am still waiting but I would like to see a definitive experimental confirmation.

    I have yet to read Noor’s paper in detail. I am on leave at the moment. If anyone wanted to go through and edit it, rather than just send a few corrections, we could send it back to him.

  25. #16 admin
    “I would like to see a definitive experimental confirmation.”

    Too many uncontrollables varying in the atmosphere. Russians are building KingKong sized atmospheric chamber to test aerosol weather modificatipon. If completed ask Russians to run experiments confirming ?
    Really accurate measurements, on a column of air, charted, modeled, to see if incresed CO2 actually displaces the saturated H2O

  26. #16 admin
    “I would like to see a definitive experimental confirmation.”

    Too many uncontrollables varying in the atmosphere. Russians are building KingKong sized atmospheric chamber to test aerosol weather modificatipon. If completed ask Russians to run experiments confirming ?
    Really accurate measurements, on a column of air, charted, modeled, to see if incresed CO2 actually displaces the saturated H2O

  27. NASA should give Miskolczi back pay and a severance package. NASA could save money by pre-empting, not waiting, (lawsuit – constructive-dismissal), for bolted down experimental chamber proof.
    Maybe ,even, NASA could set up Miskolczi as a weather consultant, test chamber and helpers to every which way tipify the air.

    From what I have read, Miskolczi is ito extreme accuracy, a form of extreme honesty.

    Eli , raypierre, gavin, and the Aggrevating Growling Wrongers; could write NASA a letter explaining Miskolczi, how convoluted, theorized to more useful. Add your own refinements.

  28. NASA should give Miskolczi back pay and a severance package. NASA could save money by pre-empting, not waiting, (lawsuit – constructive-dismissal), for bolted down experimental chamber proof.
    Maybe ,even, NASA could set up Miskolczi as a weather consultant, test chamber and helpers to every which way tipify the air.

    From what I have read, Miskolczi is ito extreme accuracy, a form of extreme honesty.

    Eli , raypierre, gavin, and the Aggrevating Growling Wrongers; could write NASA a letter explaining Miskolczi, how convoluted, theorized to more useful. Add your own refinements.

  29. Dave #16

    I would like to go through it one more time at least before I send it up I found some spelling issues and the concept of an aroused atmosphere is rather frightening;-).

  30. Dave #16

    I would like to go through it one more time at least before I send it up I found some spelling issues and the concept of an aroused atmosphere is rather frightening;-).

  31. It might be useful to remember that oxidising hydrocarbons produced CO2 and H2O.

    That is, burning oil produces CO2 and also alot of water.

    Perhaps it is the noise of of the rainfall which makes it so difficult for many here to hear things.

  32. It might be useful to remember that oxidising hydrocarbons produced CO2 and H2O.

    That is, burning oil produces CO2 and also alot of water.

    Perhaps it is the noise of of the rainfall which makes it so difficult for many here to hear things.

  33. # 21 Louis Hissink

    “Perhaps it is the noise of of the rainfall which makes it so difficult for many here to hear things.”

    Noise from large sample of raindrops is just a convenient mental way to average the really vast interlinked data. Hard to tease out from multiple regressions.

    Keep constant everything, but the sought after effect. Test chambers, gas colums. centrifuged, one end vacum, the other end 1 atm. test tubes.

  34. # 21 Louis Hissink

    “Perhaps it is the noise of of the rainfall which makes it so difficult for many here to hear things.”

    Noise from large sample of raindrops is just a convenient mental way to average the really vast interlinked data. Hard to tease out from multiple regressions.

    Keep constant everything, but the sought after effect. Test chambers, gas colums. centrifuged, one end vacum, the other end 1 atm. test tubes.

  35. #17 Franco. “Too many uncontrollables varying in the atmosphere.”

    The art of experiment seems to be dead. Comparing the two theories, the ‘received’ theory has many poorly understood and hard to measure parameters. Perhaps, consequently it gives very low precision estimates of 2xCO2. Miskolczi’s theory OTOH is a low parameter theory, and provides high precision estimates of CO2.

    However, Miskolczi’s theory being an equilibrium theory doesn’t immediately explain variability such as glacial/interglacials, but the received theory does via GCMs.

    Its not the system that has uncontrolled variables, it is the theory. It just looks like it because you look through the filter of the theory. A theory that relies on those variables that are measurable is more useful.

    Similarly, to test a theory, you don’t test where you have low statistical power, such as predictions of past and future. You test some part of the theory where instruments have high precision.

    For example, this is just a guess, if a measure of the average path length of IR photons in atmosphere discriminated theories, then you get an IR light source and measure it penetration and backscatter or something.

    This is a similar point I made to measuring the line spectra in the upper troposphere to identify greenhouse effect. Such measures could positively identify the enhanced greenhouse effect once and for all. Harries claimed he found it here http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/ but it turned out to be premature.

    Little effort has been put into it. Instead the only evidential proof we have is that ‘there is no other explanation’. Not good enough.

  36. #17 Franco. “Too many uncontrollables varying in the atmosphere.”

    The art of experiment seems to be dead. Comparing the two theories, the ‘received’ theory has many poorly understood and hard to measure parameters. Perhaps, consequently it gives very low precision estimates of 2xCO2. Miskolczi’s theory OTOH is a low parameter theory, and provides high precision estimates of CO2.

    However, Miskolczi’s theory being an equilibrium theory doesn’t immediately explain variability such as glacial/interglacials, but the received theory does via GCMs.

    Its not the system that has uncontrolled variables, it is the theory. It just looks like it because you look through the filter of the theory. A theory that relies on those variables that are measurable is more useful.

    Similarly, to test a theory, you don’t test where you have low statistical power, such as predictions of past and future. You test some part of the theory where instruments have high precision.

    For example, this is just a guess, if a measure of the average path length of IR photons in atmosphere discriminated theories, then you get an IR light source and measure it penetration and backscatter or something.

    This is a similar point I made to measuring the line spectra in the upper troposphere to identify greenhouse effect. Such measures could positively identify the enhanced greenhouse effect once and for all. Harries claimed he found it here http://landshape.org/enm/interpretation-bias/ but it turned out to be premature.

    Little effort has been put into it. Instead the only evidential proof we have is that ‘there is no other explanation’. Not good enough.

  37. Nulled out wheatstone bridge, similar concept. Let the experiment subtract the plus and minus, average to zero, the distracting effect. Most precise are the nulls, as in a direction finding antenna.

    Experimental atmospheric perturbations, how to null out other unable to stop inputs ?

  38. Nulled out wheatstone bridge, similar concept. Let the experiment subtract the plus and minus, average to zero, the distracting effect. Most precise are the nulls, as in a direction finding antenna.

    Experimental atmospheric perturbations, how to null out other unable to stop inputs ?

  39. The paper by Dr. Noor van Andel has several statements which indicate that to maintain a constant optical depth, the quantity of water vapour *increases* with increasing CO2 content.

    Nick Stokes #6 says;
    “I don’t think they are typo’s; he’s quite consistent.” and he provides this quote from the paper “Water has a cooling effect, as shown in Van Dorland’s figure 2.4.”

    The figure shows that water at longwave length (L H2O) has a cooling effect in the troposphere. This is apparently the reason why Noor makes these statements. I do not fully understand how the above figure 2.4 was created. How does one measure a water vapour cooling effect at 5 km altitude in degrees Kevin per day?

    The greenhouse effect of water vapour clearly causes warmer temperatures, so despite figure 2.4, I think Noor’s statements are in error.

    Miskolczi says at the bottom of page 23 of his paper:
    “For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available.”

    Can someone provide an explanation of what the figure 2.4 is telling us? This figure originally appears in the paper “Radiation and Climate” by Rob van Dorland here on page 19 (PDF page 39). The paper says (bottom page 18):
    “This figure is constructed by calculating the difference between the tendencies in the present atmosphere and those without the greenhouse gas under consideration, using the broad band radiative transfer scheme described in Chapter 3. Water vapor generally cools the troposphere, implying that the infrared emission is larger than the absorption.”

    The paper also says on page 21:
    “Removal of water vapor will drop the global mean surface temperature with about 20 K. Water vapor is therefore the strongest greenhouse gas.” This implies that the presence of water vapour makes the surface warmer.

    How do these statements relate?

  40. The paper by Dr. Noor van Andel has several statements which indicate that to maintain a constant optical depth, the quantity of water vapour *increases* with increasing CO2 content.

    Nick Stokes #6 says;
    “I don’t think they are typo’s; he’s quite consistent.” and he provides this quote from the paper “Water has a cooling effect, as shown in Van Dorland’s figure 2.4.”

    The figure shows that water at longwave length (L H2O) has a cooling effect in the troposphere. This is apparently the reason why Noor makes these statements. I do not fully understand how the above figure 2.4 was created. How does one measure a water vapour cooling effect at 5 km altitude in degrees Kevin per day?

    The greenhouse effect of water vapour clearly causes warmer temperatures, so despite figure 2.4, I think Noor’s statements are in error.

    Miskolczi says at the bottom of page 23 of his paper:
    “For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O, then the general circulation has to re-adjust itself to maintain the meridional energy flow with less water vapor available.”

    Can someone provide an explanation of what the figure 2.4 is telling us? This figure originally appears in the paper “Radiation and Climate” by Rob van Dorland here on page 19 (PDF page 39). The paper says (bottom page 18):
    “This figure is constructed by calculating the difference between the tendencies in the present atmosphere and those without the greenhouse gas under consideration, using the broad band radiative transfer scheme described in Chapter 3. Water vapor generally cools the troposphere, implying that the infrared emission is larger than the absorption.”

    The paper also says on page 21:
    “Removal of water vapor will drop the global mean surface temperature with about 20 K. Water vapor is therefore the strongest greenhouse gas.” This implies that the presence of water vapour makes the surface warmer.

    How do these statements relate?

  41. “For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O”

    Question that comes to mind are the sticking together, even for short while, of H2O, CO2, almost, but not quite fog.

    Experiment was not sufficiently isolated from other, not measured, inputs ?

  42. “For example, in case the increased CO2 is compensated by reduced H2O”

    Question that comes to mind are the sticking together, even for short while, of H2O, CO2, almost, but not quite fog.

    Experiment was not sufficiently isolated from other, not measured, inputs ?

  43. Ken #25
    My understanding of Fig 2.4 is this. When you run a LBL code, you can say that at each level, each gas species (eg H2O) is emitting according to its temperature, and absorbing according to the incident IR (or SW). Both of these are calculated, and generally there is an imbalance, a nett gain or loss of heat. van D chooses to express this heat flux imbalance in K/day – the rate at which the air would heat if there were those fluxes and nothing else.

    So in the troposphere, as you’d expect, the dominant curves are LW H2O (negative, cooling), SW H2O (warming, sunlight absorbed), and CO2 (warming <5km, cooling above). They add to the black curve. This total curve is nett cooling, because it is balanced by gain of heat from convection and latent heat.

    Above the tropopause, there is no convection, so the black total follows the zero. CO2 is cooling, and becomes more so with altitude, not because the flux increases, but because it is measured in temperature rise per day – a little heat in rarefied air makes a big temp rise. CO2 is part balanced by ozone absorption of sunlight there.

  44. Ken #25
    My understanding of Fig 2.4 is this. When you run a LBL code, you can say that at each level, each gas species (eg H2O) is emitting according to its temperature, and absorbing according to the incident IR (or SW). Both of these are calculated, and generally there is an imbalance, a nett gain or loss of heat. van D chooses to express this heat flux imbalance in K/day – the rate at which the air would heat if there were those fluxes and nothing else.

    So in the troposphere, as you’d expect, the dominant curves are LW H2O (negative, cooling), SW H2O (warming, sunlight absorbed), and CO2 (warming <5km, cooling above). They add to the black curve. This total curve is nett cooling, because it is balanced by gain of heat from convection and latent heat.

    Above the tropopause, there is no convection, so the black total follows the zero. CO2 is cooling, and becomes more so with altitude, not because the flux increases, but because it is measured in temperature rise per day – a little heat in rarefied air makes a big temp rise. CO2 is part balanced by ozone absorption of sunlight there.

  45. O.K., so in the troposphere, water vapour is emitting more long-wave radiation (according to its temperature) than what is is absorbing, so there is a net cooling by water vapour.

    How do we reconcile this statement with the fact that removing water vapour from the model would lower the surface temperature by 20 degrees K?

  46. O.K., so in the troposphere, water vapour is emitting more long-wave radiation (according to its temperature) than what is is absorbing, so there is a net cooling by water vapour.

    How do we reconcile this statement with the fact that removing water vapour from the model would lower the surface temperature by 20 degrees K?

  47. #31 Ken
    First remember that this is heat transfer. Water cools the air where it is, by creating a radiation excess that heats the adjacent air (and the ground).

    I think this notion of “cooling” drawn from Fig 4.2 is generally unhelpful. The black curve of total GHG’s is “cooling”. It has to be; there is nett heat gain from convection and LH transfer, and the sum has to be zero. But the balance between emission and absorption is a fine one – drop the temp by a degree or two, and the GHG’s, including water, would be “warming”.

    GHGs absorb radiation, and the air warms until emission balances the absorption. It actually warms a little bit more, because of convection, which is why this arithmetic shows GHG’s as “cooling”.

  48. #31 Ken
    First remember that this is heat transfer. Water cools the air where it is, by creating a radiation excess that heats the adjacent air (and the ground).

    I think this notion of “cooling” drawn from Fig 4.2 is generally unhelpful. The black curve of total GHG’s is “cooling”. It has to be; there is nett heat gain from convection and LH transfer, and the sum has to be zero. But the balance between emission and absorption is a fine one – drop the temp by a degree or two, and the GHG’s, including water, would be “warming”.

    GHGs absorb radiation, and the air warms until emission balances the absorption. It actually warms a little bit more, because of convection, which is why this arithmetic shows GHG’s as “cooling”.

  49. Re: #30,

    Hi Nick, wrt, “and CO2 (warming <5km, cooling above)” I know you’re just being general with this, but doesn’t CO2 have different [net]warming and [net]cooling bands, even in the lower troposphere? Ie, cooling bands near common CO2 laser emission lines ~10.6um & ~9.6um (region of the N-band ‘atmospheric window’ ) and more [net]warming bands around 6 and 7um?

  50. Re: #30,

    Hi Nick, wrt, “and CO2 (warming <5km, cooling above)” I know you’re just being general with this, but doesn’t CO2 have different [net]warming and [net]cooling bands, even in the lower troposphere? Ie, cooling bands near common CO2 laser emission lines ~10.6um & ~9.6um (region of the N-band ‘atmospheric window’ ) and more [net]warming bands around 6 and 7um?

  51. #34 Mike
    I wouldn’t dispute that. My comment was just interpreting Rob v’s Fig 2.4, which doesn’t give a breakdown. “Warming” and “cooling” just relate to the balance between incident and emitted. The emission follows the spectrum for that temperature, whereas the incident components depend on what has been absorbed by other gases along the way.

    As I recall, CO2 laser emission involves exciting a resonance involving N2, and is rather different from atmospheric thermal emission. As you say, those laser emission lines are in the atmospheric IR window, where there is not much absorption at all.

  52. #34 Mike
    I wouldn’t dispute that. My comment was just interpreting Rob v’s Fig 2.4, which doesn’t give a breakdown. “Warming” and “cooling” just relate to the balance between incident and emitted. The emission follows the spectrum for that temperature, whereas the incident components depend on what has been absorbed by other gases along the way.

    As I recall, CO2 laser emission involves exciting a resonance involving N2, and is rather different from atmospheric thermal emission. As you say, those laser emission lines are in the atmospheric IR window, where there is not much absorption at all.

  53. On the bottom of page 15 of Noor van Andel’s paper he says:
    “We can calculate which influence an extra amount of greenhouse gas has on the optical thickness. We start at the theoretical, and measured, value 1.86, and it follows that removal of all CO2 brings us back to 1.73 or a perturbation of -7%, a 100-fold CO2 concentration causes a thickness of 2.29, a perturbation of +23%.”

    These changes assume we are holding water vapour amount constant.

    How does Noor calculate this? What equation is he using? Isn’t the only way to calculate this is by using a LBL code simulation?

    The following graph on page 16 shows that a 50% reduction of water vapour causes a 19% reduction in optical depth. This makes sense, but this also causes the Su/Eu ratio to increase from 2.0 to 2.16 ie more warming. How is this calculated?

  54. On the bottom of page 15 of Noor van Andel’s paper he says:
    “We can calculate which influence an extra amount of greenhouse gas has on the optical thickness. We start at the theoretical, and measured, value 1.86, and it follows that removal of all CO2 brings us back to 1.73 or a perturbation of -7%, a 100-fold CO2 concentration causes a thickness of 2.29, a perturbation of +23%.”

    These changes assume we are holding water vapour amount constant.

    How does Noor calculate this? What equation is he using? Isn’t the only way to calculate this is by using a LBL code simulation?

    The following graph on page 16 shows that a 50% reduction of water vapour causes a 19% reduction in optical depth. This makes sense, but this also causes the Su/Eu ratio to increase from 2.0 to 2.16 ie more warming. How is this calculated?

  55. From Noor above:
    ” the adiabatic temperature lapse is 5 K/km; when it is cold or dry, it is 10 K/km. So, over those parts of the Earth surface that are wet, sea or plant canopy, there is a factor of two increase in heat transfer upwards when you go from say 10 °C to 25°C”

    H2O latent heat and extra H2O lift, increasing updraft;
    How included in the obove reasoning ? H2O reduces density, speeds updraft, and sneaks the heat, latently, ender the temperature radar .

  56. From Noor above:
    ” the adiabatic temperature lapse is 5 K/km; when it is cold or dry, it is 10 K/km. So, over those parts of the Earth surface that are wet, sea or plant canopy, there is a factor of two increase in heat transfer upwards when you go from say 10 °C to 25°C”

    H2O latent heat and extra H2O lift, increasing updraft;
    How included in the obove reasoning ? H2O reduces density, speeds updraft, and sneaks the heat, latently, ender the temperature radar .

  57. Looking at Wiki;
    Image:Atmospheric Transmission.png
    Image:Greenhouse Effect.png

    The Black Body IR upward 310°K and 210°K are (310^4)/(210^4)=4.75 times. Peak (~260°K) is shifted away from transmission window at 10 microns, So convection would have to compensate more. Throw in more water, faster updraft or not ?

  58. Looking at Wiki;
    Image:Atmospheric Transmission.png
    Image:Greenhouse Effect.png

    The Black Body IR upward 310°K and 210°K are (310^4)/(210^4)=4.75 times. Peak (~260°K) is shifted away from transmission window at 10 microns, So convection would have to compensate more. Throw in more water, faster updraft or not ?

  59. My name is Brown Mark and am from USA,let me share this testimony to the world to hear about him too this man really exit I was HIV positive over 6year I have being in medication and I try to look for cure to my problem and I go through internet doctor and I found a tradition named DR. CAFAI i contacted cafaispiritualtemple@yahoo.com for help he give me all his laws and rule that if I get cured I should write about him and that is what am doing now, this man ask for some information about me, which I give him this man cure me from HIV what a great man thank for your help when he get the information he told me that he is about to work on it 20 to 30 minute this man email me and told me what to do for the curing which I did after all the things needed for the cure is provide the man call me in 45mins later and tell me to go for test what a great day to me I was negative thanks Dr CAFAi you can through his email address,cafaispiritualtemple@yahoo.com or his phone number +234 7067607073

  60. Pingback: Enola Roddenberry

  61. Pingback: gifts that give back

  62. Pingback: sylwester 2014

  63. Pingback: Air jordan

  64. Pingback: strona www

  65. Pingback: polecam link

  66. Pingback: agen bola terpercaya

  67. Pingback: obsluga informatyczna gliwice

  68. Pingback: Ryan Levin

  69. Pingback: witryna www

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s