Global Precipitation Mission ready for launch today

February 27th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

GPM-HIIa-ready-for-launch The GPM core satellite has been rolled out on its H-IIA launch vehicle to the launch pad at Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan for a 12:37 p.m. CST launch. It has a 1 hour launch window (12:37 to 1:37 p.m. CST).

The launch of GPM was delayed about a half hour due to slight concerns over a possible collision with the International Space Station, since its ~400 km altitude orbit will be very similar to the ISS.

Here’s the NASA TV coverage, which has some nice animations, spacecraft integration video, and will go live as launch approaches:

UPDATE: The GPM core satellite has reached orbit and the solar arrays have been deployed. So far so good.


149 Responses to “Global Precipitation Mission ready for launch today”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Great! I’m glad to hear the ADL has given their go ahead for final countdown and launch. Thanks Abe!

    • Fonzie says:

      You know, I’ve got this theory that it was Doug who sent Supak here the last couple days just to make us appreciate Doug more. (as in, here’s what a REAL obnoxious commenter is like) And you know what? It just may have worked…

      • Massimo PORZIO has the right approach to Scott Supak going forward. I’m adopting it.

        I don’t consider D o u g malicious. Determined? Yes. Repetitive and redundant? Yes. But not malicious.

        That Scott character, per google research, reveals he just likes to fight and brawl. If you check his website out, he likes to argue with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Who does that? They’re very sweet and non-threatening people. I don’t have a problem with them; live and let live. But Scott and his friend like to pick on them and bully them which is pretty lousy and cowardly, if you ask me. Especially considering their history of persecution.

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005433

        The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah’s Witnesses for persecution because they refused, out of religious conviction, to swear loyalty to a worldly government or to serve in its armed forces. Jehovah’s Witnesses also engaged in missionary activity to win adherents for the faith. The Nazis perceived the refusal to commit to the state and efforts to proselytize as overtly political and subversive acts. Unlike Jews and Roma (Gypsies), whom the Nazis targeted for perceived racial reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses had the option to avoid persecution and personal harm by submitting to state authority and serving in the armed forces. Since such submission would violate their religious beliefs, the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to abandon their faith even in the face of persecution, torture in concentration camps, or death.

        I saw several examples in that google research where he was calling people out for a physical fightthe same thing he was pulling in the ADL thread where he says something to the effect of “come to my place, you know where to find me, and tell me I’m pimping my Online Gambling operation.”

        Also, from that search I now know he’s 6′ 1″ and 210 lbs. I didn’t really want to know that, but he felt compelled to tell the world his measurements. He also indicated that he hangs with mercenaries and “biker-types.” Wow, that’s so coolbecause, you know, a Motley Crew like that is all about Gay and Women’s Rightsafter they’re done beating and raping them, that is. Then they can have all the rights they wantthe gays and the ladies.

        Satire writ large. I can’t improve on it. It came out perfect right out of the oven.

      • Ritchie Cunningham says:

        Supak even managed to make Appell look good…

  2. Dou g Co t t on says:

    Precipitation holds the key to the answer to the trillion dollar question which is “Does gravity induce an autonomous temperature gradient in all solids, liquids and gases?”

    Josef Loschmidt first postulated that it would in the 19th century. Dr Hans Jelbring worked on it for his PhD and published a paper about a decade back. Now physicists are starting to realise that it is indeed a reality, and this can be shown using the Second Law of Thermodynamics in conjunction with Kinetic Theory.

    But, most compelling of all is the empirical evidence which I have presented in a book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” being released late April. Temperature and precipitation records are used to show that regions with higher precipitation do in fact have lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

    This means water vapour cools. And this is evidence that gravity produces a “dry” gradient (aka lapse rate) at the molecular level (not requiring a hot surface or upward convection) and water vapour then reduces that gradient (as is well known) due to inter-molecular radiation (not well known) and this leads to lower surface temperatures.

    As a result, the greenhouse is smashed.

  3. Yes!
    More data on relevant weather/climate parameters. :-)

  4. Dou g Co t t on says:

    The results of the study to which I referred above are here and the conclusion is that water vapour cools, and so the greenhouse conjecture (based on it warming) is rendered false.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Doug, — Apples and walnuts.

      Water evaporates (heat of evaporation) then it rises and condenses, releasing that heat high in the atmosphere when it turns to water or ice.

      It is phase change energy and has nothing to do with ‘Greenhouse’ gases and IR.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        The IPCC wants you to believe that deserts have lower mean temperatures than rain forests at similar altitudes and latitudes – a lot lower because they may have less than 20% of the rainfall and perhaps less than 20% of the most prolific so-called greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

        Have you ever seen a study similar to mine that shows what the IPCC claims? Out of all the billions spent on “research” has anyone considered spending perhaps $5,000 on a similar research study based on readily available data on temperature, precipitation, altitude and latitude for inland tropical cities in their warmest month when the Sun passes almost directly overhead? I selected such cities at altitudes less than 1,200m and then adjusted temperatures slightly to what a typical “lapse rate” would indicate they would be at 600m altitude, so I was not comparing “apples and walnuts.”

        Your discussion of the water cycle is not very relevant to the effect that water vapour has upon the thermal gradient due to inter-molecular radiation. It has a similar effect on the thermal gradient in the Earth’s outer crust. Methane has a similar effect reducing the thermal gradient in the troposphere of Uranus, though only by about 5% because there’s not much of it out there. You see, you have not the slightest idea about what’s in my hypothesis in the book.

        But do please find me some attempted “proof” to support the IPCC contention that water vapour causes higher surface temperatures, because all the real world evidence I can find shows the exact opposite.

      • Ball4 says:

        D o u g C o t t o n 4:02pm: “…please…find me…proof to support the IPCC contention…”

        When correct method was suggested, you offered no reply on 1st GPM core obs. thread, I won’t repeat here. For the support “proof” details please refer Bohren 1998 text on Atm. Thermo. sec. 7.1 page 366 where the correct calculations for the air column data over two city sites (desert and not) are properly done for you to adopt. You miss the need to calculate the water vapor (wv) content from the precipitable water observed in the columns, thus get inaccurate site comparisons and draw physically wrong conclusions.

        Possibly this new GPM satellite will improve the precipitable water observed for better wv data you can then eventually use properly to get physically correct answers now that you know where to find & learn how to do the dry to wet site studies accurately thereby draw physically correct conclusions.

        • Do ug C o tt o n says:

          Using just two cities is nothing but anecdotal. See the data for the 15 cities in my study and I’m sure you could cherry pick two that would show an opposite result. My results are statistically significant, whereas theirs are not.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g C o t t o n 2:24am: “Using just two cities is nothing but anecdotal.”

            Concur. The work cited was meant to develop the correct science/method. Apply the correct text book method cited to your city selections; inform what you find. I’m interested. Show your work. Show enough to be statistically significant and provide proper confidence intervals (CIs).

            Perhaps the new GPM satellite data can be used to eventually narrow your CIs.

        • Do ug C o tt o n says:

          Well Ball4 now that you’ve drawn my attention to that comment, I have answered, and I’ve also dismantled all other arguments you put forward on that previous thread. So I invite silent readers to browse the new comments therein.

          • gbaikie says:

            It seems to me oceans are warmer than land, or oceans warm
            land more than land warms ocean.
            Or average temperature of the ocean at any latitude is warmer
            than land.
            I don’t know if you despite this or whether it’s related
            to your study.

            But your point is you say the radiant effect of H20 gas is it doesn’t increase and may decrease average temperature.

            It appears rather obvious that H20 [whether gas or droplets]
            inhibts/blocks direct sunlight.
            So we have 1360 watts above atmosphere and on clear clear and
            noon we get about 1000 watts.
            Or H20 takes a large chunk out of solar spectrum as observed at the earth’s surface.
            So this is just:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

            And appears just nitrogen which majority of atmosphere also
            prevent a portion of the missing 360 watts from directly
            reaching the surface.
            And if sun passes thru more atmosphere, by being at lower angle above horzion and therefore needing to go thru more of
            the atmosphere that even larger portions of the sunlight
            it blocked by clear skies. So thereby needing to go thru more majority nitrogen atmosphere and of course more H20.

            But anyways, the fact that H20 blocks some direct sunlight
            indicates that H20 has what one could say is cooling effect.

            But seems this rather obvious aspect about H20 is again, not what you are talking about.
            Is this correct, that incoming radiation is not what you mean?

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Gbaikie

            Gravity acting on an isolated system comprising only non-radiating gas(es) causes a thermal gradient that is calculated by equating kinetic energy gain and the loss of gravitational potential energy. M.g.H = -M.Cp.T so the gradient T/H = -g/Cp.

            But, intermolecular radiation has a temperature levelling effect working against the gravity gradient and reducing it usually no more than about a third. On Earth water vapour reduces it about a third. On Uranus a sprinkling of methane reduces it by only about 5%, whilst on Venus carbon dioxide reduces it by very approximately 20%.

            Because the gradient is reduced, the temperature plot rotates such that radiative balance is maintained and the surface temperature is lower.

          • gbaikie says:

            Re:
            D o u g C o t t o n says:
            March 2, 2014 at 4:37 AM

            So it seems, you think a change of lapse rate would effect average temperatures at the surface air.

            I just don’t see it this way.

            Do you suppose that a lapse rate would affect the surface air temperature if the atmosphere were pure nitrogen?

            I think there would be lapse rate with a pure nitrogen atmosphere, but don’t see it effecting the surface temperature.
            I think of lapse rate is a result [what gases do in gravity] rather than causal factor. Obviously if air temperature decrease 5 C per km, rather than 7 C per km, then higher elevation would be warmer- so it is causing it warmer at higher elevation, but other than that, I don’t see it doing much.
            Since Earth is mostly ocean and ocean tends to have zero elevation- and ocean would tend to be wet lapse rate, it doesn’t seem like it’s particularly relevant to average global temperature
            Though it seem one could have a world where is might be more important. Or because terrain it could important in terms of weather and regionally.

            If had a world completely covered in water- that changes the lapse rate, but would the change in lapse rate, cause it to be warmer or cooler?
            I think that world would be warmer, but not because of a change in lapse rate.

            So remove water and have perfectly round sphere, and you can choose a lapse rate of 5 or 10 C per 1000 meter elevation.
            The 5 C per 1000 meter has total atmosphere which is warmer, and therefore more warmth at night. But other than that I don’t see what it’s doing- though I suppose that could be all that is meant.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Gbaikie

            The answers to all your questions are already in my book and were in the paper that appeared a year ago but has been withdrawn for reasons already explained in another comment below. I’m not reproducing over 20 pages here, complete with diagrams and pictures – OK?

          • gbaikie says:

            ” Im not reproducing over 20 pages here, complete with diagrams and pictures OK?”

            That not just ok, but I don’t want that to read that much on internet.
            I tend write long posts because lack to ability to write
            them shorter- not because I think it’s good idea in general to write long posts.
            I thought I had provided enough wordage to explain what
            my question.
            How about if Earth without “whatever” kind lapse rate,
            were cooler [or warmer], would the “right” lapse rate
            change it to being warmer [or cooler].
            As said I think of lapse rate as consequence rather a cause
            of warming or cooling.

            Or different way to say this is some people seem to think the mere existence of a lapse rate- proves the theory of global warming or Greenhouse Effect.
            And it seems to be you are saying the radiant effects of “greenhouse gases” have some significant effect on lapse rate.
            And I don’t. So how much affect do you mean- 1 C, 10 C or more.
            Far as degree or how much, the thermal gradient in solar pond, is the entire explanation of why denser salty water
            below surface can become 80 C or warmer. Or why it’s 50 C
            warmer rather than about the same temperature as the surface. So that thermal gradient and explains the whole
            deal about solar pond- and it has nothing to do with
            radiant effects of water molecules- rather it’s about conduction and convection- and the heat capacity of water.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go to this comment.

        • Do ug C o tt o n says:

          And besides, Ball4, the study is based on means of data which usually spanned 30 years. I’m not waiting around for 30 years’ GPM data.

          Furthermore, I quote this point from my book …

          “It is appreciated that rainfall may not be an accurate indicator of the thermal gradient, but neither would relative humidity be any better, because suspended water droplets also play a part in reducing the gradient, as does the release of latent heat when it rains.”

          Now I will continue this discussion, Ball4, if you succeed in answering the question about how the energy gets into the Venus surface to raise its temperature by 5 degrees. If you start talking about radiation providing the energy then you display no understanding at all of the thermodynamics involved, because no atmosphere can multiply the insolation 5 to 10 times. Only about 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaches the Venus surface. Radiation from its colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface.

        • Ball4 says:

          D o u g C o t t o n 3:39am: “Radiation from its colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the hotter surface.

          Correct; meaning nature does this by the added mean global ~17W/m^2 solar flux – radiation integrated over the spectrum – deposited at Venus surface from the sun when it comes up at Venus dawn raising the temperature your 5 degrees compared night time. The Venus system enables this process by having no true atm. windows at IR wavelengths .GT. ~3 μm.

          On Earth, this new satellite in top post will enable better global precipitation study, an important component of surface mean temperature. And a big component in whether I wear rain gear or snow gear on the way to the library to look up atm. thermo. science stuff on certain days. You should make similar trip more often too, I observe you will also benefit.

          To save the trip & reduce time spent, the cite I gave is available on line for ref. & improvement in your study if your google-fu is strong. The physical book should be on your shelf for ref. if you want to improve your science writing past simple assertions.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Now I know that you, Ball4, have no understanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You seem to think 17W/m^2 into the Venus surface can overpower more than 16,000W/m^2 coming out. What formal education do you have in physics?

            My response to your 11.26am comment was already written in my 3:39am comment.

            Douglas J Cotton, B.Sc.(Physics), B.A. (Economics), Dip.Bus.Admin.

            Subsequent private study and tutoring of university physics students ever since the 1960′s.

          • Ball4 says:

            A certain B.Sc.(Physics) writes 2:58 PM: “(Ball4) seem(s) to think 17W/m^2 into the Venus surface can overpower more than 16,000W/m^2 coming out.”

            I think nothing of the sort. You will want to translate this elegant Stefan 1879 paper that somewhat precedes yours to in part find out why your youth was so misspent:

            “About the relationship between the thermal radiation and temperature, in: Proceedings of the mathematics and science class of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.”

            http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf

            The S-B Law (SBL) started therein is simple elegance being the total radiant energy for the messy Planck function obtained by its integration over all frequencies. And the Planck function contains not one, not two, but three constants of nature. You don’t get much more fundamental than that. It is truly astonishing that your education left this for you to learn on a great blog about rocket science, a new satellite measuring precipitation. You may want to negotiate a refund, with interest.

            Let’s apply SBL correctly using your near surface ~numbers for Venus. This way I won’t lose you by being too technical. Just before dawn on Venus, local equilibrium mean surface T around 732K from balanced 16 kW/m^2 up from the dirt and 16 kW/m^2 down from the atm. The sun rises. What then?

            Mean 17 W/m^2 down from much higher temperature sun is superposed on mean 16kW/m^2 down from mean cooler than surface atmosphere & total incoming is now .GT. 16 kW/m^2 up from dirt. Total radiant energy 16,017 W/m2 in and 16,000 W/m^2 out.

            There is an energy imbalance of 17W/m^2 from a higher temperature (solar) source, incoming energy is .GT. outgoing energy (remember this total radiant energy from integration across the spectrum), the temperature at the surface begins to rise another 5K to your 737K where equilibrium balance occurs once again, energy in = energy out using your numbers. Until the sun sets, reversing the real entropy increasing process.

            This is not exactly rocket science like the picture in the top post, just use a little thinking power after translating the above paper. And knowing all objects .GT. 0K radiate across the spectrum (what did I just teach you). Pop quiz will happen if not tracking this yet.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Only the electro-magnetic energy in radiation from a warmer source is converted to thermal energy in a cooler target, and this only occurs if the Planck function for the target is fully contained within the area under the Planck function for the source adjusted for distance from the source and any other attenuation.

            Unless the incident radiative flux exceeds the flux from the target there will be no transfer of thermal energy from the source, even if hotter than the target. (Only the radiative cooling rate for the target is slowed.) The area between the Planck function of the target and the attenuated Planck function for the source represents the one-way transfer of thermal energy.

            Consequently, radiation from a colder atmosphere can never raise the temperature of a warmer planetary surface.

            For more detail see my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (March 2012) easily found on Google but not able to be linked from here.

            The radiation from the atmosphere to the Venus surface can only slow radiative cooling. It cannot cause any increase in temperature of the surface. The 17W/m^2 from the Sun cannot increase the temperature of the surface either, because it would have to be a flux of well over 17,000W/m^2 to do so.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Readers will see how little understanding Ball4 has of planetary energy budgets when they realise that (in his comment above) he has left out all the transfer by convection of energy from the 732K Venus surface.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 5:28am: “Only the electro-magnetic energy in radiation from a warmer source is converted to thermal energy in a cooler target…”

            This physics hypothesis is proved wrong by experiment as I already told you – unopened bank vaults don’t explode from photons building up that are unabsorbed, unconverted to thermal energy. There is no hope for your hypothesis if it fails the 2nd law as this does, entropy must & always increase in real processes. Here you describe a process that does not increase entropy in the universe. So your hypothesized process can’t really exist in nature. Bank vaults are safe. Pun intended. You can put your cash money in them.

            “The 17W/m^2 from the Sun cannot increase the temperature of the surface either..”

            There is no hope for your hypothesis gaffe since it fails the 2nd law – this one even fails the 1st law. Writing you out a ticket denominated in grins and laughs from unlawful posting. Repeat offenses result in ever higher laughter fines.

            6:45am: “..(Ball4) has left out all the transfer by convection of energy…”

            Transfer to where exactly? On Venus, energy convected up is dumped in the atm. radiation energy budget. Not to deep space. Just like on Earth & Uranus et. al. Laughter fine assessed. You know, I am beginning to anticipate the comedy from your new book. Laying in the popcorn supply. Who cares about the Oscars.

  5. Michelle Griffin says:

    Dr. Spencer,

    I didn’t realize we had such brilliance here in Huntsville. I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh (Feb 28th, 2014) and he mentioned your efforts in correcting views on Global Warming… it was in regards to a new report coming out that states there will be an increase in rapes due to Global Warming. I am proud to have you here in Huntsville and anytime you have a speaking engagement here in Huntsville, I would be honored to come and listen.

    Sincerely,

    Michelle Griffin
    Alabama Science & Engineering Fair
    Special Awards Coordinator

    • Gail Combs says:

      WOW, They are really reaching with that study.

      I guess it means we ladies will all have to get our concealed carry permits.

      {:>)

    • bernie says:

      I am amazed because – according to Cole Porter – it will be “Too Darn Hot!”

  6. Lewis Guignard says:

    Interesting to use crime and AGW or just GW. Most violent crime happens when it is nice out; not too cold, not too hot. So does this study indicate AGW, or GW, is just leading to nice weather? If so, I’m all for it. We can deal with the crime. Put em in jail. Obviously they’re aren’t enough people in the US in jail already.

    In other news; it is also shown that higher abortion rates lead to less crime. Does AGW offset that? Are they related? Who pays for these studies? Me?

  7. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    That’s so nice of you “Cold” to tell them all I’m not malicious. But do you come from a “cold” desert, or are you getting warmer in your search for the truth about carbon dioxide?

    Perhaps we could have a discussion about thermodynamics and my study which shows why there is no warming effect, but instead a cooling effect from the greenhouse gas water vapour which causes all the precipitation we are talking about on this thread – which doesn’t appear to me to be much about JW’s or other cults like LDS and SDA’s that pretend to be Christian. People can read about Christianity on my site here if they wish but it’s not the topic of the thread – OK?

  8. I suspect if things keep progressing (or is it regressing) in the Ukraine the way they have been, this satellite won’t be the only thing launched. This thing could get out of control quickly, and the only thing left will be the satellitesdoing what they were designed to do until they run out of steam. Make sure you have the Pentobarbital ready when the rockets fly; it’s something you don’t want to be around to witness. Just ask the Hibakusha.

  9. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    Roy and everyone

    Ball4 has displayed a serious misunderstanding of not only the physics in my writings, but also basic radiation concepts, where he thinks a mere 17W/m^2 of incident radiation up against over 16,000W/m^2 of outward radiation from the Venus surface at 732K could somehow raise the surface temperature.

    Then he thinks that perhaps a torch left on inside a safe would cause it to explode, because he imagines the pseudo scattering of radiation causes a pressure build up, thus creating energy.

    Finally, he does not understand the concept of a troposphere which can approach isentropic conditions but then not increase entropy further. This would be very strange, because if it could then Uranus and Venus would have cooled right down by now. I replied to this misunderstanding here and if any reader has any questions about my reply I’d be happy to discuss such.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g C o t t o n 6:43 PM: “Then (Ball4) thinks that perhaps a torch left on inside a safe would cause it to explode…”

      Vault actually. Is this like playing one of those D&D games: “You enter the vault. There is a blowtorch initialed DJC on the floor.” Now I know where dragon comes from (the 2nd D).

      Your blowtorch is simply the hypothesized “pseudo scattering of radiation” piling up after having been emitted by the walls (elegant SBL !) and, in your misspent physics youth, not ever being absorbed by those same walls. If I am more technical, I am sure I will lose you.

      “..the concept of a troposphere which can approach isentropic conditions but then not increase entropy further.”

      So now we have a real process, the troposphere, obeying the 2nd law by increasing entropy until a certain point where it stops obeying the 2nd law and then what D o u g? The troposphere becomes unreal i.e.isentropic? Like in a D&D game where the wizard waves the wand? No, the troposphere is real, the rocket in the top post will fly through it just fine (it did!) to get to the stratosphere and nothing disappears, or becomes unreal in the tropospheres of Earth, Venus, Uranus et. al.

      …Uranus…would have cooled right down by now…7:11pm: If you dont understand the physics of the Uranus troposphere…

      We should send a rocket payload to Uranus also. Here is good beginning paper on Uranus, be sure to read its cites too, then the current thinking next one; further study will advance your understanding that Uranus hasn’t had time to cool down any further than we measure now in the age of the solar system. Note the 1st one has est. adiabatic lapse rate and other data comparos done for you (I know you won’t look them up on your own):

      http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/papers/Stone_1975a.pdf
      http://uranus.sciencesconf.org/conference/uranus/Bookelet.pdf

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        Neither of the papers you cite explain how the temperature gradient actually forms and why thermal energy is trapped as a result. There are no calculations of the -g/Cp value, such as I have posted in an earlier comment.

        One paper is dated 1974 and does not have anything like the subsequently determined values for the temperature gradient in the troposphere, or even a satisfactory analysis of the atmospheric composition which is necessary for determining the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, as I have done in the calculations I have posted for the temperature gradient in the troposphere.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        You can waffle all you like about entropy increasing, but the facts are that the whole Venus troposphere and its surface cool by about 5 degrees during its 4-month night. Then they warm again by the same amount during the Venus day. So there is less entropy by the end of the day, due to an increase in entropy in the Sun itself.

        The warming requires thermal energy input and that does not come primarily from direct Solar radiation reaching the surface. Even any back radiation resulting from that new supply of energy reaching the surface could not be more than 17W/m^2 because you can’t create energy out of nothing. The very hot surface cools at night both by radiation and sensible heat transfer, the latter being by molecular collisions at the surface-atmosphere boundary.

        You have not answered correctly how the required thermal energy actually gets into the Venus surface.

  10. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    If you don’t understand the physics of the Uranus troposphere, then you cannot understand the complete picture for Earth’s troposphere. For a very brief explanation of the observed temperatures for Uranus please see this comment. There is a far more comprehensive explanation, complete with diagrams, in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” due out in April.

    I would prefer to keep future discussion, if any, to this point.

    • gbaikie says:

      “There is no convincing evidence of any internal energy generation, and my hypothesis does not depend on such. ”

      But the universe is filled with radioactive material- so
      obviously there is some internal energy from this.

      There is also heat remaining from planetary formation.
      Or both radioactive decay and planetary formation is part
      of why most of mass of earth is very hot. Though moon’s tidal energy is factor with Earth.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        There is trapped “heat” as you call it (actually thermal energy) which may have originated at formation. But planets are not still cooling, as we can see by the fact that Venus warms back up again by 5 degrees every Venus day.

        Uranus is unique in that there is no convincing evidence of internal energy generation – certainly not enough to maintain a 5,000K temperature in the core.

        Our own Moon could easily have cooled right down in its core, but that core is maintained at a much higher temperature than the surface by the gravitationally-induced thermal gradient beneath the surface, just as are temperatures in Earth’s crust, mantle and core.

        If there is not enough internally generated energy in a planet’s core, then the extra energy required to maintain its temperature comes from the Sun.

        Amazing, isn’t it? That’s why you will find my book interesting because it explains how this happens based on the Second law of Thermodynamics.

      • gbaikie says:

        “There is trapped heat as you call it (actually thermal energy) which may have originated at formation. But planets are not still cooling, as we can see by the fact that Venus warms back up again by 5 degrees every Venus day. ”

        Earth warms more 5 degree each Earth day, but this is unrelated to whether earth is still cooling.

        “Geophysicists believe that heat flows from Earth’s interior into space at a rate of about 44 1012 W (TW). What is not clear, however, is how much of this heat is primordial left over from the formation of the Earth and how much is generated by radioactive decay. ”
        and:
        “One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth’s heat energy,” says KamLAND collaborator Stuart Freedman of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. “Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from another source is an unanswered question.”
        http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat

        I would with Earth large amount is from radioactive decay and a significant amount is primordial- left over from formation.
        And some is tidal.
        And I would think it’s reasonable that various planets have
        different percentages of radioactive decay vs primordial.
        And due to Earth high density it should have more of it’s
        energy as radioactive decay. Or since I tend to believe in the Giant impact hypothesis:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
        I believe got another planetary core and/or Moon gave most
        of it’s to Earth. Or may have less radioactive decay as percentage total output of planetary heat But also Moon is
        1/80th of Earth mass, and smaller bodies probably don’t retain much of the heat from it formation- despite it being mostly formed 4.5 billion years ago- or it was completely molten 4.5 billion years ago.

        Venus on the other hand is considered to have very, very young surface which could have been completely molten somewhere around 100 million years ago. Or in terms of having it’s entire surface covered with lava, I don’t know of any planetary body in the Sol system which could have have it’s entire surface molten so recently. Though perhaps, Io might be such a candidate.

        I like to think of Venus as mini/dwarf gas giant, of course
        it very small compared to other gas/ice giants.
        Uranus is about 14 times more massive than Earth or Venus
        and has such a huge atmosphere that one has good cause to question why I like to think of Venus as dwarf gas giant.

        But in addition to it’s massive atmosphere it has rocky liquid core about 9 times larger than Earth or Venus and due large planetary surface [rather than the atmosphere] one question why I would call Venus a mini-gas giant, perhaps a mini-mini gas giant. Though seems if Venus were beyond Jupiter, it could gained more atmosphere and more mass in general over billions of years. But until time as we happen to find a mini gas giant and compare it to Venus, I will continue to regard Venus as such animal.
        Anyways, since gas giant are so massive and have such low density [indicates lower percentage of heavy elements- though any of them may have more radioactive material then Earth has though without question it has much lower percent of entire mass] I think they have higher percent of their
        primordial as compared to radioactive heat.

        • DougCotton says:

          Sorry gbaikie, but you are incorrect in thinking Uranus has significant net outward energy flux at TOA. Its solid core is thought to be only 55% the mass of Earth, but there is no evidence of continual contraction of the planet, as with Jupiter, and so no significant generation of energy due to conversion of gravitational potential energy in the collapsing process.

          So, why is the Uranus core still 5,000K? After all, Venus cools by 5 degrees in just four months on the dark side. So why has it not cooled right down? Where are your “calculations” showing why the temperature of the Venus surface then increases by 5 degrees in its 4-month-long daytime? This (and other questions) have been asked in my various comments, but you can start by trying to explain the additional flux of about 450W/m^2 between that for 737K and that for 732K, bearing in mind the Sun delivers only about 20W/m^2 at the surface, because all the carbon dioxide absorbs nearly all the incident solar radiation, keeping the surface cooler than it would otherwise have been.

  11. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    Roy

    You wrote here

    6) The tropospheric temperature lapse rate would not exist without the greenhouse effect. While it is true that convective overturning of the atmosphere leads to the observed lapse rate, that convection itself would not exist without the greenhouse effect constantly destabilizing the lapse rate through warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere. Without the destabilization provided by the greenhouse effect, convective overturning would slow and quite possible cease altogether. The atmosphere would eventually become isothermal … “

    That is not backed up by valid physics, Roy, because maximum entropy occurs when there are isentropic conditions, and that implies a thermal gradient. The lack of a surface and any significant energy input at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere supports what I am saying.

    You then say at the end of your “Misunderstood …” article

    “Ill be happy to post corrections/additions to the above list as warranted.”

    Well it’s time to be “happy” Roy, because it’s not carbon dioxide after all as you should now admit.

  12. gbaikie says:

    -6) The tropospheric temperature lapse rate would not exist without the greenhouse effect. While it is true that convective overturning of the atmosphere leads to the observed lapse rate, that convection itself would not exist without the greenhouse effect constantly destabilizing the lapse rate through warming the lower atmosphere and cooling the upper atmosphere. Without the destabilization provided by the greenhouse effect, convective overturning would slow and quite possible cease altogether. The atmosphere would eventually become isothermal

    That is not backed up by valid physics-

    I would agree that the existence of some lapse is not dependent upon water vapor. Or CO2 gas.

    You don’t even need the sun for a lapse rate. Heat and gravity is all you need.

    • RichardLH says:

      You do rather need to sort out the effects on measurement of temperature that a smaller number of molecules gives as opposed to less velocity of those same molecules.

      Standard physics can explain a lowered temperature by lack of molecules without needing the velocities to decrease in those molecules as well.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Show me your references to peer-reviewed papers proving such. In any event, I am satisfied with the results obtained by Einstein and others using Kinetic Theory, and what you say is contrary to the assumptions therein.

  13. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    Gbaikie –

    Roy take note!

    Good to see yet another person agrees with me. It is so obviously true on other planets.

    • Massimo PORZIO says:

      Hi Doug,
      for what it is worth, I still agree with you about the non GHGs lapse rate (do you remember my question about how the vertical KE should be fully horizontal at the very last layer of the TOA receiving the KE from the below?).
      But science should never be a question of “head counting” or consensus.
      I would read someone who reconstruct how it really works with arguments that don’t leave “shadows” on the matter.

      Let’s see what you wrote in your book on April.

      Meanwhile, have great days.

      Massimo

    • RichardLH says:

      Doug: When YOU have actually visited other planets I will start to consider your work. Until then I will ignore it.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        RichardLH

        That’s your prerogative. The Russians dropped probes with little parachutes onto the surface of Venus, so I use their data, and of course Voyager 2 gathered data on Uranus as it passed by.

        and Ball4

        I left my trump card to play now, so maybe you’d both like to explain the data easily found in Wikipedia about the temperature at the base of the nominal Uranus troposphere where it’s hotter than Earth, but no significant direct solar radiation gets down there and no significant internal energy is generated, no significant cooling off of the planet can be measured and no surface exists at that altitude of -300Km.

      • RichardLH says:

        Doug: I know what data is available. It does not support your position.

      • Ball4 says:

        6:11am: That trump has already been played having been finessed out of D o u g hand by the specialist papers. The base of the nominal Uranus mean temp. of troposphere (what’s under that btw…the atm. undersphere?) is physically properly explained by the energy of planet formation not yet having time to make its way out to deep space. Get the papers out, go through the proof. Listen & learn (movie term).

        3x laughter fine assessed. From here, absent D o u g learning & improving in nature’s physical science from Maxwell, Carnot/Clausius papers and Sears/Bohren texts, fines become logarithmic ending at max. fine being blog normal (aka ROTFLMAO).

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          No Ball4. It is not a question of time. There has been ample time for these planets to cool off. I’ve told you that before – you weren’t listening, let alone learning.

          Venus can cool by 5 degrees in just 4 months. We’re talking billions of years – plenty of time I assure you. Besides, I have also told you many times that there is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss from Uranus, and so no evidence to support your unnamed “specialists’” conjecture that it is still cooling.

          So your “specialists” are guessing and I will explain to them where they are wrong. The gravitationally induced thermal gradient causes energy to be trapped permanently in all planetary systems. That’s why the Venus surface can actually warm back up each Venus day by the 5 degrees which it cooled at night. Without that autonomous gradient the thermal energy absorbed in the upper troposphere could never warm the Venus surface by 5 degrees, as is observed, and the surface would have cooled down to about 132K because the 17W/m^2 of direct solar radiation would not raise the Venus surface above a very cold 132K. After all, we receive about 10 times as much here on Earth’s surface.

          I suggest you Google “Stefan Boltzmann Law calculator” and play around with it, learning as you go.

          You made a huge blunder (which exposes your lack of understanding of thermodynamics) when you assumed the silver ball with zero absorptivity and emissivity would be raised to about 730K by radiation. Enter zero in that calculator. But I’m not giving you more free tuition on that because I normally charge for such.

          The information about the 5 degree rise and fall in Venus temperatures may be found in Energy & Environment Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, 2003 pp.351-356.

        • Ball4 says:

          D o u g 4:16am: ..assumed the silver ball with zero absorptivity and emissivity…”

          Never. All matter .GT. 0K emits and absorbs across the spectrum. I will look up the E&E article.

  14. wizard says:

    You do realize that the “physical universe” is all an illusion, and all this con jecture/no ledge is a futile attempt to try and give meaning to some thing that is no thing.

    • I do realize it, but I’m keeping the Pentobarbital close just in case. Pain & suffering, even if just an illusion, seems pretty damn real when you’re the recipient of it.

  15. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    Ball4 has not acknowledged his numerous errors, including his oversight of sensible heat transfer from the surface of Venus. I have also explained why he is wrong in his assumptions about pressure, bank vaults exploding and internal energy generation on Uranus. For more information about his serious misunderstandings of physics please see this comment and the following one.

    You will note that his mode of operation is merely one of calling upon authority, smearing author such as myself, postulating weird red herrings like bank vaults exploding, but never, ever correctly applying the laws of physics. I’m sorry, Ball4, but Maxwell was wrong and the brilliant physicist Loschmidt (the first to estimate the size of air molecules) was right about gravity causing a thermal gradient in all solids, liquids and gases.

    You cannot apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for blackbodies to the surface of a planet which has a significant atmosphere above it. Such a surface does not act remotely like a true black or grey body which, by definition, absorbs all incident radiation and is not transparent, like the surface layer of an ocean for example, or the solid surface of Earth which also transmits energy by conduction to lower depths, using up some of the insolation. You cannot calculate planetary surface temperatures from radiative flux alone. Do the surfaces of our oceans get as hot as a black asphalt road surface?

    • Ball4 says:

      Doug should provide 1st and 2nd law (1st principle) reasoning supported by published cites not pseudo stuff. Instead D o u g issues a simple unbacked ultimatum assertion:

      “You cannot apply the Stefan-Boltzmann Law for blackbodies to the surface of a planet which has a significant atmosphere above it. Such a surface does not act remotely like a true black or grey body…”

      There are no blackbodies in nature, no one has measured how they would truly act.

      If remotely means off by a few percent from BB theory, I concur. Measurements have proved Earth land & liquid surface emissivity ~0.95 to 0.98 or greater vs. 1.0 for BB. Now if that few percent off presents sound arguments for “pseudo-scattering” to replace 2nd law view of the grand masters, just fill me in. Use cites to justify, show your work. A better steam locomotive was Sadi Carnot’s inspiration after all. Go for it, if you have found a reversible process in nature, build one.

      Do the surfaces of our oceans get as hot as a black asphalt road surface?

      Sure. I can assure the liquid oceans are higher temperature than the black asphalt roads around here right now. Even Titan methane lakes might be higher temperature. Geez. Brrrr…

      Cautionary note on BB is required though not in the sense you hypothesize, from Bohren 2006:

      The definition of a blackbody as one that absorbs all radiation incident on it contains a trap
      for the unwary. Notions about radiation being incident on bodies are valid only when the bodies are
      much larger than the wavelength. We intuitively expect, based on our everyday experiences
      with objects large compared with visible wavelengths, that the radiant energy absorbed by
      an illuminated object is determined by its geometrical area. This expectation breaks down
      when the body is small compared with the wavelength, a restriction almost never mentioned
      although Planck recognized it clearly. On page 2 of his Theory of Heat Radiation, Planck writes that
      he always assumes that the linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the
      radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wave lengths
      of the rays considered. The concept of radiation incident on a body is from geometrical (or ray) optics, which is never strictly valid because all bodies are finite.

      This seemingly heretical assertion about emissivities greater than 1, when cast in the language
      of antenna engineers, would be considered almost trivial. Any antenna engineer knows that the effective area of a receiver can be much larger than its geometrical area.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        So does your understanding of my comparison of an implied hot asphalt road surface receiving insolation from the Sun directly overhead on a clear day, compared with the transparent surface layer (say 1cm thin) of the ocean, not convince you that this 1cm thin water surface is transparent and thus not absorbing as much insolation as the asphalt? So you think it absorbs 95% to 98% of the solar radiation striking it, as perhaps the first 1cm of the asphalt surface does, do you? I have yet to hear of an ocean thermocline confined to the top 1cm layer, and I have noticed sunlight shining on the sand under the water. And, by the way, do you have some understanding of the wavelength of short wave Solar radiation compared with that 1cm depth?

        • Ball4 says:

          D o u g 7:06pm: So you think (ocean water) absorbs 95% to 98% of the solar radiation striking it..

          Cant ignore the specialist papers unless you want write/publish science fiction as you do. I predict you will continue ignore the graph lower right corner cited below because it conflicts with your science fiction narrative. Asphalt absorbs/emits ~same 95% to 98%, both reflect somewhat too depending on view angle (remember your diffuse reflection comment). Nothing is 100% BB.

          http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/sci_team/meetings/200503/posters/ocean/minnett1.pdf

    • Do ug C o tt on says:

      “Measurements have proved Earth land & liquid surface emissivity ~0.95 to 0.98 or greater”

      Of course. But did I talk about emissivity? No.

      If 99.9% of solar radiation is transmitted through the first 1cm layer of water at the top of the ocean, then the absorptivity is less than 0.1% – right? Pretty obvious!

      When the Sun is directly overhead shining upon it, does that layer of water warm to a similar temperature to which you might expect a black asphalt road surface to reach? No.

      And, by the way, the absorptivity for Earth’s surface receiving radiation from a cooler atmosphere (or the surface of Venus doing likewise) is 0.000. Only radiation form a warmer source has its energy converted to thermal energy in the surface, such as happens with Solar radiation. For confirmation read Prof Johnson’s “Computational Blackbody Radiation” and, until you or your “specialist” friends can fault those computations, I and Prof Johnson will rest our case on that issue which debunks the radiative forcing conjecture.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g 4:35am: …the absorptivity for Earths surface receiving radiation from a cooler atmosphere (or the surface of Venus doing likewise) is 0.000.

      Absorptivity result of 0.000 is not a real process, fails 2nd law, entropy relentlessly increases in real processes as you concurred.

      But did I talk about emissivity? No.

      Science fiction writers as you can ignore Kirchoffs experiments; fundamental principles of nature writers cannot.

  16. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    (continued)

    In my March 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” I rebutted all known attempts to disprove the Loschmidt gravitationally-induced thermal gradient in all solids, liquids and gases. Throughout the Solar System there is also abundant evidence of this gradient closely conforming to the calculated -g/Cp value reduced slightly by inter-molecular radiation. Uranus provides the best clear-cut example of it.

    Valid physics can also be used to explain and derive the value of the gradient using the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Kinetic Theory of Gases which was successfully used by Einstein and many others.

    As a corollary of the autonomous thermal gradient, I was probably the first in the world to postulate the “heat creep” process which explains how the required thermal energy actually gets into the surfaces of planets, even though that energy originated from insolation absorbed in the colder atmosphere.

    Sadly P.S.I. continues to promote the radiation based writings of Postma, Latour, Miatello and others and would be somewhat red-faced about changing horses. Consequently I am no longer a member (despite being author of perhaps the only valid paper in their ‘Publications’ menu) and they are prohibited from re-publishing the paper which will eventually appear elsewhere following the publication of my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” (with similar content) by the end of April if not sooner.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g 3:12 pm: “..Maxwell was wrong…”

      ^sound of gavel hitting the block.^ That gets the max. silent and active reader assessed fine of ROFLMAO.

      “..(Ball4) mode of operation is merely one of calling upon authority…”

      Properly, like the cites at the end of chapters in texts and at the end of papers. Advancing science builds upon the prior work of the grand masters. My practice is not fallacious argument to authority because:

      1) My cites are to recognized authority original works unlike D o u g.
      2) Use of logical arguments based on 1st principles not simple assertion as are D o u g’s.

      Be sure to cite your upcoming paper properly, base it on 1st and 2nd law. If your paper starts out stating J. C. Maxwell was wrong, there is no hope for it other than as a comedy act. I will be ready with my gavel and assess reader fines as warranted.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        The March 2013 paper was written over a year ago and the text for my book was finalised over a month ago, so nothing will be altered by your advice, thank you. The whole hypothesis starts out from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

        You still fail to acknowledge your error in neglecting sensible heat transfer out of the hot Venus surface, which you thought mistakenly was somehow included in the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation for radiative flux. Sensible heat transfer has nothing to do with radiative heat transfer. Hence you are not as yet able to explain temperatures on Venus and how the surface actually rises in temperature.

        You made yet another assertive statement on the other thread implying that the thermal gradient on Uranus should have been something like that on Earth.

        Well I do my calculations before I write ..

        Acceleration due to gravity on Uranus = 8.69 m/s^2

        Atmospheric composition by volume:
        Molecular hydrogen: 82.5%
        Helium: 15.2%
        Methane: 2.3%

        For specific heat use mean temperature value and weight the result according to composition using about 12kJ/kg.K.

        Actual Troposphere gradient (320-53)/350 = 0.763C/km

        g/Cp = 8.69/12 = 0.724C/Km

      • Ball4 says:

        D o u g 6:16pm: Sensible heat transfer has nothing to do with radiative heat transfer.

        Which is why in part SH energy transfer process & radiative energy transfer can be superposed. So where does the SH get dumped? In the atm. right? Becomes component of the 16,000 W/m^2, right? With SH you have 16,000 w/o SH you have less, unbalanced. But the 732K mean surface T is balanced up and down LWIR just before dawn; SH component is included in the 732K. No problem. No error. The sun comes up, get mean 17W/m^2 added. Surface local mean temperature starts to rise at dawn just like on Earth. Acknowledged enough for you?

        Actual Troposphere gradient (320-53)/350 = 0.763C/km

        Do you have a prior cite of yours to that calculation before I posted the answer?

        At 6:40pm I see you have a learned a bit and are now using wv term I posted prior. Not bad. Keep progressing. You can get this right. Books come out with 2nd edition corrections all the time, if needed.

        • Do ug C o tt o n says:

          “Becomes component of the 16,000 W/m^2, right?”

          No, wrong. How do colliding molecules “know” how many photons electrons in other molecules are emitting?

          Besides, just look up any NASA energy budget for Earth and you will see the sensible heat transfer from Earth’s surface is in addition to the radiative heat transfer.

          “unbalanced”

          Yes it would be but for “heat creep” supplying the needed extra energy.

          You have no knowledge or understanding of what is in my hypothesis because you did not read the paper when it was available on line for about six months, so now you’ll have to wait for the book – your next textbook – better than any you have at explaining what’s really happening throughout the Solar System in all planets, above and below any surface.

        • Do ug C o tt o n says:

          Go back to GO!

        • Ball4 says:

          D o u g 9:11pm: “…the sensible heat transfer from Earths surface is in addition to the radiative heat transfer…”

          In science, this is the meaning of becoming a component of the 16,000. I did read your paper when it was online. It was obvious in optics your term heat creep supplying the needed extra energy is the mean 17W/m^2 SW from the sun that is deposited at Venus surface starting at dawn. This radiative energy transfer is not new or novel. It has been reported by myriad others.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Heat creep has nothing to do with radiation, so you clearly have no understanding of my hypothesis. You are still wrong in claiming that processes such as evaporative cooling (causing latent heat transfer) and conduction (leading to convection) are part of the electromagnetic energy in the radiation spectrum represented by the Planck function.

            On a calm afternoon following a hot sunny morning the Earth’s surface at a given location may cool fairly quickly due to excess conduction and convection well above the maximum radiative energy flux allowed by the Planck function. So we may see cooling at the rate of perhaps 2 to 3 degrees per hour for three hours or more. But if that rate of cooling were in fact all just in keeping with the maximum radiative flux, then why does the rate of cooling reduce dramatically in the early pre-dawn hours, sometimes down to a mere 0.1 degree per hour?

            When you find you are stumped by that question, and you have to admit (as NASA says) the sensible heat transfer is in addition to radiative heat flux, then you will realise you are also stumped by the Venus warming question.

            And, because you have no convincing evidence of any net outward flux from Uranus, you are also stumped to explain why the thermal gradient in the troposphere is indeed very close to the -g/Cp value that I would expect, reduced by only about 5% because the inter-molecular radiation is not as effective between the sprinkling of methane molecules (the rest that are below the main methane layer) compared with the reduction of about a third on Earth that is due to the far more effective inter-molecular radiation between water vapour molecules, and your old friend carbon dioxide. Both help reduce the insulating effect of the troposphere, just as moist air reduces the insulating effect of dry air between double glazed window panes.

            As I said above, go back to “Go” and answer the questions about Venus and Uranus, because what you have said is wrong on several counts.

            And one more for you…

            Even if the Moon had started out cold in the core, that core would have been warmed to its existing temperature that is well above the maximum surface temperature by energy from the Sun, trapped by the gravity effect over the life of any planet or satellite moon. How and why?

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            PS I realise that the term “heat creep” has been used in relation to other phenomena, notably in photography for example. However, the term I coined in my paper over a year ago was very specifically and clearly described as being a non-radiative process (involving diffusion of kinetic energy at the molecular level) which is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium (or tending to do so, even though that state may never be reached precisely) after that equilibrium (or near equilibrium) state has been disturbed by the absorption of additional (new) thermal energy from insolation or any other heat transfer mechanism.

            I called it “heat creep” in order to emphasise the slow nature of the process and the fact that it can actually transfer thermal energy from cooler to warmer regions, though not at a rate that is faster than is allowed by the so-called effective lapse rate, which is the -g/Cp gradient modified for inter-molecular radiation.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 10:53pm 11:14pm: Whatever.

            Since you are convinced J.C. Maxwell was wrong, Carnot/Clausius offer nothing, the specialist papers go unread, textbook methods go unheeded, are cited out of context to suit your purpose, there is no hope for your stuff. You must reconcile whatever it is to the 1st, 2nd law & experiment all on your own. I see why you have no use for citations, they inconveniently get in the way. Easier just make it up as you go.

            One suggestion pard, you should use a Greek symbol for “heet creep”. At least try to look a little more informed that way.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            And you Ball4 cannot explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere is hotter than Earth, even though there’s no surface there and no incident solar radiation to play with as you did for Venus, and no convincing evidence of the internal energy generation you imagine.

            Nor can you explain why the core of the Moon is still far hotter than its surface ever is.

            Nor can you explain why the temperature gradient in Earth’s outer crust is steeper than 25K/Km. Try extrapolating that back to the core!

            Nor can you explain what the sensitivity to a 1% increase in water vapour is, and then reconcile that with real world data.

            Nor can you find a single paper which correctly shows that the Loschmidt gravitationally induced temperature gradient does not evolve spontaneously.

            Nor can you fault a single statement in my development of the hypothesis in my book, that being based on and of course in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and energy conservation.

            You can only post slurring comments without any logical argument based on valid physics to rebut what I say. Yes, Maxwell was indeed wrong when he claimed Loschmidt was wrong, but I don’t call on Loschmidt’s authority or Maxwell’s. I think for myself my friend. I calculated the -g/Cp value for Uranus about a year ago before I started writing about it, unlike yourself.

            You have put your faith in the craziest concept yet that radiation from a cooler atmosphere can apparently penetrate a little below the surface of warmer water and warm it even more without any dependent reverse radiation and, of course decreasing entropy in the process, completely in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

            Then you have invented another crazy concept (without any empirical support) in that apparently you think the Planck function not only accounts for radiation but also includes other “components” accounting for sensible heat transfer in a miraculous all-in-one integration into the S-B equation.

            And you also apparently think that the thin surface layer at the top of the ocean is not transparent so that it and the solid surfaces have absorptivity of 95% or better, just as if the whole Earth surface, including the oceans and ice caps were covered in black asphalt and the ocean thermoclines don’t exist.

            Bull Ball!

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 2:01am: And you Ball4 cannot explain why the base of the Uranus troposphere is hotter than Earth…explain why the core of the Moon is still far hotter than its surface..explain why the temperature gradient in Earths outer crust is steeper than 25K/Km…

            Maxwell, Carnot/Clausius, modern textbooks, specialist papers explain all these basics perfectly well with physics first principles demonstrated by experiment, you just choose to say they are wrong. Whatever, fine, you are nothing more than a science fiction writer.

            Nor can you fault a single statement in my development of the hypothesis in my book…

            Right, because your book/on-line paper is science fiction. The physics in it is valid in your made up world only. Nothing in it and I mean nothing, is based on the physics of Maxwell, Gibbs, Carnot/Clausius, modern textbooks, specialist papers and any experiment. No in-context citations given or math, you just make up narrative.

            The absorptivity/emissivity of the ocean water is 0.95 to 0.98 and varies a little with wind speed in Maxwell, Carnot/Clausius, modern textbooks, specialist papers world but in your science fiction world the absorptivity (of Kirchoff whom you also ignore) of ocean water is at most .001.

            I do enjoy your comedy and science fiction writing for a little R&R, I am sure your prolific writing will continue ignoring Maxwellian physics thinking it is wrong. Your stuff is only for entertainment purposes.

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Yawn…. Maxwell was wrong in saying Loschmidt was wrong about the gravitationally induced thermal gradient in all solids, liquids and gases. The above questions can only be all answered correctly if Loschmidt was right. Likewise the question about where the energy comes from to raise the temperature of the Venus surface from 732K to 737K each day – the question that you cannot answer on the other thread which I repeat here …

            Even if radiation were the only source of energy for the Venus surface (which it isnt) and the surface were a true blackbody with absorptivity and emissivity both 1.000 then

            (a) the flux for 732K would be 16,279 W/m^2

            (b) the flux for 737K would be 16,728 W/m^2

            So there is a difference of 449 W/m^2 which is quite a bit more than the 17 W/m^2 from the Sun, I suggest.

            Where does the extra required radiative flux come from?

          • Do ug C o tt o n says:

            Loschmidt was the brilliant 19th century physicist who was the first in the world to successfully estimate the size of air molecules – within a factor of 2 or so anyway. We can assume Loschmidt thought about what those molecules did, and, with the knowledge of the fact that gas molecules were far smaller than the space between them, the world saw the beginning of Kinetic Theory being applied to “ideal” gases with documented assumptions that I encourage you all to read, because Kinetic Theory was successfully used by Einstein and others, and from it we can derive the well known ideal gas laws. We can also derive (in just two lines) the magnitude of the so-called dry adiabatic lapse rate without using those gas laws or any pressure data.

            It’s not hard to visualise what Loschmidt did, namely molecules moving around at random and colliding with others rather like billiard balls. When they collide they share their kinetic energy, and as a result, we see diffusion of kinetic energy which results in a tendency towards equal temperatures in a horizontal plane. We have all observed such diffusion in our homes when warmth from a heater spreads across the room.

            But, when those molecules move in free frictionless flight between collisions the assumptions of kinetic theory include the “classical treatment” of their dynamics, noting that “because they have mass the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.” And so Newtonian mechanics tell us that the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy remains constant.

            But, as a gas spontaneously approaches thermodynamic equilibrium it is approaching a state in which there are no unbalanced energy potentials. That state is isentropic, having (PE+KE)=constant at all heights, and this means that KE varies and, as Kinetic Theory tells us, temperature also varies in proportion to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules.

            It does not matter that the final state is never completely materialised, and so entropy will still be increasing. We are considering what happens as we approach a limit, just as in calculus. Entropy will keep increasing until that limit is achieved, but it never is because, with a new day dawning more solar energy is added causing a significant disturbance to the process and moving it further away from equilibrium. Never-the-less, by the following night if there are calm conditions, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium will again be approached.

            Over the life of the planet the temperature gradient has obviously evolved on all planets with significant atmospheres, and it also occurs in sub-surface regions such as Earth’s outer crust and inside the Moon.

            The empirical evidence is that Loschmidt was right and that Maxwell erred on just this particular issue wherein molecular studies were perhaps not his specialty. The huge significance of this is that there is no need for any greenhouse radiative forcing to explain planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures. These cannot be explained at all by radiation calculations – only by the gravity gradient. The trillion dollar question is thus, was Loschmidt right?

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 2:35pm: You have just shown why your own 5K is wrong. The surface of Venus warms at dawn because the sun rises just like on Earth.

            4:06pm: D o u g starts to show a little more progress toward understanding Carnot/Clausius: “Entropy will keep increasing until that limit is achieved, but it never is…The trillion dollar question is thus, was Loschmidt right?”

            Yes given his boundary conditions which were different than Maxwell’s who was right & did not err either.

            “…there is no need for any greenhouse radiative forcing…”

            Still some science fiction in D o u g writings who can still make progress. Since satellites measure mean 255K and surface thermometers measure mean 288K. Earth’s atm. has an effect. Call it what you will.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            Greenhouse radiative forcing conjectures would require a sensitivity for water vapour (WV) that is at least 10 degrees per 1% increase in WV.

            There is absolutely no evidence that WV does in fact warm by anywhere near this amount. In fact it cools. If it did warm by 10 degrees per 1%, then a desert with 1% WV would be 30 degrees colder than a rain forest with 4% WV above it.

            That indicates the phenomenal extent to which the greenhouse garbage is incorrect.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 5:57am: In fact (wv) cools.

            Cools only in your science fiction calculations. Not in Maxwellian science since more wv in atm. emits more photons toward the surface; Ive provided a cite to show the correct science fundamental calculations which you chose not to heed.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            Water vapour apparently warms rain forests by 30 degrees more than dry deserts, according to your radiative forcing nonsense.

            Read the full comment Ball4 before you reply, because silent readers will, and they will note your tactics in selecting an isolated statement and ignoring the whole thrust of the argument in a comment. I’m very used to people like yourself, having dealt with hundreds of them on climate blogs in the last three or four years. None has proved me wrong on these issues with valid physics.

            Regarding Loschmidt, I’ve dug out the reference from my files and written the comment below on several climate blogs.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 8:37am: “…they will note your tactics in selecting an isolated statement…”

            You continue in total to provide fictional entertainment. I clip out the fictional portion I’m referring to so any informed, critical reader can find the totality of your non-Maxwellian physics gibberish nearby (IF they desire additional fictional entertainment).

            I’m aware science in Coombes&Laue 1985 paper has been much further advanced in the modern literature. Happens.

            “None has proved me wrong on these issues with valid physics.”

            Because your science fiction gibberish is simply made up. Efforts to improve your writing to fundamental Maxwellian science go unheeded as you simply claim Maxwell was wrong. Remember to give your “heat creep” process a Greek symbol, you will look better even while writing your science fiction.

    • Poptech says:

      I came here to post that I don’t care. In the future do not link to off topic debates in other discussions.

      • Do ug C o tt o n says:

        This is not off topic. Measurements of precipitation are thought to provide some indication of global warming and, presumably, an assumed positive sensitivity to water vapour.

        If, as climatologists claim, water vapour is supposed to do most of that “33 degrees of warming” (which is actually due to the Loschmidt gravitationally-induced thermal gradient seen on Venus and Uranus, for example, but disputed by Maxwell) then what is the sensitivity to 1% increase in water vapour (WV) above any region?

        Perhaps you think a rain forest (with, say, 4% WV) is about 20 degrees hotter than a dry desert with 1% WV. It’s all garbage, my friend, as I have proved both with valid physics and empirical evidence from the Earth’s tropics and planets as far away as Uranus.

  17. Do ug C o tt o n says:

    Would Roy and everyone please note that the ambient temperature just above the ocean is, in calm conditions, very close to the temperature of the first 1cm of the water below. This is primarily because of sensible heat transfer back and forth across the water-air boundary as molecules collide and conduction and diffusion occur. The proximity of temperatures has very little to do with radiation, because most radiation (and latent heat transfer also) goes directly to somewhat higher altitudes than the 1.5 to 2 metres where we measure temperature records.

    Now, that 1cm layer of water is clearly very transparent to Solar radiation, most of which passes down into the thermocline extending many metres down below the surface. If, for example, the first 1cm absorbs only 0.1% of that insolation, then its absorptivity is at most 0.001. Yet that is what controls the temperature of the air by molecular collisions with molecules that obviously come from, in fact, only the very top of that layer. You need only consider the mean free path of water molecules to confirm this fact.

    There is simply no way that a mere 0.1% of the Sun’s radiation could raise and support the mean ocean surface temperature which is observed. Thus you have herein obvious proof here on Earth that the actual temperatures we measure for climate records are in fact nothing like what Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give us if we were to use the real absorptivity of perhaps only 0.001. Even with the solid surface, much of the Sun’s energy is conducted well below the first 1cm, so the same argument applies.

    And of course, apart from here on Earth, we see on Venus, Uranus and other planets, ample evidence that planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures are not primarily determined by incident radiative flux.

  18. gbaikie says:

    -There is simply no way that a mere 0.1% of the Suns radiation could raise and support the mean ocean surface temperature which is observed. Thus you have herein obvious proof here on Earth that the actual temperatures we measure for climate records are in fact nothing like what Stefan-Boltzmann calculations give us if we were to use the real absorptivity of perhaps only 0.001. Even with the solid surface, much of the Suns energy is conducted well below the first 1cm, so the same argument applies.

    And of course, apart from here on Earth, we see on Venus, Uranus and other planets, ample evidence that planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures are not primarily determined by incident radiative flux.-

    That seems like good point.

    Or I will restate it, most of earth surface is covered with
    water, Boltzmann calculations do not apply to a transparent
    surface.

    But I will also say there seems to me the big difference gases and liquids. So I would caution against treating ocean of water the same as you treat an ocean of air.

    And think to understand Earth climate one must start with a model based on planet covered with water.

    So planet similar to Earth, but covered with water and has a nitrogen only atmosphere at 1 atm.
    And if start with a cool ocean, you will not have many clouds. And having global ocean require some water vapor in the atmosphere- regardless any conceivable temperature at Earth distance from the sun [even at Mars distance].

    • Do ug C o tt o n says:

      gbaikie

      All these hypothetical thought experiments pertaining to non-radiating, non-absorbing atmospheres are pointless. Such an atmosphere does not exist. If it did the surface temperature of an Earth like the Moon without water may be somewhere near the mean surface temperature of the Moon, recently estimated as 197K or thereabouts. Then the atmosphere would get colder with a gradient of -9.8C/Km, but some near the top would solidify and collapse to the surface.

      No, the way to consider sensitivity is to start with water vapour. We already have huge variations in water vapour in various regions on Earth. So we have data to use regarding precipitation and temperature. My study showed that greater precipitation leads to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures. The study is repeatable and could be expanded.

      Of course there isn’t any such study that has been published showing water vapour warms, but I strongly suspect such obvious studies have been done and then scrapped because they debunk the greenhouse hoax. Mine will be self published in April and widely publicised and circulated as an Appendix to my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” – so watch out!

      • gbaikie says:

        –All these hypothetical thought experiments pertaining to non-radiating, non-absorbing atmospheres are pointless. Such an atmosphere does not exist. –

        Ok. That sort of one way to say it.

        But I will make it clear, that model of planet covered with water is not such thought experiment.

        And with Earth if include nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, it doesn’t have much of any other gases. A planet with atmosphere 99% of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, does
        exist.

        But I agree it’s useless/unrealistic to imagine a world covered with water and not have H20 gas in the atmosphere. If such planet is anywhere as close to the Sun as Earth is.

        You could start the model with same mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, but since we have 70% of surface with water and 70% nitrogen atmosphere, the bumping them both up to 100% as starting point, seemed like an easier or simpler
        starting point.

        I think such a model is useful, not because everyone would
        agree, but rather a debate which comes to some agreement would a useful starting point.

        – If it did the surface temperature of an Earth like the Moon without water may be somewhere near the mean surface temperature of the Moon, recently estimated as 197K or thereabouts. –
        But there big difference between Moon and Earth rotation- we would get much colder nights on Earth if nights lasted 2 weeks.
        And other large difference is lunar regolith, more 90% of lunar surface is covered with extraordinary insulation which is about 3 inches deep. And this also applies to the planet Mercury. Even a slightly worse vacuum would have significant effect upon the insulation properties of this regolith. A manmade material which similar to it is aerogel:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel

        So if Moon had shorter days and didn’t have this regolith
        it would have a higher average temperature.

        -estimated as 197K or thereabouts. Then the atmosphere would get colder with a gradient of -9.8C/Km, but some near the top would solidify and collapse to the surface.-

        Imagining a planet being 197K [-76 C] at Earth distance
        and having 24 hour rotation is challenging. Mars with it’s 24 hour rotation is a bit warmer than this, but at Mars distance it has average solar flux of about 600 watts per square meter as compared to 1360 watts at Earth distance.

        But for it’s atmosphere collapsing it would not a matter of
        it average temperature, but rather it’s coldest temperature.
        Or obviously -76 C doesn’t collapse the atmosphere as it gets about this cold of temperature on Earth without this happening. And with recent cold winters we don’t have the Chicken Little’s talking about the sky falling from such
        a cause.
        So with average temperature of 197K we can assume most of world could be much warmer than this and therefore to be averaged, have areas much colder than this.

        An advantage of world covered with water is you eliminate the factor accumulation of much elevation from any glacier
        formation. Or mountains of rock can stack higher than mountains of ice. Or only reason Antarctic has such a high
        elevation is the ice is on top of rock. Ice can’t stack high if all the ocean at at least 3000 meters deep. You can’t get your impressively high polar caps.
        But you can get very cold polar region nevertheless.
        So our impressive record cold on Earth is related to elevation. “Elevation: 3,488 metres ” and −89.2C
        Adjusted at 9 C per 1000 meter, it’s −89.2C minus 27
        it’s -62 C near sea level.
        But say instead at poles it get to -100 C near sea level.

        If it gets to -100 C and you have 1 atm of atmosphere, how high is it to top of troposphere?.
        Our warmer tropic is about 20 km, a winter pole is about 7 km.
        So in such improbably cold world so near the Sun, it’s much colder pole would have the top of of troposphere of around 5 km. And using your numbers of -9.8C/Km. The top
        of atmosphere [if not collapsed] is 49 C colder than sea level. So -100 C and -49 gives -149 C [124 K].
        And nitrogen is liquid at 1 atm at 77 K and freezes at 63 K. So it’s no where near these temperatures. And in vacuum
        the gas remains a gas to somewhere around 3 K.
        And coldest spot is permanent shadow craters of the Moon- which may be around as cold as 30 K

  19. Do ug C o tt on says:

    gbaikie

    Thanks for that quote about Earth’s core temperature …

    One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earths heat energy, says KamLAND collaborator Stuart Freedman of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from another source is an unanswered question.

    I have now answered the question in detail in my book.

  20. Do ug C o tt on says:

    This is where the error crept in in 1985 …

    Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

    These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height.”

    This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.

    * Velasco, S., Romn, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 4344.

  21. Do ug C o tt on says:

    Ball4 has run out of arguments. He is “aware” of advances in science since 1985. Well any “advance” on a totally incorrect letter to a journal which claims that, if the value of all members of a set is reduced the mean can stay the same, would be nothing but garbage building on garbage. Those who have a vested interest in maintaining the carbon dioxide hoax are good at building rubbish upon rubbish, as climatologists graduate and teach climatology students just a few years their junior.

    There are at least four or five other commenters here and on the other major climate blogs who now recognise the validity of what I am saying, some of whom have been sent the text of my book. There are many more on blogs like TallBloke who know gravity has something to do with it, even though they mistakenly attribute the cause to pressure.

    But I’m not basing my arguments on numbers – just on valid physics which our friend knows next to nothing about. He tries to imply that I’m discrediting all of the Maxwellian physics just because I point out that Loschmidt was correct on the particular issue of the gravitationally induced thermal gradient.

    I have rebutted every known attempt to show Loschmidt to be wrong on this, and the evidence I produce in a study of 30 years’ temperature and precipitation data on three continents supports what I say, as does the evidence on Uranus which is not just still “cooling off” and, just like Venus, Earth and other planets, actually warms a little each sunlit day by the amount that it cooled the night before.

    The fact that these planets do cool significantly at night shows that they could easily have cooled right down if it weren’t for new energy absorbed from insolation the next day, and the vast amount of energy “trapped” under the temperature profile that has a gradient formed by gravity.

    Please take note Roy, because I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that isothermal tropospheres cannot exist even in the absence of all radiating gases. A lapse rate does not need a hot surface and upward rising convection (actually advection) from that surface. It just forms at the molecular level.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g 4:08pm: Lashes out: “Ball4 has run out of arguments.”

      D o u g has run out of new fiction to post. Repetition of solid, fundamental science is unneeded unless D o u g creates new interesting fiction. Maxwell, Carnot/Clausius, modern text books and specialist papers principles are still there unheeded by D o u g for the critical, informed readers. Just need to ref. the published science and what has already been posted to discover D o u g’s fictitious comedy stuff. Thats why they call em principles.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Precisely which Maxwellian physics have I not heeded according to your misunderstandings, and why do you think such? When you start explaining physics, indicating your obvious lack of understanding of such to all the silent readers, then we’ll see. But assertive calls to authority without any explanation as to your perceived accusations are like water off a duck’s back.

      • Ball4 says:

        D o u g 7:57pm: Precisely which Maxwellian physics have I not heeded…

        You will have to explain your own statement (as I cannot) & which won you the top critical, informed reader assessed laughing fine above: D o u g 3/2 3:12pm: Im sorry, Ball4, but Maxwell was wrong… after I posted up his 1866 foundation paper on Kinetic Theory.

        There was a partial list given at that point, there are way more – just read this thread through again. The one I like the most is where your land of science fiction has ocean water absorptivity not more than .001 when ocean water absorptivity is measured 0.95 to 0.98 in the specialist papers – I linked but one, go from there, listen & learn.

        Q: How many factors do you get Maxwellian/S-B/Kirchoff/Carnot/Clausius/specialist papers physics fundamentally wrong for ocean water absorptivity? A: Embarrassingly many factors. Too many to be a mere one off slip up.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          And you still can’t answer correctly either question about Uranus or Venus. I score you 0 out 10 for your answers.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 1:52am: Correct, I am not familiar with your science fiction.

            Venus warms at dawn because the sun comes up in standard Maxwellian science which you claim is wrong. Uranus is 5,000K at base of nominal troposphere due to infalling material at its inception, energy in total which hasn’t worked its way out yet, which you also choose to ignore.

            Whatever. Thankfully I get 0of10 from you; if I ever get even +1 it means I’ve crossed into science fiction land.

    • gbaikie says:

      -There are at least four or five other commenters here and on the other major climate blogs who now recognise the validity of what I am saying, some of whom have been sent the text of my book. There are many more on blogs like TallBloke who know gravity has something to do with it, even though they mistakenly attribute the cause to pressure. -

      I am not exactly sure why “it” can’t be attributed to pressure.
      Assuming we talking pressure caused by gravity.
      But I think how one could determine if it’s related to pressure by using different gases of different masses. So compare Helium against Xenon- or Argon since Xenon rather expensive.
      So equal amount Argon should have more pressure than helium.

      But as I said don’t see how this explains Earth, and it more related to understanding how Venus is so hot.
      But generally speaking, one should know this if want to understand climate in general.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Well Earth’s atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures ought to be able to be explained, and they are in my book, so perhaps you’ll need to wait for it, because I don’t have time to rewrite it here.

        I have, however, shown in a previous comment why the transparent surface layer of the oceans does not respond to solar radiation anything remotely like a black or grey body. A 1cm thin layer of surface water is over 99% transparent, whereas black and grey bodies are 0% transparent by definition.

        So please read all my comments carefully and refer to any points therein that you genuinely don’t understand. Show our friend Bull4 how physics ought to be discussed.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        The specific heat of Helium is 10.0 times the specific heat of Argon. So you can calculate the thermal gradients from -g/Cp. Obviously the surface of a planet equivalent to Uranus but with argon comprising about 87% of its atmosphere instead of having 87% helium would be far, far hotter than Uranus at any given altitude. It has nothing to do with pressure. Do you see pressure in the above calculation?

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          I’m tired. Uranus has mostly hydrogen and about 15% helium. But if we postulated comparing two imaginary “Uranus” sized planets with 87% argon on one and 87% helium on the other, and then, say, 10% hydrogen and 3% methane, then that’s what I described.

    • gbaikie says:

      -I have rebutted every known attempt to show Loschmidt to be wrong on this, and the evidence I produce in a study of 30 years temperature and precipitation data on three continents supports what I say, as does the evidence on Uranus which is not just still cooling off and, just like Venus, Earth and other planets, actually warms a little each sunlit day by the amount that it cooled the night before.

      The fact that these planets do cool significantly at night shows that they could easily have cooled right down if it werent for new energy absorbed from insolation the next day, and the vast amount of energy trapped under the temperature profile that has a gradient formed by gravity.-

      Planet’s atmosphere may cool each night. But planets don’t.
      Our ocean doesn’t cool each night and entire mass of our ocean is insignificant compared to mass of Earth. Even a foot under the dirt doesn’t change daily by any significant amount- it changes a bit seasonally.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Well, try measuring temperatures in the first 1cm of the dirt – or the air we stand in and measure our climate data, and be careful you don’t burn your bare feet on a black asphalt road surface at lunchtime on a hot sunny day. You might find you need to cool them in the water that doesn’t get anywhere near as hot because its surface is transparent and more than 99% of the solar radiation goes straight through the first 1cm or so.

        Hence the surface layer of 70% of the globe has absorptivity less than 1% – which tends to mess up those energy diagrams quite a bit I suggest.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        From previous comments it should be obvious that “The fact that these planets do cool significantly at night” is meant to imply “The fact that the atmospheres and surface layers of these planets do cool significantly at night …”

        After all, we are talking about climate change which down here is based on weather station measurements 1.5m to 2m above the physical surface of Earth.

        And, the fact that there are seasonal changes that can be observed much deeper than a foot under Earth’s surface (where the temperature is hotter than the mean surface temperature) actually helps support the “heat creep” hypothesis in my book.

  22. Do ug C o tt on says:


    PS

    Its so obvious. Start with a vertical cylinder with three equal sections and removable partitions. Create a (near) vacuum in the top and bottom compartments, and fill the middle compartment with non-radiating argon, allowing it to settle into thermodynamic equilibrium. Now remove the partitions and some molecules will enter the top compartment, losing KE as they rise, whilst some will enter the bottom compartment gaining KE.

    • gbaikie says:

      -Its so obvious. Start with a vertical cylinder with three equal sections and removable partitions. Create a (near) vacuum in the top and bottom compartments, and fill the middle compartment with non-radiating argon, allowing it to settle into thermodynamic equilibrium. Now remove the partitions and some molecules will enter the top compartment, losing KE as they rise, whilst some will enter the bottom compartment gaining KE.-

      How big are these cylinders, what is the pressure, and where
      are they?

      Let’s say they are 30 meter long, so each section is 10 meter.
      Put it on the Moon. Have middle have air density of 1.2 kg
      per cubic meter, and 20 C- so about 14.7 psi.
      If open bottom, you half the density, so .6 kg per cubic meter. And open the top increase volume by 50%, giving density
      of .4 kg per cubic meter.
      In terms of pressure it would cool the gas, but if gases are warmed to 20 C. When open bottom, it will half the pressure- 7.2 psi. And the top 50% pressure- total pressure
      is 5.4 at 20 C.

      But let increase the scale by 1000. So 30 km rather than 30 meters. And let’s put on Earth.
      A meter square column at 1.2 kg per meter which is 10 km-
      10,000 meters- weighs 12,000 kg.
      Which weights more than earth entire column of air. 1 atm is equal 14.7 psi, or water depth of 10 meter of water [10,000 kg of water].
      When open the bottom column which is a vacuum, you have pressure which forces the air downward, and you gravity that
      the air will cause the air to fall for 10 km. The gravity will be a bigger effect than the pressure- the air will fall
      at 9.8 m/s/s. {and break things, cause an explosion force, etc]. If pick a ton [you dropping 10 tons] and so a 1 ton at
      9.8 m/s/s will hit the the floor at about 45.1 second. And 45 second times 9.8 m/s is 441 m/s [984 mph]. Drop a ton concrete so it hits a surface at 984 mph and it’s a bomb- it makes a sizable crater, or destroys a military battle tank. And the falling air would do the same thing.
      Or basically you will add 441 m/s to the average molecular velocity- air at 20 C is starts at about 400 m/s. So you get an explosion and furnace heat.
      After it cools, it’s obviously densier and higher pressure than the atmosphere, and remain so after to top part is open.

  23. Ball4 says:

    D o u g 5:05pm:

    “PS: Its so obvious” D o u g’s fiction misses the p*V gas enthalpy term in this multi-chambered example.

    • Do ug C o tt on says:

      I have already explained why that p*V is irrelevant and, in fact, shows a serious misunderstanding of Kinetic Theory by the authors of that paper. If you think you understand their “fissics” then show that you understand with a detailed summary thereof in your own words. Then I’ll tear it to pieces. But I won’t respond to assertive statements.

    • Do ug C o tt on says:

      Even Wickipedia might help you: “Enthalpy of ideal gases and incompressible solids and liquids does not depend on pressure” – and yet you have a p for pressure in there.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g 7:32pm: “…that paper…”

      Which one? Be specific. Pretty sure you mean a paper you haven’t read & or ever come close to understanding being above your pay grade but let me know anyways. Might want to point out what you will then tear to pieces in order to apply your own world of fictional science.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Mate, my “pay” comes from successful businesses that have earned me many millions. Physics tuition is an interest, as is further post-graduate study in thermodynamics, radiative transfer theory, climatology and meteorology. Now in semi-retirement I have time (and money) to promote my book which, in due course, will help overcome the greenhouse hoax. Give me 8 to 10 years.

    • Ball4 says:

      D o u g 7:45pm: Thrashing around like a free fire hose under pressure won’t help, calm down. Do you really think you describe a constant pressure or constant volume process when you pull the partitions?

      The wiki article where Enthalpy of ideal gases and incompressible solids and liquids does not depend on pressure is discussing constant pressure processes and constant volume (or what do YOU define incompressible as in your land of science fiction?). In applying this statement to your 3 chamber example (non-constant pressure and non-constant volume process), shows you were sound asleep in or skipped enthalpy class all together.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        The three chamber thought experiment is a simple application of Kinetic Theory. The Second Law is about entropy, not enthalpy. Maybe that’s why you’re so confused.

        Now try to explain how you think the temperatures will end up in that chamber and why.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        Roy and others

        In this document you will find the author saying the same as me about what happens in a gravitational field. We read …

        “equilibrium in temperature gradient can exist”

        On page 199 item 7 we read about thermal energy going from cooler to warmer regions – what I called “heat creep” in my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures” which first appeared in November 2012.

        The author and I are saying the same thing.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          Typo – sorry that should read page 119.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          Quotes from my book describing exactly the same process described on page 119 item 7 referred to above:

          “Wherever new energy is absorbed in the atmosphere it will then spread out in all accessible directions away from its source as it endeavours to restore thermodynamic equilibrium.”

          ” … at least some of the extra energy will in fact move slowly towards the surface and into regions that are actually warmer than those from which it came.”

          “Attempts to disprove the existence of this gravity gradient have all been erroneous, the most common error being the overlooking of a temperature gradient also occurring in solids such as a copper wire. You cannot, for example, create a perpetual motion machine with a cylinder of gas and a wire because the wire also has a temperature gradient.”

          That’s all folks!

      • Ball4 says:

        D o u g 1:58am: “..explain how you think the temperatures will end up in that chamber and why.”

        You have but to read & agree with the gandmasters Maxwell/Poisson – why? = ideal gas relations to know. Proven rigorously in 1998/2004. Assume z is height above the base 0 chamber point.

        Your ideal/exact rigid adiabatic chamber equilibrium T(p) = To*(P(z)/Po)^R/Cp.

        1) If no gravity field, P is constant so P( z) = Po and P( z)/Po =1, T(p) = constant To*1^R/Cp , isothermal.
        2) If in gravity field, gas hydrostatic conditions prevail, the Poisson IGL eqn. with P( z) going down with increase in z, so then does T(p) as shown go down, non-isothermal.

        For the column of standard air surface to tropopause on earth, this amounts to ideally&exactly a few percent decrease in T at tropopause over Tsurface (=To).

        This is basic, easy stuff. That you fail to listen & learn & understand, speaks volumes.

        D o u g 5:05pm: “…non-radiating argon…”

        Only in D o u g’s science fiction is argon non radiating. Argon gas IS very close to ideal in normal Earth temperatures in the wild so Poisson IGL relations closely apply.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          Go back to this comment. Try hard to understand what that author is saying on page 119 item 7.

          • Ball4 says:

            Ok. I read p.119 sec. 7. I understand it; even without trying hard at all. Now what?

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            Good, well then you must understand that the “heat creep” hypothesis explained by this author is precisely what is in my book – thermal energy transfers from cooler to warmer regions by diffusion in a gravitational field.

            So that’s how the required thermal energy absorbed at the top of the Venus atmosphere gets down into its surface.

            That’s why you scored zero out of 10, Bull4, for your answer because you need a paradigm shift in your thinking – right away from radiative transfer theory.

            Now you must understand why it was incorrect of you to blame radiation and try to use Maxwell Boltzmann calculations which have nothing to do with it.

            It appears that author and I are the first two in the world to document this heat creep process, and we each did so independently around October and November 2012. That’s why it’s not yet in any textbooks.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            should read Maxwell or Stefan Boltzmann calculations

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 7:42pm: The author on p. 119 item 7 suddenly allows heat to cross the boundary and still assumes adiabatic derivation, causes him to call out an error in 2nd law. There is no hope for that author. The reason Teofilo is wrong (and the referee is right) is that Teofilo misses the 2nd law same as you miss complying with 2nd law in your polished silver ball example. Without fully complying with 2nd law, there is no hope for either of you except as science fiction writers.

            Glad to get a score of zero out of 10 from your science fiction views – means I am solidly in agreement with Maxwellian fundamental principled science, my score being 10 for 10. You need to cross over from the dark side and see the light from the grandmasters. Still, writers of science fiction can produce entertaining work. Proof: You’ve already achieved an entertainment top score on the reader assessed laugh-o-meter writing “Maxwell was wrong…” above (without even reading his paper).

            “Heat creep” has no Greek symbol, will never make it into text books except possibly as a case study in non-Maxwellian Theory of Heat.

            Venus warms from night side because the sun comes up and Uranus is ~5,000K bottom of nominal troposphere from the infalling material’s energy of its birth not having had time to escape its dense opaque atm.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            Well what you say about Uranus is bull, Ball4, and you cannot cite any reference which provides compelling evidence of anywhere near the net energy loss at Uranus TOA that valid physics tells us would be expected if the 5,000K core of Uranus (only 55% the size of Earth) were just cooling off eventually down to 60K or less, rather than being maintained at its current temperature by heat creep.

            Nor can you prove that the process of restoring isentropic equilibrium is in any way a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In fact it is what the Second Law implies will happen. This is what Teofilo and I both realise, and he explains it in the rest of that paper which you probably didn’t read.

            Again I quote from my book …

            “Is the transfer of thermal energy by heat creep in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it involves heat transfer from cooler to warmer regions? The answer is a resounding No because the energy transfer is in fact carrying out the very process described in that law. The Second Law in its modern form says nothing at all about heat only transferring from hot to cold.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            “suddenly allows heat to cross the boundary and still assumes adiabatic derivation, “

            No he doesn’t. He knows the equilibrium is disturbed, but then assumes no further extra energy is absorbed, so he then considers how the adiabatic process will pan out as thermodynamic equilibrium is restored – exactly as I have done in my book.

            That misunderstanding on your part, Ball4, is the crux of your problem in failing to understand what Teofilo and I are describing. It’s best you wait for the book wherein my diagrams may help your understanding.

            This shows me you completely misunderstand that he (and I in my book) are considering a disturbance to the (energy or thermodynamic) equilibrium state. Thermodynamic equilibrium (as in some statements of the Second Law) is quite different from thermal equilibrium, because thermodynamic equilibrium must have no unbalanced energy potentials, and such energy potentials can include gravitational potential energy. Gravity does affect molecules in free flight motion. You cannot explain the Venus warming dilemma without understanding the non-radiative heat creep process.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            My only objection to anything Maxwell said was that he disbelieved Loschmidt. He never published a formalised rebuttal.

            See http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 10:16pm: “…you cannot cite any reference which provides compelling evidence…”

            I have already posted up such on Uranus system. Thing is you don’t know because you don’t or can’t read and understand the links to the specialist papers on Uranus cited, they are way above your pay grade.

            You are correct, maximizing entropy IS the 2nd law in action but you are unable to comprehend this is not what I meant when writing about your polished silver ball radiation fiction. Listen and learn from the grandmasters D o u g, not Teofilo.

            There are three processes for energy transfer, your “heat creep” is not one of them. Doesnt even have a Greek symbol so isnt shown in any equation anywhere.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 11:07pm: No (Teofilo) doesnt. allow heat to cross the given adiabatic boundary.

            Let me quote Teofilos own words p.119 item 7: …heat received in certain part of the column from outside source…

            This is very clear showing your fiction again. Teofilo goes on to state this is to show the flaw of the 2nd law: The flaw of the second law according the above analysis… . There is no hope for you or Teofilo to be right that the 2nd law is flawed, the referee was perfectly correct to disallow his paper.

            D o u g 11:11pm: My only objection to anything Maxwell said was that he disbelieved Loschmidt.

            Then quote and cite Maxwells own original written words, provide a link or cite. As I have done all along & as I just did for Teofilo. You might easily pick up some Maxwellian science facts along the way so to reduce your science fiction.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 11:07pm: You cannot explain the Venus warming dilemma…

            There is no dilemma. Venus surface warms above night time temperatures at dawn because the sun comes up. All 3 energy transfer processes are involved, no-symbol heat creep is science fiction.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            “Because the Sun comes up”

            Well, well. We agree on that.

            But you just don’t know how enough of the Sun’s energy gets into the surface to support it at a temperature 5 degrees higher, which would require about an extra 450W/m^2 if radiation were doing it all, which it isn’t.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            Oh – and if “all three” are doing it (not sure precisely which you mean are the other two, but I know you don’t like being precise – because it makes it too easy for me to pinpoint your error) then how exactly is the energy going by non-radiative processes from the much colder atmosphere and into the much hotter surface, and making it hotter still?

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            What you have posted about Uranus is BULL Ball4. The actual measurements by Voyager 2 relating to TOA radiative flux is what is to be the starting point. That data (within the margins of error stated) could even indicate a net inward flux. There is not a scrap of evidence that Uranus is still cooling off. Like Venus, it isn’t.

            Blimey! If you think all the Uranus temperature data has to do with a solid core, 55% the mass of Earth, which for some reason is still 5,000K (whilst Earth’s surface 30 times closer to the Sun is about 288K) then, by your suggestion, you should be able to calculate Earth’s surface temperature as cooling off and having nothing to do with solar radiation, just as you seem to think Uranus temperatures can be explained. You want one explanation for Uranus and a totally different one for Earth do you?

            What about Venus warming by 5 degrees each day? You are still avoiding the question as to how the only two other heat transfer mechanisms you know about are transferring thermal energy from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface, and making it hotter still. Still no answer to this Q either Bull4. The exam time is running out.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            You still miss the point about new thermal energy being added at the top. It doesn’t matter if more is still being added. The issue is, what happens to the first lot (1 second’s worth, or 1 minute’s worth or whatever) as it goes on its merry adiabatic way. If rain falls on one half of a lake, does not some flow adiabatically to the other half?

            You still haven’t responded to this point, and your exam time is running out. Aren’t you lucky to get feedback from your marker before the exam finishes – kinda giving you a generous (but final) extra chance.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 1:12am: “…(not sure precisely which you mean are the other two…”

            Ha, being vague on that to tease out if you could identify the other two energy transfer processes in nature, you unwittingly provide proof you cannot do so. Radiative, conductive, convective energy transfers operate in the atm.

            5:27am: “You want one explanation for Uranus and a totally different one for Earth do you?”

            Sure if different processes are at work as the text books and specialist papers inform us and which D o u g evidently avoids.

            1:08am 5:27am: “But you just dont know how enough of the Suns energy gets into the surface…You are still avoiding the question as to how the only two other heat transfer mechanisms you know about are transferring thermal energy from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface..”

            Energy transfers according to 1st & 2nd law. Maxwell was not wrong as you write. See Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius/Kirchoff papers, modern texts, and specialist papers for the fundamental science explanations.

            Of course, one can also read your science fiction for an explanation using the fictitious “heat creep” which will not enable a better steam locomotive or rocket design to which Carnot’s stuff contributed. If it does, design one. Others will build it.

            7:44am: “If rain falls on one half of a lake, does not some flow adiabatically to the other half?”

            Adiabatically? No, that would be against the 2nd law. There is no hope for that to be a real process. Entropy relentlessly increases in all real processes. No real process in nature is adiabatic.

            “Arent you lucky to get feedback from your marker before the exam finishes…”

            No, glad my score is still a perfect 0 of 10 on your exam covering fictitious science w/o any help from the marker. Did you notice the rocket in the top post worked? Surprisingly to you, others designed it w/o resorting to fictitious heat creep explanations they also got 0 of 10 on your exams.

          • Do ug C o tt on says:

            I just wanted to see if you realise that physicists define “convection” as including both diffusion and advection. Heat creep is diffusion without measureable air movement.

            Physics is universal (throughout the universe) and so the same processes do apply on each planet. Your “specialist” papers must be wrong if that’s what they really say. I’m a specialist in thermodynamics and radiative transfer theory, and my specialist papers are the correct ones. What makes you think those writers have a better understanding of the relevant physics than I do?

            Your wishy-washy generalisation about the laws of physics does not explain how the energy moves from a cold atmosphere to a hot surface on Venus. So you have still failed that question and not improved your mark of zero.

            Teofilo was referring to the old Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law. Perhaps in his country he hasn’t been taught the usual entropy form which physicists now realise is correct (and which I use in my paper and book) because the Clausius statement is indeed “flawed” and even you seem to realise that somehow the incident solar energy absorbed in the cold Venus atmosphere has to get into the far hotter surface.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 3:09pm: “..see if you realise that physicists define convection as including both diffusion and advection. Heat creep is diffusion.”

            Let’s breathe some life into this diffusion process D o u g so often resorts to vs. advection so a specialist in thermodynamics such as D o u g can learn a little about Fick and his two laws. D o u g never mentions this guy Adolph Eugene Fick (b. 1829) b/c AEF slipped out of physics after dropping two “heat creep” (D o u g term) laws on us and went into medicine; became a member of a different tribe than the ones D o u g disses all the time – Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius/modern texts/specialist papers: “Your specialist papers must be wrong…”. So enabling D o u g to claim to suddenly surface and be the inventor of “heat creep” aka molecular diffusion.

            Let’s examine say a classroom and students. In D o u g’s vast experience and experiments – were the classes D o u g claims to have been in very drafty? Mine weren’t so let’s go with mine.

            In a classroom bulk motion of air is not so evident; diffusion IS operating according to Fick’s Laws and if D o u g would bother, or even be remotely capable of, examine the governing differential equations of mass in a (stationary classroom) diffusing medium (air) – hey they are the same as those governing the transfer of energy (D o u g knows these, he just learned there are three energy transfer processes in air). Let’s examine molecular diffusion (“heat creep”) of energy with an example of mass diffusion w/same governing differentials.

            Suppose cheap bottles of perfume are opened in the front row of a large classroom discussing gas enthalpy with D o u g sound asleep in the back row.

            Q: How long will it take for the stench to molecular diffuse (“perfume creep”?) to D o u g? Remember this time would be the same for energy to heat creep like Teofilos added heat in an adiabatic process.

            A: Estimate applicable numbers. Classroom characteristic length 10m. Diffusion coefficient in Fick’s 1st Law ~2*10^-5m^2/sec. This yields a characteristic time of 5*10^6 sec. about 60 days. By molecular diffusion “perfume creep” (same as “heat creep” being D o u g’s favorite energy term patent pending) A.E. Fick derived it would take more than a month for the perfume molecules to make a tortuous path to the back row and assault D o u g’s nostrils; it is unknown whether he’d wake up from a deep sleep.

            Perhaps D o u g has experienced this with open perfume bottles when awake and found, hey only a few minutes was required to take note of the perfume. How so?

            Perfume is wafted by convection currents, even operating in a classroom, to D o u g’s nostrils much more rapidly than by pure molecular diffusion (“perfume creep”). Apparently even still air is in motion, not fast enough to blow off sleeping D o u g’s expensive hat (from his millions) but fast enough to waft perfume molecules much faster in groups than if each had to go it alone.

            The process for energy transfer by molecular diffusion (heat creep) has similar differentials so apply those to Venus at dawn, find if pure molecular diffusion of energy (aka “heat creep”) operating when the sun comes up to be more rapid than convective and radiative energy transfer? I think not, at least not according to Fick. As D o u g once again slept through this class. Prediction: D o u g will now add A.E. Fick to his long list of wrong. And I will now get a grade of 0 of 11 on D o u gs science fiction exams.

            Life is tough. I soldier on.

          • DougCotton says:

            It seems Ball4 doesn’t know the difference between chemical diffusion and diffusion of kinetic energy mentioned in the second paragraph.

          • Ball4 says:

            D o u g 2:44am: Doesn’t read his own links and confuses readers once again with intentionally misleading post. Note in the 1st link given for chemical diffusion: “As with the basic equation of heat transfer, indicates that the rate of force is directly proportional to the driving force, which is the concentration gradient.”

            D o u g need just compare the formulas for Fourier conduction law combined with continuity eqn. and A.E. Ficks’ laws to listen & learn the physics principles governing the similarity which is lost on D o u g because he was in a deep sleep in the back row of the classroom. As I predicted D o u g just adds an unknowing, unwitting gaffe to his long list of unread physics principles.

            This discredits D o u g’s “heat creep” stories – being slower than a baby’s creep at Venus dawn, radiative and convective energy transfer are the main reasons the surface warms at dawn. That D o u g misses this speaks volumes about his limited understanding of physics principles, his book will be DOA. Good for entertaining comedy only.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          Looks like I’ve already solved your dilemma in Chapter 5 of my book from which I quote …

          “Pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature, so we cannot assume that temperature increases merely because pressure increases. High pressure does not maintain high temperatures. Temperature is the independent variable in planetary tropospheres, and any given temperature can only be maintained if the supply of energy matches the loss of energy in the normal cooling processes.”

          But still, it’s good to see you trying to understand the ideal gas laws which are of course derived from Kinetic Theory, the very same Kinetic Theory I used in my hypothesis.

  24. gbaikie says:

    “Since satellites measure mean 255K and surface thermometers measure mean 288K. Earths atm. has an effect. ”

    One should expect Earth’s atmosphere to have some effect.

    If you had say 1/2 of the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere, one would expect that would have some effect, and if had twice as much nitrogen, you could expect some effect.

    I expect people might disagree what such large changes in the amount nitrogen which is 78% of all gases of the Earth would be. But I think everyone would agree that such large changes in the amount Earth’s atmosphere would have some kind of effect on Earth’s temperature.

    If you think halving or doubling of Nitrogen would have little
    effect, would continue to think this if all nitrogen was removed?
    Now if you removed 1/2 the nitrogen or added twice as much
    human and life in general could possible survive such a change- you could still breathe. Whereas if remove all the nitrogen you could not breathe as the pressure is to low- despite having atmosphere of nearly pure oxygen which would make everything burn rapidly. And plants need nitrogen and
    whole food chain would collapse.

    So if just want to think about the consequent weather, one also consider what effect would occur reduced all gases to the level of the trace greenhouse gases- so if Earth had atmosphere similar to Mars- 1/100th of earth’s atmosphere.
    So say you had only about 3 trillion tonnes of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gas. So Earth has more then 3 trillion of H20 and less than 3 trillion tonnes CO2, but we want equality in gases, so make all gases at 3 or 4 trillion tonnes. And we have massive increase is say methane so it’s also 3 trillion tonnes.
    So 3 trillion tonnes in total in the atmosphere of:
    Nitrogen, oxygen, argon, H20, CO3, HC4, and 3 tonnes in total any other greenhouse gas one wants to add in.
    So 27 trillion tonnes of all gases.
    And only thing that could live might be microbial life.
    And the smaller planet of Mars: Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg. Or 25 trillion tonnes. So since Earth is larger planet it’s atmosphere per square meter is less, but Earth would have 3 times pressure because it’s got 3 times the gravity.
    So such Earth world would have 1/8th the amount of CO2 as Mars, but we adding a lot Methane which is suppose to 25 times more potent than CO2. Plus your choice 3 tonnes of other gases which greenhouse gases which called super greenhouse gases [far more potent than Methane].

    So from earth levels, we have reduced the amount of water vapor, increased the amount the weaker greenhouse gas CO2 by a little bit, and added massive amounts of methane and your choice 3 trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases one call “others”.
    And we have world with very thin atmosphere like Mars.

    Now question is does this world with it’s huge net increase of greenhouse gases but huge reduction non greenhouse gases, have a larger effect than our current atmosphere?

    Before visions of sauna conditions become thoroughly implanted in your mind, lets look at some things.
    Earth has 511 million square km. Which also 511 trillion square meter. And 27 tonnes divided by 511 is 5.28 kg.
    And 1 cm of water over 1 square meter is 10 kg of water.
    So 5.28 kg of water in meter square is 5.28 mm of water.

    Or one cubic meter of air is about 1.2 kg, and one meter square 4.4 meter tall column of air is 5.28 kg.

    Let’s make room 5 by 5 by 3 meter tall- 75 cubic square meters. {16.3 feet square with 9.8 foot ceiling}. And 3 cubic meter per square meter. Let’s fill room with non greenhouse gases. 3/7th of 5.28 kg is 2.26 kg per 3 cubic
    meter is .75 kg per cubic meter- or less than sea level pressure but enough air pressure to breath. So leaves us
    with 3.02 kg per square meter of greenhouse gases. Now we will encase this room with 2 meter thick walls with greenhouse gases- roof, walls, and floor. The air pressure
    of the walls will depend on which the other 3 tons of super greenhouse gas you pick, but methane is less dense than air and CO2 is more dense and some super greenhouses can far denser than air, so it probably be about same pressure as sea level though may more.
    So you have walls of double pane glass and you heat it the all the gases up to say, 70 F. And you put it in the arctic at winter, and come back the next day. What temperature would expect the room to be?

    And with world with 27 trillion tonnes of mostly greenhouse
    gases, would you think the polar region during it’s 6 months of darkness each year would remain warm?

    • Do ug C o tt on says:

      Radiative forcing is not what determines planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures. How could it possibly do so on Uranus where there is no solar radiation at the base of its troposphere, but it’s hotter than Earth there? Go back to this comment.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Radiative forcing is not what determines planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures.”

        Wiki defines Radiative forcing:
        “In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface. A positive forcing (more incoming energy) warms the system, while negative forcing (more outgoing energy) cools it. Causes of radiative forcing include changes in insolation (incident solar radiation) and in concentrations of radiatively active gases and aerosols.”

        So in terms averaging a sphere’s surface area it is 4 times it’s disk area and if disk’s area is receiving 1360 watts the average surface are would be 1/4 of this which is 340 watts.
        If you accurately measure incoming and out going of the average spherical area should equal 1/4 of the incoming.

        Such a measurement average [340 watts in and out]doesn’t give you much or any information of the air surface temperature of Kansas. But rather the expectation is one should get an average of 340 watts if you measuring it correct, and might interesting to determine why is it isn’t- you probably first check whether you accurately measuring it. And checking to see if measuring it right is probably the most useful aspect involved in attempting to measure it in the first place.
        Or by trying to measure it, the consequence improvement in your measuring is one can then directly accurately measure Kansas from space.

        The temperature of the surface depends where you are on the planet and “weather”. Vast amounts the sunlight’s energy is absorbed by the ocean and ocean retain this heat and transports it different regions. And without this transportation of heat, Europe would be much cooler than it is. But the oceans do more than merely keep the Europeans warm.

        Broadly speaking the interglacial periods are times when oceans are warming, and broadly speaking the glacial periods are when ocean are cooling. Or the rise and fall of sea level are both the warmth of the ocean and the addition
        and subtraction of ice which on land [glacial snow/ice].
        And broadly speaking as related to past interglacial periods, it seems our current interglacial period should
        have oceans which become warmer. Or sea level rise should continue for centuries and/or thousands of years. Though it’s possible that the sea level will not rise as much as they appeared to risen in past interglacial periods and the oceans not get as warm.

        And radiate forcing will indicate much in terms changes in
        surface temperatures which part interglacial and glacial period- on average 340 watts comes in and 340 watts goes out. So there would be a huge difference of atmospheric and surface temperatures that are unrelated to how wiki is defining, radiative forcing.

        Or said differently, at time when Earth had average temperature 10 C warmer than our current average temperature the energy of sunlight arriving at Earth disk area was 1/4 of average energy leaving from it’s spherical
        surface. One thing that does correlate to a warmer world
        is a warmer ocean. So whenever average ocean temperature is 10 C, the world will be warmer then compared with our world which has average ocean temperature being about 3 C.
        Everyone knows this. It not in doubt, but it’s not exciting,
        because everyone also knows it requires thousands of years
        for the ocean to warm up that much. And everyone who living will not be around in the thousands of years in this possible future- it’s not as interesting as the fiction of New York city being flooded from rising sea levels [soon- like maybe within a decade].

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        I know what radiative forcing is supposed to be gbaikie. You don’t need to “teach” me what climatologists teach generations of climatologists.

        I don’t see any reference to the gravitationally-induced thermal gradient in your writings. Hence your concepts are not universal, and that’s why you can’t answer the trillion dollar question I have asked on several blogs.

        • gbaikie says:

          “I dont see any reference to the gravitationally-induced thermal gradient in your writings. Hence your concepts are not universal, and thats why you cant answer the trillion dollar question I have asked on several blogs.”

          What in particular would you like me to say about “gravitationally-induced thermal gradients”?

          I am not aware of this question, which you are saying you asked on several blogs.

          • DougCotton says:

            Go back to this comment for questions. Plenty of my comments refer to the well-proven existence of the gravito-thermal effect which does away with any need for greenhouse radiative forcing conjectures.

  25. Baroch Cohen says:

    Great job you do bravo

  26. Do ug C o tt on says:

    Do people here never wonder just exactly why upward convection (actually advection) stops and the rate of surface cooling slows down dramatically in the early pre-dawn hours. Why does it? The Sun is not slowing cooling. The rate of cooling slows down far more than the relatively small drop in the K temperature. The reason is in my book, but it’s something to think about I suggest.

    • gbaikie says:

      “Do people here never wonder just exactly why upward convection (actually advection) stops and the rate of surface cooling slows down dramatically in the early pre-dawn hours.”

      I never wondered about it. Can’t say I recall anyone mentioning it before.
      Generally, I would not think there was much upward advection during the night. Or downward advection at night.

      If had to guess I would assume it’s related to the warming during the day. So you get pulse of warming during the day, and it’s sort of bounces back by morning.

      So if there is less difference between day and night temperature, this should be less noticeable, and with steep differences of day and night temperature, it should be [if what I imagine is the case] more noticeable.

      • Do ug C o tt on says:

        No, it’s due to the fact that the “environmental lapse rate” is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in which the non-radiative processes have a propensity to form a -g/Cp thermal gradient, but this is reduced (usually by no more than about a third) by the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation. For example, on Uranus the -g/Cp gradient of about 0.76K/Km is reduced to about 0.72K/Km by radiation between just a small percentage of methane molecules, whereas on Venus it is reduced more like 25% by carbon dioxide, which thus leads to a significantly lower surface temperature on Venus. On Earth it is reduced mostly by water vapour which reduces the insulating effect of the atmosphere by inter-molecular radiation, just as it reduces the insulating effect between the panes of double glazed windows as it helps energy leap-frog across the gap at the speed of light, overtaking the far slower diffusion heat transfer.

        If I were incorrect, then here on Earth it would get far, far colder each night.

        • Do ug C o tt on says:

          If you wish to respond to this please do so after this comment on that newer thread.

          <

        • DougCotton says:

          There’s a significant debate going on between SkS’s team member Neil J. King and myself on Lucia’s Blackboard. You can see my replies (awaiting moderation) hours earlier here.