Earth as a Greenhouse

If you have problems understanding the science side of the (so called*) debate on Global Warming, consider Earth as a greenhouse**.

Whoops! It actually is!

Earth's global energy budget (PDF)
References: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, and J. Kiehl, 2009: Earth’s global energy budget (PDF). Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90, No. 3, 311-324,

Gases in the atmosphere that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases.

The USA’s Environmental Protection has an interesting webpage at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases that details the types of gases and their relative impact on Global Warming.

The most common and pervasive of these is, of course, Carbon Dioxide, known by its chemical designation CO2 and or the variation on that that is used by non-science types, CO2.

View the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2015 (published 2017), developed by the U.S. Government to meet U.S. commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Visit the public comments page to learn more about comments EPA received on the public review draft of the 1990-2015 GHG Inventory report.

Prior year versions of the GHG Inventory are available on the U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Archive page. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015

But, possibly unknown to the Administrator of EPA, the USA’s Department of Energy (DOE) has been working in the same area but with the objective of not only understanding sources and sinks of greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide, but with and eye to doing something about reducing it.

Here’s are some key links and a chart from the DOE website, Let’s hope that they don’t get “modified” in the pursuit of “political nonscience” – if this link vanishes, you’ll know – but in the interest of transparency we have copied the image and published it here.

The largest contributor to these emissions is from electricity production (73 percent).(click to learn more about sources and sinks)

The diagram depicting the stationary anthropogenic CO2 emissions by major industry is (from a DOE web page https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2).

WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF CO2?

Diagram depicting the stationary anthropogenic CO2 emissions by major industry.
The largest contributor to these emissions is from electricity production (73 percent).
(click to enlarge)

 Myth: Carbon dioxide comes only from anthropogenic sources, especially from the burning of fossil fuels.
Reality: Carbon dioxide comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources; natural sources are predominant.

Are the additional emissions of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere impacting the climate and environment?

To learn more, search the web! The search engine that doesn’t track you and use your preferences in their business is DuckDuckGo.com and their search results for a search on “greenhouse effect” is at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=greenhouse+effect&t=hf&ia=web.

_______________

*In a real debate both sides are assumed to be sincere. Most of the Global Warming critics deny proven science and few, if any, can provide reproducible, alternate scientific basis for their arguments. They just argue, the last bastion of obstructionism.

Thus, the deniers “side” is widely suspected of being not only insincere, but also biased against the facts in order to avoid taking needed action and denying only out of some other agenda than saving mankind’s future.

Recently some politicians in the USA have grudgingly agreed that the Earth is warming but continue the denial of man’s influence and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. Thus inaction persists in the USA and other countries with deniers in power. 

However the rest of the civilized world has better science educated populous and elected representatives and they are making an effort to help slow the effects of greenhouse gases.

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

About The Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) & More!

GCOS-aboutOnline — GCOS, the Global Climate Observing System, is a joint undertaking of:

  • The World Meteorological Organization (WMO),
  • The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
  • The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
  • The International Council for Science (ICSU).

 

Its goal is to provide comprehensive information on the total climate system, involving a multidisciplinary range of physical, chemical and biological properties, and atmospheric, oceanic, hydrological, cryospheric and terrestrial processes.

It is built on the WMO Integrated Global Observing System (WIGOS), the IOC-WMO-UNEP-ICSU Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-UNEP-UNESCO-ICSU Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) and a number of other domain-based and cross-domain research and operational observing systems.

It includes both in situ and remote sensing components, with its space based components coordinated by the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the Coordination Group for Meteorological Satellites (CGMS).

GCOS is intended to meet the full range of national and international requirements for climate and climate-related observations.

As a system of climate-relevant observing systems, it constitutes, in aggregate, the climate observing component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)

The Global Observing System is an extremely complex undertaking, and perhaps one of the most ambitious and successful instances of international collaboration of the last 100 years. It consists of a multitude of individual observing systems owned and operated by a plethora of national and international agencies with different funding lines, allegiances, overall priorities and management processes.

Learn more at: https://library.wmo.int/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=3417 ,  http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=AboutGCOS  and https://public.wmo.int/en/programmes.

 

The Use of Johnson’s Criteria for Thermal Infrared Camera & Systems Performance

Written by: Opgal staff writers  (August 03, 2017)

OPGAL Blog LinkOnline —  When customers are considering which thermal security camera or system to buy, one of the first questions asked of thermal imager manufacturers is usually: “At what distance can the IR camera detect a target?.

In other words, what is the camera’s ability to capture very small details at great distances?

When thinking about effective surveillance, it is indeed a good criterion to differentiate one sensor from another.

No matter which manufacturer you are buying from, the answer given to this question will almost always include the DRI ranges expression.

DRI refers to the distance at which a target can be Detected, Recognized, or Identified, based on certain universally accepted parameters.

In order to select the right sensor for your defense, security, or surveillance needs, these DRI ranges have to be, first, perfectly defined, but also assessed with regards to globally adopted industrial standards.

Enter: The Origin of Johnson’s Criteria

In 1958, at the first ever “Night Vision Image Intensifier Symposium”, John Johnson, a night vision scientist at the U.S. Army’s “Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate” (NVESD), presented a paper named the Analysis of Image Forming Systems”.

Johnson’s paper defined a clear system with criteria and methodology for predicting an observer’s ability to find and assess targets using image intensifying equipment (such as thermal cameras), under various conditions. It worked well, and it was the first of its kind.

Johnson’s Criteria Definitions

Johnson’s model provided definitive criteria for calculating the maximum range at which “Detection, Recognition, and Identification (D, R, I)” could take place, with a 50% probability of success. (Orientation was also discussed, but this parameter is not used or recognized today).

Although newer methodologies for D,R,I exist today, such as NVESD’s “Night Vision Image Performance Model” (NV-IPM), the “Johnson’s Criteria” system was groundbreaking for its time, was the accepted standard in the defense industry for many years, and is still widely used in the security industry today.

Detection

Johnson defined “Detection” as the ability to subtend 1 TV line pair (+/- 0.25 line pairs) across the critical dimension of the subject (this translates to 2 pixels when using an LCD monitor). At the range that this occurs, regardless of target type, the observer could detect that a subject was in the field of view, 50% of the time. Today, many security camera companies loosely follow Johnson’s Criteria and define their camera’s “Detection” performance range as the ability to subtend either 1.5 or 2 pixels on the target, using various target sizes.

Recognition

Johnson defined “Recognition” as the ability to subtend 4 TV line pairs (+/- 0.8 line pairs) across the critical dimension of the subject (this translates to 8 +/- 1 pixels when using an LCD monitor). At the range that this occurs, regardless of target type, the observer determines the type of subject, a human or a car for example, 50% of the time. Today many security camera companies typically define their cameras “Recognition” performance range as the ability to subtend 6 pixels on the target, using various target sizes.

Identification

Johnson defined “Identification” as the ability to subtend 6.4 TV line pairs (+/- 1.5 line pairs) across the critical dimension of the subject (this translates to 12 +/- 3 pixels when using an LCD monitor). At the range that this occurs, regardless of target type, the observer could detect the subject.

Today many security camera companies loosely follow Johnson’s Criteria and define their cameras “Identification” performance range as the ability to subtend 12 pixels on the target, using various target sizes.

Long range performance

Johnson’s Criteria in the Security Industry

DRI ranges, expressed in kilometers (or miles), can usually be found in the specification table of infrared camera brochures, or in a description of the cameras features. While a very helpful jumping off point for narrowing down the options and homing in on the best systems, customers would be doing themselves a disservice to only look at DRI.

This is because today the application of Johnson’s criteria varies somewhat across the security industry. In most instances, documentation uses simplified or modified versions of the criteria, but they do all generally follow similar rules.

Typically, most companies use twelve pixels on the target for identification, six for recognition, and two for detection (sometimes 1.5). However, the target size can vary greatly. Normally the defense industry “NATO” target size (2.3×2.3 meters) is used for calculating the performance range for detecting vehicles, but for a human target, various target sizes can be found.

It is important when selecting your thermal infrared camera to keep in mind that in any given document, the target size for a human can range from 1.7-1.83 meters tall and from 0.3- 0.75 meters wide, and factor this into your decision-making process.

The Need to look at the Bigger Picture

Because end-users often place a high value on the written specifications of the camera, marketing departments are under pressure to use performance calculations that make their cameras look better than the competitors. However, since these calculations typically do not take environmental factors into account, customers should ask their thermal camera providers to explain the other elements and benefits of each camera they are offering, and how they will perform in a variety of conditions.

A modified approach that considers parameters such as these can better help in choosing the right or system for your needs.

The post appeared first on OPGAL.com.

About Climate Data at Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth
Berkeley Earth – team meeting 6/25/2013. Clockwise starting in the lower left: Saul Perlmutter, Pamela Hyde, Richard Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Arthur Rosenfeld, Don Groom, Steven Mosher, Zeke Hausfather, Elizabeth Muller, Robert Rohde.

Online — Berkeley Earth (http://berkeleyearth.org) was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics.

They organized organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012.

Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner.

The first four were potential biases from (1) data selection, (2) data adjustment, (3) poor station quality, and (4) the urban heat island effect.

Their analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. More details on the website’s About Page at: http://berkeleyearth.org/about/

Overview of findings: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings.

Air Pollution Overview

Some Other Berkeley Earth Website Content

Berkeley Earth Blog

Learn more

Berkeley Earth has published five scientific papers setting out the main conclusions of the study to date:

  1. A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011
  2. Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process (commonly referred to as the “Methods” paper) and its appendix
  3. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
  4. Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the United States
  5. Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures

The Berkeley Earth team is making these preliminary results public, together with the analysis programs and data set in order to invite additional scrutiny as part of the peer review process.

You can also look up the temperature record by location (city, country, etc.).

 

The Significance of Thermowells

Consider relevant factors and standards

Thermowell Drawing
Thermowell Drawing
Courtesy ISA InTech

Online — In a May/June 2013 article in InTech Magazine Basics of thermowell design and selection”, author Ehren Kiker describes why thermowells are important and how their key parameters can be determined for a particular use situation.

The article begins:

“When planning for a temperature measurement application, a fair amount of consideration is typically given to sensor selection (e.g., thermocouple vs. RTD) and wiring of the output (e.g., transmitter vs. direct wiring), and how these factors will affect the measurement. Often, by comparison, relatively little consideration is given to the mechanical components of the sensor assembly, particularly the thermowell.

“Of all the components in a typical temperature assembly, a thermowell would seem to be the simplest and least critical. In reality, the thermowell is fundamentally important because it directly and significantly affects the life span of the sensor and accuracy of the measurement. It also protects the closed process, providing plant and personnel safety.”

Click here to read the full article now.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ehren Kiker (ehren.kiker@us.endress.com) is a product manager with Endress+Hauser with more than 15 years of experience in process control instrumentation.

Intech MagazineInTech Magazine provides the most thought-provoking and authoritative coverage of automation technologies, applications, and strategies to enhance automation professionals’ on-the-job success.

There is much more online at: https://www.isa.org/standards-and-publications/isa-publications/intech-magazine/.

About ISA

The International Society of Automation (www.isa.org) is a nonprofit professional association that sets the standard for those who apply engineering and technology to improve the management, safety, and cybersecurity of modern automation and control systems used across industry and critical infrastructure.\

Wake Frequency Calculator by TempSens Instrument

Plus two additional Calculators

Wake_Frequency_CalculatorAn online resource calculator for estimating the Wake Frequency of a thermowell in a flowing stream.

According to the website:

“TEMPSENS WAKE FREQUENCY CALCULATOR is easy to use and it also ensures that thermowell is designed within the dimensional limits of PTC19.3, 2010. This calculator establishes the practical design considerations for Thermowell installations in power and process piping, which also incorporates the latest theory in the areas of natural frequency, Strouhal frequency, in-line resonance and stress evaluation.”

The program is “FREE” and can be distributed to other users, this was developed for Tempsens internal use and then we have now a lot of customers requesting for a copy of this program. Please give your inputs for improvement in the program.

Visit: http://www.tempsens.com/softwares.html

The same web page provides a Temperature Calculator to convert the Emf (mV)/Ohms generated by thermocouple & RTD to the temperature or vice versa as well as a SPRT Calculator to provide the ITS-90 coefficients for the set of resistance readings provided on the fixed point cell.

Resistance Thermometry (Continued) – Lecture 16

The Eighth Lecture in the 11 Lecture Sub-Series on Temperature Measurement.

Also online at youtu.be/JWf70GDo7Rc and NPTEL at: nptel.iitm.ac.in/video.php?subjectId=112106138.


Lecturers for these videos are Prof. Shunmugam M. S., Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras.(email: shun@iitm.ac.in) and.Prof. S.P. Venkateshan, Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras (email: spv@iitm.ac.in).

Numbers after the lecture title indicate the length of the lecture in (hh:mm:ss) format. You can appreciate from the list and times shown, this is about a 50 hour course, equivalent to a substantial opportunity to learn the topics in significant depth.

Lectures in this course: 50

– Syllabus: PDF.

Measurement of Transient Temperature and Resistance Thermometry – Lecture 15

The Seventh Lecture in the 11 Lecture Sub-Series on Temperature Measurement.

Also online at youtu.be/KgRB6d8erGE and NPTEL at:nptel.iitm.ac.in/video.php?subjectId=112106138.


Lecturers for these videos are Prof. Shunmugam M. S., Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras.(email: shun@iitm.ac.in) and.Prof. S.P. Venkateshan, Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras (email: spv@iitm.ac.in).

Numbers after the lecture title indicate the length of the lecture in (hh:mm:ss) format. You can appreciate from the list and times shown, this is about a 50 hour course, equivalent to a substantial opportunity to learn the topics in significant depth.

Lectures in this course: 50

– Syllabus: PDF.

Errors in Temperature Measurement – Lecture 14

The Sixth Lecture in the 11 Lecture Sub-series on Temperature Measurement.

Also online at youtu.be/w3KbN3n7hSc and NPTEL at: nptel.iitm.ac.in/video.php?subjectId=112106138.

Lecturers for these videos are Prof. Shunmugam M. S., Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras.(email: shun@iitm.ac.in) and.Prof. S.P. Venkateshan, Department of Mechanical Engineering , IIT Madras (email: spv@iitm.ac.in).

Numbers after the lecture title indicate the length of the lecture in (hh:mm:ss) format. You can appreciate from the list and times shown, this is about a 50 hour course, equivalent to a substantial opportunity to learn the topics in significant depth.

Lectures in this course: 50

– Syllabus: PDF.

NASA | Taking Earth’s Temperature

A short video explaining how researchers use computer models to study climate change.

For more information visit http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/ClimateEssen…

NASA has compiled a multimedia resource collection for editors and producers developing climate-related stories. Taking Earths Temperature is one of the many resources included in the gallery.

Organized by topic, the videos, data visualizations, conceptual animations, and print-resolution images illustrate key concepts and discoveries in climate science. The compilation also features ten of NASAs most popular climate visualizations.

The gallery can be found at NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/ClimateEssentials

­ and NASA’s Global Climate Change site (http://climate.nasa.gov/ClimateReel). Images and videos can be downloaded directly from those pages and may also be available by request.

Want more? Subscribe to NASA on iTunes!
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZ…

Or get tweeted by NASA:
http://twitter.com/NASAGoddard

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!