Utopia Talk / Politics / Irma 3

Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 10 05:23:26 2017 Common, recycle that shitty inner eyewall and get with the program here. We have things to do and towns to destroy.
Aeros rank	Sun Sep 10 06:56:10 2017 Anyone who decided to stay on Key West is going to really regret come sunrise.
Aeros rank	Sun Sep 10 06:57:44 2017 Also she has time to recyle the eye wall. Even when it gets close to land its going to be the everglades. Its quite possible current models are not fully taking into account the fact southwest florida is not really land.
Aeros rank	Sun Sep 10 08:03:35 2017 Pressure dropping bigly.
Aeros rank	Sun Sep 10 08:08:29 2017 Holy fuck 145 MPH sustained. Category 4 with hours still to go.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 09:03:44 2017 Sammy Seb and I are saying the same things, bro.
murder rank	Sun Sep 10 09:11:47 2017 RIP Key West
murder rank	Sun Sep 10 09:14:33 2017 130 sustained, not 145. Either way, this will not be fun for anyone still there ... even if they found safe shelter.
obaminated rank	Sun Sep 10 09:26:48 2017 So do we know the county murder decided to stay in? Is he a dead man?
obaminated rank	Sun Sep 10 09:27:32 2017 Where you at murder? Did you dodge a bullet or are you about to get fucked?
murder rank	Sun Sep 10 09:32:23 2017 Miami-Dade County Swordtail mocked our santeria, but it worked. If there is a botanica in Key West, whoever is still there better empty it, and throw everything at this thing before it's too late.
murder rank	Sun Sep 10 09:34:29 2017 We're getting tropical storm type weather + some minor storm surge. Some summer thunderstorms are worse down here.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 10 12:54:33 2017 Sam: Re other post, the only way I can make sense of what you are saying is if you freely switch between power and temperature - akin to switching between voltage and power - and that's either comically wrong or deliberate obfuscation for troll purposes Jergul has an MEng, and believe me if it's the latter he's picked up on it and thinks he's trolling you.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 16:00:43 2017 My theory is deliberate obfuscation for dabling in climate denial purposes. Hence my uncharisticstic insistence that he just stops doing that. The game is up. But he could just be comically wrong of course.
swordtail rank	Sun Sep 10 16:29:04 2017 "Swordtail mocked our Santeria" did not.
Paramount rank	Sun Sep 10 17:17:00 2017 Already 3 dead in Florida.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 10 17:29:49 2017 "the only way I can make sense" Its ok if you are not intelligent to understand. Few are. But even if you do not understand the physics, you cannot deny the lack of trend in the onservations. Back on topic: 929mb.. not bad. Big lumbering surge storm. Everglades city will be wiped out by surge. Good thing its small and unimportant. From the satellite it looks like trailers and meth.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 17:56:44 2017 The ACE diagramme indicates a clear trend. Since you seem to be struggling: From your link http://www...urricanes3_updated_fall12.html Figure 12. Draw a upper trendline from 1980 and a lower trendline from 1983. From the text of the link you provided: "The basis for a link to global warming is as follows ... As humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the average surface temperature of the Earth should increase. Exactly how much and how fast it may warm is a matter for debate. One consequence is that global sea surface temperatures will increase. Measurements do show that the global average sea surface temperature has been generally been increasing since 1900 ... Therefore, since hurricanes feed off warm ocean water, one could argue that the recent strong landfalling hurricanes in the United States directly results from global warming. While the above argument seems plausible, it cannot be scientifically proven at this time. As mentioned above, the recent increase in Atlantic hurricanes can be better explained as a continuation of the multi-decadal cycle discussed above." http://jud...017-atlantic-hurricane-season/ Scroll down for an updated ACE table. Pwn'd.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 10 18:13:05 2017 Sam: Arguing that equilibrium of power flows given reduction in mfp for radiation requires constant dT is just wrong then. The reverse is true. Temp (and gradients) must rise in order to drive stronger convection or conduction in lower atmosphere for power flows to move back to equilibrium. Those rises happen over decades.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 18:52:59 2017 There is no forseeable equilibrium without CO2 control.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 10 19:10:28 2017 Seb. The same temperature gradients equal the same energy transfer. If one changes the other must change. Thats just basic thermo. In our warming atmosphere theres a slightly longer path to make up for the slightly higher surface T. But the delta T between any given level is the same, aproximately. In addition to the no trend in hurricane strength, there is no significant trend in surface wind speed, surface cloud cover, surface precip. The net outbound energy from the surface is about the same.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 10 19:17:26 2017 Jergul. The planet is very near radiative convective equilibrium. The global warming values are some 2 orders of magnitude less than normal day to day energy transfer.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 19:33:47 2017 Sammy Very near is not close enough for a cigar. What will be your next point? That even significant global warming is very near nothing when measured on a scale from 0-12000K?
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 19:37:57 2017 And still a very clear ACE trendline from a 1981/83 basepoint.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 10 20:50:30 2017 Sam: No, because backscattering has increased, so you need higher gradients to sustain the same net powerflow when power flow balances. Your thinking is neglecting the back scatter from the power balance equation. Or to put it another way, adding CO2 decreases mean free path or radiation. Equivalent to putting on a jumper. Insulation causes inner boundary (in this case the surface) temp to rise, so heat flow increases to overcome the effect of insulation. Gradients therefore increase too as outer boundary temp remains fixed and inner temp rises.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 10 21:04:18 2017 Also don't like your approximation. Doesn't follow for two reasons: firstly temp isn't linear to power, and temp isn't spatially uniform over the surface so local dT can be higher. Climate sensitivity from radiative transfer is around 0.8 K/W/m^2. In % terms now, that's a 0.3% increase in T for a 0.07% "increase" in power on current conditions (modelling the decreased mfp for radiation as the equivalent extra downward powerflux - as is the norm).
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 21:24:34 2017 Seb Treating time as a constant is also deeply problematic. Increase ocean areas that meet normal temperature thresholds for hurricane formation will also tend to increase the time hurricanes can be sustained. Increasing ocean temperatures will also extend the hurricane season (it will start earlier and last longer).
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 10 21:45:11 2017 backscattering does not count towards net energy leaving the surface. The surface radiates more because it is higher T, the next layer sends more back because it is also higher T. In totality, the change is little. "so heat flow increases to overcome the effect of insulation. " Lol what? No. It is reduced and is then the same. After the initial change, heat transfer remains the same as it was before once the surface reaches its new higher equilibrium temp. "Gradients therefore increase too as outer boundary temp remains fixed and inner temp rises" Unless the outer boundary is further away. Which it is. The blanket is thicker, but each segment of the blanket has the same gradient, to drive the same energy transfer. As for your second post, i agree that surface temperature is a little more sensitive than heat transfer itself, but since we are talking about a hurricane, all we care about is heat transfer.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 10 22:24:20 2017 q = W*A*dT Feel free to ask if you have trouble identifying the time element.
Aeros rank	Sun Sep 10 23:52:40 2017 In the end, this storm appears to have blown its wad on Cuba. Commies really do steal everything.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 11 00:06:25 2017 Sam: From a power flow it does! Your argument was that as insolation hasn't increased, total powerflow out must remain the same, so dT/dz must be same. Model the atm as a series of elements_i But from an elements point of view, net power flow_i = power_up_i - power_down_i - back_scatter_i If net power flow is zero at equilibrium (i.e. 1360w in from the sun, so at eqm 1360 must go out) then as back_scatter increases due CO2 increase, then power_up must rise. That requires a rise in temp differences between each element. If everything gets warmer by the same amount the upward power flow would be the same as before the increase in back scatter leading to net power flow down (i.e. not equilibrium).
Seb rank	Mon Sep 11 00:12:37 2017 Sam: Er we are not talking about a hurricane. We are talking about why global warming increases vertical temp gradients - which logically should increase hurricane rates and strengths. But the mechanism for the gradients generally being stronger doesn't require us to consider hurricanes. Nor do I think the top of the column is going to increase in height significantly. In reality, were simplifying. The surface and convective layers warm, the radiative transport layer sits on top. If gradients remain the same then I don't see how convective heat transport can increase. You'd still end up with an imbalance of energy flows and no equilibrium.
Seb rank	Mon Sep 11 00:20:50 2017 "i agree that surface temperature is a little more sensitive than heat transfer itself" So, er, the below wasn't really relevant was it? "The global warming values are some 2 orders of magnitude less than normal day to day energy transfer." If increase is two orders of magnitude less than day to day power flows that means a 1% increase in energy transfer, radiative forcing means circs 5% increase in temp. That's a twentieth of day to day levels.
obaminated rank	Mon Sep 11 02:33:22 2017 Called it on the looters showing up. How disappointing.
Forwyn rank	Mon Sep 11 03:29:41 2017 Gotta get a headstart on the Air Jordans!
Aeros rank	Mon Sep 11 03:43:49 2017 Guess the race!
patom rank	Wed Sep 13 13:54:02 2017 I also watched a security video from Houston of a white couple breaking into apartment building mail boxes and stealing everything in them. The looting will always occur where the poor live. That is why you won't find many large grocery stores in the ghetto areas of a metropolitan area.
jergul rank	Wed Sep 13 13:57:24 2017 Crime was still down dramatically.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 13 16:07:17 2017 Seb, backscatter effectively delays outgoing IR. It does not effectively create more surface energy to create more storms. Useful power does not flow from colder upper level air back to the warmer surface. That is a fundamental thermo error you are making.
jergul rank	Wed Sep 13 16:26:59 2017 Sammy That actually touches on the the mistake you are making. No one is saying that global warming is anything other than incremental changes in the average global temperature. Ie that the difference from one short term measure to another is never in itself "useful power", but rather that the cumulative effects over time do. No one besides you is actually debating that this assumption is reasonable, and no one is claiming this has already been clearly demonstrated. ACE trends upwards can still be explained by interdecennial sinus cycles.
Sam Adams rank	Wed Sep 13 16:37:27 2017 ACE has no significant trend. Stop making 4th grade errors.
jergul rank	Wed Sep 13 16:44:32 2017 A baseline 1980/1983 shows a clear increasing trend that is either explaned by interdecennial sinus cycles, by increasing water temperatures, or by both. My bet is that "both" is the correct answer.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 14 09:32:28 2017 Sam: Go get a bucket with a hole in and pour water into it. Make the hole smaller. You telling me the volume of water in the bucket won't increase? Or, more prosaically, it's cold. You put on a jumper. Your body temp increases. You telling me the total heat energy stored in your body hasn't gone up? Somehow putting on a jumper either increased energy production (no, just reduced losses) or your body started producing more energy (no). Energy stored in system at time t = t( rate of energy in - rate of energy out) + energy stored in system at t-1. If rate of energy out decreases, energy stored in system at t will increase (until such time as energy in - energy out comes back to balance). The error is yours. Btw, the supposed paradox of energy flow from cold upper air to ground is only because you aren't thinking through. From a quantum statistical mech perspective, photons of the same energy are indistinguishable (like electrons). When you integrate up, you are right, energy is flowing from the warm ground to the cold sky. It's just doing so at a reduced rate (initially). Which means the energy density of all elements increases, increasing temperature and temperature gradients, until outbound energy flow rises again. The total energy density in the system however is larger than it was. Simplest way to model that in a climate system is by the equivalent increased radiative forcing that delivers the same temperature and energy flow profiles (you don't want to directly bottom up model radiative transport within the climate model any more than you'd model clouds with fluid dynamics in those models).
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 14 16:52:22 2017 Why are you going back to energy stored in the system? That is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about the transfer of energy, from the surface up to a higher altitude layer.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 14 17:09:42 2017 Sam: "It does not effectively create more surface energy to create more storms" Surface energy isn't energy stored in the system? Think you have confused yourself Sam. Connective processes (like storms) are driven by temperature gradients. Increase in back scatter means temperature gradients need to increase to compensate in equilibrium. Or, to put it a another way: increased backscatter causes increase of energy storage - hence greater temp (temperature being a measure of energy distribution in a system - mean of all the various kinetic modes). Earlier, you argued as insolation hasn't increased, outflow in eqm must equal insolation, and as flow is driven by temperature gradients, then temp gradients must not have changed either. The error here is ignoring that while net flow out in the new eqm is the same as before, because backscattering is greater, a steeper temp gradient is needed to drive the same net outflow. You made an mistake. Deal with it.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 14 17:09:43 2017 Sam: "It does not effectively create more surface energy to create more storms" Surface energy isn't energy stored in the system? Think you have confused yourself Sam. Connective processes (like storms) are driven by temperature gradients. Increase in back scatter means temperature gradients need to increase to compensate in equilibrium. Or, to put it a another way: increased backscatter causes increase of energy storage - hence greater temp (temperature being a measure of energy distribution in a system - mean of all the various kinetic modes). Earlier, you argued as insolation hasn't increased, outflow in eqm must equal insolation, and as flow is driven by temperature gradients, then temp gradients must not have changed either. The error here is ignoring that while net flow out in the new eqm is the same as before, because backscattering is greater, a steeper temp gradient is needed to drive the same net outflow. You made an mistake. Deal with it.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 14 17:11:40 2017 Also we are not talking about photons. On a macroscopic level, heat effectively flows in one direction only. You know this.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 14 17:33:09 2017 "Surface energy isn't energy stored in the system? " The energy that drives storms is not the energy stored in the surface. "Increase in back scatter means temperature gradients need to increase to compensate in equilibrium" No. Gradients equal net energy transfer. Increased backscatter does not necessarily mean increased net energy transfer. In this case, upward IR is also increasing due to the higher surface T, to mostly balance backscatter. You are confusing yourself with net verse individual components, failing to realize the atmosphere is thicker, and trying to drive heat backwards.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 14 21:24:09 2017 Sam: You cannot understand the greenhouse effect without understanding radiative transfer which is a quantum mechanical effect. Your argument earlier was that backscattering couldn't result in a flow of energy to the ground because the ground is warmer than the sky. That is not true. It absolutely can. However, macroscopically, the sum of all flows is still consistent with thermodynamics. You clearly do not understand the statistical mechanics that underpins thermodynamics. It is perfectly possible for a photon to be emitted in an atom from an ensemble with one temperature to be absorbed by an atom in an ensemble with higher temperature. So your argument is wrong: the fact the sky is colder than the ground does not mean increasing CO2 doesn't result in an increased powerflux incident on the surface. Because power flux incident on the surface is insolation + backscatter. Increase in backscatter causes the surface temp to rise until emission rises. Net power flow at eqm will be zero: insolation + backscattering - emission = zero. That's just conservation of energy. *Have wrapped convection and conduction into the terms too.
Seb rank	Thu Sep 14 21:31:32 2017 "The energy that drives storms is not the energy stored in the surface" Your saying surface water temperature doesn't drive hurricanes? Interesting take. What does then? Gradients in temperature = net energy transfer? Not really. K/M doesn't have dimensions of energy. What I think you mean is that temperature gradients drive energy flows. Duh. I said that ages ago. The point is you think that you can increase back scatter, and then have the system adjust to equilibrium without an increase in temperature gradients, just a uniform increase in temperatures throughout the column. Note the sentence I'm responding to is you directly contradicting your previous argument that temperature gradients don't increase. Your argument that the atmosphere expands proportionatly is silly. Do you really need me to show this mathematically? Just admit you screwed up.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 14 23:00:45 2017 "It is perfectly possible for a photon" Are we talking about single photons? No we are not. Stop being stupid. You know on this scale heat effectively flows from hot to cold only. And if you do not know that... lol. " Your saying surface water temperature doesn't drive hurricanes? " Not only are the upper level temperatures equally important, but even that gradient is less important than other factors, primarily a good upper level outflow pattern. Why do you think that hot waters have hurricanes like 0.01% of the time? "Gradients in temperature = net energy transfer? Not really." Yes really. Exactly that actually. The atmosphere is in radiative convective equilibrium. It could not be otherwise. "Your argument that the atmosphere expands proportionatly is silly." Rofl. Seb. Just stop. You cant understand the ideal gas law and the concept of an effective radiating level? My god. The damage you have done to your mind with all the fuzzy bullshit has made you forget basic physics.
Sam Adams rank	Thu Sep 14 23:27:23 2017 So in summary seb did not know a hot gas expands, and thinks that heat flows from cold to hot. Lol. Yikes.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 12:34:38 2017 Sam: You were explicitly arguing there could be no powerflux from a cold body to a hot body because of "basic thermodynamics". Quite how you reconcile this with the existence of backscattering I don't know. I'm explaining to you the mechanics of why your argument was not correct. The point is *net* powerflow will go from hot to cold, but because backscattering increases with CO2, Temperature gradients must rise in order to drive compensating outward flows in order to give the same net power flow as before the rise in CO2. This is elementary. I think you have confused yourself. "hot gas expands" Indeed it does, but not linearly with temperature (and remember the atmosphere is neither isobaric not isothermal) as would be required to retain strict invariance of temperature gradients. Do you really need me to do the maths? This isn't the best format for it. I think you know you are now trying to evade accepting you made an error. Tell you what, why don't you derive how much the atmosphere expands linearly for given increase in T and show that it's directly proportional? "Exactly that actually" Really? So if I have an insulating body of T1 separated by 1m from a body T2, the energy flowing between them is T2-T1 watts? Energy flow in SI base units has dimensions Kgm^2s^-3. Temperature gradient is Tm^-1. Even throwing Boltzmann's constant in there gets you Kgms^-2. A delta in T drives a flow, but the flow depends on other factors. CO2, in this case, increases backscattering, which reduces flow, requiring increased temperature gradients to deliver the same net flow as previously. This is not hard stuff. Either you've forgotten this or you are being rather immature in being called out on a fairly straightforward error.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 16:42:36 2017 "You were explicitly arguing there could be no powerflux from a cold body to a hot body because of "basic thermodynamics"" Ya, I was. Because, you know, its only one of the most basic laws of physics ever. The fact that you do not know this... "Indeed it does, but not linearly with temperature" Actually it is exactly linear with temperature. PV=nRT. Lol. Wow. The fact that you as an ex physics major do not know either fundamental thermo or the ideal gas law, and then argue against them even when your mistake is pointed out, is hilarious.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 16:45:11 2017 I can see why you had to switch to fuzzy studies.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 16:50:49 2017 "increases backscattering, which reduces flow" False. The surface IR flux has also increased, because it is higher T. There is little net change.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 15 20:57:49 2017 Seb's very next sentence that you carefully did not cut and paste: "The point is *net* powerflow will go from hot to cold" Seb obviously just mistyped. You are clinging at straws and trying to deflect just redicule of your position. Don't get carried away with ideal gas law. Its a stylized representation and a jergulmath type of approximation.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 21:33:54 2017 "Seb's very next sentence that you carefully did not cut and paste: "The point is *net* powerflow will go from hot to cold" " Yet he claims, again and again, that effectively energy will flow from cold to hot, and drive stronger hurricanes. Clearlt something seriously wrong is going on in sebs mind.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 21:39:58 2017 "Don't get carried away with ideal gas law." Ya, thats no big deal at all. Especially not to a discussion of gas physics or anything like that. No reason why seb or jergul should understand not only an important equation, but an easy one at that. You know, i could almost forgive you for screwing up something difficult, like a curved inlet mach shockwave numerical model... but getting the ideal gas law wrong is hilariously embarassing.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 21:43:09 2017 Sam: Lol. Simple rearrangement: V=NRT/P If you are arguing that the atmosphere expands linearly with temperature, you are arguing P != f(T). The atmosphere is isobaric. Novel!
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 21:44:18 2017 Sam: "Because, you know, its only one of the most basic laws of physics ever" Really? You just accepted backscattering existed. Now you argue that backscattering is physically impossible. Do make your mind up.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 21:50:08 2017 Sam: Yes, the surface IR flux has increased, because T increases. But unless temp gradients increase across the board, only the flux from the surface increases. And it's obvious gradients will increase because if that next element has increased by he same amount of temperature as the ground has, then obviously, no change in power flux between the two (which should be obvious given you were previously arguing that dT/dx was equal to power flow - you've managed to get so confused even your errors now contradict eachother!)
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 21:56:00 2017 Atmospheric thickness=temperature. This is indisputable law, as inviolable as anything in science. Except to seb of course. Lol. "you are arguing P != f(T)." Of course. The mass of the entire atmosphere is unchanged, as is the gravity acting on it (neglecting the near 0 effect of the thicker atmosphere being trivially further from the planets center of mass). Pressure in this context is constant. Planetary averaged, It is 1013.25mb at the surface, and 0 up top, and will never ever change. Lol seb. Perhaps you should reread the basics.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 22:00:49 2017 "You just accepted backscattering existed. Now you argue that backscattering is physically impossible." Something can exist and have no net impact. You are litterally trying to argue, that taken as a whole the atmosphere transfers heat from the hot surface to the cooler upper reaches, and then magically transfered against the gradient back to surface to be used again. A basic thermo violation. Worse, when this is pointed out to you, you tried to stand on it.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 22:04:57 2017 Backscatter increases T. It does not increase dT/dz.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 22:51:09 2017 Sam: Atmospheric thickness = temperature So, now dT/dx = 1. Very interesting. Sam now claims there is no temperature gradient at all!
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 22:51:50 2017 And pressure is apparently not a function of temperature! This gets better and better!
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 22:52:11 2017 It's almost as if Sam can't handle multivariate calculus
jergul rank	Fri Sep 15 22:54:38 2017 Seb Sammy is trying to argue that the temperature gradient dT is constant no matter the base temperature at the gradients hottest point (the ocean in the case of hurricane formation). Heat transfer per unit of time is constant independent of base temperature levels, thus it follows that hurricane energy accumulation will not increase, even if the base temperature does increase.
Seb rank	Fri Sep 15 22:56:07 2017 Arguing pressure at the surface isn't a function of temperature isn't the same thing as arguing that pressure at a given altitude isn't a function of air temperature at that altitude.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 23:27:20 2017 Atmospheric pressure at the surface and the top is constant. Given that pressure is held constant, volume is a function of temperature and nothing else. Seb... these are very simple concepts you do not get.
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 15 23:32:45 2017 Ignoring the negligible contribution of increased co2 and h20 mass.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 01:24:17 2017 atm p is a standard unit of pressure, so by definition is constant. Pressure at sea level is in no way, shape, or form a constant. If you meant that the total mass of the atmosphere is only increasing slowly and in minute increments, then why not, I dunno, say that?
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 04:12:45 2017 Pressure at sea level, in the context of long time scales such as this, is indeed constant. It is constant precisely because the weight above it is constant, or nearly so.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 04:13:55 2017 Obviously surface P wiggles around quite a bit day to day. But global warming is not a day to day excersize.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 11:36:01 2017 Sammy Global warming is a microsecond to microsecond exercise as it occurs at the molecular level. You are committing a rounding error fallacy. You are discounting an incremental process because you round each increment down to 0. A bit irritating to my non-troll sentiments. It is like rounding entropy down to 0 and then complaining that you can't see the universe is slowly dying.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 11:52:02 2017 As to what you and seb were discussing directly. Most heat is generated as light reflects from the planet surface and some of the light changes wavelength. Backscatter impacts on the temperature gradient dT and directly decreases dT. Which in turn lowers heat transfer and slowly increases planetary temperatures. There will never be an equilibrium for as long as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. From a hurricane perspective - more energy means more heat is available for hurricane formation and strength over a longer period in any given year. This equals more and stronger hurricanes than would otherwise have been a case. Which is not yet a proven fact as ACE increases from a 1980/83 baseline can also be explained by interdecennial storm cycles.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 14:47:46 2017 Jergul: Yeah, I know what he's trying to argue. My point is that it's physically impossible.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 14:49:28 2017 Sam: Your point though is that the top is now higher, so pressure cannot be constant at the same altitude between equilibrium states. I don't think you've noticed how your sloppy language has generated all sorts of contradictions.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 15:02:43 2017 Jergul "Backscatter impacts on the temperature gradient dT and directly decreases dT. Which in turn lowers heat transfer and slowly increases planetary temperatures." No, that's not what I'm arguing (if I understand what you are intending to say correctly). Backscatter increases downward component of power flow which means less energy is flowing up, meaning the ground temp will rise. This rise will increase temperature gradients until the upward component is once again equal to downward component and net power flow through the system returns to zero (ignoring any energy sinks,e.g. conversion of solar energy to chemical energy) - in eqm net power flow must be zero. But this has to happen throughout the column. dT has to rise to balance the power flows. The rise in temp is a consequence. What cannot physically happen is for T to rise by the same amount in K throughout the column. If that happened, power flow would be the same as it was prior to global warming, so upward component and downward components would not be in balance. I think the error Sam made was to assume that because in equilibrium, upward power flow would be the same as solar irradiance, and solar irradiance hadn't changed, therefore upward power flow would be the same as now so temp gradients should be the same. I.e. he hadn't considered that temperature gradients would need to rise to deliver the same net power flow as before global warming to compensate for the increase backscattering. You can see he knows this when he explicitly pointed out "energy flow = temp gradients" ( I think we know what he was trying to say, the imprecision is that if he said it more correctly he'd have to include the physical mechanism he has neglected in his initial error). This is a pretty elementary mistake but understandable if someone is overconfident and not really paying attention. We can all have brain farts. What's really bad is the ongoing attempt to cover up the error and pretend it isn't there. Poor show Sam. Behaving like a high school student. Not even an undergrad. Intellectual honesty is key to learning.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 16:50:10 2017 Seb Yah, I was not trying to paraphrase you. I was just looking at a snapshot of any given time. It plays out as you suggest over longer increments (technically, there is pressure on dT to increase and heat transfer over gradients compensate towards, but never to, a new equilibrium).
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 17:00:00 2017 "Your point though is that the top is now higher, so pressure cannot be constant at the same altitude between equilibrium states. " Yes. The top is now higher. Every internal layer is a little higher. Each having increased in exact proportion to temperature increase. You didnt understand this would happen. You forgot the ideal gas law. Ouch. "meaning the ground temp will rise" Yes, to a point where it regains equilibrium with its previous energy output. So will the next layer and the next and the next, until the same energy (solar flux absorbed at the surface) leaves to space. The planet briefly retained a little energy to increase its T and increase its height, but the long term energy budget is the same. Its not going to create more energy magically. Thermo violations and the ideal gas law. The thermo violations are bad but at least radiative convective equilibrium in a 1d column model is a little complicated. Failing the ideal gas law is horribly embarassing though seb. Lol. You forgot the ideal gas law.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 17:05:02 2017 "he hadn't considered that temperature gradients would need to rise to deliver the same net power flow as before" The higher surface T takes care of that. Or have you forgotten that increasing T increases radiation too? How many basic physics principals will you forget today seb?
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 17:12:08 2017 Sammy What is this? Kindergarten? You will only consider admitting you screwed up if Seb does the same first? Seb immediately corrected himself in the paragraph after the one you are fixating on. There is still no "regains equilibrium" for as long as atmospheric CO2 is non-static. You are trying to treat a dynamic system as if it was static. Big mistake.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 17:52:27 2017 The changes we have made are minor. Half a watt per meter squared. Compared with the nearly 200 w per m2 of yearly average surface solar energy and upward IR/weather. Its almost irrelevent.
jergul rank	Sat Sep 16 18:32:26 2017 Are you suggesting that as a template? 2 C increase in mean global temperature per watt/m2 increase? Or increased from 286 K to 287 K for half a wattt per meter squared. It seems so small and irrelevant if we just use the right yardstick. I do not believe the relationship to be completely linear, but it probably is in that ballpark.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 18:54:17 2017 Sam: Sam, I did not dispute hot air expands. I disputed that the increase is linear with T, which you insisted it must be in order to produce no change in temperature gradients. Indeed it cannot be, because if it was a linear expansion then gradients would not change, and if gradients didn't change then the upward component of powerflow would be as it was under the old equilibrium, which combined with the increased backscatter would lead to a total outward powerflow less than solar irradiance. I.e. we wouldn't be in equilibrium. You yourself argued a temperature gradient was necessary for power flow. "So will the next layer and the next and the next" But not by the same amount in K, because powerflow is driven by the difference in temp, and if, as you claimed, every layer increases by the same absolute amount and the gradients remain the same before and after CO2, then the upward component of powerflow would remain the same, but downward component due to back scatter would be higher, so net powerflow would be lower (i.e. downward) than before and not zero as required for eqm. You have not constructed your model properly. And I think you know it. You are trying to obscure the fact rather than face the error.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 18:59:20 2017 Sam: T increases radiation, which is isotropic. The overall flow is dependent on difference in temperature: the layer below at a higher temp radiates more than the layer above, leading to a net flow. If both increase by the same amount in K, the delta T is constant, powerflow remains the same. Delta T needs to rise to compensate for back scatter if eqm is to be restored. It's basic thermodynamics.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 19:07:55 2017 Sam: Radiative forcing is 1.5w per meter squared. Top of atmosphere irradiance is c 1400w/M2 Arguing it is almost irrelevant is foolish. Your comparing stocks (temperature) with flows (power). Over time, small changes in flows create large changes in stocks. Your physical intuition sucks really badly.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 19:17:08 2017 Sam: "The planet briefly retained a little energy to increase its T and increase its height, but the long term energy budget is the same. Its not going to create more energy magically. " Or I'd fail a high school student for this sentence. What do you mean "briefly retained a little energy" Strictly speaking, this sentence actually means that the after the brief period of time, the internal energy of the earth was as it was before. "to increase its T and increase its height," Which would require a permanent increase in the internal energy, which you have just said was only temporary. "but the long term energy budget is the same." Let me translate your word salad into real physics. "The increase in backscatter pushes powerflow out of equilibrium. The earth temporarily runs a net accumulation of energy as power in from the sun exceeds power out through radiation. This causes the internal energy of the system to rise (primarily through higher temperatures) until the emitted radiation comes back into ballance with the absorbed radiation. However, for the total upward radiation to be equal to what it was before, temperature gradients need to be higher to compensate for the increased backscattering."
Sam Adams rank	Sat Sep 16 21:05:43 2017 Ok seb you are far too confused with all of this, so lets get back to basics and take one thing at a time. Lets start with the most basic mistake, your ignorance of the ideal gas law. Any gas, or in this case the thickness of an an atmosphere, changes volume exactly proportionally with its temperature when pressure is held constant. In this case pressure is indeed held constant, because we are not adding significant mass nor changing the gravity of the planet.
Seb rank	Sat Sep 16 23:06:36 2017 Sam: Firstly, ideal gas law is an approximation. Secondly, as we've discussed, the atmospheric column isn't constant pressure but is a function of altitude. So the differential of T wrt altitude will not be the same before and after. I think you probably haven't thought about T(a) being a function of P(a) because conductivity and radiation are both functions of P. If P(a) changes due to climate change, there's no way that dT/da can remain unchanged. You're not using the equations correctly.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 17 05:42:57 2017 "Firstly, ideal gas law is an approximation. " Its nearly perfect. Are you seriously using this as your point for arguing against the existance of the ideal gas law? "the atmospheric column isn't constant pressure but is a function of altitude" The surface pressure and the top pressure are constant. The volume of the column (thickness of the atmosphere) is therefore exactly proportional to temperature. Furthermore, the thickness between any internal pressure level is exactly linear with temperature. Thus the pressure at any altitude, neglecting short term changes by winds/eddies, is exactly proportial to the mean temp below it. This is planetary physics 101. "there's no way that dT/da can remain unchanged. " of course it can. P at a given altitude responds to T of the layer below it, which is not dT.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 17 10:29:10 2017 Sam: Do you really believe you can do thermodynamic analysis without a heat flow equation? "The surface pressure and the top pressure are constant" But the "top" isn't a fixed altitude: your whole point is that the position of the top varies. It is now higher. At all points other than the surface, the pressure is now higher than before. It does not at all follow from this that the altitude and temperature changes cancel to give the same gradient.
Seb rank	Sun Sep 17 10:34:49 2017 You might find this easier if you start thinking about number density from first principles using thermal energy vs gravitational potential. That better allows for a rigorous treatment of temp gradients. What will become apparent is temp gradients are calculable from power flows. Because power flows are related to number density and temp gradients, it's non linear. Stop hand waving Sam and show from the equation.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 17 10:47:37 2017 Top pressure trends towards 0 as molecular density trends towards 0. The height of the column is similarly undefinable. V is not constant only due to increasing mass (nox, h2o, co2, so2). It follows that increasing T increases P, not V due to decreasing molecular density as a function of altitude. Surface pressure has a mean value, but is in no way, shape or form a constant, nor is the column height constant given variations in topography. Nor is pressure a constant at any point in the column.
jergul rank	Sun Sep 17 10:52:11 2017 Seb I would suggest just using mass equations as the easiest way of making this easier for sammy. He probably will not like that as it literally buries his position, but still.
Nimatzo rank	Sun Sep 17 11:31:19 2017 1. Deny global warming 2. Accept global warming deny it is man made 3. Accept it is man made deny negative effects 4. Accept negative effects but down play magnitude 5. Die and let someone else deal with it We have seen sam go through steps 1-4.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 17 18:07:20 2017 "It does not at all follow from this that the altitude and temperature changes cancel to give the same gradient. " Of course it does. Altitude changes=temperature changes. The ideal gas law and its correlary, the thickness equation, are indisputable. I still find it hilarious that you and jergul do not understand the ideal gas law.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Sep 17 18:11:32 2017 "Stop hand waving Sam and show from the equation. " PV=nRT. Once you understand this, we shall go on. R is a constant. P and n are constant in this scenario, as we add neither significant mass nor gravity. Thus we are left with V=T.
	show deleted posts