2012/05/27

The Complex World of Humidity and Temperature

During sunlight hours (minimal cloud) the water vapour in the air will absorb long wave IR (Green House Effect) from the sun and from the ground.
This will be radiated back in all directions.
The solar radiation will therefore be modified such that the wavelenghts absorbed by the water vapour will be reduced depending on the effectiveness of the green house effect.
 However the same wavelengths radiated upwards will be more effectivel "reflected" back down.

 
At night the solar input stops and the only radiation hitting the earth is that grom GHGs So more water vapour = better "reflector"

 
Is this visible in the data previosly used below.
Firstly data is limited and to get sensible results each point needs significantly more than one result to be significant.

 
Night time readings cannot include cloud coverage as this is not measured when dark
The former plots used either averageor min/max values. The min max tend to plot one off anomalies. In the plots below 1st and 3rd quartile results have been used to improve this.

 
First a whole year all possible times with up to 9% opaque cloud cover

http://www.nrel.gov/midc/srrl_bms/
 

 
 
not sure why humidity so high!
Now in sequence 2 months at a time a couple of hours and up to 9% opaque cloud cover
 
 
Now for some night responses 2 months at a time
 
 
Conclusion?

  • Well minimum temperature shows a increse with increasing water vapour (positive slope) over coldest period but turns to negative slope during warmer months
  • The max temp during the night shows little change with water vapour.


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

2012/05/24

IARC-JAXA Sea Ice Extent is back online

The plots beow are from IARC-JAXA data, now with new satellite integrated to previous AMSRE data.

No suprises yet - the data continues to show exess area inthe early part of the year followed by a rapid decline beginning around beginning of May.

2012/05/20

Nuclear Power Data

Useful site:
http://pris.iaea.org/Public/home.aspx

Age of Nuclear Stations:

Compare this to 2009 and it can be seen that some are being decommissioned but the glut at 28 years old are still running (maybe a few bankruptcies in a few years time??!):


Perhaps shown clearer here:


It seems that decommissioning starts at about 33 years but presumably life cannot safely be extended much beyond 40 years.

Just how good is their availability:


Cetainly better than Wind but still not good at 78%

Wind and the price of electricity in UK

From a post at wuwt  (EU violates Aarhus Convention in ‘20% renewable energy by 2020’ program) :

Mark Duchamp, Executive Director of EPAW, points that Mr. Swords initiated his recourse one and a half years ago, as it was already obvious that the European Commission was imposing an enormously costly and ineffective policy to EU Members States without properly investigating the pros and cons. “It is high time that Brussels be held accountable for the hundreds of billions that have been squandered without a reality check on policy effectiveness” says Mark. “To spend so much money, a positive has to be proven. – It hasn’t.”
He [Pat Swords] continues: “Electricity costs are soaring to implement these dysfunctional policies, which have by-passed proper and legally-required technical, economic and environmental assessments. Not only is the landscape being scarred as thousands of wind farms are being installed, but people in the vicinity are suffering health impacts from low frequency noise, while birdlife and other wildlife is also adversely impacted. It is long overdue that a STOP was put to this type of illegal and dysfunctional policy development and project planning.”

So just how has windpower affected the UK electricity prices. Presumably if Swords is correct then the price of electricity will have increased at a greater rate than the fuel used to generate it. With words like "soaring" used these differences must be substantial.

Looking at data from http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/source/prices/qep213.xls you get this graph.


Interesting! Less of a soaring price than gas or coal
So is this just another distortion from the watts crowd?

If windpower were a driving factor then perhaps the energy cost will appear as a bigger budget item in the countries with higher windpower generation.
So let's have a look at germany:
compared to UK
compared to Denmark

So with UK having the lowest penetration of windpower of the three it also has the biggest Utilities cost (this of course includes a number of utilities not just electricity.


How about Cradle to grave costs. Here is the build / working breakdown of costs over 20 years:
Project: Single wind turbine (800kw)
Location: Balloo Wood, Bangor, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Turbine: 800kw Enercon E48
Dimensions: 56m hub height, 24m blade length, 80m overall height
NGR: 350760E 379503N (lat 54.6411N, long 5.6656W)
Status: Operational

 
build  £        889,650.00 install
planning etc  £        434,583.00 install
maintenance 0.0055 perkwh
maintenance/year for delivered 280kwh  £             562.49 per year
routine expenses  £         30,000.00 per year
rating 1000 kwh
load factor 28%
deliverd power 280 kwh
Balancing Cost  £               0.014 per kWh
Short term Reserve  £               0.007 per kWh
total install cost=  £     1,324,233.00
install cost/delivered kwh  £           4,729.40
conventional backup costs/year  £         51,544.08 per 280 kWh/year
running cost/year  £         82,106.57 per 280 kWh/year
over n years 25
total install over 25 yrs  £     1,324,233.00
running cost over 25 yrs  £     2,052,664.13
total cost over 25 yrs  £     3,376,897.13
decomissioning cost (guess=.5*build)  £        444,825.00
total cradle to grave cost  £     3,821,722.13
power generated over 25 yrs 61362000 kWh
cost per kwh over 25 yrs  £               0.062 per kWh


most data from
http://blog.silverford.com/2011/02/balloo-enercon-wind-turbine-bangor-northern-ireland-stats-figures-and-price/
This seems a reasonable figure but the decommissioning costs are pure guess work. The life time of most wind turbines is believed to be 25 years. The warranty period is 12years for this turbine.

How about nuclear??




2012/05/01

A cool body can transfer measurable heat to a hotter body

So much non-science about transfer of energy between different temperature objects.
So many state that it is impossible for a cool object to heat a hotter object.

But both bodies emit radiation corresponding to their temperatures. Each body obviously does not know of the existence of the other before it releases its radiation.
The cold body obviously receives radiation from the hot body and therefore warms
The hot body obviously receives radiation from the cold body and therefore cools slower than if the cold body were at 0K.

Specification for a thermal imaging camera

http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/en/view/?id=41964

Imaging Performance
IR resolution 640 x 480 pixels
Spectral range 7.5 – 13 µm
Image frequency 30 Hz
Focus Automatic or manual
Focal Plane Array (FPA) Uncoooled microbolometer
Measurement
Temperature range -40°C to +500°C (optional up to +2000°C)
Environmental specifications
Operating temperature range -15 °C to +50 °C

This thermal imaging camera will operate at +50°C ambient This means the imagaging device (a micro bolometer array) is at at least 50°C since it is uncooled.
How can it measure -40°C when it is at 50°C?

How does a microbolometer work:
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-48/issue-04/features/microbolometer-arrays-enable-uncooled-infrared-camera.html

Modern microbolometers measure temperature changes caused by IR absorption in individual pixels, which are thermally isolated and assembled into focal-plane arrays (FPAs).
Each pixel in an array is a very low-mass IR-absorbing structure supported by thin legs, which limit heat conduction to the underlying substrate, as shown in Fig. 1. The lower the mass of the illuminated pixel, the less IR energy is needed to increase its temperature a given amount, and the more sensitive it is.


FIGURE 1. One pixel in a microbolometer array. An infrared-absorbing surface is elevated above the substrate and thermally isolated from adjacent pixels. Low mass increases the temperature change from heat absorption. Read-out circuits typically are in the base layer, which may be coated with a reflective material to reflect transmitted IR and increase absorption of the pixel.

Two classes of IR-absorbing materials are used in microbolometers. Pyroelectric or ferroelectric crystals generate electrical signals that are directly proportional to the temperature increase caused by IR absorption; the most common material now in use is barium-strontium titanate. Other materials act as thermistors, in which the electrical resistance changes with temperature. As in the original 19th century bolometer, measuring the resistance of a microbolometer pixel measures the incident IR intensity. The leading materials today are the semiconductors amorphous silicon and vanadium oxide (often abbreviated VOx), which are compatible with the standard semiconductor processing technology used to fabricate the read-out circuits that generate images.

 The sensitivity depends on how much the resistance or other electrical signal changes with temperature, and this depends on the absorbing material. The pixel response time also is important; absorbers should collect heat quickly and hold it long enough for measurement, then dissipate it before the next frame is recorded. A typical rule of thumb is that the time response should be no longer than one-third of the interval per frame, about 10 ms for a 3 Hz frame rate. Response time and performance also depend on the read-out integrated circuit (ROIC), which collects temperature data from all pixels for each frame. Noise usually is measured as noise-equivalent temperature difference (NETD), with lower being better, and 50 mK a desirable target.
=================

So there we have it the receiver plate is heated by the IR

Heat from the bolometer will be radiated away in all directions there can be NO imaging of the object from this radiation leaving the bolometer. Radiation leaves the bolometer before it knows where it will land so will be equal from all parts of the bolometer even if it eventually lands on a cooler object beyond the lens.

Unless you postulate negative energy rays (cold rays - this would be a new concept on me!) from the cold object that can be FOCUSED onto the bolometer then I cannot understand how statements suggesting that cold cannot heat warm can be a feature of the explaination of a bolometer’s operation.

If you assume normal physics applies then the thermal imaging camera can be understood.
Point the camera at 100°C the bolometer receives radiation focused on it and its temperature raises above its ambient.
Point the camera at 0K the bolometer receives no radiation so will stay at its ambient.
Point the camera at -20°C the bolometer receives radiation focused on it and its temperature will rise but too a lower value than in the 100°C case.
A -20°C object will therefore produce an image in the bolometer’s output

An Iceberg at night by IR 

.
Note that thermal imaging to give exact temperatures is not simple the emissivity of the object under inspection affects the temperature calculated. Also a IR reflective surface may actually show a temperature of a reflected object rather than the reflector

2012/04/28

Cloud effect on Temperature limited to 3 hour window

As below but now liminted to a 3 hour window around midday. Note expanded Cloud cover scale (uneven)




Here's one with same RH and Months as previous example (diff scale)

The effect seems to be modified by the RH. At a high humidity the clouds have a more negative effect whilst a low humidity - maximum is cooled while minimum is heated.

All data and excel sheets available on request!

Just how sensitive is temperature to cloud coverage

Data is from the same place as the other plots below:
http://www.nrel.gov/midc/srrl_bms/

NREL Solar Radiation Research Laboratory
Baseline Measurement System BMS
Latitude: 39.742o North Longitude: 105.18o West
Elevation: 1828.8 meters AMSL

Since the previous plots I have downloaded another 4 years of hourly date from 2004 onwards. This of course will give better results
The following plots show : Temperature (max/min) variation with opaque cloud coverage. The data is only counted if :
1. It falls within the month selected.
2. The humidity is within selected limits
3. The cloud coverage is within 5% selected boundary
4. It is sufficiently light that cloud coverage is measurable optically (daylight!)

Each "returned data " count refers to 1 hour slots within the time period selected (months) Some data plots shown are for very sparse data. Any plot point with one point is just about irrelevant and certainly shows no difference in max and min!

The returned data is the max and min for the resuts returned for that period and could therefore show a spurios figure.

Further limitations on time of day would remove the pick-up of minimum at dawn / max after midday.






















Dont Know where November went!

It seems that if it is cool then clouds warm even during the day
If it is hot then clouds cool.

Only one location, and very little data for each month but cloud effects on temperature seem not to be as negative (lower temps with more cloud) than others suggest.

Now if there was another 10 years of data from another location then a much better idea of the effect of clouds could be obtained.

2012/04/25

Nenana Ice Classic - The River has moved!

The Nenana Ice Classic is a Non-Profit Charitable Gaming Organisation run to provide funds for local charities.
Read about it here:
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com

The object is to guess the date and time the Tanana river ice breaks up. The contest has been running since 1916.
Obviously there are many variables other than global warming that affect the break up - industry up stream, pollution,etc. However, there is no possibility of climate scientists changing the data and so is a true representation of changes in the local environment.

The last few years has seen an increase in the time since beginning of the year for the break up. This year has seen a large drop to 3rd lowest date.

Two plots are shown below. One shows a 2 line fit to the data showing fits from 1916 to 1965 and from 1965 to date.
The second is showing 3 splits that last year showed a possible up-tick from 2005 onwards (now reversed)

2012/04/21

DLWIR Holding 2 parameters at the limit allowing sensible results

A couple of re-plots with less variation in the 2 other params. Also added a count of returned results for each measurement

Basically More cloud = less escaping radiation - not a lot of difference between total and opaque cloud coverage

But the biggest effect is from water vapour. With the small number of samples it looks as if the response is logarithmic with percentage relative humidity.


2012/04/16

Backradiation - fixing the effect of 2 variables plotting the third

Up to now I've plotted the effect of cloud coverage, humidity and temperature on the difference between DLWIR and ULWIR.

However these plots are not a simple xy since there may be a correlation between temperature/humidity and clouds.

To improve the plots it would be best to plot for example humidity vs dlwir/ulwir at a fixed temperature and cloud cover. The problem is there are too few corresponding points to get a meaningful result.

The following plots were made by inspecting plots and choosing a range of values for each parameter where the dlwir/ulwir change is minimal (about 10% or less)

As a trial cloud coverage was replotted at a much closer variation in the other 2 parameters - this shows a good correspondance with the wider variation but with increased variability.

It should be pointed out that the dlwir as a % of ulwir is a combination of at least all the 3 parameters considered. All that can be gleaned from these plots is the effect of variation of  one parameter whilst holding the others static.

It should be noted that cloud cover is only measured during daylight. All the plots below are therefore only relevant for daylight.








From the above it can be seen that the:

temperature effect is inconsistent and small
relative humidity is the largest effect - more humidity more DLWIR
Cloud cover is significant - more clouds more DLWIR


2012/04/15

The Effect of Humidity on Back Radiation

Continuing the same theme Here is the effect of changing Humidity (both relative and absolute) on the percentage of backradiation compared to upward radiation


Difficult finding a conversion between relative humidity (as measured) and absolute humidity.
the equation used for the above plot was:
abs humidity=1320.65/(273+T)*rh/100*10^(7.4475*(T+273-273.14)/(T+273-39.44))



So It looks as if the effects of cloud cover / temperature should only be made at fixed RH.

Yet more sums to do!

New Back Radiation Results

Continuing from the last 2 posts here is the effct of temperature on radiation.
Some at pseudo science stes suggest that all that is being measured by upward facing sensors is an effect of the local temperature.
If this were the case then warmer air would mean greater difference between upward and downward radiation - this is not seen




A repeat of the effect of cloud covage using DLWIR as a percentage of ULWIR instead of a simple difference