There’s something about the greenhouse effect /sky radiation / downwelling infrared / back radiation issue that keeps drawing me back to the subject.
I guess it’s the number of people who don’t believe the so-called greenhouse effect exists (I still get e-mails from them, even today), combined with the difficulty of convincing them that their everyday experience is consistent with its existence.
I’ve used a handheld IR thermometer to directly measure its effect (the temperature of the surface of a thermopile in the device increases as you scan from pointing straight up in a clear sky to pointing at an angle…voila! Downwelling sky radiation changing surface temperature!). But, no, that’s not enough.
I’ve also tried to explain that the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere (or anything else, for that matter) is a function of rates of energy gain and energy loss, not of just how much solar radiation is absorbed. I’ve argued this using the analogy of insulation in a house…even though the insulation does not add “new energy” (just as the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t add new energy to the Earth system,) it does make the house warmer in winter by reducing the rate of energy loss to its colder surroundings.
But, no, that’s not accepted since, you know, house insulation works by conduction, not by radiation. Sigh.
So, just for laughs, here’s another demonstration, involving a simple model of the cooling of the soil at night.
At night the soil cools by loss of infrared radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation lets us estimate the rate at which IR energy is being lost based upon surface temperature and emissivity, and simply dividing that by the product of the soil depth and soil bulk heat capacity gives us the rate at which the soil layer temperature will fall. Basic physics and thermodynamics.
From that we can make a simple time-dependent model to calculate the change in temperature throughout the night. This simple spreadsheet model I’ve provided here will allow you to change assumed parameters to see how to get a realistic temperature decline over 12 nighttime hours. What you will find is that the temperature falls to unrealistically cold levels unless you assume a large downwelling energy flux from the sky into the soil (also adjustable in the model).
If you are wondering, “what about cooling of the atmosphere in contact with the ground?”, well just make the soil layer deeper…it turns out that 0.2 meters of soil is equivalent in bulk heat capacity to about 200 m of atmosphere.
The adjustable parameters (in red in the spreadsheet) are soil depth (0.2 m is typical for day-night temperature changes), the soil heat capacity (2.5 is typical, water is 4.18), the IR emissivity (0.90-0.95 would be typical), the downwelling sky radiation intensity (0 for all you sky dragon slayers [SDSs] out there, 250-350 for the rest of us), and the starting temperature (300 K is about 80 deg. F).
For example, for a 0.2 m moist soil layer (about 8 inches thick), starting at 80 deg. F, the rate of energy loss over 12 hours is enough to cool that soil layer down to 25 deg. F….IF you don’t assume any downwelling IR from the sky (the SDS-recommended setting):
But, if you assume the Trenberthian global-average value of 330 W/m2 for downwelling sky radiation, the soil cools from 80 to about 67 deg. F, a much more realistic value:
In reality, the soil surface cools faster that does the deeper layers, but I didn’t want to complicate things with a multi-level model (which I don’t have time to work on anyway). This is just a simple, bulk model calculation meant to illustrate how extremely cold it would get at night without downwelling IR from the sky (aka, the “greenhouse effect”) reducing the net rate of energy loss to outer space.
Of course, downwelling IR from the sky is going on 24-7-365, acting to keep daytime temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be, too.
Warmer daytime + warmer nighttime = Warmer Earth.
Now, as I’ve mentioned before, as much as 75% of this big, bad greenhouse effect is “short-circuited” by convective heat loss by the surface, which is almost entirely a daytime phenomenon over land (nighttime surface temperatures quickly cool the near-surface air to make it convectively stable). (And, just for completeness, a greenhouse atmosphere is colder in the upper layers than it would otherwise be.) My point is that, just because the “greenhouse effect” exists doesn’t mean that our 1-2% enhancement of it with carbon dioxide is going to cause anything bad to happen. There are natural cooling mechanisms in place for the lower atmosphere. The stratosphere, though, probably will cool, as we have seen in satellite data.
But denying the existence of downwelling IR radiation from the sky (which is measured continuously at many sites around the world) is, in my opinion, a losing strategy.
Now, let the silliness begin….
https://twitter.com/tan123/status/584849140011536384
Given that I do not see how human contributions to the GHG effect can change the balance which has always been CO2 is governed by the climate, forestation and biological,geological processes rather then the other way around.
Co2 always follows the temperature ,that is what all of the data has shown.
Yes I believe in the GHG effect but I think it is a result of the climate amongst other items (mentioned above)not the other way around.
Even if CO2 followed temperature in the ice core record, that does not mean that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
That would be like saying, if temperature causes clouds to change, then clouds can’t cause temperature to change.
I agree with what you are saying when you say even if CO2 followed the temperature in the ice core record ,that does not mean that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
I agree it causes warming, but here is where I differ which is the warming GHG effect is able to cause depends on how strong the GHG effect is which depends on the climate/environment.
If the GHG effect should decrease in response to the climate/environment then it should not be able to cause as much warming.
Do you see what I am trying to say.
Roy – I suggest you read this comment before putting your foot in the physics yet again. Cheers, Doug
Doug: Your linked comment is non sequitur to Roy’s analogy. Don’t be so quick to troll.
No Roy, but correct physics proves that it doesn’t warm, and nor does water vapor.
Go to this comment.
The Sun’s direct radiation cannot achieve a mean surface temperature of 288K. If it could, then some regions in the tropics would be over 100°C on clear days.
The required (and very necessary) extra thermal energy comes from solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere and subsequently conveyed downwards into the surface by non-radiative processes that are obeying the Second Law and thus maximizing entropy.
“No Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects, Warmer Still”….and….
“The Four Known Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth’s Climate”
both by Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering at the….
Principia Scientific International webs site are some of the NO Warmists arguments.
Yes Joe, but the errors are those by Joseph Postma, as outlined on the Slaying the Slayers page in the website now endorsed by our group of those suitably qualified in physics.
Roy – I’ve explained why it is wrong to add back radiation to solar flux (as is done in all energy diagrams) in this comment and the following. It’s not hard to understand.
Dr. Spencer says,
The stratosphere, though, probably will cool, as we have seen in satellite data.
My reply -lack of large explosive volcanic eruptions and a quiet prolonged solar minimum period can also account for the stratosphere to cool.
Great work! You have a nice useable model to demonstrate the effect.
One thing the Slayers are not explaining (be it Venus or Earth). If GH effect was not real in any way, what happens to all that radiation emitted from the surface. The Earth is emitting hundreds of watts/meter^2 away from it surface (huge warm oceans if nothing else). You would see this amount of IR using satellites.
With Venus it is worse. The surface there is emitting around 16000 watts/meter^2 yet you don’t see this radiation coming out of the atmosphere (One Slayer conjecture is that the mass of Venus atmosphere is what sustains the high surface temp…fine, but how does that stop this super flow of radiation from leaving the planet?)
maybe they say the surface IR emissivity isn’t as high as assumed. I don’t know. Hard to keep up with their arguments.
Hi Roy,
Not to take up dragon-slayer rants, it does seem to me impossible for GHG forcing alone to account for 16k w/m^2 on Venus. Why? Well, to provide a full explanation allow me a thought experiment. Assume the 50k atmospheric particulate layer on Venus doesn’t exist, so the full Venusian solar irradiance of ~2613.9 w/m^2 can effect the surface. Divide it by four to get something less than ~653.4 w/m^2 available to warm the entire planetary surface, not taking into account things like albedo, etc.. Assume that the massive Venusian atmosphere (93 times larger than Earth’s) allows all the radiation to impinge the surface and to make Norman happy re-emits not just a portion but almost the entire <~653.4 w/m^2 back to the surface (just like if it had been reflected). Well you still have at most something much less than ~1306.95 w/m^2 (much less than Mercury for example) flux to the surface not 16k w/m^2. The atmospheric mass ( whether you call it a lapse rate or gravity induced temperature gradient like Doug ) provided by volcanic action becomes imo absolutely necessary to explain Venusian surface temperatures. Thank you for any assistance you may provide in accounting for this discrepancy, apparent of real.
Have a great day!
Correction, last sentence should read:
“Thank you for any assistance you may provide in accounting for this discrepancy, apparent or real.”
It is only apparent. The hole in your logic is your assumption that the energy can only be “recycled” once.
And, it’s impossible to explain the surface temperature by “atmospheric mass”, whatever that means. You have to explain the temperature in a way that satisfies the energy balance at the top of the Venusian atmosphere (i.e., the fact that the surface is emitting 16 k W/m^2 but much, much less is actually escaping to space).
No amount of magic mass, or anything else, can explain it. Only absorption (or reflection) of the radiation from the surface by the atmosphere can.
JohnKl,
I know you do not like my thermos examples but they do really well to explain energy in and out.
If you use Roy’s handy IR sensor and have some liquid of unknown temperature (can be hot, cold whatever) that you want to determine.
In one case I pour the unknown liquid in a thermos and in another a metal cup. You use the IR sensor and which container do you think you will have the best chance of finding out the temperature of the liquid?
Hi Joel Shore,
You claim:
“The hole in your logic is your assumption that the energy can only be “recycled” once.”
Did I assume that? You don’t appear to have thought this through. It doesn’t matter how many times energy at a given bandwidth gets ping-ponged back and forth it doesn’t raise the temperature of any source already emitting at that level and the energy emitted by any given gas molecule or surface molecule in any finite time period remains unchanged as well. Therefore, the flux between the two remains unchanged. In any case, the amount re-emitted to the surface will only be a fraction of the amount emitted from the surface in any given finite time period, no matter how much I give Norman REFLECTIVE leeway.
Iow, <653.54 w/m^2 enters by sunlight (remember my hypothetical eliminated the particulate layer) and the same constantly gets re-emitted back to the surface in any given time period so something <1306.95 w/m^2 flux.
You go on:
"You have to explain the temperature in a way that satisfies the energy balance at the top of the Venusian atmosphere (i.e., the fact that the surface is emitting 16 k W/m^2 but much, much less is actually escaping to space)."
My hypothetical departed from reality in part by eliminating the particulate layer from the surface to 50 km up. With that in mind, energy does get conserved by GHG's to an extent, but as I mentioned to a small extent, but gravity conserves atmospheric mass and energy as witnessed by it's lapse which coincidentally closely tracks the Earth's! Btw, yes atmospheric mass and altitude affect potential energy and thus the amount conserved. The mass and energy involved cannot be detached from the volcanic action that produced it.
You assert:
"No amount of magic mass, or anything else, can explain it. Only absorption (or reflection) of the radiation from the surface by the atmosphere can."
Nothing magic about a Venusian atmospheric mass 93 times the mass of Earth's and the radiation as just shown doesn't begin to account for 16k w/m^2.
Have a great day!
JS: “You have to explain the temperature in a way that satisfies the energy balance at the top of the Venusian atmosphere (i.e., the fact that the surface is emitting 16 k W/m^2 but much, much less is actually escaping to space).”
I have been the first in the world (to the best of my knowledge) to correctly explain both the temperatures and the necessary net heat transfers for Venus using the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There’s nothing surprising once you understand entropy maximization.
By the time you all do understand the 21st Century Paradigm you will be able to understand what supplies the thermal energy necessary to balance the outward flux on Venus, which, by the way is mostly at night when the Venus surface cools by about 5 degrees over 4 months, whereas the net energy is of course inwards into the Venus surface while any location on the equator is warming by about 5 degrees during the 4 months of the Venus day.
See http://climate-change-theory.com
JohnKl
If I am reading you correctly, it seems as if your primary concern is how much energy is entering a system. Mercury can receive more energy than Venus and still have a cooler sun facing surface temperature because more energy is leaving the mercury system than the Venus system. Temperature of Anything is not just a measure of Energy in. Temperature is based upon energy in minus energy out.
Venus surface receives far less energy than Mercury surface. Mercury surface, but the surface of Mercury radiates (loses) its surface energy to outer space (never to return) at a much faster rate.
This is how it would sum up:
Venus Energy In = Very low Energy leaving Venus System = Very low
Mercury Energy In = Very high Energy leaving Mercury System = Very high
The net energy balance is all that matters in determining the potential temperature of a given body (the actual temperature would then depend upon the type of material and mass making up the body)
The one fact that still needs explaining is where does this 16000 watts/meter^2 emitted by the Venus surface go? If atmospheric mass and volcanoes where driving the surface to its current temperature and causing it to emit this vast energy stream radiating away from the surface, why is this intense radiation not seen outside Venus’s atmosphere?
Have a nice day!
Hi Norman,
You don’t seem to quite grasp what occurs. You state:
“The net energy balance is all that matters in determining the potential temperature of a given body (the actual temperature would then depend upon the type of material and mass making up the body)”
Only in regard to radiative frequency. Iow, if higher frequency IR from a warmer object encounters a cooler object then there can exist a transfer of heat to the cooler object. If however lower frequency IR from a cooler object (like the Venusian atmosphere) encounters a warmer object on the surface no transfer of heat takes place. Why? Well the warmer surface already emits a greater quantity of energy (higher frequency, shorter wavelength) than the atmosphere’s radiative energy (lower frequency, longer wavelength). In any case, this doesn’t explain fully 16kw/m^2!
Have a great day!
JohnKl …. stay right there with your viewpoint. You are very close to explaining this correct. Just that Venus is not 92-93 times more massive than Earth’s atmosphere, it is somewhere around 103-104 times move massive. The former is a pressure ratio, not a mass ratio and has the gravitational compression ratio involved where the mass-ratio does not. Take the estimated total mass of Venus’s atmosphere (NASA’s estimate) and divide it by the spherical surface area. Earth’s columnar mass is about 10,033 kg/m^3 and Venus’s is around 103 time greater that. This might help you from being off by a ~10% factor.
I prefer an analogy of co2’s EMR vibration band in an atmosphere to be much more like ringing bells. The bells (co2 molecules) have a fixed and distinctive ‘chord’ that they can ring and play and spectrum equipment pick this up. At very low concentration like 1 ppm you can start to pick up the faint ringing in the atmosphere. Each bell causes identical molecules about to also ring but at the same ‘tones’. If you have two identical bells next to each other, and ring one, the other will also begin to share this energy you imparted on the first and both will vibrate and sing but no more ‘volume’ than the energy you imposed on the first bell as you struck it.
Now carry that thought further with more and more bells (co2 mainly near 15μm in ppm) and that the energy making them ring in the first place is only as strong (the ‘volume’) as the main surface radiating in co2’s narrow spectrum mainly just about that 15μm. The ‘tone’ ot that ring may vary slightly due to band edge or wing narrowing or broadening but the overall ‘volume’ is fixed by the surface upwelling quanity of EMR. Seems Dr. Spencer and even Shores still don’t completely understand EMR.
Mainly… what you are stating JohnKl rings [sic] true.
Hi Wayne,
Thanks for post. You stated:
“Just that Venus is not 92-93 times more massive than Earth’s atmosphere, it is somewhere around 103-104 times move massive. The former is a pressure ratio, not a mass ratio and has the gravitational compression ratio involved where the mass-ratio does not. ”
Very true. Venusian Surface pressure falls around 93 bar but since Venusian gravity falls around 80% of Earth gravity a significantly greater atmospheric mass must be required on Venus to obtain the same surface pressure one would find on Earth. However, this holds true for total mass not quite as much for volume. Why? Well CO2, SO2 and other tri-atomic gas compounds in the Venusian atmosphere prove much heavier than the Earth’s di-atomic gasses like O2, N2 etc.. Hence the Venusian atmosphere proves denser and any given cubic parcel of atmosphere containing the same number of molecules in them as a similar cubic parcel from Earth will be heavier than the similar parcel from Earth if both parcels exist in the same gravitational field. Over all your point proves straight on.
You later state:
“I prefer an analogy of co2′s EMR vibration band in an atmosphere to be much more like ringing bells. The bells (co2 molecules) have a fixed and distinctive ‘chord’ that they can ring and play and spectrum equipment pick this up.”
Nice perspective, Doug Cotton and a Scandinavian Professor who used to post here stated similar views. Regarding temperature, it seems to me the important thing to remember is that similar frequencies produce similar temperature responses universally. 15um wavelegnth emitted radiation will not produce a greater temperature in any subsequent absorbing object than present in the original emitting object. This should be seen with average planetary surface temperatures as well. The belief seems to be that as radiated energy gets ping-ponged back and forth between emitters (surface and atmosphere for example) and additional radiation arrives from another source that it will have some strange compound effect. The problem with such views remains that it’s not the gross energy moving back and forth but the frequency. They seem to make the same mistake Maxwell made when he claimed INTENSITY and FREQUENCY of emitted energy determine temperature. Max Planck had to correct him later because evidence suggests that FREQUENCY not INTENSITY determines temperature. For example, suppose I have a universe of two cups one at 3 degrees centigrade and one emitting at 4 degrees centigrade. The most the four centigrade cup can raise the 3 degree centigrade’s temperature to would be no higher than 4 degrees centigrade. The same holds true if I multiply the number of 4 degree centigrade cups a million, a billion or a quadrillion fold. Multiplying the energy at the same frequency will not increase the 3 degree cup to anything higher than 4 degrees. However, if I simply double increase the emitting temperature of the 4 degree cup to 5 degrees with a slightly higher radiative frequency everything changes.
In any given planetary atmosphere one has a finite number of molecules that can radiate energy back to the planet no matter how much energy it absorbs at some given frequency. Moreover, if it emits at a given frequency any energy simultaneously absorbed by said emitter at the same frequency will simply cancel the other energy out, hence no net gain in energy and/or temperature. This goes for any molecule anywhere whether on the surface or in the atmosphere. No doubt you understand what I’m claiming, some don’t seem to acknowledge it.
Have a great day!
Correction:
My post should have stated:
“If I simply increase the emitting temperature of the 4 degree cup to 5 degrees with a slightly higher radiative frequency everything changes.”
The word “DOUBLE” should never have appeared there.
Have a great day!
Just noticed your response John, thanks.
Yes, yes, it is all in the temperature differentials layer by layer because of the spectrum frequency difference as it shifts, not the intensity that can never increase itself following the 2lot. Of course it the temperature changes everything changes be cause intensities at each frequency changed. I agree and further the change that raised the temperature from 4 to 5 in the first place has to come from some external energy factor like albedo, solar input, etc and not from the system changing itself through some sort of energy multiplier, like downwelling radiation. Downwelling radiation can and does change the vertical profile of what and where temperatures are found vertically but the over all columnar energy stays constant ignoring horizontal advection and such or on temperature decrease from cloud cover raising the temperature at the cloud tops and leaving the air between cloud base and the surface approaching isotherm.
On your mention of Venus, here is a something curious. The i.r. radiosity upward on Venus is about 16,700 W/m² where on Earth it is about 235 but Earth has a window that Venus lacks to any degree (why it is extremely hard to get an i.r. image of Venus’ surface at any frequency) so you have to subtract that 75 W/m² window in Earth’s case giving about 160 W/m² that is the well recognizable surface figure i/o. But, that ratio of 16,700 to 161 at the surface is the ~103.5 mass ratio between the two. A better way to view this is to realize that on both planets the upward i.r. attenuation is right at -0.0157 W/kg in a unit column mass, not from the pressure.
Carry this same analysis to the Galileo probes data on Jupiter and you will find that factor is nearly identical to Earth and Venus though the composition of the three planets atmospheres are radically different. One with nearly pure co2, ours of oxygen and nitrogen and Jupiter’s of hydrogen and helium. Now that changed my mind on this entire discussion about co2 and infrared.
John, you have a great day too!
Hi Wayne,
Thank you again for an excellent post. You state:
“But, that ratio of 16,700 to 161 at the surface is the ~103.5 mass ratio between the two. A better way to view this is to realize that on both planets the upward i.r. attenuation is right at -0.0157 W/kg in a unit column mass, not from the pressure.”
Great observation! Btw, I’d like your thoughts on another aspect. Joel Shore has claimed the Earth’s surface emits more (288 w/m^2) than the entire earth atmosphere system emits (255 w^2) to space. This claime seemed curious to me in that the lunar landscape proves hotter and thus emits more energy than Earth’s surface (if lunar daytime (obviously hotter) and night time (if only the first 12 hours after sunset are considered to mirror Earth’s rotational period). There seems to be some sort of game being played here and I wanted your thoughts.
Thanks and…
Have a great day!
Hi Wayne,
Correction:
Joel claimed Earth’s surface emitted…
“390 W/m^2 (what the Earth’s surface emits)”
Have a great day!
Hi again JohnKl, that’s a toughie and not sure you can compare the 12 hours on the moon in it’s first darkness due to the lengthy ‘day’ heating the regolith, it does get conflated there. Gallopingcamel (aka Peter Morcombe) who has worked down the hall I understand with Dr. R.G.Brown at Duke and Tim Channon at Talkshop have delved much deeper into this question that I using Diviner data. Maybe first checkout Peter’s site ‘DiggingInTheClay’ for possibly that answer, some also on Roger’s site (search ‘diviner’).
But off hand that 390 W/m² is not real, that is as if the surface were radiating against some other surface of matter at zero Kelvin or empty space and that was my emphasis saying that is all in the temperate differentials layer by layer along with the local density… it’s more like 40 W/m² net and in that 75 W/m² that I used above, that is that same forty plus one-half of what solar incoming is being direct absorbed by the atmosphere itself (I forgot to clue you and mention where that ≈75 W/m² came from). Hope that helps. Stay ‘net’ and stay cool. 😉
JohnKl
The slayers have it all wrong as explained here.
“If GH effect was not real in any way, what happens to all that radiation emitted from the surface.”
******
(I guess this is the “silliness” Dr. Roy was hoping for.)
Hey Gordon, the radiation is hiding in the deep oceans, under glaciers and polar ice, and in the remote rain forests. But, it can only hide up to a point. Once the “tipping point” is reached, the entire planet will explode. It happens all the time. Where do you think asteroids come from?
at first I thought you said, “Where do you think steroids come from?”
Yes the Slayers make a real mess of it all. See the page “Slaying the Slayers” on our group’s website.
I agree that the Slayers are totally wrong in their concepts that assume the Sun’s radiation is sufficient to explain mean surface temperatures on Earth and Venus.
Roy and Norman
Firstly, I agree that the Slayers are way off track. I don’t know why you even refer to them. I would not count Dr Hans Jelbring as an active member thereof, and I realize you are referring to his 2003 paper written a decade before he initially joined the Slayers. The Slayers still trample on his work and my extension and clarification of the related physics. Jelbring got it nearly right, but just didn’t quite come to grips with the physics that I have subsequently been able to explain as a result of my groundbreaking work in the field, which some with a solid understanding of thermodynamics are starting to realize is correct.
The radiation coming out of the surface does NOT represent the transfer of thermal energy by radiation out of the surface. The reasons are in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” (which I have linked before) and you should feel free to argue with the author thereof who is a professor in Applied Mathematics.
About 9 months prior to that being published I wrote my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” which was groundbreaking in explaining exactly why the transfer of thermal energy is represented by the area between the Planck functions for the source and the target, where the target in this case is mostly water vapor in the troposphere and some targets in Space for that radiation which gets through the atmospheric window.
In contrast, virtually all radiation from the Earth+atmosphere system that gets to Space does transfer very similar amounts of thermal energy because Space provides very little back radiation.
The balancing input of thermal energy on the sunlit side of Venus is by downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer (ie molecular collision processes only) that are causing entropy to increase, as it must.
And you, Norman, don’t have a clue what I’m talking about because you have not read and tried to understand what is at http://climate-change-theory.com and you have no understanding whatsoever of these breakthroughs in 21st century physics.
Sigh,
” I’ve argued this using the analogy of insulation in a house…even though the insulation does not add “new energy” (just as the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t add new energy to the Earth system,) it does make the house warmer in winter by reducing the rate of energy loss to its colder surroundings.”
No, the furnace makes the house warmer, NOT the insulation. Double the insulation and turn the furnace off, eventually the inside temperature will equal the outside temperature.
You can make it quite warm in an uninsulated cabin with a roaring hot wood stove inside. The purchase of insulation reduces the amount of wood needed going forward.
Up here in NY a few months back the ground was well below freezing even in the presence of 24/7 down welling IR from the upper atmosphere.
Wrong analogy, the radiative gases in the atmosphere do not act as a thermal insulator does, sorry, it just ain’t so.
Everything the climate science community thinks about how heat travels through a system completely contradicts what engineers know.
Yes radiative “blocking” can, in some cases, be used as a thermal insulator. I have designed high temperature electrically heated surfaces (over 300 F) and I did use a radiative reflector. It made the surface temperature more uniform and it was more energy efficient. Sadly once I removed the electricity it assumed room temperature.
Unfortunately adding a blanket to a rock merely changes the response time of the rock. Adding a gaseous “blanket” over a rock only changes the response time of the gases (due to the much lower thermal capacity of the gases relative to the rock).
Cheers, KevinK.
given the same rate of energy input to a furnace, wood stove, etc., (analogous to keeping absorbed solar energy constant), then adding insulation will make the inside hotter. I don’t see why this is so difficult.
It is difficult because you do not understand that conductive heat transfer and radiative heat transfer are different. Conduction requires a heat transfer median–a “conductor”. Radiation does not.
Why is that relevant? I don’t remember the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics having different statements depending on whether the mode of heat transfer requires a medium is present?
Or, are you just throwing up arbitrary complaints because you refuse to accept science that you don’t like? [That’s actually pretty much of a rhetorical question.]
If I have to explain why it is relevant, then you wouldn’t understand anyway.
@Joel “I don’t remember the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics having different statements depending on whether the mode of heat transfer requires a medium is present?”
It doesn’t, and that’s the point. Heat transfer must take place in accordance with the 2nd law and the primary tenet of the 2nd law is that heat can only be transferred from a warm body to a cooler body without compensation.
In climate science, especially with the AGW theory, heat is being allowed to transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that apparently warmed it via radiation. Stefan Rahmstorf, a physicist and contributor at realclimate, has claimed that a positive balance of infrared energies between a warmer and a cooler body satisfies the 2nd law.
Rahmstorf is obviously confusing the 1st law, with it’s conservation of energy, with the 2nd law which is entirely about heat. IR interchange between a warmer and a cooler body is irrelevant to the 2nd law, which is only concerned with heat transfer. How it is transferred makes no different wrt which direction it can be transferred.
Perhaps you know more about the theory behind that. I am presuming that IR radiating from a cooler body has neither the intensity nor bandwidth to affect the temperature of a warmer body.
Clausius even referenced that situation. He claimed that with radiative transfer, IR can flow both ways but heat can only be transferred hot to cold without compensation.
Gordon Robertson says: “In climate science, especially with the AGW theory, heat is being allowed to transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that apparently warmed it via radiation.”
No, is simple lowers the rate at which heat is transferred away from the warm surface.
“Stefan Rahmstorf, a physicist and contributor at realclimate, has claimed that a positive balance of infrared energies between a warmer and a cooler body satisfies the 2nd law.”
The claim is correct. Heat is the net transfer. There can and will be individual transfers both ways.
This is true even for conduction. Put a warm block of metal against a cool block of metal. Because there are large random variations in the vibration amplitudes, sometimes an atom on the surface of the cool block will have more energy then an adjacent atom on the surface of the warm block. This will transfer energy to the warmer block. This does NOT violate the 2nd Law because, on average, there are more collisions transferring more energy the ‘right’ way.
“I am presuming that IR radiating from a cooler body has neither the intensity nor bandwidth to affect the temperature of a warmer body. “
You presume incorrectly. As with the conduction example above, it is perfectly possible for a photon to go from an atom on the cool side to an atom on the warm side.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Clausius even referenced that situation. He claimed that with radiative transfer, IR can flow both ways but heat can only be transferred hot to cold without compensation.”
Yes, and he is exactly right: Because heat is the net transfer and that net transfer is always from cold to hot because the radiation from the hotter to the colder body is always larger than the colder to the hotter.
It is not because of some bizarre magic that you invision whereby the “cooler body has neither the intensity nor bandwidth to affect the temperature of a warmer body”. It is about the statistics of very large numbers of transfers.
It is for the same reason that if you take the works of Shakespeare and mix up the letters, you will end up with gibberish but if you take gibberish and mix up the letters, you won’t produce the works of Shakespeare. That’s not because at the microscopic scale, you can’t have letters re-arrange themselves to form words of Shakespeare. It is because of the shear improbability of this happening on a macroscopic scale.
It is for the same reason that you never witness all the molecules of air in the room go over to the other half of the room and leave you to suffocate.
Until you learn about how the Second Law arises from statistical physics, you are stuck in your mindset of what I call the Magical 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is not only wrong, but much less interesting and elegant than the actual 2nd Law.
What always amazes me in these conversations is how people’s imaginings of how nature works, particularly in the case of the 2nd Law, are much more arbitrary and capricious and boring than how it actually works. That is the sad part, not only that you are locked into such misunderstanding, but that you are depriving yourself of the beauty of how nature actually works because you are so wedded on it working in the way you want it to work.
Let me tell you, if the universe worked the arbitrary and capricious way you seem to envision it, the attraction of physics, at least to me, would be much less. I might as well be a stamp collector.
I am quite aware Joel Shore of the use of statistical mechanics in understanding the process of maximum entropy production that is what the Second Law is all about. But when people use equations for entropy which do not have terms for molecular gravitational potential energy they get wrong results in a vertical plane. Experiments with centrifugal force have now proved that a force field produces a temperature gradient, and they have achieved temperatures right down to 1K (yes, -272°C) now with such gradients in artificial force fields, as here.
The Loschmidt effect does occur and is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium wherein there are no further net transfers of matter or energy across any internal boundary.
That’s why convection stops when that temperature gradient is attained. If weather conditions then make the gradient less steep, convective heat transfer goes the other way up the thermal profile. That’s why we don’t need back radiation to explain the surface temperature.
And, because that is now a proven fact in this 21st Century, you Joel Shore and the AGW crowd are promulgating a fraudulent hoax that is causing poverty, starvation and death.
Joel Shore and others:
Regarding radiation and the Second Law go to this comment.
Hi Joel Shore,
You state in complete cognitive dissonance:
“Yes, and he is exactly right: Because heat is the net transfer and that net transfer is always from cold to hot because the radiation from the hotter to the colder body is always larger than the colder to the hotter.
It is not because of some bizarre magic that you invision whereby the “cooler body has neither the intensity nor bandwidth to affect the temperature of a warmer body”. It is about the statistics of very large numbers of transfers.”
First, it seems you meant to state “that net transfer is always from hot to cold” otherwise the STATEMENT AS YOU WROTE IT SELF-CONTRADICTS!
Second, it seems your second statement proves equally contradictory. Warmer bodies emit higher frequency, shorter wavelength radiation BANDWIDTHS than cooler bodies. High frequency, short wavelength radiation has MORE energy than low frequency, long wavelength radiation. Radiation with half the wavelength has twice the energy. Therefore, cooler bodies emitting lower frequency, longer wavelength bandwidths cannot increase the temperature of objects emitting higher frequency, shorter wavelength radiation. Therefore, Max Planck proves correct and you prove apparently absurd.
Have a great day!
@Geran …”It is difficult because you do not understand that conductive heat transfer and radiative heat transfer are different”.
That’s an excellent point and it is often lost in today’s climate science where it is presumed that radiative heat transfer is the prime heat mover in the atmosphere. Lindzen does not agree.
Radiative heat transfer is a special circumstance in that heat is transferred by electromagnetic energy in infrared frequency bands. However, the heat transferred MUST obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If a very hot piece of steel is brought in contact with a cold piece of steel it is expected that heat will be transferred from the hot body to the cold body by conduction but not in the opposite direction.
Conduction is the primary heat transfer mode and the 2nd law of thermodynamic holds. Same thing if a hot steel body is immersed in a cooler liquid. With gases, radiative transfer is the primary mode of heat transfer BUT the 2nd law MUST apply.
IMHO, this is where serious mistakes have been made in climate science. Physicists like Stefan Rahmstorf have claimed that infrared energies can be summed, and if they are positive between a warmer body and a cooler body radiating against each other, the 2nd law is satisfied.
That is simply false. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner responded to such an allegation, and they both have expertise in thermodynamics, the 2nd law is about heat transfer, not an infrared energy exchange.
Heat can be transferred in one direction only without compensation, from hot to cold. That simple fact rules out the greenhouse theory based on GHGs and the anthropogenic theory.
I am not arguing that some other effect is taking place in the atmosphere, or between the oceans and the atmosphere, I just don’t think it involves radiation from the surface being absorbed by GHGs that make up no more than 1% of atmospheric gases, or that the same amount of GHGs can raise the global temperature from a theorized -19C (without oceans) to +15C.
“IMHO, this is where serious mistakes have been made in climate science. Physicists like Stefan Rahmstorf have claimed that infrared energies can be summed, and if they are positive between a warmer body and a cooler body radiating against each other, the 2nd law is satisfied.”
IMHO? It’s not a humble opinion if it disagrees with what every physics textbook would tell you. It is not a humble opinion if it disagrees with the 20th century understanding of how thermodynamics arises as the macroscopic limit of statistical physics.
It is a pretty arrogant and uninformed opinion.
“That is simply false. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner responded to such an allegation, and they both have expertise in thermodynamics, the 2nd law is about heat transfer, not an infrared energy exchange.”
Well, first of all, because you can find two obscure physicists who wrote a paper that is nonsense does not mean that this proves you are correct. It proves you can always find nonsense if you look hard enough for nonsense to support what you want to believe.
On the other hand, your statement is in one sense absolutely correct: Yes, the 2nd Law is about heat transfer; it does not apply to the individual exchanges of energy because that is not heat transfer. Heat transfer is the NET exchange.
Joel Shore in reply to the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper unfortunately said that back radiation is heat.
He is to be congratulated in accepting that this was a mistake and now agrees that heat transfer is a one way process.
That is heat is the net of the two way energy transfer in the case of a purely radiative exchange.
Yes, a few times in that reply, we used the term heat when we shouldn’t have and also used the term “net heat” which is somewhat redundant (although I have seen it used in physics textbooks too…perhaps redundant for emphasis).
I think you might be able to get over this Bryan. The slip in terminology affected exactly zero of our conclusions, based on sound analysis. It was just poor word choice.
The larger context was that you spent years (and maybe still do) defend the gibberish and falsehoods that riddled G&T’s paper, apparently believing that a slight slip in terminology is a greater sin than complete misunderstanding (or lies?) about the actual physics.
Joel Shore – see this comment.
Radiation is not necessarily a two-way process. It may cause evaporation, for example, so there is no reverse radiation that depends upon the first pencil of radiation.
The Second Law applies to every independent process.
The concept of “net” effects can only be applied to dependent processes, like in a siphon the processes on each side are dependent, so the total net effect is that entropy does in fact increase if the liquid travels further down than it does up. But, if you cut the hose at the top then the Second Law applies to each side because they have now become independent processes.
The Second Law must apply for every one way pencil of radiation, and it does, because Nature has a unique and rarely understood way of ensuring that it does through resonance processes described here and in Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation.
But of course in climatology propaganda we have to cop their usual fictitious fiddled fissics wherein they conveniently forget that “participating systems” must be inter-dependent.
Roy, you changed your analogy in the middle of your thought experiment.
Perhaps; “Additional insulation in the walls of your house ENABLES your furnace to make it warmer inside (assuming a constant furnace output)”
Enables versus “makes”, perhaps we can both agree on these semantics ?
The rest of my assertion that a gaseous radiative barrier does not act like conductive thermal insulation (i.e. a blanket) is still correct.
You simply cannot ignore the velocity of the energy flowing through the system.
The closest analogy to the radiatively active gases surrounding the Earth is an optical integrating sphere with very low surface reflectivity and a huge exit port.
And, as is well known, optical integrating spheres do not make the light source inside “brighter”. Yes there is a small error source known as “self absorption” but that requires an external power source acting in concert with an incandescent light bulb.
I have read all (well most) of your writing on this topic, and we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Cheers, KevinK.
Sigh,
“given the same rate of energy input to a furnace, wood stove, etc., (analogous to keeping absorbed solar energy constant), then adding insulation will make the inside hotter. I don’t see why this is so difficult.”
The surface of the Earth is NOT analogous to the furnace in your home. Your furnace spits out a constant stream of BTU’s WITHOUT cooling down. The surface of the Earth spits out a constant stream of IR photons WHILE cooling down. Big difference. And yes it can be warming up in parallel, but the emission of photons is removing energy and cooling the surface.
Cheers, KevinK.
Roy, I need your attention just this once:
The solar radiation absorbed (168W/m^2 on Earth and <20W/m^2 on Venus) is nowhere near sufficient to raise the surfaces to anywhere near the observed temperatures in the first place, so who cares about the rate of cooling?
Radiation cannot raise the temperature of any body to more than the temperature to which it would raise a perfect blackbody in Space, even in a billion years. For Earth’s surface it would also have to supply an extra 102W/m^2 for other simultaneous non-radiative losses.
Radiation only slows radiative cooling anyway, not evaporative cooling or sensible heat transfers out of the surface. These other processes accelerate to compensate for slower radiative cooling. The overall effect is nothing.
None of this affects the supporting temperature which virtually stops convection in the early pre-dawn hours, even though the temperature gradient remains intact. We see this operating especially in long periods of thick cloud cover extending over several days and nights. Where is the continued cooling in such cases?
Now please read my final “Comment #900” below.
— Doug Cotton says:
April 17, 2015 at 5:59 PM
Roy, I need your attention just this once:
The solar radiation absorbed (168W/m^2 on Earth and <20W/m^2 on Venus) is nowhere near sufficient to raise the surfaces to anywhere near the observed temperatures in the first place, so who cares about the rate of cooling?–
The 168W/m^2 on Earth refers to estimate of average amount
sunlight reaching surface. I would say <20W/m^2 on Venus)
is maximum amount of sunlight reaching Venus surface, rather than some average.
Another aspect is 168W/m^2 on Earth is absorbed. I doubt any sunlight is absorbed on surface of the blazing hot Venus surface.
And while on the topic. Earth is covered by 70% ocean. The ocean absorbs more sunlight than the land.
Therefore the ocean absorbs the vast majority of this average amount of 168W/m^2.
Also of sunlight absorbed by the ocean most is absorbed below 1 meter depth.
–Radiation cannot raise the temperature of any body to more than the temperature to which it would raise a perfect blackbody in Space, even in a billion years.–
A black body model purpose is to determine the sun’s temperature at given distance from the Sun.
A magnifying glass effectively acts to shorten that distance. Or alters the intensity of sunlight. And briefly there are ways to use sunlight to increase the energy of the sun’s temperature at Earth distance.
Otherwise what you saying is correct- the sun temperature at Earth distance can only warm something to this sun’s temperature.
**Radiation only slows radiative cooling anyway, not evaporative cooling or sensible heat transfers out of the surface. These other processes accelerate to compensate for slower radiative cooling. The overall effect is nothing.**
I assume you mean, back radiation.
I would say back radiation has not demonstrated a means it can be employed to do work.
Back radiation warming the earth is similar to using cold fusion to provide useful energy.
And I think there are better odds that cold fusion could work.
Roy, the Sun’s mean direct radiation to the surfaces of Earth and Venus can never explain the observed mean temperatures – not even in a billion years. Try explaining why the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus is kept hotter than Earth’s surface. I have. You can’t.
It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com
–Roy, the Sun’s mean direct radiation to the surfaces of Earth and Venus can never explain the observed mean temperatures – not even in a billion years. Try explaining why the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus is kept hotter than Earth’s surface. I have. You can’t.–
Uranus is very little observation and all models which difficult to verify with observation.
Venus also also lacking observation, has very thoroughly been explored as compared to exploration of Uranus.
The way Earth and Venus warmed is by direct sunlight heating liquids and solids.
So clouds on Earth and clouds on Venus.
But with Earth the most amount of sunlight absorbed is in it’s oceans. Oceans cover most amount surface area, and more importantly cover most [80%] of surface area of tropics.
And in the southern Hemisphere where 80 to 90% of surface is
ocean and where one gets about 100 more watts of sunlight
during the summer.
And as everyone knows the ocean store an enormous amount heat from the sun and vast flows of ocean surface waters flow poleward.
As for Venus about 75% of it’s surface area is covered with clouds of pure acid which has high boiling temperature- though Venus lower atmosphere has higher temperature than this boiling point of the acid- and acid isn’t found in this higher temperature part of atmosphere.
So Venus is constantly raining acid, but acid doesn’t reach the rocky surface. So the Venus “surface” is it’s clouds.
And main surface on Earth is the ocean, with only about 30% of surface covered in clouds. And the height of clouds on Earth affect it’s global warming effect- one assume the same in regards to Venus.
But the problem is the source for IR radiation emitted from the earth is renewed on a daily basis(day time heating) so that it keeps less heat escaping on a daily basis then would be otherwise, where as in a cabin once the heat source is off, it is off so insulation or a blanket will not matter. It would only matter if the heat source was renewed in the cabin and then it would keep enough of that heat in the cabin , until the next day when the heat is renewed which would keep the equilibrium temperature higher in the cabin then it would be without the insulation or blanket being present.
should be, so that the co2, not so that it.
“At night the soil cools by loss of infrared radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation lets us estimate the rate at which IR energy is being lost….”
It cools during the day through infrared radiation as well. Everything radiates IR, even ice.
Once again, IR is not heat. When you point your IR meter at the heavens and detect IR you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that IR is heat.
The greenhouse theory suggests that heat is being transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. The AGW theory suggests that heat is being transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere then back-radiated in such a manner as to superheat the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy. That’s plain nonsense.
IR is radiated from valence bands in atoms and covalent bonds in GHG molecules as electrons change energy levels. Heat is related to the average kinetic energy in the atoms of a substance. IR and heat have nothing in common other than the kinetic energy to which they are referenced.
When the surface radiates IR, the surface cools because the average kinetic energy of surface atoms is lowered due to the emission of photons of EM. During the day, solar energy replenishes that lost energy and we get a balance between absorbed and emitted energy.
Clausius stated over and over in his treatise on heat that heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation. Compensation means that if you reverse the process you have to compensate the cooler body for loss of heat and such compensation is not available in the atmosphere. Therefore, the only way heat can be transferred in the atmosphere is from a warmer body to a cooler body.
People using Boltzmann need to be very careful. They seem to have concluded that measuring IR is a measure of heat transfer and it is not.
You can point an IR meter at clear sky and detect IR but the colour temperature of the sky shows it’s temperature is -50C. You can swing the meter from clear sky to cloud and find it measures about -5C. It’s reasonable to conclude from that difference that clouds are warmer than clear sky and that’s likely due to the warming of water droplets in the clouds.
However, when you have a body at -5C radiating IR to a surface at 10 C, you wont get any heat transfer.
With regard to your insulation theory, Roy, modern homes are packed with high quality insulation between wall studs and insulated with a plastic vapour barrier under the dry wall. The attic spaces are filled with 18″ of mineral insulation. You could claim that the living space is surrounded by tightly packed insulation.
In the atmosphere, the GHGs you claim are acting as a blanket form 1% of atmospheric gases. Based on a ppmv of 390, anthropogenic CO2 accounts for about 1/1000 of 1% of atmospheric gases.
Where’s the blanket?
I have pointed out before that a real greenhouse with 100 panes of glass traps air molecules and prevents the hot air from rising naturally. You would need to remove 99 panes of glass to get the equivalent of 1% GHGs in the atmosphere.
Roy…you offered a clever thought experiment years ago with regard to breaking ACO2 down in ppmv. You claimed something like it taking 5 years to add another molecule of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Why is it so hard for you to see that the same extremely rare gas CO2 could not possibly act as a blanket?
geez, Gordon. How can I even begin to wade through the forest of straw men you have erected?
“geez, Gordon. How can I even begin to wade through the forest of straw men you have erected?”
You could start by reading Clausius on heat rather than inferring that his theories which lead to the 2nd law are straw man arguments.
It would be helpful to me if you’d briefy list what you see as straw man arguments. Sorry, but I regard the response of both you and Fred Singer to the 2nd law and heat transfer in general to be as straw man as it gets.
No insult intended, I would just like to see better science done.
Just because you have read about the 2nd Law does not make you an expert in it. You have elementary misconceptions about it that arise because of a complete lack of any knowledge of the understanding of how thermodynamics arises from statistical physics. You are misinterpreting and misapplying 19th century physics to make claims that Clausius never made, and in fact, never could have made because his concept of “heat” could not mean anything else except the macroscopic flow of energy. Thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory. You can’t apply it to individual photons.
Why is this so hard to understand?
@Joel “You are misinterpreting and misapplying 19th century physics to make claims that Clausius never made, and in fact, never could have made because his concept of “heat” could not mean anything else except the macroscopic flow of energy”.
You would be wrong in that understanding. Clausius talked about atomic structure and the part it plays in heat transfer. He included internal kinetic energy in his calculations, associating them with internal work done by atoms in lattices as their mean free paths extended due to heating.
You know Joel, for a guy who claims expertise in science, I find you to be narrow minded. You claim I have misinterpreted Clausius but I have spent hours reading and comprehending what he wrote. The thing I like about him is that he wrote subjectively as well as mathematically, explaining concepts as he went along.
Today, you get an equation thrown at you and you are expected to accept it without proof of a related reality. David Bohm, a brilliant physicist and friend of Einstein wrote that an equation without a reality to back it is garbage. That perfectly describes the anthropogenic theory for me.
Well, history of science is not my expertise, so exactly how much of an inkling of the underlying microscopics Clausius may have had is not something I know a lot about. However, the point is that he never applied the thermodynamic concepts like “heat” that he formulated to the microscopic scale…and we now know that indeed it would make no sense to do so because thermodynamics is fundamentally a macroscopic description of the world. Look up the term “thermodynamic limit” (e.g., here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_limit )
We should remember that Carnot and Clausius were practical men
Their main motivation was to find out how to extract as much useful energy from thermal energy.
This can be done quite successfully by following the heat transfer process only and ignoring the individual energy contributions.
This is the origin of the one way transfer approach
A look at the derivation of the second law based on the Carnot Cycle in any appropriate physics textbook illustrates this.
Later it was found that electromagnetic radiation consists of photons and this made the two way energy exchange by radiation between a cold and a hot object more realistic way to understand radiative transfer.
This is not a new scam thought up by climate alarmists.
My own university textbook ‘Heat and Thermodynamics’ by Zemansky
First published 1937 takes this approach.
Go to this comment Joel Shore and others.
As it happens, I’ve written two comprehensive papers relating to the Second Law, based on extensive post-graduate study specializing in thermodynamics. Joel Shore has no correct understanding of maximum entropy production which occurs as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate by the fastest possible route. That’s what the Second Law is all about. It explains the density gradient for example, and much more – even chemical diffusion of gases wherein entropy increases, and it explains the gravitationally induced temperature gradient which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in an “ideal” dry troposphere.
See http://entropylaw.com
No Roy. Iy is climatologist who have constructed strawmen. You are wrong Roy, and that’s why back radiation cannot explain the temperature at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus. Absolutely nothing can expect the process I have explained, and I’m betting $5,000 no one can prove me wrong. So far that’s been on offer since my book was published 14 months ago – no one has come close to demolishing the physics – because it;s correct Roy.
I DARE YOU ROY TO STUDY WHAT IS IN MY PAPER AND THEN TRY TO WRITE A POST REFUTING IT. TO START WITH, YOU WILL NEED TO PROVE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IS INCORRECT, BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IS DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM THAT LAW. I WILL TEAR TO SHREDS ANY ATTEMPTED REFUTATION ROY, SO YOU’D BETTER BE VERY CAREFUL AND STUDY UP ON 21st CENTURY THERMODYNAMICS, WHICH IS A FAR CRY FROM THE CLIMATOLOGY GARBAGE THAT YOU GOT YOUR “A” IN.
Thanks for that. It answers something that was puzzling me. When I measure the down welling IR when it is going to rain I get the same temperature as the ground. I was wondering why that didn’t cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
“The greenhouse theory suggests that heat is being transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.”
Absolutely, positively false! The heat, the net flow of energy, is from the surface to the atmosphere. Show us one model, either a simple “Steel greenhouse” model (using Willis Eschenbach’s name for it) or a full-fledged climate model that shows heat flow from colder to hotter. Repeating nonsense countless times does not make it any less non-sensical; it just reveals how impervious you are to knowledge.
“Clausius stated over and over in his treatise on heat that heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation.”
When Clausius made these statements, the only world that existed to scientists was the macroscopic world. Hence, his statement applies to a macroscopic quantity that he called “heat” which represents the net flow of energy. But, physics has advanced since the 19th century and we now know that there is a microscopic world, a world of photons and electrons, etc…and we understand how reversibility (energy flowing in both directions) on a microscopic scale leads to irreversible behavior (heat flowing only from hot to cold) on macroscopic scales. It is a beautiful, and well-tested, theory. If you want to remain completely ignorant of this theory, that is your prerogative but don’t tell us that Clausius made the same silly mistakes that you are making in misapplying a macroscopic theory.
And, even if you deny 20th century physics and don’t believe radiation goes in both directions, you still get the atmospheric greenhouse effect from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as long as you acknowledge, as it shows, that the heat flow between two bodies depends on the temperature of the colder body as well as the warmer body.
“In the atmosphere, the GHGs you claim are acting as a blanket form 1% of atmospheric gases. Based on a ppmv of 390, anthropogenic CO2 accounts for about 1/1000 of 1% of atmospheric gases.
Where’s the blanket?”
See, the thing about analogies are that they are analogies. Conduction and radiation are different processes. (Or, to think of it another way, the blanket may be very tenuous but it is also very thick.) However, the point Dr. Spencer is making is simply that you understand that the insulation, which is colder than an object can still influence (e.g., increase) the steady-state temperature of an object (which has an internal heat source or receives energy from a hotter object) over what the steady-state temperature would be in the absence of this insulation. This ought to demonstrate to you the difference between a correct statement like “Heat flows from hot to cold” and an incorrect statement like “There is no way a colder object can have any influence on the temperature of a hotter object ever.”
“Why is it so hard for you to see that the same extremely rare gas CO2 could not possibly act as a blanket?”
Because we are scientists and we know how one can calculate things like radiative transfer in the atmosphere and then look at data and verify that in fact this is exactly how the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are acting: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CBs09bO1wfc/UYCrTpw8eOI/AAAAAAAABCY/CCm6vAd8uZQ/s1600/Earth+Emitted+Radiation+Iris+Modtran+Comparison+Shows+Scatter+Effect.png
You, by contrast, rely on your intuition, which is faulty, because intuition has to be developed.
Look, ignorance is excusable when you haven’t been provided with knowledge. Ignorance is also curable. But, when you have been provided with the knowledge countless times and still refuse to abandon your ignorance, that is not excusable. It is just very sad.
@Joel “The heat, the net flow of energy, is from the surface to the atmosphere. Show us one model, either a simple “Steel greenhouse” model (using Willis Eschenbach’s name for it) or a full-fledged climate model that shows heat flow from colder to hotter”.
Firstly, heat and net energy flow are not one and the same. The energy is EM and until it contacts matter no heat will be produced. In other words, EM carries no heat. If it produces heat it does so at a distance by raising the kinetic energy in atoms/molecules it encounters.
Take a look at the heat budget from NASA, which is the original Kiehl-Trenberth radiation budget.
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/ceres_brochure.php?page=2
Do you, or do you not see 380 W/M^2 radiated by the surface and 324 W/M^2 back-radiated from greenhouse gases with the note that it is absorbed by the surface?
They have also claimed that 168 W/M^2 is absorbed by solar energy, making the heat absorbed from GHGs almost double what is absorbed by solar energy.
I have noted that modern renditions of the same energy budget have revised it dramatically as it has become obvious that Kiehl-Trenberth and NASA are full of crap.
You are obviously reacting to me with hostility because I told you to get off the fence. That’s good, maybe you have woken up a bit, which was the point of my shot.
I admire anyone with science degrees but I will not stand by while such a person offers up the pap they were spoon-fed at university.
Open your eyes, man, and get off the paradigms. Look for yourself and reprove all of science if you have to. If you think I am wrong about Clausius then read him then compare what you get to what I got. I am willing to stand corrected if the proof is substantial.
Gordon Robertson
You state “Firstly, heat and net energy flow are not one and the same.”
I might have to disagree with you on this point. In order to communicate properly we need to have rigorous definitions of concepts, otherwise we get bogged down in mindless disagreement only because each person is using a different understanding of a term. The general term for “heat” can mean different things to different people, in physics one must hold to the established definition of the word and proceed from there in further debate.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
From this link: “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy”
IR energy in transit from one source to another is directly defined as heat. Net energy flow is the very definition of heat as the net flow will be from hotter to colder. Joel is completely correct in his use of heat and you are the one using the term incorrectly. What you call heat should be stated as internal energy.
Hi Norman,
Heat and electromagnetic energy are not the exact same thing and Gordon is correct. Energy as heat and electromagnetic radiation represent to distinct definitional types and/or expressions of energy. Your link states exactly that:
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object.”
IR, microwave, visible light all represent electro-magnetic radiation the energy does not represent heat unless or until it gets transferred via absorption or some other method to an object cooler than the emitting source. By the definition your own link provides, if IR transfers to a higher temperature object heat transfer has not occurred. If the same IR transfers to a lower temperature object heat does transfer. You must be confused as to how IR knows if it’s heat or not. You should heed your own words and seek rigorous definitions. Please note you used a completely different definition of heat than the one you recommended in your link shown above. You stated:
“IR energy in transit from one source to another is directly defined as heat.”
That is completely contrary to and irreconcilable with the other definition you provided by your link. The correct definition in the link does not mention IR merely energy in transit. Again IR, microwave, visible light represent different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation not heat. There energy does not become heat energy until translated to a lower temperature object (i.o.w. an object with a lower temperature than the object that emitted the electromagnetic radiation to begin with). Your link proves correct. As long as energy remains in an atom it merely represents internal energy it doesn’t represent heat until it transfers to another lower temperature object.
To be clear electromagnetic radiation does not represent heat because IT IS NOT ENERGY IN TRANSIT TO ANY OBJECT UNLESS IT COMES INTO CONTACT WITH AN OBJECT! For example, the Cobe satellite measures IR in deep space outside the realm of any known physical objects. For all we observe, it may never contact any object. If it doesn’t contact any object it never transfers it’s energy and heat ( energy transfer to a cooler object ) cannot occur. Thanks and…
Have a great day!
JohnKl
I am not sure I can agree with your post on heat and IR.
Heat is flow of energy. If energy is flowing you would have to have a hot and cold object. If you have two objects at the same temperature emitting the same amount of energy you have no net heat flow. Nothing changes with either so you do not have heat transfer.
If you have only one object that is hot in the whole universe and it is emitting radiation, there is a flow of heat (it is getting cooler). The energy is going into the rest of the universe and warming somewhat.
As I said I could be wrong but am doubting it at this time.
Again this is what Gordon said “Firstly, heat and net energy flow are not one and the same.”
Have a nice day!
Heat flow is defined as heat in all the material I can find. Can you find one that contradicts this definition?
Hi Norman,
You stated:
“Again this is what Gordon said “Firstly, heat and net energy flow are not one and the same.”
Have a nice day!
Heat flow is defined as heat in all the material I can find. Can you find one that contradicts this definition?”
Heat can only flow from a warmer to a cooler object whatever the electro-magnetic energy involved. Please allow me to explain. You see gross energy movements between one object and another will not necessarily raise the temperature unless the temperature of the emitting object exceeds that of the receiving object because the FREQUENCY of the emitted radiation correlates to a given emission temperature which operates universally among all objects. Thus an object at emitting at a 15um wavelength cannot raise the temperature of any object near it above it’s own emission temperature because the emission temperature correlates directly with the 15u wavelength and frequency of the radiation emitted! The statement I made earlier to Wayne sums it up just right.
“The belief seems to be that as radiated energy gets ping-ponged back and forth between emitters (surface and atmosphere for example) and additional radiation arrives from another source that it will have some strange compound effect. The problem with such views remains that it’s not the gross energy moving back and forth but the frequency. They seem to make the same mistake Maxwell made when he claimed INTENSITY and FREQUENCY of emitted energy determine temperature. Max Planck had to correct him later because evidence suggests that FREQUENCY not INTENSITY determines temperature. For example, suppose I have a universe of two cups one at 3 degrees centigrade and one emitting at 4 degrees centigrade. The most the four centigrade cup can raise the 3 degree centigrade’s temperature to would be no higher than 4 degrees centigrade. The same holds true if I multiply the number of 4 degree centigrade cups a million, a billion or a quadrillion fold. Multiplying the energy at the same frequency will not increase the 3 degree cup to anything higher than 4 degrees. However, if I simply increase the emitting temperature of the 4 degree cup to 5 degrees with a slightly higher radiative frequency everything changes!
In any given planetary atmosphere one has a finite number of molecules that can radiate energy back to the planet no matter how much energy it absorbs at some given frequency. Moreover, if it emits at a given frequency any energy simultaneously absorbed by said emitter at the same frequency will simply cancel the other energy out, hence no net gain in energy and/or temperature. This goes for any molecule anywhere whether on the surface or in the atmosphere.”
Please let me know if you understand what I’m writing and…
Have a great day!
Gordon,
Heat and energy of radiation is the same thing. Intensity of radiations is a proxy of temperature, depending on the calibration method of thermometer. In fact Boltzmann law equation can be derived from the traditional equation of thermodynamics.
Roy’s IR does not measure back radiations, it measures its own “proxy” temperature through its own radiations at all times. Radiations is always emitted from the the thermometer to the cooler atmosphere. In the case of clear sky, it radiates more and cools faster, it therefore, measures -50 C, depending on radiation calibration curve. Others measured -90 C, so who is right? When pointed to clouds, it radiates less and cools less and measures -5 C.
If you cool the housing of the thermometer using helium as done for Infrared Telescopes, you will find no backradiations. Just ask Infrared astronomer. They will tell you that backradiaitons are fiction, that simple.
@Nabil Sweden “Heat and energy of radiation is the same thing. Intensity of radiations is a proxy of temperature…”
Nabil…Heat and IR are different. IR is electromagnetic energy and as such has a specific frequency band, is radiated/absorbed from/by atoms and molecules, and has no properties that can be described as heat, colour, etc. EM has no work equivalent. In other words, if you do work on something you cannot describe it in terms if EM.
Heat has no frequency and it is not a product of the energy levels of atoms. Heat has a definite work equivalent both internally and externally. The atoms held in lattices in a metal vibrate in place and their motion represents work. It also represent internal heat. When the metal is heated, the vibration increases and if enough heat is applied, the metal will melt as the covalent bonds break apart.
Heat is obfuscated by certain people who try to claim it is energy in transit. The suggestion is that heat is energy transferred between bodies of different temperature but heat can be transferred within a single body.
If you regard the single body instance, what is causing the heat to transfer and what is it exactly? It’s obviously a form of energy therefore it likely has no physical description. However, different forms of energy are defined based on the context in which they operate.
Electrical energy operates where electrical fields are present, chemical energy where chemicals are interacting. Mechanical energy operates where mechanical forces are present. Gravitational energy operates in a gravitational field.
There is an equivalent in electrical theory. It is theorized that electrons are the charge carriers in conductors when a potential difference exists across a conductor. However, electric current travels at close to the speed of light and electrons through a conductor don’t. There is a separate phenomenon called ‘charge’ that travels from electron to electron all the way around the circuit at near the speed of light.
A demonstration given to us in an electronics class involved one of those old rulers with the groove along the face. Ordinary marbles, or steel balls, were place along the groove, touching each other. If the first marble was held while being given a firm tap, the end marble shot off the end of the ruler. That is an example of energy in motion as well but it is not heat.
So where does heat operate, in which context? It operates when there are differences in temperature. However, temperature is a proxy for something else. Temperature is measured by proxies like mercury and the temperature observed is related to an expansion/contraction of mercury.
I think it’s important to understand that the concept of temperature was invented by the human mind. We needed a way to quantify the effect of kinetic energy in atoms and we invented proxies to do that. We also invented the concept of heat but the concept has an equivalent in reality.
So temperature is measuring something. It is measuring the average kinetic energy of atoms in a substance. In a single substance, if there is an area in which it’s atoms have a higher KE than in another, there is a difference in temperature between the two and a difference in heat. You can say one is hotter than the other and that can be verified by touch.
How could you get a difference in temperatures in a substance? You could heat one end of a bar of steel with a flame that had a higher temperature than the steel. You could run an electric current through one end of the bar. You could start a chemical reaction on one part of the bar, a reaction that gave off heat.
You could use a hardened steel bit to drill a hole in metal to produce heat through friction. That’s where the equivalence of work and heat was developed when it was discovered that a specific amount of work drilling metal produced an equivalent amount of heat.
So the energy known as heat is not the same as the electromagnet energy of radiation. EM cannot produce heat unless it contacts a mass and EM carries no heat. It can raise the kinetic energy in atoms, however, by forcing the electrons in valence bands to a higher energy state.
I am fully aware that the amount of EM measured can be used to calculate the heat transferred from a body but you cannot use EM to calculate the transfer of heat in two directions between a hotter and a cooler body. Although both bodies are transmitting IR, only the IR in the direction from hotter to colder counts.
Some people have inferred that heat can be transferred both ways using statistical mechanics theory but I think that is nonsense. I think far too great a license is taken with the quantum theory underlying statistical mechanics.
As Feynman said, quantum theory works but no one knows why. I think a lot of theory passed off in quantum theory as fact is pure science fiction.
Gordon Robertson:
“Although both bodies are transmitting IR, only the IR in the direction from hotter to colder counts.”
You gotta love statements like this. For someone who loves the 2nd Law so much, you seem to have a lot of contempt for the 1st!
Honestly, where do you guys come up with this stuff?
“I am fully aware that the amount of EM measured can be used to calculate the heat transferred from a body but you cannot use EM to calculate the transfer of heat in two directions between a hotter and a cooler body. Although both bodies are transmitting IR, only the IR in the direction from hotter to colder counts.”
Gordon,
No one has ever demonstrated that transfer of radiation or heat of conduction occurs in two directions. I understand that the theoretical formula does have backradiation term in it. This term is for calculating the net potential from higher temperature to lower temperature with respect to the absolute zero temperature. All other mass and energy transfer equations has the same “backflow” such as in hydraulics, Ohm’s law, and Fick’s law. They all have backflow terms. Does the hydraulic backflow or back electrical current exist? of course not. The same with backradiation from colder to warmer; it does not exist and cannot exist.
@Joel “You gotta love statements like this. For someone who loves the 2nd Law so much, you seem to have a lot of contempt for the 1st!”
Joel…you seem to respond with generalities as if speaking from a position of authority but I have yet to see you explain what you think is wrong with a statement using scientific reasoning.
All I said was that in an IR exchange between bodies of different temperature, only the IR in the direction of warmer to cooler counted. The intensity and frequency of IR from a cooler body has no affect on the kinetic energy of atoms in a warmer body. I was, of course, referring to heat transfer since that was the point of my comment.
When Gerlich and Tscheuschner made a similar comment in their paper falsifying the greenhouse theory, one rebuttal from Halpern et al claimed that G&T were claiming energy was only flowing in one direction between bodies. Halpern et al were making the same mistake many people make in presuming IR is heat. In fact, calculations they did in their rebuttal for heat flow were calculations of energy that fall under the 1st law.
You don’t seem to be clear on that yourself. You have already inferred that Clausius is old school and no longer applies, yet his statement about heat transfer being exclusively from a warmer body to a cooler body, without compensation, still holds.
When I claimed that in an IR exchange between bodies of different temperatures that IR in one direction did not count I was deferring to the statement of Clausius that IR can flow between bodies of different temps but that heat can be transferred in one direction only.
I have nothing against the 1st law. It’s about conservation of energy and used in the proper context it works fine. However, the 2nd law was developed by Clausius because in certain context the 1st law allowed perpetual motion machines to exist.
In one version of the AGW theory we have a perpetual motion machine. Heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere that make up about 1% of atmospheric gases and they radiate that heat back to warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
Rahmstorf, who claims that a net positive energy between the surface and the atmosphere satisfies the 2nd law, also claims that back-radiated IR from GHGs can be added to solar energy to increase the solar input.
If you can abide such flagrant pseudo-science then I understand why you take exception with my comments.
Wow, Gordon, it is tough to know where to begin.
“The atoms held in lattices in a metal vibrate in place and their motion represents work.”
No, work (W) is only ever energy being transferred to/from an object. An object cannot “have work inside it.”
“It also represent internal heat.”
No again. It represents internal energy (U), not heat (Q).
” the metal will melt as the covalent bonds break apart.
Metals have metallic bonding, not covalent bonding.
“Heat is obfuscated by certain people who try to claim it is energy in transit.”
Heat (Q) IS energy in transit! In particular is it energy entering/leaving a system/region/volume due to a temperature difference.
“In a single substance, if there is an area in which it’s atoms have a higher KE than in another, there is a difference in temperature between the two and a difference in heat.”
No. Areas cannot “have heat” (Q) so they cannot have differences in heat. They can T & ΔT; they can have U & ΔT. But they cannnot have Q or ΔQ (‘a difference in heat’); they cannot have W or ΔW.
I could go on. If you want to advance an argument, you are going to have to use the words and concepts the way that others do (ie the way they are used in science and engineering textbooks). I encourage people to include the symbol (U, Q, W) when commenting — it would make the discussion SO much clearer and more focused.
***********************************
A quote from Lord Kelvin seems in order here.
And a first step BEFORE expressing something with numbers is to know precisely what we are trying to measure. Unless we can clearly state WHAT we are measuring (eg U, Q, W), there is no hope of moving forward.
“All I said was that in an IR exchange between bodies of different temperature, only the IR in the direction of warmer to cooler counted. The intensity and frequency of IR from a cooler body has no affect on the kinetic energy of atoms in a warmer body.”
That makes no sense on any level, including the level of the First Law. There is no such thing as energy not counting. That violates conservation of energy. Where does the energy go if it doesn’t count?
Furthermore, it makes no sense on any mechanistic level. How does the warmer body know the photon came from a cooler body. The cooler body will emit a spectrum of photons, including some at higher frequencies. Do they have little signs on them? It is the Magical Second Law coming into play again.
“You don’t seem to be clear on that yourself. You have already inferred that Clausius is old school and no longer applies, yet his statement about heat transfer being exclusively from a warmer body to a cooler body, without compensation, still holds.”
I didn’t say it he longer applies. I said you are misapplying it. Clausius made an observation about heat, ***the net macroscopic flow of energy*** (which is what he could observe), going from hotter to colder. Today, every physicist in the world (except maybe G&T), every physics textbook in the world, etc., understand this to mean that there is the exchange of energy between the hotter and the colder but that the energy from the colder that is absorbed by the hotter is always less than the energy from the hotter that is absorbed by the cooler.
Read that sentence over and over until it sinks in. What about that concept is that hard to understand? And, I will even explain to you how it works in the case of two bodies radiating: The fact that the amount of energy radiated at any frequency is a monotonically increasing function of the temperature, together with Kirchhoff’s Laws of Radiation (that absorptivity = emissivity at each wavelength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation), are sufficient to guarantee that when two bodies exchange radiation, the net flow of energy will be from the hotter to the colder.
There is no need for arbitrary, capricious and rules that violate the 1st Law like “only the IR in the direction of warmer to cooler counted”. The Second Law is not some magical thing. It is a beautiful fact that arises from the underlying statistics of large numbers of events. You are reducing it to utter silliness in order to cling to your belief system.
“When I claimed that in an IR exchange between bodies of different temperatures that IR in one direction did not count I was deferring to the statement of Clausius that IR can flow between bodies of different temps but that heat can be transferred in one direction only.”
No…You are not deferring to him. You are blatantly misinterpreting what he said to mean something completely different than what he meant. What he meant is that the net flow of energy is from hotter to colder because the amount of radiation emitted by the hotter that is absorbed by the cooler is always greater than the amount of radiation that is emitted by the colder and absorbed by the hotter.
“Heat is transferred from the surface to GHGs in the atmosphere that make up about 1% of atmospheric gases and they radiate that heat back to warm the surface to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.”
No…They don’t radiate that heat back. They radiate ENERGY back. The heat flow is from the surface to the atmosphere because the amount of energy the atmosphere absorbs from the surface is larger than the amount of energy the surface absorbs from the atmosphere.
Look, since you are having so much trouble understanding these concepts in physics terms, let’s try financial terms: Suppose that the government imposes a wealth (not income) tax of 10%. If you earn $1,000,000 per year, it is not difficult to calculate that over the long run, your wealth will rise until you get to a steady-state value of $10,000,000 at which point the government will be taking away as much money each year as you earn that year.
Now, let’s suppose that the government decides to lower the wealth tax by giving you each year a rebate of 20%, i.e., they give back 1/5 of what you pay them. Now, you can calculate that your new steady-state wealth is $12,000,000 per year.
So, has the government made you richer by giving you this rebate on the wealth tax? Would you (presumably being a good libertarian-type) say that the government is making you richer, or would you say that your own industriousness is making you richer and that the government is just taking a little less away.
See, that is exactly what the atmosphere is doing. When we increase greenhouse gases, it is giving a little bit larger fraction of the energy the Earth’s surface is sending it back to the Earth. Since the Earth’s surface temperature, just like your wealth, is determined by a steady-state balance of inputs and outputs, this causes the surface temperature to rise.
“Rahmstorf, who claims that a net positive energy between the surface and the atmosphere satisfies the 2nd law, also claims that back-radiated IR from GHGs can be added to solar energy to increase the solar input.”
Well, while I might quibble with the wording of “increase the solar input”, the basic gist of what you say is correct, just like a government in rebating part of your wealth tax is increasing the amount of money you have. However, I doubt you would say that the government is increasing your income. You would probably say that the government is just letting you keep more of your income.
In the same way, the greenhouse gases are letting the Earth keep more of the energy that it receives from the sun.
Nabil Swedan,
You state:
“Intensity of radiations is a proxy of temperature, depending on the calibration method of thermometer.”
That statement reflects James Maxwell’s delusion. He believed temperature correlated with intensity and frequency. Max Planck showed that frequency alone correlates to temperature not intensity. See my comments above to Norman and…
Have a great day!
Hi Tim Folkerts,
You state:
“And a first step BEFORE expressing something with numbers is to know precisely what we are trying to measure. Unless we can clearly state WHAT we are measuring (eg U, Q, W), there is no hope of moving forward.”
Agreed. Thanks for the Lord Kelvin quote as well.
Have a great day!
You are wrong Joel Shore about radiation (as explained in this comment, and you are wrong about the Loschmidt effect (as explained in other comments) and you are wrong about the radiative forcing “explanation” of planetary temperatures because of the above.
Roy (and others) please read this new comment above. There are also links in other comments to the paper “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” by a professor of Mathematics, and to the website http://entropylaw.com which all should read, especially the second linked page about the Second Law.
Go and help Roy, Joel – see this comment. I’ll take you both on.
Hi Gordon. I think there may be some confusion between heat transfer and NET heat transfer. Clausius’ statement was about “net” (that’s all he knew in his day). Put two bodies in thermal contact and heat is transferred from the hot to the cold AND from the cold to the hot. Just more of the former. The net transfer continues until the two are balanced … zero net. Likewise, if the earth were facing empty space it would cool more because space does not radiate any energy back. A cooler atmosphere does radiate back to a warmer earth, just not as much as the earth sends to the atmosphere. So the earth is warmer with the atmosphere. Am I oversimplifying your objection?
jimc,
Exactly, with just one correction. Instead of
“Put two bodies in thermal contact and heat is transferred from the hot to the cold AND from the cold to the hot.”
It should be
“Put two bodies in thermal contact and energy is transferred from the hot to the cold AND from the cold to the hot.”
That is, technically, the word “heat” is reserved to refer to the net transfer (a technical point of terminology that has tripped me up before).
What happens, Joel Shore, is determined by whatever processes cause unbalanced energy potentials (which, in an isolated system, include all forms of internal energy including gravitational potential energy) to dissipate by the fastest possible route until the state of maximum entropy (with no unbalanced energy potentials) is attained, that state being thermodynamic equilibrium. In that state there are then no further (detectable) transfers of any energy or matter (at the macro level) across any internal boundary.
Now read http://climate-change-theory.com
And that state, Joel Shore, in a gravitational field in a planet’s troposphere has a non-zero stable density gradient and a non-zero stable temperature gradient, because, for there to be no unbalanced energy potentials, and in the absence of changes in other forms of internal energy, like phase change, there must be at the macro level a homogeneous sum of molecular gravitational potential energy and molecular kinetic energy. Since that PE has a gradient, so too does the KE which represents temperature.
Regarding the references to energy potentials, read http://entropylaw.com including the second link there about the Second Law.
The only energy transfers which affect temperature are those at the macro level, which level involves at least a few picograms of matter. If the surface is hotter than the adjoining troposphere, then the only transfer of thermal energy at the macro level will be cooling the surface. You cannot add radiative flux from the troposphere to the Solar radiation and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. (Such radiation does not even penetrate water.) Yet that is precisely what the NASA, K-T and IPCC energy diagrams all imply is being done, because, although mean solar radiation absorbed by the surface is about 168W/m^2 and sensible heat losses about 102W/m^2 they then add 324W/m^2 of radiative flux from the troposphere (which is not transferring thermal energy to the surface) and they use the net total of 390W/m^2 in Stefan Boltzmann calculations that then yield 288K. This is fictitious fiddled physics. What really happens is that downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfers make up the difference that the Sun cannot supply with its direct radiation. Energy is trapped by gravity under the sloping thermal profile.
It’s all explained at http://climate-change-theory.com which has had nearly 1,000 visits from silent readers linked from Roy’s blogs and a total of nearly 8,000 in three months. It might be time that you read, study and inwardly digest it, because word is getting around that it’s right.
Joel. Thanks for the corrections. If I were a good thermodynamist, I probably should have talked about vibrational/translational/rotational/radiant energy being exchanged instead. Clausius (1822-1888) wrote (1850) before the kinetic theory of matter was established. Maybe he even visualized “heat” as the presence of phlogiston. Even in Boltzmann’s (1844-1906) time, it was not universally accepted. In fact, I think he (Boltzmann) committed suicide because many opposed his theory. Would probably make some interesting reading.
Thermo is a subtle subject, open to a lot of interpretation/misinterpretation. Now as then, people take it very seriously. Witness just the discussions here about it – hopefully nonviolent/nonfatal.
It might be best, jimc, if you help Stephen Wilde, geran, Norman, Tim and others answer the question in this comment, also noting my next comment.
Joel Shores, you are sorely wrong in you physics and themo. You imply that in conduction energy flows both ways but heat only warm to cool but that is not correct.
This is the way one university course puts it better than I could word it myself:
Even down to the atomic level both energy AND heat via conduction flows but one way or you are breaking the second law and not conserving energy.
Sorry, Wayne, but that’s not what the Second Law says. The Second Law says entropy tends towards a maximum state in an isolated system. It says nothing more and nothing less.
See http://climate-change-theory.com where you can read about experiments that prove (with centrifugal force) that heat can flow from cold to hot in a force field.
You can only claim heat always flows from hot to cold in a horizontal plane.
This comment of wayne’s had escaped my notice previously. Not all presentations of physics are equally good and this one is kind of sloppy. The one wayne has found (apparently here: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html ) is indeed not the best.
The basic statement about elastic collisions is correct, but the description above it is sloppy: First off, to call individual atoms “hot” or “cool” doesn’t really make that much sense. In, for example, a macroscopic box of gas, there will be a distribution of different speeds for the molecules (Maxwell distribution). So, now, imagine two partitions of gas at different temperatures separated by a flexible membrane, so the gases don’t mix but the molecules can effectively collide with each other. Then what will happen over time is that through this collision process on average the gas molecules in the hotter part of the box will end up slowing down and the ones in the cooler part will end up speeding up and hence heat will flow from hot to cold. However, in some individual collisions, the molecule from the hot side will actually have a lower speed than the molecule from the cold side and the collision will result in a transfer of energy from the cold to the hot side. It is just that these collisions are rarer than ones where the molecule from the hot side has a higher speed than the one from the cold side.
So, the net macroscopic transfer is from hot to cold but this is a result of energy transfers in both directions.
Silliness? Thinking that reading sky temperatures with a handheld IR thermometer proves the GHE, now THAT is silly. EVERYTHING on Earth emits IR, which means everything has a temperature. Ice has a “temperature”. Are you believing that ice cubes will heat your house in winter? Do you believe the polar ice caps are heating the Earth?
Here’s an interesting thought experiment, in light of your example of day/night temperature changes. If the Earth’s atmosphere truly acts as a greenhouse, why are there seasons? You have tried to claim there is less cooling at night because of the GHE, so why is there so much cooling in winter?
“Are you believing that ice cubes will heat your house in winter? Do you believe the polar ice caps are heating the Earth?”
I believe that if I put ice cubes in my house, it will be warmer than if I put huge vats of liquid nitrogen in my house. You are just promulgating nonsense by claiming that the greenhouse effect is akin to saying that a colder object heats a warmer object. The sun heats the Earth, but the greenhouse gases restrict the rate at which the Earth can cool by re-emitting energy back out into space, requiring the the Earth’s surface to reach a higher average temperature in order to be in steady-state than it would reach in the absence of these gases.
“You have tried to claim there is less cooling at night because of the GHE, so why is there so much cooling in winter?”
How much is “So much”? There are parts of the Earth above the Arctic Circle that receive no sunlight for months at a time and yet they don’t cool down anywhere close to absolute zero. (This isn’t only because of GHE; it is also because of the heat capacity of things like the ocean and because of transfer of heat around the globe…but my point is just that you don’t even have a simple model to make a quantitative comparison, so how would you possibly be able to conclude that the cooling in winter is more than one would expect given the greenhouse gases?
Joel Shore says: “You are just promulgating nonsense by claiming that the greenhouse effect is akin to saying that a colder object heats a warmer object. The sun heats the Earth, but the greenhouse gases restrict the rate at which the Earth can cool by re-emitting energy back out into space, requiring the the Earth’s surface to reach a higher average temperature in order to be in steady-state than it would reach in the absence of these gases.”
Here you are not telling the truth and you know that. The IPCC “greenhouse effect” is not about restricting cooling, it is about heating above the temperature the only source of heat (Sun flux) can possibly induce, which is sheer nonsense, since it is equivalent to the creation of energy out of nothing.
“Here you are not telling the truth and you know that. The IPCC “greenhouse effect” is not about restricting cooling …”
No … here you are NOT telling the truth but you do NOT know it. 🙂
“it is about heating above the temperature the only source of heat (Sun flux) can possibly induce”
What limits the the temperature that the sun can induce? The sun provides the Earth with 240 W/m^2 (averaged over the surface of the Earth). In the time since it has been shining, that is enough to have heated the Earth to ridiculous temperatures on the orders of millions of degrees (in which case it would be some sort of plasma)! There is no finite steady-state for an Earth heated by the sun and with its cooling restricted to be zero. It heats indefinitely.
The only reason this does not happen is that the Earth radiates heat back out into space. The steady-state temperature of the Earth is determined by the balance between the energy it absorbs from the sun and what it emits back out into space. Hence, to even calculate this temperature, you already have to talk about the cooling side of the ledger too.
The idea that the Sun can only heat the surface of the Earth to a certain temperature as a matter of principle is based on a fiction (promulgated by Joe Postma), and that fiction is assuming that the surface of the Earth is emitting its radiation out into surroundings with a radiative temperature of 0 K, i.e., that its cooling is unrestricted. Of course, Joe doesn’t state this assumption; he just blows it right past you and makes you believe nonsense.
Joel Shore says: “What limits the the temperature that the sun can induce? The sun provides the Earth with 240 W/m^2 (averaged over the surface of the Earth). In the time since it has been shining, that is enough to have heated the Earth to ridiculous temperatures on the orders of millions of degrees (in which case it would be some sort of plasma)! There is no finite steady-state for an Earth heated by the sun and with its cooling restricted to be zero. It heats indefinitely.”
Right, to hell with elementary physics, you liars can say whatever nonsense you need.
Any schoolchild can put 240 or any other number of W/m^2 into the SB equation and get the highest possible temperature this flux can induce. This is a physical law, you idiot/liar, whatever.
Joel,
Of course there is one limit to how hot the sun could — in principle — warm the earth. That would be surface temperature of the sun. No matter how long the sun heats something; no matter what sort of lenses or mirrors you use; no matter what sort of insulation or filters: the light from the sun cannot warm anything above the ~ 5780 K temperature of the photosphere. Anything higher would indeed violate the 2nd Law with ‘heat going from cooler to warmer’.
On the other hand, since we are talking 255 K or 288 K (or even up to ~400 K) this is not a critical limitation.
“The only explanation for this is that some of the radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.”
JoelShore,
Earth’s radiation to the outer space is decreasing, this is a known fact. However, greenhouse gas effect is not the only explanation. In fact it is the very wrong explanation.
Tim,
Well, I agree and disagree with you. Of course, you are absolutely correct in regards to the final result once we have incorporated all of the correct physics. However, if we are just looking at the “heating side of the ledger” without looking at the “cooling side of the ledger,” as I was talking about, then there is no limit on the temperature. That was what I was trying to get NotAgain to understand. He is under the spell of Postma’s nonsense where one calculates the hottest a surface can get as if one can do this without even considering the cooling side of the ledger (but in fact does this by in fact implicitly assuming the object radiates unimpeded out into empty space).
As you note, heating to higher than the sun does violate the 2nd Law…and I always think it is a nice exercise to guide people through why one could never produce a greenhouse effect that heated the Earth to a higher temperature than the sun. It should in principle help people to understand the very “creative” way in which nature enforces the 2nd Law, in contrast to the arbitrary and capricious was that believes in the Magical 2nd Law seem to imagine.
NotAgain says:
“Any schoolchild can put 240 or any other number of W/m^2 into the SB equation and get the highest possible temperature this flux can induce. ”
Apparently, just because you can do such a calculation does not mean you can interpret the result correctly. You have not calculated the highest temperature this flux can induce. You have calculated the highest temperature this flux can induce in a body that is radiating into surroundings at 0 K. The Earth’s surface is not radiating into surroundings at 0 K because it is surrounded by an atmosphere that absorbs IR radiation. This is what allows it to reach a higher temperature than would be possible were the atmosphere transparent to its IR radiation.
I said:
“…in contrast to the arbitrary and capricious was that believes in the Magical 2nd Law seem to imagine.”
Boy was that garbled. (Damned 2nd Law! Why don’t my thoughts ever come out clearer when I mistype?) It should read:
“…in contrast to the arbitary and capricious ways that those who believe in the Magical 2nd Law seem to imagine.”
Nabil Swedan says:
“Earth’s radiation to the outer space is decreasing, this is a known fact. However, greenhouse gas effect is not the only explanation. In fact it is the very wrong explanation.”
Pray tell, what other explanation is there…And, what empirical evidence supports this other explanation?
Joel Shore – go back to the comments starting here explaining why you are wrong.
Hi Tim Folkerts,
You state:
“Of course there is one limit to how hot the sun could — in principle — warm the earth. That would be surface temperature of the sun.”
No. Imo, the inverse square law makes it very unlikely the surface could ever warm anywhere near that level based solely on simple solar radiative warming of Earth’s surface. The lunar landscape and Earth satellites don’t get much hotter than 100-120 deg centigrade. Of course if the sun goes red giant anything might happen.
Have a great day!
Joel Shore continues to reiterate the incorrect figure of 240W/m^2 – see this comment.
Folkerts think the Sun could raise the surface temperature to its own temperature. I hope he likes keeping his toes warm by a camp fire that’s 10Km away. Actually, by his conjecture, that fire could burn his skin. Oh, and his battery torch could light up the surface of Mercury.
What “proves the GHE” in my view is the fact that the Earth’s surface is at a temperature where it is emitting considerably more energy back out into space than it (Earth + atmosphere) receives from the sun. Even before the satellite era, it was impossible to explain how it could do this and not rapidly cool, unless the Earth has some gargantuan heat source that we don’t know about.
Now that we have satellites that show that, no, the Earth as seen from space, is not emitting way more energy than it receives from the sun, but is in fact emitting almost precisely (within less than 1%) of what it receives from the sun. The only explanation for this is that some of the radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect. And, the spectrum of the radiation (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CBs09bO1wfc/UYCrTpw8eOI/AAAAAAAABCY/CCm6vAd8uZQ/s1600/Earth+Emitted+Radiation+Iris+Modtran+Comparison+Shows+Scatter+Effect.png) confirms that the absorption is occurring just as we expect it to given the various greenhouse gases and their concentrations.
It is hard to find more compelling empirical evidence for almost any scientific fact in any field. The fact that there are so many people around who deny this science despite all the evidence reveals how the whole denial of AGW has much more to do with ideological convictions than about scientific issues.
“Now that we have satellites that show that, no, the Earth as seen from space, is not emitting way more energy than it receives from the sun, but is in fact emitting almost precisely (within less than 1%) of what it receives from the sun. The only explanation for this is that some of the radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.”
1%, you mean the +/- 1.5 mW/m^2 measurement with the +/- 15 mW/m^2 error bars ?????
Really, your “proof” is a measurement that is an order of magnitude smaller than the error bars ???? Really ???
Look, over there, a unicorn, right behind that squirrel…
Cheers, KevinK.
It’s W/m^2, not mW/m^2. At any rate, even if the error bars in the measurement were +/-15 W/m^2 (and I don’t think they are that large), the difference between 240 W/m^2 (what the Earth system emits to space) and 390 W/m^2 (what the Earth’s surface emits) is much larger than said error bars.
Joel Shore continues to reiterate the incorrect figure of 240W/m^2 which should be 340W/m^2 – see this comment.
Joel Shore says: “What “proves the GHE” in my view is the fact that the Earth’s surface is at a temperature where it is emitting considerably more energy back out into space than it (Earth + atmosphere) receives from the sun.”
That means the additional radiated away energy is created out of nothing, which is physically impossible. Just do not tell me you studied physics or even arithmetic.
You are incorrect. All models of the greenhouse effect, whether they be simple toy models like Willis’s so-called Steel Greenhouse or full-blown GCM’s, explicitly conserve energy. How many times have you gone through and actually solved a simple model of the greenhouse effect?
Joel Shore states:
“What “proves the GHE” in my view is the fact that the Earth’s surface is at a temperature where it is emitting considerably more energy back out into space than it (Earth + atmosphere) receives from the sun.”
Really, average day-time Earth surface temps fall around 10-15+ degrees celsius. Lunar daytime temps fall in radiative balance around 120 degrees celsius as do Earth orbiting manmade satellites! Lunar nightime temps prove low, but that remains due to the fact that a lunar day falls around 28 Earth days giving the dark side of the moon plenty of time to radiate energy away given the lack of any real atmosphere. If the lunar daytime matched Earth’s the dark side of the moon would be much warmer and the daytime side about the same temp for a shorter period of time. As a result imo average temps would not be as much out whack with Earth at all.
Have a great day!
Hi again JohnKl,
I believe you are correct. If the lunar day was 24 hours instead of about 28 days. In fact Roy has just about modeled it for you. Forget about the moist soil, he did.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Jerry L Krause,
In short the alarmist psuedo-science claim that GHG’s in Earth’s atmosphere warm the surface of the Earth falls way short because in fact the LUNAR LANDSCAPE PROVES MUCH WARMER THAN EARTH both day (obviously) and at night imo if one considers the lunar night time temps during only the first 12 hours after sunset, giving the landscape the same amount of time to cool as the Earth at night during the hours of darkness. If anyone has access to lunar temps during that small rotational interval only i.e. -during the first 12 hours after sunset – please let me know. In short the Earth’s atmosphere primarily conveys energy from the surface thus COOLING IT! Thank you and…
Have a great day!
“The only explanation for this is that some of the radiation emitted by the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.”
JoelShore,
Earth’s radiation to the outer space is decreasing, this is a known fact. However, greenhouse gas effect is not the only explanation. In fact it is the very wrong explanation.
See response here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188031
Just look at the comments that make sense on this blog alone. Accordingly, you should consider going back to the drawing board. GHE is the wrong recipe.
I don’t see any comments that make sense on this blog, except from those of us who are trying to explain the GHE to those of you who still don’t get it.
Hi Joel Shore,
You state:
“I don’t see any comments that make sense on this blog, except from those of us who are trying to explain the GHE to those of you who still don’t get it.”
What don’t you get?
Have a great day!
Nice and simple.
And, to see that it’s fairly conservative, check out the temperature-change profile that Willis Eschenbach posted here.
Oh, I see Dr. Shore was in the room. Just in case he’s still around I’ll add a link to the follow-up post I wrote in response to him.
There is even empirical evidence to support this. In the bone-dry desert, temperatures do indeed vary by as much as 40 to 45 C in a day. It can be 94 F (40 C) during the day or even hotter and still drop to freezing (32 F/O C) at the surface of the sand at night. This is because in the absence of moisture in the air, there isn’t much of a net greenhouse effect. At the exact same latitudes, tropical rain forest may hardly change temperature from day to night — that’s because there the air is dripping with humidity and there is a very strong greenhouse effect. You can see the same thing in less extreme climates. Dry days have a larger temperature range than wet days, and humid days with haze but no clouds to speak of can easily be incredibly hot and uncomfortable.
Of course then there are simple spectrographs of atmospheric radiation, taken looking up. That is literally a photograph of the greenhouse effect in action (and yes, it is dominated by water vapor most of the time, but CO_2 does provide a distinctly noticable bite out of the spectrograph at the top of the atmosphere looking down matched by simultaneous spectrographs at the bottom of the atmosphere looking up. There they are. Real live photons, carrying energy, providing a completely consistent and thoroughly understandable picture of what’s going on, for those that care to look and try to understand.
Beyond that, if you are interested in simple models I’d recommend Grant Petty’s single layer atmosphere model in his book A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation over Willis’s Steel Greenhouse (which is a recap of a simple model given and reinvented many times — it’s even in a standard book of thermodynamics problems I have in a slightly different context). Petty puts in a lot more terms and can give results that vary from the limiting 1.19 multiplier of the greybody temperature for the single layer perfect absorber model.
It is cosmically silly to assert that the GHE isn’t real when you can take its picture and when it would require a “miracle” of some sort contradicting well-known physics not to have it and when it works decently to describe observable phenomena and their range of effects. OTOH, there is a lot that is unknown about the real atmosphere — notably its response to aerosols, and the comparative importance of water vapor, water in the form of clouds, water in the act of transporting latent heat, and the ocean serving as an enormous thermochemical sink. It is probable that simple models are naive and wrong. It is very probable that the complex models used in CMIP5 are wrong (from the point of view of their individual and collective p-values, very probable indeed). The real problem is that we do not have any particularly compelling way of predicting the response of the Earth to additional CO_2. Maybe it is just fine. There are some decent reasons to think that it is. Maybe not so much.
In the end, we have to balance risk and benefit in the face of ignorance, not knowledge. We can easily compute the costs of doing various things about CO_2 as if it were a pollutant, and they are extremely high, especially in human suffering. We can compute at least some of the benefits of CO_2 (such as the simple fact that the 33% increase in mean CO_2 since the mid-50’s feeds roughly 1 billion people every year via increased productivity of food crops, according to direct greenhouse studies with controlled mixtures of CO_2). Against this we have a huge unknown. If aerosols are as irrelevant a contribution as recent papers suggest that they are, ECS has been set far too high in clinmate models as a simple matter of fact. This isn’t arguing that there is no greenhouse effect, only that there is no longer any aerosol cooling to balance supposed high positive water vapor feedback against, so that net feedback is close(r) to neutral. Neutral means a probable ECS in the ballpark of 1 to 1.5 C, which seems unlikely to be a disaster and which is actually remarkably consistent with observed rates of temperature increase in the troposphere and in the (possibly massaged) ground record. But we still do not have a good handle on the effects of changing oceanic pH and any local changes in climate patterns that might or might not be enabled by changing CO_2 in a non-stationary climate. Ultimately we can make up stories to scare ourselves, or comfort ourselves, but in the end we just don’t know.
rgb
I wonder at what point of increasing atmospheric CO2 and declining/flattening global temps, the GHE believers would admit they are wrong.
For one thing, the Earth is still warming and is still absorbing more energy than it is emitting into space.
However, even if it turns out that AGW is not very important because negative feedbacks make the climate sensitivity small (which I seriously doubt it will), we won’t doubt the reality of the GHE because that is a different issue. That is why three physicists who have widely divergent opinions on the issue of the seriousness of AGW (Robert Brown, Tim Folkerts, and myself) nonetheless all agree about the basic GHE, as does Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Fred Singer.
See, even with strongly-held beliefs and widely divergent ideas of how to weigh conflicting evidence regarding AGW, all serious scientists can agree on certain very basic physics. For us, this is pretty much akin to all agreeing that 2 + 2 = 4, which is why it is so amazing to find people seriously contesting it, particularly when they have such little knowledge on which to base their opinions and have many more knowledgeable people, many who sure their ideological world view, who nonetheless are trying to tell them how misguided they are.
“That is why three physicists who have widely divergent opinions on the issue of the seriousness of AGW (Robert Brown, Tim Folkerts, and myself) nonetheless all agree about the basic GHE, as does Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Fred Singer.”
JoelShore,
This number of scientist is still very small and they all can be wrong. We need all of the 7 billion people on earth to agree. The 7 billion can never be wrong, just like mathematics, chemistry, and other science and engineering. All what it takes just one person and one observation to make the GHE fall a part. We have more than one person and more than one observation. I suggest that you go back to the drawing board.
5% of people think Elvis is still alive, and another 5% think they were adducted by space aliens for sexual experimentation…so you might never get unanimity on anything.
Besides I am rather certain that the atoms and molecules comprising the atmosphere are completely oblivious to who believes what.
Unlike the life and death of Elvis or space alien existence, math is the absolute truth.
Menicholas,
And, then there’s the number of people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
I do like Nabil’s honesty though. He has pretty much summed up the unrealistic expectations that people come up with in order to accept science that disagrees with their prejudices.
Nabil Swedan wrote: “We need all of the 7 billion people on earth to agree.”
So the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is the stupidest person on the planet?
Seven billion agree on math and engineering. They are entitled to agree on the climate as well. Otherwise we will never be able to address global warming.
Mike M. states:
“So the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth is the stupidest person on the planet?”
How far is that from the current climate science debate among almarmists?
Nabil Swedan states:
“Seven billion agree on math and engineering. They are entitled to agree on the climate as well. Otherwise we will never be able to address global warming.”
Not all 7 billion understand math and engineering including many in the alarmist community. However, I do understand your sentiment. Ask yourself do the AGW alarmists really seek agreement or do they simply assert that everyone agrees with them (consensus)and seek to make you comply with various demands made by them? How many of their demands bear rational analysis? Do they have a proven track record of accomplishing their climate goals (laugh)? Engineers accomplish goals. They build usable structures, machines etc.. Climate scientists perhaps not so much. If by their fruits you will know them what fruits have AGW alarmists brought everyone? Plenty of political intrigue, plotting, propaganda and manipulation perhaps, but have you noticed anything else? Just asking…
Have a great day!
Hi Joel Shore,
You state:
“For one thing, the Earth is still warming and is still absorbing more energy than it is emitting into space.”
According to Roy’s data the planet COOLED last month! Don’t worry, can’t let data and empirical evidence get in the way of an urgent alarm to save humanity. It’s bound to warm again and no doubt you have just the POLITICAL solution to make it life supporting warm weather go away. Not that anyone has presented one yet, but I’m sure with all the fiction writers in Hollywood, Academia and politics a FINAL SOLUTION to IMAGINED PROBLEMS will soon be on the horizon.
You assert:
“That is why three physicists who have widely divergent opinions on the issue of the seriousness of AGW (Robert Brown, Tim Folkerts, and myself) nonetheless all agree about the basic GHE, as does Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Fred Singer.”
So! I’ve agreed with many statements made on this site including your own. Which specific claims do you believe people have problems accepting. Be very specific, generalities do not help the discussion. You claim they all agree. Well Roy has stated in the past that a runaway greenhouse effect (presumably like what supposedly (but delusionally) accounts for Venus’s temperatures is impossible. You claim AGW as beyond dispute and as simple to prove as 2 + 2 = 4. Personally, I don’t dispute that human action impacts many things like the environment including to a finite degree the climate, but the impact on temperature doesn’t follow your claims especially as I mentioned earlier regarding Earth and lunar temps. However, as far as I can tell you’ve never provided any evidence establishing a direct measured amount of warming as a result of human produced GHG’s. Tim Folkerts earlier quoted Lord Kelvin claiming that one’s understanding cannot be considered scientific unless measured. Please provide measured evidence of your claims and…
Have a great day!
@Robert G. Brown “This is because in the absence of moisture in the air, there isn’t much of a net greenhouse effect”.
GHGs in the atmosphere range from about 1% of all atmospheric gases to about 3%. Are you trying to tell me that such a pithy amount of gas can make temperatures change 40 to 45C in a day?
I would think it had far more to do with the amount of cloud cover than water vapour in the air. Clouds can be modeled as small lakes since they have droplets of water as opposed to vapour.
Also, there’s the wind factor. High temps cause differences in temperature between desert regions causing convective currents to flow. Winds can force hot air in regions, making them very hot, and when the wind lets up, the hot air dissipates.
Gordon, it should seem easy to figure the affect that water vapor has on night time temps when the nights are cloudless… i’ve seen many a cloudless summer night here in new orleans that did not have temps like that of a desert.
Hi fonzarelli,
“i’ve seen many a cloudless summer night here in new orleans that did not have temps like that of a desert.”
That is because your atmosphere at New Orleans does not have a dewpoint temperature nearly as low as that of a ‘true’ desert atmosphere. The reason I stress true is because this morning I looked up the weather record of Alice Springs AU and discovered it had more light rain (0.1 inch to 0.2 in) showers than I would expect for a true desert to have. And the average high and low temperature of a day indicated that I was not looking some uncommon months.
Have a good day, Jerry
Actually, if you were paying attention, I was saying the comparative absence of one of those gases — water vapour — is responsible for parts of the Sahara desert not retaining heat at night and cooling at many times the rate that it cools in (say) North Carolina at night where the air is almost never particularly dry, even when there are no clouds in either place.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of winds “forcing hot air in regions, making them very hot, and when the wind lets up, the hot air dissipates.” Where does the heat come from to make the air hot in the first place? Where does it go when it “dissipates”? How do you explain the simple fact that these temperature variations occur daily in places where there is no wind at all?
The moon has no atmosphere (and hence no greenhouse effect at all). It’s surface heats up during the lunar day until outgoing approximately blackbody thermal radiation flux balances the incoming (also approximately blackbody thermal but at a much higher temperature) radiation flux from the sun. When the sun sets, it cools by emitting thermal radiation that is not obstructed or absorbed in any way as it heads out to infinity. It cools even faster than the Sahara desert, both because the Sahara has to lose energy from the air close to the surface as well as the surface itself North Carolina, on the other hand, cools much less than the Sahara (at a roughly equal latitude for at least some parts of it) on an equally still, equally cloudless night.
People who don’t “believe” in the GHE (as opposed to those who argue about the details, the feedbacks, and so on) seems to have the ability to selectively blind themselves to even the most basic of evidence — one can directly measure downwelling atmospheric radiation. One can analyze its spectrum and integrate to determine the total energy flux it carries. One can directly measure the radiation being given off by the surface, and its spectrum. One can measure the radiation being given off by the same patch of surface and all of the intervening atmosphere at the top of the atmosphere. One can apply the most basic of physical principles — the law of conservation of energy, a.k.a. the first law of thermodynamics — to the energy flow and temperatures and heat capacities of the elements involved. One can thereby understand why humid North Carolina cools at the slowest rate at night, the dry Sahara cools faster, and the really, really dry moon cools fastest of all. It doesn’t just make sense, it makes quantitative sense.
Yes, there is a lot more going on — I can’t solve the coupled Navier-Stokes equation that describes the open system that is the world in my head any better than anyone else, but how can one deny the entire existence of one of the well known channels of energy transfer — radiation — in the description of local dynamics? Yet some people try hard to do so, usually making absurdly inaccurate statements about laws of thermodynamics they don’t in any way understand as a substitute for an actual quantitative argument.
I promise. No laws of thermodynamics are injured by the proposition that a layer of radiatively coupled atmosphere around a planetary surface will always cause it to be warmer than it would be with either no atmosphere at all or an atmosphere that was perfectly transparent. Beyond that, one is free to argue over the details all one likes, provided that one respects the laws of nature in the argument and recognizes that the Earth is a very, very complex open dynamical system and that not only can we not solve the N-S equations in our heads with handwaving arguments, it is quite probable that we cannot solve them on our best computers either. By some 30 orders of magnitude. And it is becoming quite evident that our degree of ignorance of major inputs to those programs — things like integrated effects of aerosols — are off by more than enough to make the confidence intervals of those programs embrace almost any possible future climate.
That’s the real tragedy of climate science. The assertion of certainty, the use of the term “confidence” in things like the Summary for Policy Makers in the various ARs, bears no relation whatsoever to the admissible uses of those terms in well-founded statistical analysis or science.
Robert G. Brown says:”People who don’t “believe” in the GHE (as opposed to those who argue about the details, the feedbacks, and so on) seems to have the ability to selectively blind themselves to even the most basic of evidence — one can directly measure downwelling atmospheric radiation.”
******
When you can bake a turkey by putting it in a freezer filled with ice, then your downwelling atmospheric radiation may be used as evidence. Until that happens, don’t expect folks to “believe” in the GHE, just because “institutionalized science” promotes it.
(One square meter of ice, at 25ºF, emits about 300 Watts. So, if the turkey is not cooking fast enough, just add more ice!)
geran: Comments like this about the turkey are just flouting your own ignorance. You are arguing against a theory that you don’t even understand, despite the patient attempts of many, many people to explain it to you. How pathetic is that?!?
Paging Dunning-Kruger ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ) in Aisle 5!
Joel, almost everything you write here shows you are not a scientist. You have an agenda, and that agenda trumps any connection with the truth.
I predict you will never admit your failings.
@Jole Shore “You are arguing against a theory that you don’t even understand, despite the patient attempts of many, many people to explain it to you. How pathetic is that?!?”
Indeed. Only it’s you, with an alleged degree in physics who is demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of basic physics.
I studied engineering and we are not allowed the thought-experiments and arrogance demonstrated by many theoretical physicists. If we were, bridges would collapse and buildings would fall.
Your explanations are non-specific to the point of lacking coherence yet when someone presents a coherent comment based on the work of one of the giants of thermodynamics, you ad hom the giant by claiming the messenger has misquoted him.
If you are a physicist then you are one of the arrogant new breed who think their generation invented physics. I think what they have done is set physics back so far with theories based purely on the mathematically-fluked quantum theory that it will take another 100 years to undo the mess and get back to reality-based physics.
The anthropogenic theory, like quantum theory, is based on an obfuscation of basic physics that no one can understand without the strange mathematics applied to make them appear legitimate. The application of black body theory, a la Boltzmann, to the Earth’s atmosphere is turgidly stupid.
Black body theory works with stellar objects because their temperatures are so high that their EM output can approach that of a theorized blackbody. Applying blackbody theory to the surface radiation of a planet, especially to the temperature and number of atoms contain in a cc of carbon atoms, without considering convection and conduction from the surface, which would include N2 and 02, which make up 99% of the atmosphere, is patently stupid.
Inferring that a gas, which accounts for 0.04% of atmospheric gases, can upset the climates of a planet, approaches sheer idiocy. Having said that, when the authority investigating the problem admits their has been a warming hiatus since 1998, continuing the charade of AGW approaches sheer lunacy.
Joel, you poor lost puppy, how much ice do you use to bake your turkey?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
The elegant two-line derivation of the -g/cp “lapse rate” shows just how mistaken climatologists are in thinking (like Joel Shore) that convection drives the lapse rate down to the environmental temperature gradient because that’s as fast as convection can go. In fact, convective heat transfer stops at that point and, if weather conditions make the gradient less steep than normal, we have what is technically called an inversion by meteorologists, even though the top is still cooler than the bottom. That is when natural convective heat transfer starts to move downwards. But, because climatologists are stuck with their roundabout clumsy way of deriving -g/cp as here with their fictitious rising “parcels” of air (that have nothing to hold them together) they think that that’s all convection can do. They don’t even contemplate falling parcels of air in temperature inversions because that would muck up their greenhouse hoax.
You, Robert Brown, show very little understanding of entropy and thermodynamics. Your weak attempt to refute the Loschmidt effect demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I have refuted such with correct physics.
See http://www.climate-change-theory.com/WUWT.html
And see my comment just written to Roy below. Try all you like, you are WRONG.
And, Robert Brown, I trust you read the final comment on your thread about the Loschmidt effect.
“Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.”
Roy Yes, surface cooling is slowed, by why does the rate of cooling slow and almost stop in the early pre-dawn hours, even though the environmental lapse rate remains intact? There is absolutely no other explanation (that is in accord with the laws of physics) than that in the new 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science, which you and Robert G. Brown need to read, study and inwardly digest here.
Dr. Brown,
As usual, your lengthy piece shows you have no understanding of what is really happening.
Measuring the temperature of the sky at different altitudes doesn’t demonstrate a greenhouse effect.
Do you think your dismissal of the adiabatic lapse rate due to gravity isn’t “cosmically silly”? Considering you have a PhD in Physics, your position is closer to criminally insane.
The reason water vapor influences the temperature is its enormous latent heat of evaporation, which is released when it condenses.
There is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, no evidence or theory that CO2 affects atmospheric temperature beyond a very slight difference due to its specific heat, and there isn’t enough CO2 in the atmosphere to affect ocean pH.
Olease, get real.
I don’t dismiss the adiabatic lapse rate due to gravity. I simply point out that it is a consequence of energy flow in a non-equilibrium open system. It was being asserted that thermodynamic equilibrium is not isothermal, and this is simply not true. The DALR, on the other hand, arises due to convection and is hardly an equilibrium process.
As for no evidence that CO_2 affects atmospheric temperature — we clearly disagree as to what constitutes “evidence”.
rgb
Howl is thermodynamic equilibrium even relevant? Steady state is what matters. We are dealing with an energy flow. The DALR arises as the steady state of gas molecules compressed against a surface.
To add to what Robert Brown says, the adiabatic lapse rate alone also does not explain why the surface temperature is as hot as it is. Some people seem to think that to completely specify a straight line, all you need to know is the slope; the fact is that you also need the intercept: The fact that the temperature structure of the Earth’s atmosphere is close to the adiabatic lapse rate (or a compromise between the dry and saturated adiabatic lapse rates) does not allow its surface temperature to be at some value where the surface is radiating energy at a considerably higher rate into space than the entire Earth system (earth + atmosphere) is absorbing from the sun.
In fact, people who look at the adiabatic lapse rate as providing the explanation of the elevated surface temperature: The fact that lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate are unstable to convection, which then drives the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate, causes the surface temperature to be lower than it would be if convection did not occur and a steeper lapse rate could be maintained.
And, conversely, if the atmosphere were unstable to convection all the way down to zero lapse rate, then the atmosphere would be driven down to a practically isothermal profile in the troposphere and the radiative greenhouse effect would essentially be completely canceled out.
So, to summarize the correct physics: Convection reduces the quantitative radiative greenhouse effect but convection is not able to eliminate it completely exactly because it can only drive the lapse rate down as far as the adiabatic lapse rate and no further.
“In fact, people who look at the adiabatic lapse rate as providing the explanation of the elevated surface temperature: The fact that lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate…”
should read:
“In fact, people who look at the adiabatic lapse rate as providing the explanation of the elevated surface temperature have only a piece of the picture: The fact is that lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate…”
Joel Shore:
Yes of course we get steeper temperature gradients when there is temporary excess thermal energy at the surface/atmosphere interface on a hot clear day. So what? This helps us understand why the rate of cooling slows almost to a stop in the early pre-dawn hours when that excess energy is dissipated and the gravitationally induced temperature gradient kicks in.
What you can’t explain is how the necessary thermal energy actually gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise the temperature of a location on the equator from about 732K to 737K during the four-month-long sunlit period. In contrast, I can explain it, as in this comment, where I ask you to also note the correction and footnote.
Robert – go to this comment about why you are mistaken, noting the correction and footnote.
Not true, such a large variations are due to cold air advection, however purely radiative day-night variation in the desert can’t possibly be more than 20C at the sea level, which is what one can see if one actually look into actual temperatures in the desert. Well, may be under the exceptionally clear conditions it could be even more… who knows. However many deserts especially in the usa are high altitude deserts for which the theoretically allowed variations are larger. The deserts with ~45*C dth typically cool to no lower than 25*C ntl.
Roy, it has been explained to you on this site how IR thermometers work when pointed to colder objects. Radiation from colder objects does not raise the temperature of warmer objects. The detector works in a different way. Hard to believe this needs to be explained again and again to a PhD guy.
“Radiation from colder objects does not raise the temperature of warmer objects.”
What does this even mean? Does the radiation come with a little sign that says, “This radiation is not to be used for the purposes of raising the temperature of warmer objects. Any use of this radiation for said purpose is strictly prohibitted?”
I really wonder how you guys think the world works. Can you define precisely what you mean by radiation from a colder object raising the temperature of a warmer object and then show us where you found a statement that this can’t occur in any REAL physics source?
Only two types of people can ask such a stupid question: idiots and liars. Since you are well informed, you must belong to the second type. Just in case you prefer beeing treated as stupid: since warmer things do warm colder things, if colder things could warm warmer things in return, the warmer things would warm then the colder things even more in return and it would never stop. Must be comprehensible for anyone.
You still haven’t defined for me what you mean by colder things warming warmer things. Just to clear it up for you, here are possible interpretations of that statement:
(1) Colder things warming warmer things means that there is a net flow of energy from warmer to colder. [You’re right…Can’t happen.]
(2) Colder things warming warmer things means that if Object E (Earth) is warmer than Object A (atmosphere) and the only object that E is receiving thermal energy from is Object A (which means it does not receive thermal energy from either another object or from conversion of some other form of energy to thermal energy), then Object A can increase the temperature of Object E. [You’re right…Can’t happen.]
(3) Colder things warming warmer things means that if Object E (Earth) is warmer than Object A (atmosphere) and Object E does receive thermal energy from another object S (sun)…or from conversion of some other form of energy to thermal energy… then Object A cannot increase the steady-state temperature of Object E over and above the temperature it would have in the absence of Object A (or if Object A were colder). [You’re wrong…Can happen.]
“then Object A cannot increase the steady-state temperature of Object E…”
Sorry…I got myself confused about whether I was saying “Colder things warming warmer things means…” and “Colder things cannot warm warmer things means…”
Since I tried to consistently write the former, the statement I quoted should then read “then Object A can increase the steady-state temperature of Object E…”.
JoelShore,
There are no three objects. There are only sun and earth, or S and E. A (atmosphere) is integral part of E (earth) and its temperature is a result of equilibrium between the Sun and Earth.
Here is the major mistake we have done so fare: Divide the earth into earth subsystems and deal with them separately, when in fact the earth is only one machine, one object, E. When you approach the earth system from the fact it is one thermodynamic machine, which it is, the GHE falls a part. There is no such a thing as radiation exchange between atmospheric air and surface, they are in intimate contact and together reached equilibrium with solar radiation. Only convection heat transfer can occur between atmospheric air and surface. This is basic heat transfer as tough at school. The fact that some colleges teach otherwise is regrettable.
Correction taught instead of tough.
“The fact that some colleges teach otherwise is regrettable.”
Yes, it is regrettable that colleges teach science rather than nonsense.
Who is the arbiter of when and when I cannot divide systems up? Can I not look at a person sitting in a room and calculate the radiation between that person and his/her surroundings? Why or why not?
“Only convection heat transfer can occur between atmospheric air and surface.”
Is there some law that the Parliament of Nature has passed that I am aware of that says, “No radiative heat transfer will be allowed between the atmosphere and the surface?” Is it true even on holidays?
Nabil: Just to be clear, there are a few correct elements within what you wrote. You are correct that the temperature of the atmosphere is not fixed but something that itself has to be determined by steady-state conditions (which is what is done). You are also correct that to do quantitative calculations of the heat transfer between Earth & atmosphere, you ALSO have to take into account convection (although you are absolutely incorrect that you don’t include radiative transfer).
JoelShore
Radiation within the atmosphere does not exist because math, engineering, atmospheric science, and observations confirm this conclusion:
The lapse rate equation is an equality between variations of the potential energy of the atmospheric air and variations of its enthalpy. No radiation terms exist in the equation.
Engineering books are based on successful applications, only convective heat transfer exist within the mass of air.
This is just to name a few. Then why is the climate science is so inconsistent with atmosphere and engineering?
“Radiation within the atmosphere does not exist because math, engineering, atmospheric science, and observations confirm this conclusion…”
What a ridiculous and completely bizarre statement! It is not even worth commenting on. I will just leave it to others to consider as a remarkable example of denial of science.
“The lapse rate equation is an equality between variations of the potential energy of the atmospheric air and variations of its enthalpy. No radiation terms exist in the equation.”
And this relates to your last sentence how? You are correct; the adiabatic lapse rate is determined by what you say…but it in no way implies your completely laughable claim.
Here is the actual physics of the situation:
(1) The strong heating of the Earth from below (both by the sun and radiation from greenhouse gases) would cause a lapse rate even steeper than the observed lapse rate in the troposphere.
(2) However, lapse rates steeper than the observed lapse rate are unstable to convection, which lowers the lapse rate down to the (appropriate) dry or saturated adiabatic lapse rate. Hence, the adiabatic lapse rate is what we call a stability limit…That is, lapse rates greater than it are unstable to convection and driven down to it.
(3) None of this, however, alone sets the surface temperature because a slope alone is not sufficient to determine a line. An additional condition is necessary, such as the temperature at some height in the atmosphere.
(4) This condition is set by radiative balance: In steady-state (i.e., to neither heat nor cool), the Earth system (earth+atmosphere) must radiate back into space the same amount of energy as it absorbs from the sun. This condition means that, with the Earth’s current albedo, the temperature at the effective radiating level, i.e., the level in the atmosphere where (on average) radiation can successfully escape to space, must be 255 K.
(5) The surface temperature of the Earth is determined by the height of the effective radiating level (which is currently about 5 km) and the environment lapse rate (~6.5 C per km). Extrapolating down to the surface, one gets the value that the surface temperature is about 288 K.
(6) Increases in greenhouse gases increase the opacity of the atmosphere to the Earth’s emitted IR radiation and hence increase the effective radiating level.
So, this summary of the correct and empirically-verified science allows us to see the role of various factors. The radiative greenhouse effect is due to the opacity of the Earth’s atmosphere to terrestrial radiation. However, convection reduces the effect of the radiative greenhouse effect by reducing the lapse rate compared to what it would be in the absence of convection. (In fact, if convection could drive the lapse rate all the way down to zero, the radiative greenhouse effect would be essentially completely offset by convection because convection is a quite efficient mode of heat transfer, but it can’t…It can only drive the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate, so convection only partially offset the radiative greenhouse effect.)
“You are correct; the adiabatic lapse rate is determined by what you say…”
Actually, this statement of mine may have been a little hasty, particular now that I see you referenced potential energy (which is a red herring, in that for a neutrally-buoyant parcel, the gravitational force and buoyant force cancel). What I would say is that the adiabatic lapse rate is determined by the temperature change of a parcel of neutrally-buoyant air as it ascends adiabatically through the atmosphere.
But, at least you are correct that radiation does not come into the equation for the adiabatic lapse rate. [And, in fact, the adiabatic condition is actually assuming that changes in internal energy due to conductive or radiative heat transfer are negligible from the point of view of determining this feature of the temperature structure of the atmosphere.]
#3 seems like Doug’s heat creep theory, but yes solar energy can warm the planet.
Have a great day!
Solar radiation absorbed by the surface does not account for the observed mean temperatures.
Regarding “heat creep” go to this comment.
I’ve already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics in this comment.
@Joel “Here is the actual physics of the situation:”
Richard Lindzen does not agree. He teaches atmospheric physics at MIT and has published many papers over a 40+ year career in non-modeled atmospheric physics.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
“When it comes to global warming due to the greenhouse effect, it is clear that many approaches are highly oversimplified. This includes the simple ‘blanket’ picture of the greenhouse effect shown in Figure 1”.
“There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture [of the GHE]. Namely,the surface of the earth does not cool primarily by thermal radiation”.
“”…heat is carried away from the surface by fluid motions ranging from the cumulonimbus towers of the tropics to the weather and planetary scale waves of the extratropics. These motions carry the heat upward and poleward to levels where it is possible for thermal radiation emitted from these levels to escape to space”.
“Contrary to the iconic statement of the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers, this is only on the order of a third of the observed trend at the surface, and suggests a warming of about 0.4° over a century. It should be added that this is a bound more than an estimate”.
Now you are just throwing up flack and quoting Lindzen in a way that makes it appear as if he agrees with your nonsense when he does not. In particular, look at what you did in the following:
“There is something very seriously wrong with this oversimplified picture [of the GHE].”
However, if one goes back to Lindzen, he is not doubting the GHE. The “[of the GHE]” was added by you.
He is doubting the feedbacks. In fact, his only quibble with the claim that the GHE warms the Earth by 33 K is a clarification that “it requires getting rid of the greenhouse impact of clouds while retaining them to reflect sunlight”, which is true…but that is because we are talking about how much warming is produced due to the greenhouse effect. He does not doubt that this is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, let alone deny its existence as you do.
So, now we find that after misinterpreting Clausius, you have now misinterpreted Lindzen. In fact, you even did so in a way that I would call borderline deceptive.
Almost all scientists in the field, save our current host and a handful of others, think Lindzen is wrong on feedbacks. But, that’s neither here nor there for the sake of the current discussion, which is about the greenhouse effect…and particularly, your ridiculous claim that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
@Joel Shore “However, if one goes back to Lindzen, he is not doubting the GHE. The “[of the GHE]” was added by you”.
Lindzen certainly is doubting the over-simplified GHE presented by most people and he definitely shoots down the claims of AGW alarmists with regard to catastrophic warming and climate change.
In the link I provided he places an upper bounds of 0.4 degrees over a century.
It’s unfortunate that the atmosphere is compared to a greenhouse. It’s a bad metaphor that fills the minds of people with a roof of greenhouse gases covering the planet.
As Lindzen said in his article, some concepts are so complex that it is necessary to reduce them to simpler models. However, claiming that an atmosphere consisting of 1% GHGs can raise atmospheric temps from -19C to +15C, while completely ignoring the oceans, which account for 73% of the planet’s surface, is a model which completely misses the mark.
I like John Christy’s approach. He admits the atmosphere and it’s systems are so complex that we have essentially no idea what is going on. Although John did his grad studies under uber-alarmist Kevin Trenberth, who no doubt filled his mind with CAGW theory, John kept an open mind when his data showed no signature to support CAGW, or even global warming.
Since then he has thankfully been a thorn in the side of Trenberth who became so exasperated with UAH that he forced a journal editor to resign for having the temerity to publish a paper from either John or Roy with which he did not agree.
Dear Joel Shore,
You are running in a circle. Please go back to the drawing board. You will be happy you did.
@“Radiation from colder objects does not raise the temperature of warmer objects.”
What does this even mean? Does the radiation come with a little sign that says, “This radiation is not to be used for the purposes of raising the temperature of warmer objects. Any use of this radiation for said purpose is strictly prohibited?”
Joel…this is where you are falling into the trap of cleverness and thought-experiments. The 2nd law says that radiation from a colder object to a warmer object has no effect. Clausius said a similar thing about radiation in his treatise on heat.
“…the passage of heat between two bodies of different temperature can take place in one direction only, and not in the contrary direction”.
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html
Clausius knew about atoms but he would not have known about photons and probably nothing of infrared energy as related to quantum theory.
That is evidence from a quote he made in another paper:
“In later days has arisen the other view that Heat is in reality a mode of motion. According to this view, the heat found in bodies and determining their temperature is treated as being a motion of their ponderable atoms, in which motion the ether existing within [between] the bodies may also participate;”
Also, “We will therefore start with the assumption that Heat consists in a motion of the ultimate particles of bodies and of ether, and that the quantity of heat is a measure of the Vis Viva of this motion.
Vis Viva is an old term for kinetic energy. Ergal was proposed as a term for potential energy”.
He is clearly stating that heat consists of the kinetic energy of atoms.
You are presuming that the radiation from a colder object has the intensity and frequency to raise the kinetic energy level of atoms operating at a higher temperature.
From my very limited understanding of how photons affect the energy levels in an atom, an absorbed photon causes an electron to rise to a higher quantum energy level. When that electrons drops back to it’s original level, it emits a photon.
Again, I am talking in layman’s terms, but electrons in an atomic energy band interacting with IR (EM) gain energy and can jump to a higher energy level. This increases the KE in the electrons and should raise the KE of the entire atom. That should also raise the heat in an aggregate of atoms.
It strikes me that once the energy levels have been raised that a IR from a cooler source, of lower intensity and frequency, cannot raise the energy levels in a warmer source any higher. To me, that explains why heat can only be transferred in one direction, from atoms of a higher KE to atoms of lower KE, but not in the reverse direction.
If someone can prove that is wrong, I am listening.
First of all, a technical point of terminology: We don’t use the word “heat” except to describe the transfer of energy. So, it is not “heat” but “thermal energy” that you get when you raise the random kinetic energy of the atoms / molecules or what have you.
We can talk about the microscopics of the absorption of photons by a material (which are far more complicated than your picture, which seems more to be at the level of isolated atoms…and which I am probably not the most qualified person to expound on), but on a more macroscopic level, let me ask you this:
If the Earth can’t absorb the photon, what will happen to it?
It can’t just disappear…That violates conservation of energy. It has to be either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted. Are you proposing that the Earth is transparent to these IR photons from the atmosphere or that it reflects the photon? As I have noted, Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation tells us that if a material is not a good absorber at a certain wavelength, it is also not a good emitter at that wavelength. So, the substance you speak of might absorb less but it will also emit less. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, most non-gaseous materials are good absorbers throughout the far IR wavelengths that we are talking about here…So, the Earth surface’s absorptivity is in fact very close to 1 for these wavelengths.
“It strikes me that once the energy levels have been raised that a IR from a cooler source, of lower intensity and frequency, cannot raise the energy levels in a warmer source any higher. To me, that explains why heat can only be transferred in one direction, from atoms of a higher KE to atoms of lower KE, but not in the reverse direction.”
So, in summary, this view of the world is simply not correct [at least the frequency part]. The warmer object does not “know” where the photons have come from (i.e., that they are from a cooler source); it just “knows” their frequency. And, it will absorb them according to its absorptivity, which obeys Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation (so if it doesn’t absorb well at that frequency, it also doesn’t emit well at that frequency).
Now, your talk of lower intensity has an inkling of correctness in it. Yes, the intensity of radiation from the colder object is less than from the hotter…but that is what we have been trying to explain to you this whole time is in fact responsible (along with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation) for insuring that the 2nd Law is obeyed, i.e., that in the exchange of energy back-and-forth between the two objects, more energy goes from the hotter to the colder object than from the colder to the hotter and hence the heat, or net flow of energy, is from the hotter to the colder.
@Joel Shore “it is not “heat” but “thermal energy” that you get when you raise the random kinetic energy of the atoms / molecules or what have you”.
To an engineer they are one and the same. Apparently Clausius agreed. Heat is energy and I don’t think it is right to obfuscate it as a transfer mechanism.
“…intensity of radiation from the colder object is less than from the hotter…but that is what we have been trying to explain to you this whole time is in fact responsible (along with Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation) for insuring that the 2nd Law is obeyed..”
Joel, the thing you seem not to be getting is that infrared energy is not the same energy described as heat, or thermal energy, whatever you want to call it. IR can transfer heat but the flow of IR between bodies is electromagnetic energy, not heat energy, or thermal energy.
I have noted that when we speak of energy we are normally referring to matter at an atomic level. Electrical energy involves an electric field that can cause electrons to move. Electric field are also closely related to magnetic fields and magnetic energy.
Chemical energy is related to the atoms and molecules in a chemical reaction. Nuclear energy is related to the energy in atomic nuclei.
Electromagnetic energy is also related to other phenomena in an atomic structure related to it’s quantum energy levels. It can be absorbed or emitted as electrons in energy bands transition to higher or lower energy bands. Same thing for valence electrons in molecular bonds of infrared-absorbing molecules.
Thermal energy, however, is related to the kinetic energy of atoms in solids, liquids and gases. Clausius presumed that a ‘quantity’ of heat was related to the kinetic energy of atoms and that heat is related to the motion of atoms.
If you read him on that he goes into detail. He describes atoms in a solid lattice, where they are confined by valence electrons in covalent bonds. The atoms are always in motion, vibrating in place. He compared that motion to work and to it’s heat equivalent. Therefore atoms vibrating in place in a solid represent both work and heat.
When it comes to radiation, the idea, as I get it, is to transfer some of that kinetic energy in one body to another body. You call that heat but I call it heat transfer, a la Clausius. The transfer is accomplished through the phenomenon of atoms emitting electromagnetic energy which is subsequently absorbed in the other body, increasing the KE in that body.
To me, that indicates two forms of energy, electromagnet energy in the form of IR and thermal energy in the form of transferred kinetic energy. Clausius stipulated, however, that the transfer of kinetic energy can only take place from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation.
If you are going to sum two energies, you cannot simply sum the IR and ignore the KE that represents heat. That was pointed out by thermodynamic experts Gerlich and Tscheuschner in their reply to a rebuttal by Halpern et al.
G&T pointed out that the 2nd law is about heat (not infrared energy transfer) and as such it is not right to reference it without summing the heat transfers.
When you transfer KE from a higher level of KE to a lower level of KE, the process is not reversible without compensation, according to Clausius.
@Joel Shore…from Gerlich and Tscheuschner. No matter what your opinion may be about them, they are both qualified in the field of thermodynamics.
I challenge you to put away your knowledge base long enough to read the full article objectively. I am not asking you to accept what you read, or to believe it, just to read it with an open mind.
From page 16:
“Heat is the kinetic energy of molecules and atoms and will be transferred by contact or radiation. Microscopically both interactions are mediated by photons. In the former case, which is governed by the Coulomb respective van derWaals interaction these are the virtual or off-shell photons, in the latter case these are the real or on-shell photons. The interaction between photons and electrons (and other particles that are electrically charged or have a nonvanishing magnetic momentum) is microscopically described by the laws of quantum theory. Hence, in principle, thermal conductivity and radiative transfer may be described in a unified framework. However, the non-equilibrium many body problem is a highly non-trivial one and subject to the discipline of physical kinetics unifying quantum theory and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics”.
Reference: Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Hi Joel Shore,
You assert:
“So, in summary, this view of the world is simply not correct [at least the frequency part]. The warmer object does not “know” where the photons have come from (i.e., that they are from a cooler source); it just “knows” their frequency. And, it will absorb them according to its absorptivity, which obeys Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation (so if it doesn’t absorb well at that frequency, it also doesn’t emit well at that frequency).”
If you work in academia (a scary possibility) do the world a favor and stop for a while, calm down and wait until reason returns to you. Do you know who Max Planck is? The radiation frequency emitted by any object correlates to temperature. Shorter wavelength, higher frequency radiation emits from hotter objects and longer wavelength, lower frequency radiation from cooler objects. A warmer object doesn’t know anything at all about other objects unless it is a being with rational faculty, hopefully your one. However, the amount of energy contained in any given amount of radiation (you can go ahead and call it a photon if you like) depends on the FREQUENCY and cooler objects emit lower frequencies. Therefore, a warmer object doesn’t have to know anything about the cooler object the FREQUENCY does all the talking. Some specific frequencies speak louder than others. Water molecules listen very carefully to certain microwave frequencies which can have a disproportionate influence on it’s temperature, just ask those who make microwave ovens.
Have a great day!
Gordon Robertson says: @“Radiation from colder objects does not raise the temperature of warmer objects.” What does this even mean? Does the radiation come with a little sign that says, “This radiation is not to be used for the purposes of raising the temperature of warmer objects. Any use of this radiation for said purpose is strictly prohibited?”
I have the right explanation for idiots. It is like me saying “If you throw up a stone, it will not fly to the Moon” and you asking: “What does this even mean? Does the stone come with a little sign that says, “This stone is not to be used for the purposes of flying to the Moon. Any use of this stone for said purpose is strictly prohibited”?”
You can actually go on asking “Why should the stone fall back to Earth? Does the stone come with a little sign that says the stone should fall back to Earth? How does the stone know it is supposed to fall back to Earth?”
@Notagain “I have the right explanation for idiots”.
Who are you referencing? Part of your quote is from me and part is from Joel Shore.
Sorry Gordon, I see now those words were not yours. Maybe you should better formate your postings to avoid misunderstanding.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
And again about insulation. Insulation keeps things both colder and hotter, depending on the outside temperature. The IPCC “greenhouse effect” has nothing to do with insulation, it is physically absurd self-heating by own heat. Again, Roy.
Sorry for being off topic. I keep reading about this warm water blob in the Pacific off the North American coast. Could Dr Spencer provide an explanation of this and what is the source of heat for this warmer water. In none of the articles I have seen is GW blamed.
As far as I have investigated it (which is little, because it is only a curiosity) it is due to an unusual, persisting, pattern of local low atmospheric pressure.
It requires no special source of heat. The upper hundred meters of the ocean are mixed annually by surface winds, but like any such process it is not entirely even or consistent.
Â
Roy, you still get it all wrong
Point 1: The Sun’s mean radiation absorbed by the surface of planets like Earth and Venus is nowhere near sufficient to raise even a perfect blackbody to the observed mean temperatures. The Earth’s surface is nothing like a perfect blackbody, anyway, because it loses more thermal energy by non-radiative processes (that are not slowed by back radiation) than it loses by radiation. There is said to be 168W/m^2 of such mean solar radiation absorbed by the surface, and that corresponds to a blackbody temperature of -41°C. The Moon’s mean temperature is below 0°C even without an atmosphere absorbing and reflecting close to 50% on the insolation. So, even though the Moon’s surface receives about twice as much solar flux, its mean temperature is colder than Earth’s mean surface temperature. So it doesn’t matter how much radiation slows that portion of surface cooling which is by radiation, because the Sun’s radiation cannot raise the mean surface temperature sufficiently in the first place. So we ask, cooling from what temperature? From -41°C?
Point 2: It is not radiation from a planet’s atmosphere that makes it hotter than its effective radiating temperature at the base of its troposphere. On Uranus there is no solar radiation reaching down through its 350Km nominal troposphere anyway, but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface at the base thereof.
Point 3: We know there is something seriously wrong with the radiative forcing GH conjecture because Foehn winds warm and do not cool. You see, Roy, the IPCC claims that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor supposedly warms the surface by most of that “33 degrees” of warming. But there is simply no evidence of such. When I did a study (published in my 2013 paper) the results showed that more moist regions had lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures. Likewise, Foehn winds warm when their moisture content reduces.
Point 4: The only correct explanation which does “work” for all planets is derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with appropriate consideration as to how entropy increases to a maximum if and only if unbalanced energy potentials diminish, as explained here and in the linked paper. Also of relevance is the website http://entropylaw.com that I discovered recently.
Â
You need to listen to those who understand the relevant thermodynamics, Roy, which you did not get taught when you got your “A” in such.
Â
Douglas Cotton B.Sc.(physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney & Macquarie Universities
1963 to 1972
Retired (part-time) physics and mathematics educator
and now private researcher into planetary physics
Â
Good evening all.
I am not going to jump in with both feet here, because I am still trying to get a handle on why some of the people here are saying the things they say.
But I wanted to point out a simple error here:
“Likewise, Foehn winds warm when their moisture content reduces. ”
Compressional winds have low relative humidity, but that is not because the moisture content of the air is reduced as the air descends to a lower altitude. As air descends, it is compressed by the higher barometric pressure at the lower altitude, and so it heats up adiabatically. Since warmer air can hold more moisture, the relative humidity falls, but the absolute humidity does not. There is still the same amount of moisture present in the parcel as before it began to descend and warm.
I am very curious about this idea that some here seem to have that dry air does not cool off faster at night that more humid air, and is also able to cool off more. As air cools at night, the relative humidity increases, and when it reaches 100%, fog will form.
I have been involved with agriculture (Plant nursery) here in Florida for many years, and the relationship between the dew point of the air and the minimum temperature which is possible on a given night is very clear and straightforward.
Possible, but not assured. there have been many a night where crops have been saved from freezing by even a thin cirrus wisp streaming in, which allows the radiational cooling to reverse and the temp actually rise.
Some of these conversations are kind of baffling, and seem to be coming from people who have not spent much time outside at night in various climates and weather conditions.
The reason that the cooling is slowed, and the rate of cooling reduces and almost stops in the early pre-dawn hours (even though the environmental lapse rate remains and is usually around 7 degrees per kilometer) is because that temperature gradient represents the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Frankly, Robert G.Brown (from a university physics department) ought to be ashamed of the complete travesty of physics (which Roy reiterates) that planetary tropospheres would be isothermal in the absence of IR-active gases. That is nonsense.
What they don’t understand is how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to understand why the density gradient forms when, for example, a long thin insulated and sealed cylinder of gas is rotated from a horizontal to a vertical position.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that in any independent natural process (that comprises an isolated system) entropy will increase to a maximum as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate to zero. The very fact that the density gradient forms, proves that, in entropy considerations, we must consider (at the molecular level) “micro” gravitational potential energy, and not just molecular kinetic energy which relates to temperature. (In fact other forms of internal energy should also be considered, but we will assume they are held constant.)
So, the density gradient forms because entropy increases, that being because there are in fact unbalanced energy potentials due to the extra gravitational potential energy of molecules at the top. Thus we know we must take that PE into account in entropy considerations and, in particular, in considerations of unbalanced energy potentials which must dissipate to reach thermodynamic equilibrium. We only get to such thermodynamic equilibrium (with maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials) when the mean sum of molecular (KE+PE) is homogeneous, and, since PE has a gradient with altitude, so too does KE (and thus temperature) have the negative of that PE gradient.
So, when the temporary heat of the day has gone, the surface temperature gets down to a level where the whole of the troposphere would then have to cool in order to retain (throughout its height) the temperature gradient that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
The profoundly important corollary is that, if new thermal energy disturbs the state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its temperature gradient) then that new energy (creating unbalanced energy potentials) will be spread out in all accessible directions away from the source, and that includes downwards. Therein lies the explanation as to how planetary surfaces receive the extra thermal energy which James Hansen was looking for and thought could be explained with back radiation – but can’t be.
“the environmental lapse rate remains and is usually around 7 degrees per kilometer”
The ELR varies quite a bit over various geographic areas, times of year and even times of day.
In summer here in Florida, it is quite different during the rainy season than dry seasons, and different if an easterly wave is approaching than when one has just passed, and different in the morning before the daily cycle of convection has begun than it is after the afternoon thunderstorms have just rained out and dissipated, and even different near the coast when the daily and nightly land breeze and sea breeze regimes shift, weaken or strengthen depending on whether the prevailing PG winds are from the east or the flow is reversed and coming from the west.
“Average” and “usual” are two completely different things.
You miss my point. Some temperature gradient (say between 5 and 9 degrees/km remains even though upward heat transfers may have ceased. Why is it so?
I see Doug Cotton’s sock puppets are in full force, and Doug Cotton leaps in at the end to prop up his sock puppets by lending them his credibility.
Will, for the record, I am not anybody’s “sock puppet”. My opinions about how the climate works are my own and I am prepared to defend them.
Mr. Cotton has his own hypothesis and I do not agree or disagree, I have no opinion on his opinion…
PS, Roy it was a lot more fun here when we were just watching frost flowers grow…. Good enjoyable stuff there.
Roy, you brought up the “Is the GHE real” topic up once again for another “intellectual flogging” and it worked, I guess…
I’m good with the “It’s a Hypothesis” position and I’m still eager for actual proof, show me a dead unicorn and I’ll shut up until my dying days, I promise.
Cheers, KevinK.
Doesn’t it get down to freezing at night in the Desert since there is so little of the GHG called water vapor?
Yes! And it can easily go lower than freezing. The temperature minimum is limited only by the dew point of the air. It can go lower, if the dew point changes, or if the air becomes supersaturated.
My god! They have to be pulling your leg Roy. You scientists are sort of dumb that way. No one can be that dense unless they try.
Ok, here is one more attempt, not sure why anybody bothers, the folks that believe this GHE conjecture will apparently always believe it. But anyway here goes;
A thermal insulator (like fiberglass in the walls of your residence) functions by slowing the velocity of thermal energy moving through it. This is represented by the thermal diffusivity of the material, a fundamental property of the material determined by its molecular structure. A slower velocity means it takes longer for a given amount of thermal energy to “escape”. A thermal insulator does NOT “TRAP HEAT”.
An electrical insulator (like the plastic covering the wires in the walls of your house) does indeed “trap electrons” (up to some maximum voltage) all the electrons stay in the conductor.
To “trap” electromagnetic radiation, aka EMR (like IR energy leaving the surface of the Earth) requires a Faraday Cage. This is a totally conductive containment (like a room built out of copper mesh walls) which prevents EMR from leaving (or entering). Any holes in the “cage” allows the EMR to escape. The EMR is always traveling at the speed of light (like an angry hive of bees just looking for a hole in your bee keepers outfit).
Holding up one molecule of copper (or a molecule of CO2) in the path of the EMR just makes it take another course which delays the time until it escapes. Alot like an angry bee that just keeps looking for the hole in your beekeepers uniform.
These are fundamentally different physical mechanisms.
Gases in the atmosphere do not act as a “blanket” that traps EMR….
“It does not matter how beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not match observations, IT IS WRONG” (paraphrased from a really smart guy).
Cheers, KevinK.
“the velocity of thermal energy …
I’ll cut you some slack here. The important quantity is the RATE that heat moves through a material (joules/second), not VELOCITY (meters/second). Velocity is a rate, just not exactly the right rate here.
A slower
velocityrate means it takes longer for a given amount of thermal energy to “escape”. A thermal insulator does NOT “TRAP HEAT”. (With that one change I agree so far.)“Holding up one molecule of copper (or a molecule of CO2) in the path of the EMR just makes it take another course which delays the time until it escapes.”
No, holding up a CO2 molecule allows it to ABSORB some of the IR photons whizzing by. The absorbed photon is DESTROYED, not delayed. The CO2 molecule starts vibrating.
Some time later, the CO2 molecule emits a whole new photon (assuming it hasn’t bumped into a surrounding molecule and transferred that extra energy in the meantime). The NEW photon could be traveling in ANY direction. If it happens to be heading toward the ground, then the ground can absorb that photon, which would set the atoms in the ground vibrating. And more vibrations = warmer temperatures (than if that photon had not been absorbed).
Tim, thanks for the unnecessary “slack”, I don’t need no “stinking slack” from you, thanks anyway.
“No, holding up a CO2 molecule allows it to ABSORB some of the IR photons whizzing by. The absorbed photon is DESTROYED, not delayed. The CO2 molecule starts vibrating.”
THE ENERGY IS NOT DESTROYED, simply converted from EMR to thermal energy and vice-versa. And it’s transit through the system is simply delayed by this process.
Honestly, how much longer will you folks defend this hypothesis. For cripes sake Arrhenius started this thing with predictions of folks farming in Greenland right about now… See any observations of that recently ?????
Good God; “it’s Dead JIM”, google star-track….
Cheers, KevinK.
Kevin says (in all caps no less): “THE ENERGY IS NOT DESTROYED”
hmmm … I said that the PHOTON is destroyed, not the energy; the molecule begins vibrating (with that same energy). In other words (ie in YOUR words) the energy is “simply converted from EMR to thermal energy”.
Thanks for so loudly agreeing with me. 🙂
“And it’s transit through the system is simply delayed by this process.”
No. If the energy continued the same direction a fraction of a second later (still heading out to space), then you might say that was simply delayed. But that is not the case. RETURNING energy is not the same as DELAYING it.
As an analogy, suppose you have a tank that is being filled with water by a hose, but there is a leak in the tank. The water level will rise to some point and then the leak will equal the input. Now I take a bucket and return some of the water that was leaving. Yeah, i am “delaying the process” of water leaving the tank, but I am not “SIMPLY delaying the process”. The water level in the tank will be higher than it was.
“Honestly, how much longer will you folks defend this hypothesis.
Ahhh! I think i get it. You are pretty clearly conflating two different hypotheses. But just to be clear, exactly what is “this hypothesis” that you are referring to? Which hypothesis do you think is dead?
“I don’t need no “stinking slack” “
So you would rather simply remain obstinately wrong??? 🙂
PS if there is a “velocity” for heat, then tell me how you would calculate the “speed”? For example, what is the speed of heat for a 1 m long bar of copper with a cross section of 1 cm x 1 cm that is 300 K at one end and 400 K at the other? What is the speed if the bar is 2 m long? How long does it take 10 J of heat to “escape” from one end to the other?
PS. I can easily calculate the RATE (in J/s) of heat flow.
Hey, if we could increase the rate of heat flow through the rod to the speed of light, creating a superconductor of heat, we could end all of these problems and worries right then.
Such a conductor could be arranged to carry excess heat (If there ever got to be any) on the earth directly to space, and could also serve as a heat sink to make electricity using the temperature differential between the top and bottom of the ocean.)
Oh, well, since there is as much chance of that as a snowball’s chance on the senate floor, we will just have to sally on as best we can, as is.
Tim Folkerts says:
April 10, 2015 at 11:08 PM
PS. I can easily calculate the RATE (in J/s) of heat flow.
Tim
I was wondering, if you use a similar copper bar with 0.04% of a heat insulator diffused in the bar would it make any difference to the heat flow?
Kevin, are you by any chance familiar with “OFHC Copper”?
Or look at these graphs, that show orders of magnitude differences in thermal conductivity for copper with varying small impurity levels.
http://materialdatabase.magnet.fsu.edu/Copper.htm
So …
1) YES! 0.04% impurities can have HUGE impacts on copper conductivity. You don’t have to wonder any longer. 🙂
2) You are evading. Where is that calculation of the ‘velocity” of heat flow?
No I was just interested. Thanks for the links.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
“It does not matter how beautiful your hypothesis is, if it does not match observations, IT IS WRONG” (paraphrased from a really smart guy).
Absolutely… http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CBs09bO1wfc/UYCrTpw8eOI/AAAAAAAABCY/CCm6vAd8uZQ/s1600/Earth+Emitted+Radiation+Iris+Modtran+Comparison+Shows+Scatter+Effect.png
Nice hypothesis you have about how radiation works…but just blown to hell by observations.
Joel, please call your office, it is not “getting warmer” anyplace…..
Cheers, KevinK.
Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, Robert Brown & Roy:
Observations are that Foehn winds warm when they release water vapor: the greenhouse gas water vapor cools.
But the IPCC implies that the mean water vapor concentration (just over 1%) causes nearly all of “33 degrees” of warming. So show me regions with double the mean that are warmed by 60 degrees please. (Actually Pierrehumbert’s calculations of teh 33 degrees are wrong anyway, because he used a factor 0.7 (based on 30% albedo) for the imaginary Earth without water vapor and thus without clouds reflecting about 20%.)
Have you personally done a study of real world temperature data such as I have in the Appendix in this paper? I doubt it.
I’m having trouble seeing that 60 degrees in the results …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures …
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
Go back to this comment.
“An electrical insulator (like the plastic covering the wires in the walls of your house) does indeed “trap electrons” (up to some maximum voltage) all the electrons stay in the conductor”
Sir, respectfully:
Not true. Some electrons always leak out of any insulation. There are superconductors, but no “superinsulators”.
Proof?
Go buy a megger(megaohmmeter) and test on any circuit you want.
I work on high voltage underwater electrical equipment in my occupation, and must also educate and train our workers on electrical troubleshooting techniques.
Besides for a megger, another of the tools we use everyday is a very sensitive amperage meter which we call a leakage clamp. We need to use these because underwater electrical equipment must, by code, be protected by a Class A GFCI device. Class A personnel protection is designed to shut off the flow of current when the leakage from a circuit reaches 5 milliamps.
(This value is used because it is roughly the amount of electricity which neurons use to contract muscle fibers in the human body, and can hence cause muscle to lock up or cardiac arrest to occur.)
When these start tripping, we need to be able to determine why. Typically it is because of defect in piece of equipment.
But even when everything is brand new and working perfectly, the numbers revealed by these devices tell an interesting story.
Anyway, there are 6 quintillion electrons per second traveling through a conductor carrying 1 ampere. A very well insulated submersible cable (say, Milspec PVC jacketed,for example) connected to a brand new submersible motor (say a Grundfos or Franklin) will have a total leakage (assuming the splice is sound and well done using Thomas and Betts insulated butt connectors and a 3M resin splice kit, not those heat shrink jobbers they put down in wells) of somewhat less than 1 milliamp. This will typically correspond to a megger reading of 2000 megaohms or more. These numbers will become worse as the equipment ages, or if it is a lesser quality of cable, or a motor made by some of the other manufacturers, or a less than perfect splice.
Anyway, loads are rarely as small as 1 amp, as even a 5 HP, 3 phase motor at 480 volts will pull 7 or 8 amps.
30 HP motors at 240 volts will pull near 96-98 amps.
What the 2000 megaohms signifies is, that the 100 amps x 6 x 10^18 electrons/amp divided by the 2,000 x 1,000,000 ohms of resistance in the cable and motor (I know from experience that the cable and motor have roughly equal insulation when new) (6 x 10^20)/(2 x 10^9)= 3 x 10^11, or 300 billion electrons leaking out of that insulation every second.
If you test the lamp cord (or any other wire you can find in your home or office) of the light you are reading by right now, you are unlikely to get a reading higher that a 1000 or 2000 megaohms.
Since almost all meggers use a DC static charge, about 2x or more the rated voltage of the insulator being tested. the resistance levels measured are not exactly what the conductor will actually have when carrying a AC current, but it is close.
Most wiring resistance values are below these numbers, maybe 25 megaohms.
So, it is far from correct to say or think that the insulation on a wire traps electrons.
Sorry if this is OT, but you seem to be making a subtle point using an incorrect statement.
So, when you are holding a lamp cord that has current flowing through it, you have a very large number of electrons entering your hand. But they are small and each one has a small charge. So you cannot feel it.
BTW, that 300 billion does not include quantum mechanical tunneling through the insulation.
🙂
“… it does make the house warmer in winter by reducing the rate of energy loss to its colder surroundings.”
ONLY IF YOUR ENERGY SUPPLY PROVIDES HEAT FASTER THAN THE SLOWED RADIATION/CONDUCTION LEVEL!!! If you do not have a sufficient energy supply you simply cool more slowly.
The way it actually works is this:
If the rate of energy supply is larger than the rate at which the house loses heat, then it will warm until such point that the rate at which the house loses heat equals the rate of energy supply.
If the rate of energy supply is smaller than the rate at which the house loses heat, then it will cool until such point that the rate at which the house loses heat equals the rate of energy supply.
In this way, the house will be driven to a steady-state temperature. That steady-state temperature will be higher in a well-insulated house than in a poorly-insulated house.
But the Sun does not supply thermal energy at such a rate – not even that entering the atmosphere (after reflection) could achieve observed surface temperatures – work it out yourself with an online Stefan Boltzmann calculator and quote me your input and output. You cannot include radiation from the colder atmosphere because that only slows that portion of surface cooling (about a third of all surface cooling) which is itself by radiation. But you should deduct the simultaneous energy losses by evaporation and sensible heat transfer that total over 100W/m^2. Back radiation cannot help the Sun to raise the surface temperature because its electro-magnetic energy is not converted to thermal energy. (See Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation and argue with that professor if you can.)
The whole paradigm of radiative forcing is totally and utterly inapplicable on any planet with a significant atmosphere. On Uranus there isn’t any solar radiation anyway at the base of its nominal troposphere where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface. The issue is to do with thermodynamics, not radiative heat transfer into the surface.
Show me your evidence! That’s what this thread is about.
See this comment. Then study http://climate-change-theory.com
Then, after reading that comment, show me that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong and so we don’t get a density gradient in a troposphere!
KuhnKat,
The original scenario was clearly one where the system has time to come to a steady-state situation.
So you have a house with a fixed energy input from a furnace surrounded by air at a fixed cold temperature. The interior will eventually reach some steady temperature distribution. The energy supply provides heat at exactly the same rate that energy is lost.
Now — keeping the furnace and outside air the same, add insulation. The heat loss by radiation/conduction is (for a while at least) reduced. Since the energy supply is the same and the heat lose is reduced, that basically guarantees that “YOUR ENERGY SUPPLY PROVIDES HEAT FASTER THAN THE SLOWED RADIATION/CONDUCTION LEVEL”.
Even if we are not considering steady-state limits, the insulated house would AT ANY TIME be warmer than if it did not have insulation. Exactly as was claimed.
Thus I really don’t know what your objection is.
All the “scenarios” and the whole paradigm of radiative forcing are wrong, Tim.
Read my comments above and the website and linked paper. Your thinking is just so naive, but I forgive you because I know you went through a period in education when everything was fictitious fiddled fissics manipulated to suit the promulgation of the hoax.
No climatology documentation displays a correct understanding of maximum entropy production due to dissipating unbalanced energy potentials, now does it? But, if you want to understand why that issue is so vitally important to the climate debate, then also read http://entropylaw.com because the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds the “the supreme position among the laws of Nature.”* and cannot be ignored … “if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.” Climatologists need to respect that law.
*Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
To put it simply, Roy and Tim Folkerts, take a look at the original net energy diagram by NASA here.
Notice that about two thirds of the thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere is not transferred by radiation. Radiation from the cooler atmosphere cannot slow down that two-thirds of surface cooling. That’s a fact.
There is nothing to stop that evaporation and sensible heat transfer rate increasing and thus nullifying the effect of back radiation.
And it does, because it is the very “greenhouse gases” which are up there radiating the energy out of the atmosphere. That process is not affected, except that it improves with more GH gases. And that’s why the non-radiative cooling just accelerates and/or lasts a little longer into the night until the surface gets down to the same minimum temperature anyway, because that temperature is supported by the whole troposphere.
Nitrogen and oxygen are the “blanket” holding over 98% of all the thermal energy in the troposphere, and unable to radiate it away themselves.
Dr Spencer made the statement : “Warmer daytime + warmer nighttime = warmer Earth”.
Cloud cover or high humidity levels at nighttime are readily seen to cause warmer nights. However, the opposite seems to occur during the daytime. For example, daytime temperatures on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere, rise rapidly to above 100 deg. C; in the Earth’s hot desert regions where low levels of humidity prevail, daytime temperatures are much higher than at similar latitudes on the coast where humidity is higher. Where I live (Adelaide, Australia), our hottest summer days coincide with very low humidity (less than 10% Rel. Hum.).
“At night the soil cools by loss of infrared radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation lets us estimate the rate at which IR energy is being lost based upon surface temperature and emissivity, and simply dividing that by the product of the soil depth and soil bulk heat capacity gives us the rate at which the soil layer temperature will fall.”
Maybe I missed something, but one reason (The main reason?) soil does not cool down as fast as, say, the roof of a car, is because of the conductive rate of heat through soil. Same as why the top of the soil gets much hotter in the sun as a few inches down.
Conductivity is dependent on many factors, such as degree of compaction (more air acts just like the insulation in your walls), moisture content, soil composition (Peat has less thermal mass, but also far slower thermal conductivity as, for example, sand. And both conduct faster when wet than when dry), etc.
Stand outside at sunset and put thermometers in several places, or just watch where and when dew and then frost forms on various surfaces.
Stick your hand in soil at midday, late afternoon, early morning…the temperature horizons make it clear that the surface heats and cools quite a bit…but only a few inches down…not so much.
Yes, no?
Any of you folks here familiar with the experiment which was done in which a greenhouse was constructed using sheets of a salt, instead of glass or plastic, to demonstrate that the ACTUAL “greenhouse effect” was not due to the transparency or opacity of glass to LWIR?
Since salt is transparent to these wavelengths, if a greenhouse was really hot due to opacity at certain wavelengths, then a greenhouse made of salt panels would be cooler than one made of glass. It turns out that it makes no difference.
Greenhouses are hot because convection and advection are blocked by the walls and roof.
But this is evident in another way which is simpler to test…just feel the temperature of the glass. If it was absorbing all that LWIR, it should be hot, hotter than the air in the greenhouse. It aint.
Why does a car’s interior get hotter when sitting in the sun? Also why are the car’s windows so hot at the same time?
I don’t know the answer just pointing it out.
Normally with say a parking lot, the air above the surface heated and heated air rises and warms the rest of atmosphere.
With a car with closed windows, the loss of heat from convection is prevented.
Or the air can become nearly as hot as the heated surfaces.
And the heated surface can become slightly warmer because they losing very little heat from convection.
So with parking lot the surface can become quite hot or around
70 C. In environment not enclosed and preventing convection
the highest air temperature ever was “56.7 °C (134 °F)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records
Or in car with windows closed on modestly warm day one get air
temperature in the car higher than 56.7 °C.
Another note is ocean air temperature or surface temperature can never be above about 40 C due water evaporation cooling it. And ocean cover 70% of Earth’s entire surface. Plus sunlight can warm about 1/4 of Earth surface at any moment with the intense sunlight with can heat a parking lot surface to about 70 C on a cloudless day. So one gets average air temperature at surface of Earth at about 15 C, so the Earth’s atmosphere of 5.1 x 10^18 kg would always have able to convect the heated air somewhere, whereas the amount of air in the car- 2-3 kg of air can reach the max air temperature possible on Earth.
I really do wonder if Doc takes Satanic pleasure in all this.
@Geran …It is difficult because you do not understand that conductive heat transfer and radiative heat transfer are different.
NO
That’s definitively wrong in present instances and demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the underlying physics.
In a medium like a crystalline metal respectively an insulator heat conduction occurs by means of PARTICLES mainly free electrons respectively phonons that carry energy over distances that are of the order of THEIR MEAN FREE PATH. If there is a temperature gradient more energy flows in this way towards lower than towards higher temperature because the particles that fly down the gradient come from hotter regions and thus carry more energy that those that fly up the gradient and come thus from colder regions. This is actually the microscopic mechanism of heat conduction in an solid and thermal conductivity is found to be proportional to the particle’s mean free path .
In a fluid such as a gas and thus in the atmosphere same is true but the particles that carry the energy are the gas molecules themselves and possibly…
also the IR PHOTONS when there are ones steadily emitted and reabsorbed by the gas molecules .
The mean free path of those photons in atmosphere with greenhouse gases (a few meters to tens of meters) is not infinite at all there is thus absolutelyno difference between the mechanism by which they transport energy from hotter to cooler places in the atmosphere and the mechanism of ordinary thermal conduction via the kinetic energy carried by the molecules themselves over their mean free path.
In this picture the “greenhouse effect” of additional CO2 is merely the result of a reduction in mean free path of the IR photons and thus a reduction in their contribution to “thermal conductivity” of the atmosphere.
As Dr Spencer repeatedly mentioned, the effect in indeed quite similar to an increase in the insulation of a house.
Nothing to do with “radiative heat transfer in a vacuum” where the photon mean free path is infinite.
alphagruis: There is a subtle difference which makes all the difference. You can’t explain how the necessary thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus and warms any given location on the equator by about 5 degrees (732K to 737K) during the 4 month day, now can you? I have done so here.
alphagruis,
I love the comparison with electron conduction. I hadn’t thought about that argument before, but it works perfectly. It illustrates (once again) that energy is moving both ways; there is simply more energy going one way than the other. I will definitely remember this argument.
I do disagree a bit when you say “In this picture the “greenhouse effect” of additional CO2 is merely the result of a reduction in mean free path of the IR photons and thus a reduction in their contribution to “thermal conductivity” of the atmosphere. “
Convection in a sense provides a variable thermal conductivity. Convection maintains a pretty constant *gradient* independent of heat flow. So changing the ‘conductivity’ due to photons within the atmosphere has little effect since convection will simply increase or decrease until the lapse rate is ~ 6-10 K/km
The key impact of more CO2 is that it makes the atmosphere “taller” so the ‘insulating layer” is thicker. The extra CO2 means that energy leaves to space from a greater altitude. Great altitude = lower temperature = less IR to space from the top-of-atmosphere = energy building up = temperature rising.
If we want to use an insulation analogy (which we all know is not perfect), the added CO2 adds *thickness* to the insulation, rather than improving the R-value of fix-thickness insulation.
Tim Folkerts
Thank you. To make my point I tried to keep things as concise as possible.
But I certainly agree with you that in the real atmosphere a lot of heat is actually transported by convection but as far as transport by radiation is concerned the mechanism is quite similar to conduction with the presence in the upper atmosphere of an effective atmospheric layer radiating into deep space that moves upwards when greenhouse gases concentration increases. Thus the “insulating layer”, as you put it, indeed gets thicker.
Yet it is interesting to note that all this still boils down to the decreasing IR photon mean free path l with increasing CO2. Since l is actually inversely proportional to the number of CO2 molecules per volume unit this also implies that l always increases gradually with altitude as atmospheric pressure drops until it becomes large enough for the IR photons to escape into space. At this stage the effective atmospheric layer radiating into deep space is reached. This happens a priori logically only at a higher altitude when CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
Yes well the modal concentration of the most prolific IR-active gas, water vapor is below the radiating altitude. So increasing water vapor lowers that altitude. At the most, doubling carbon dioxide would raise it 1.5 meters by my calculations, but CO2 also acts like water vapor which cools.
We know damn well that increasing water vapor lowers the magnitude of the temperature gradient by up to about a third. Radiative balance at TOA is virtually always within ±0.6% and so the whole thermal profile rotates (with its pivot at about the radiating altitude) downwards at the surface end and upwards in the upper troposphere in order to maintain the area under the thermal plot about constant, and thus maintain radiative balance. Mankind can’t stop this happening because the whole system acts like a blackbody. It is nitrogen, oxygen and argon that act like a blanket holding over 98% of the thermal energy in the troposphere, whilst “greenhouse gases” like water vapor act as holes in the blanket, radiating away the energy that they mostly acquire by collisions with the nitrogen, oxygen and argon. It is gravity which “traps” thermal energy, regardless of the gases, by maintaining a temperature gradient as the state of maximum entropy which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will tend to evolve. We see it on every planet, with or without solar radiation getting through, and with or without any surface at the base of the (nominal) troposphere.
Furthermore, we know from measurements that water vapor cools (see the study in my paper linked here) and we also know that Foehn winds get hotter as they release water vapor.
So Hansen, Pierrehumbert and IPCC authors all got it totally wrong about water vapor, because it cools due to inter-molecular radiation which has a temperature leveling effect, reducing the |g/cp| magnitude of the “dry” temperature gradient that would otherwise be steeper due to the effect of gravity upon molecules in flight between collisions. Thus the radiative forcing paradigm is false.
Yeah, the conduction/capacitance analogy is a decent one simply because first order ODEs describe both of them. The real problem is that (as you point out indirectly) conduction/capacitance are usually quite linear in the simple model we study in elementary physics (not so simple in critical regimes like those where dielectric breakdown occurs) but the atmosphere is enormously nonlinear. Even CO_2 adds resistance only in one of several highly differential channels, and the system has multiple feedbacks so that the other channels have highly variable resistance that can be driven all over the place in the chaotic system.
Still, in the end Joel’s observations (vociferously ignored in the discussion above) that one can directly examine the incoming and outgoing radiation and observe a clear differential at the different levels that is direct, spectrally consistent, observation proof of the GHE is all that really matters. Arguments that don’t account for the simple fact that the Earth absorbs sunlight and to warm and radiates away heat to cool in approximate seasonal detailed balance are a complete waste of time.
rgb
Go back to this comment.
@Tim “I love the comparison with electron conduction. I hadn’t thought about that argument before, but it works perfectly. It illustrates (once again) that energy is moving both ways; there is simply more energy going one way than the other”.
Energy does not travel both ways in an electric circuit. An electric circuit is about a difference in potential energy, represented by the emf (electromagnetic force).
You might compare that to a potential hill where electrons fall down the hill but please don’t confuse that with semiconductors in which electrons flow one way and holes the other. Holes are fictitious entity used for modeling purposes only.
AFAIAMC, energy does not flow both ways in a thermal circuit either. Kinetic energy, which is heat, flows one way only, without compensation.
@ Gordon
First, he discussion about conduction was thermal conduction, not electrical conduction. The two are a bit different in nature.
Secondly, there are MANY phenomena that can be treated quite adequately (for many purposes) macroscopically, but which look quite different microscopically. Thermodynamics is full of them.
* On a MACRO scale, a river might be flowing “uniformly” at 1 m/s to the west. On a MICRO scale, *nearly* half of the water molecules are actually moving toward the east at any given moment.
* On MACRO scale, electrons move uniformly as they “fall down a uniform potential hill”. On a MICRO scale, there are huge variations in the potential near nuclei, and the electrons are moving every which way at speeds that are a significant percentage of the speed of light.
* On a MACRO scale, there is no heat flow between two adjacent blocks of metal at the same temperature. On a MICRO level, there are billions of transfers of energy each second each way that end up balancing out.
The MACRO perspective is much easier, and hence handier in many cases. OTOH, the MICRO view adds more insights, at the expense of more complicated math. Here, on a MACRO scale, looking just at NET photons works fine. But on a MICRO scale, looking at individual photons going both ways provides a bit mroe insight.
Hi Tim Folkerts,
You state:
“The key impact of more CO2 is that it makes the atmosphere “taller” so the ‘insulating layer” is thicker. The extra CO2 means that energy leaves to space from a greater altitude. Great altitude = lower temperature = less IR to space from the top-of-atmosphere = energy building up = temperature rising.”
The 15um band at which CO2 emits proves to be a very cold temperature indeed. In fact, you’ll find strong CO2 emissions from the top of the MARTIAN atmosphere (much farther away from the sun and colder than Earth) even at the poles. By all means check out JPL thermal satellite images of the region and see for your self. In any case, CO2 emits more radiation at colder temperatures than there diatomic brethren O2 and N2 so your claim doesn’t bear scrutiny. Thanks and…
Have a great day!
John,
1) Specific wavelengths of EM waves don’t have ‘a temperature’. Perhaps you are thinking of Wein’s Law that relates the peak wavelength to a specific temperature.
2) Yes, there are relatively strong emissions from CO2 in the 15 um band from the cold MARTIAN atmosphere. However, the strength depends on the temperature. The colder the CO2, the weaker the emissions. That is what my statement is based on.
3) Your N2 argument is misguided. Let me rephrase. At the moment, if you look down from a satellite, the 15 um band from CO2 glows at a temperature of ~ 220 K. Radiation from lower, warmer COs is block by CO2 higher up. At even higher, cooler levels, the CO2 is so thin that it has little effect.
If you add more CO2 at the top (by adding CO2 throughout), the CO2 would glow at a slightly cooler temperature, ie dimmer, weaker IR. This is because there is more CO2 to block the lower levels and you have to go to slightly higher, cooler CO2 to have radiation escape.
So I think the claim DOES bear scrutiny!
Greater altitude where CO2 thins out enough for IR to escape to sapce = lower temperature for the radiating CO2 = less IR to space from the top-of-atmosphere = energy building up = temperature rising
Hi Tim,
Thank you for an interesting response. You stated:
“1) Specific wavelengths of EM waves don’t have ‘a temperature’. Perhaps you are thinking of Wein’s Law that relates the peak wavelength to a specific temperature.”
Objects do emit specific EM wavelengths in accord with temperature. Wien’s Displacement Law if I remember preceded Planck’s Radiation Law but the evidence seems clear. As objects increase in temperature emission frequency increases and wavelength decreases. In fact, at one time Wikipedia claimed the CO2 15um emission temperature to be 23 degrees Celsius. This seemed to me way too high. Why? Well as I mentioned above Martian upper atmosphere CO2 emits even over the polar regions. Keep in mind Martian surface temps at the poles fall to -123 degrees Celsius. In any case, CREE, Sylvania, GE and many other corporations list their light bulbs by Kelvin temperatures. The higher the Kelvin temperature the higher the visible light frequency becoming less red and bluer as the frequency increases.
As I’ve mentioned several times Max Planck proved James C Maxwell to be mistaken. Temperature accords to frequency not intensity. Too many on this website still don’t seem to understand this fact.
You go on:
“2) Yes, there are relatively strong emissions from CO2 in the 15 um band from the cold MARTIAN atmosphere. However, the strength depends on the temperature. The colder the CO2, the weaker the emissions. That is what my statement is based on.”
As I mentioned CO2 still emits at 15um over the poles, the quantity of CO2 gas molecules emitting in that region proves to be smaller but they still do to the extent their temperature doesn’t fall below it’s emission level. Btw, the frequency not the strength depends on the temperature. Colder CO2 emits lower frequency, longer wavelength IR. You then state:
“3) Your N2 argument is misguided. Let me rephrase. At the moment, if you look down from a satellite, the 15 um band from CO2 glows at a temperature of ~ 220 K. Radiation from lower, warmer COs is block by CO2 higher up. At even higher, cooler levels, the CO2 is so thin that it has little effect.”
The Mars atmosphere is 93+% CO2. CO2 at higher elevations blocks CO2 emissions from below but it nevertheless emits at higher COOLER elevations, much colder btw than Earth! On Earth much of the CO2 thermal energy gets absorbed by other molecules via convection and in some cases radiation where the absorption bands match. The low CO2 15um emission signature in the upper atmosphere results from the fact that TRACE CO2 levels in the atmosphere prove very LOW, especially in the upper atmosphere since CO2 is a heavier than O2 and N2. That proves why CO2 has so “little effect.” You then state:
“If you add more CO2 at the top (by adding CO2 throughout), the CO2 would glow at a slightly cooler temperature, ie dimmer, weaker IR. This is because there is more CO2 to block the lower levels and you have to go to slightly higher, cooler CO2 to have radiation escape.
So I think the claim DOES bear scrutiny!”
Again those levels will likely never be as cold as the upper Martian atmospheric levels and CO2 still emits there! The small changes in CO2 levels will unlikely alter the elevation of Earth’s atmosphere much. However, warming from other causes might. It still doesn’t bear scrutiny to me.
Thank you for a thoughtful response and…
Have a great day!
P.S. – As to Mars don’t be a Stranger in a Strange Land! Do you Grock?
Hi Tim,
One point of clarification. Increasing CO2 levels in the UPPER ATMOSPHERE results in MORE IR radiation being emitted to space than O2 and N2 could possibly be capable of since they emit in the lower frequency, longer wavelength Microwave band. which remains why temperatures in the upper Troposphere continue to DECLINE.
Thanks again and…
Have a great day!
Like I said, Alpha, you do not understand the difference between conductive heat transfer and radiative heat transfer.
(I’m taking it English is not your native language.)
Sorry geran, but that’s hardly enough to convince me that I’m wrong.
But you got something right: My native language is French.
–If you are wondering, “what about cooling of the atmosphere in contact with the ground?”, well just make the soil layer deeper…it turns out that 0.2 meters of soil is equivalent in bulk heat capacity to about 200 m of atmosphere.–
Well the 200 meter above the ground cools. As dos 2000 meters above the ground.
Or in the range of 10 meter to 5000 meters more or less cools [or warms at same rate]
So why pick 200 meters, why not 2000 meters?
Or one can’t expect to cool air at 200 meter and not have have effect upon the air above it and below it.
So if cool 180 to 200 meter air by say 5 C, it falls- that not is any doubt is it? Or were one to warm this section of air by 5 C, it rises.
So basically the entire troposphere responds as a unit- if some portion of it warms or cools if it effects the whole column of air. And would say the air is more responsive
to difference of temperature than the soil is.
Or you light bonfire and it does not warm .2 meter under the ground very quickly.
Though moisture in the soil would help transfer the heat thru the ground. Or very dry compacted soil would be slower- or basically this like a brick.
So I don’t think that during nightime period, temperature of soil down .2 meter will change much. Whereas 200 meter up
or 3000 meters in elevation changes quite a bit daily.
So using your excel program and plugging in 2 rather than .2
results little change in temperature.
Since air density lessen by about .1 kg per cubic meter
2000 meter would actually be about say 2500 meter.
Another aspect the sun probably is not warming the ground nor the air much at 5:30 pm. Nor is going warm it much in morning. And so actually needs more than 2000 meters worth of 1.2 kg per cubic meter of air above it.
So depending type of ground one could less change in temperature at .1 to .2 depth and the far larger thermal mass which warms and cools during a day is the sky.
“So basically the entire troposphere responds as a unit”
Spot on gbaikie.
And I have explained here how it warms as a unit, even when the source of new thermal energy each morning on Venus or Uranus, for example, is in the upper troposphere or even the stratosphere. Downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer (which has nothing to do with “pockets” of air, but occurs at the molecular level) maintains the temperature gradient because it is the state of maximum entropy (that is, by definition, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) and that is why the whole troposphere warms and cools as a unit with the thermal profile moving up and down in parallel positions in an “ideal” troposphere.
Hi Dr. Spencer.
My God!
What a bunch of burning posts!
It seems that you thrown the stone in the lake, you got the resonance of the system and triggered an infinite standing wave on the lake surface.
Off Topic
I don’t know why, but sometimes my internet browsers (one Chrome on XP and one Chrome Win7) fail to identify my devices as PCs and they display your web site as if my devices was smartphones.
It happens since the beginning of this year.
Not all the pages of your web site have the issue, and sometimes the pages which were right before became wrong and vice versa.
Could you do something?
Not that catastrophe, but when it happens (like now with this thread) I can’t follow the posts correctly because they are ordered by time without any hierarchical ordering.
Have a great weekend.
Massimo
Ehm….
One more detail.
I don’t know if this is repetitive or it’s just a case because this is the first time I post a comment with the page displayed wrong, but after having submitted the post above the page now shows correctly.
Again, have a great weekend
Massimo
I have experienced similar problems for the past month now. Maybe it’s The Revenge of the Dragonslayers ! 🙂
Yes, our group has come down hard on Slayer John O’Sullivan and his band of merry Postma and Latour worshipers. See this page because their garbage “science” deserves what it cops. Give it to them on their website for me, because they delete my comments to which they have no valid response. They are worse than SkS at that censorship.
Doug,
I see alot of garbage on the net. But, what really gets my goat is the trash data that is being used by the paid researchers. Like you, I have a yard full of instruments (mostly purchased at wally world) just to watch and record the “real data” produced by them. As an old Navy ET, I like my tools to be as accurate as possible. When I compare the data produced by the NOAA weather stations to the data my tools produce, I almost throw up.
I would love to have some collaboration with some people that have real data to use. I believe that if the past research being used as references were repeated today, the results would be a whole lot different.
I am presently doing a study on the Sea Level Pressures. I am amazed at the detail I get on my $50 weather station even though it also tells me that it is raining and clear within ten minutes of each other. I am plotting the data every .01 inches of Hg. It sometimes stays the same for up to 6 hours. And sometimes it changes .02 in ten minutes. Like I said, the detail it shows is amazing. It shows the diurnal cycle as it really is, a perfect sign wave. (unless it rains or the sun decides to send out a flare). I believe this detail is necessary to truely evaluate the Sun’s influence on our atmosphere here on “near earth”.
My solar panels (presently using two, for sun and moon) show the sun at its fullest strength at about 9am. Over the last year or so, I have been able to record detail records of the sun strength patterns. I experimented with solar arrays that look in several different directions to see what patterns develop. When the sun comes up, the temperature begins to rise. That is before it hits the ground at about the time I see it on the rooftop. My ground doesn’t even start warming until around 11am. But, of course I must say I live in a valley surrounded by hills that block alot of the real sunrise. Last year on 2/14/14 my temperature started rising at 7:16AM from 28 degrees F to 91 at 1:00PM. Hardly enough time to heat the earth.
I am not a scientist, warmist, or denier, so I probably fit into the “enthusist” category. 😉
Lee – I just noticed your comment. Interesting indeed. See also our group’s website and linked papers.
Roy thinks surface cooling is uniform during the night, but it’s not. Perhaps you could give us some of your measurements through the night, because there should be an obvious slowing down of the rate of cooling in the early pre-dawn hours, so mention the time of sunrise also.
Hi Lee Osburn,
You mentioned:
“My solar panels (presently using two, for sun and moon) show the sun at its fullest strength at about 9am.”
Shouldn’t the panel used for the moon be called a lunar panel?
Do you get much power from the lunar panel? Just asking…
Have a great day (and night I guess)!
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
Both on my phone and my computer I’ve noticed occasional changes in Roy’s website design at times. He seems to change it at times perhaps due to reduce energy demands on his equipment.
Have a great day!
gbaikie is starting to understand – see this comment.
I wish I was starting to understand, but basically my understanding in general has remain static for couple
of years. Or roughly call myself a lukewarmer though if someone wants call me a dragonslayer or denier, or heretic, then ok with that. Of course anyone not braindead feels complimented by being called a skeptic if the topic is science.
Anyhow, tend to think greenhouse gases cause some warming [and doesn’t cause cooling]. So that strictly speaking makes me [if a person were objective] an orthodox believer of Greenhouse Effect- due to the fact that the greenhouse Effect theory is very vague. Of course I don’t like any scientific theory which is so vague- it’s anti-science or pseudo science if in context that it’s expected to be precise or able to actually predict the future [like what real science routinely does].
So basically Earth climate is largely to do with the ocean which covers 70% of the planet. And is warmed due to most of energy of sunlight falling on the tropics.
Or dead simple stuff.
Roy your nice linear cooling graphs are not based on any empirical measurements, now are they? Have you stayed up all night (as I have) and measured actual temperatures just below the surface (as with a spiked steak thermometer) and in the air just above the surface? Try plotting such temperatures after a hot sunny day and explain (as I have) why the rate of cooling slows down in the early pre-dawn hours. We all know the surface can easily cool by over 2 degrees per hour in the late afternoon and early evening after such a day, but does it cool by 16 degrees in 8 hours from 8.00pm to 4.00am?
How about any readers doing such measurements every hour of the night and posting results here. I posted mine on a climate blog about 2 or 3 years ago. It’s instructive, because it will make you think about why the rate slows down. If you can go up a nearby mountain you could confirm that the environmental temperature gradient still exists.
And you still need to think about why Foehn winds warm by losing water vapor – quite the opposite of what the IPCC implies would happen if the greenhouse gas water vapor were reduced in concentration.
Thanks to all the usual suspects. You did not disappoint. 🙂
And thank you, Dr. Roy, for providing this forum for such a debate. This is what “real” science is all about. People get to believe what they want, but ideas and science should NOT be censored. No one is right all of the time. Science allows for mistakes, errors, and lack of knowledge. The trick to keep learning, while not preventing learning.
“The trick IS to keep learning…”
(The trick is to have the second cup of coffee before trying to type.)
Hi geran,
“The trick is to have the second cup of coffee before trying to type.”
For some that prove too hyper, that may not be such a great idea, but if it works for you all the best!
Have a great day!
For what it’s worth, I fully agree.
BTW “the second cup of coffee”: which coffee are you referring to, our Italian “espresso” or that concentrate of caffeine you do there in the US?
If I drunk two cups of your coffee, I probably never sleep for a week or so 😉
Have a great weekend.
Massimo
In my ideal world, it would be coffee all morning long, switching to wine at noon!
Have a great weekend also!
Uhmm,
yes switching to wine could be a good solution to fall asleep indeed 😉
Again have a nice weekend
Massimo
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
You can always try Javanese, Columbian, South American or other blends. Many great varieties exist.
Have a great day!
Roy,
While I agree with your fundamental point and example, my conceptual understanding of the underlying physics driving the GHE is not related to the fact that a significant amount of downwelling IR passes from the atmosphere to the surface and subsequently greatly affects the surface energy balance (i.e. the rate at which it can lose energy at night in this case). My understanding of the physics of the GHE is based on this definition posted a Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
“The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.”
Note, there is nothing in this definition that is describing downward LW passing from the atmosphere to the surface as the underlying mechanism, let alone that any amount of it (let alone a large amount) as being the underlying mechanism. As I see it, the large amount of LWIR passed from the atmosphere to the surface has virtually nothing to do with the underlying physics driving the GHE. I still think this is why so many people are confused and why you keep getting so many emails on this (and also largely why Doug Cotton is running all over the place like a mad man in being opposed to the GHE).
The large amount of downward LW emitted to the surface seems to be a consequence of several other physical attributes in combination with the underlying physics driving the GHE. In particular, gravity causing a lapse rate and the large amount of convection, i.e. in the form of water and its latent heat, which is moved from the surface into the atmosphere, which then acts a GHG gas and form clouds, which then causes instability or a lack of consistent energy balance throughout the troposphere. The net result of all of which is the atmosphere passes a large amount of LWIR to the surface and passes significantly less LWIR to space, but each of these properties or attributes would seem to be mostly independent of the fundamental underlying mechanism driving the GHE. And that is simply radiative resistance to outer space cooling by radiation from the atmosphere into space, or the absorption of upwelling IR acting to cool that would otherwise pass into space that is absorbed and subsequently re-radiated back downward toward the surface (i.e. not directly passed back to the surface), thereby acting to warm, i.e. resisting the push toward radiative cooling at the TOA by upwelling emission of LWIR into space; and ultimately elevating the surface temperature above what it would otherwise be in the process.
RW writes: Note, there is nothing in this definition that is describing downward LW passing from the atmosphere to the surface as the underlying mechanism, let alone that any amount of it (let alone a large amount) as being the underlying mechanism.
Yes there is in the energy budget diagrams, where the back radiation flux of 324W/m^2 (which does not represent a flux of thermal energy, only electro-magnetic energy that is then pseudo scattered without ever becoming thermal energy in surface molecules) is, never-the-less quite incorrectly added to absorbed solar radiation (168W/m^2) and then the total (after deducting 102W/m^2 of non-radiative surface cooling) is then used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to get the 288K surface temperature. (Silent readers can check by searching “Stefan Boltzmann calculator” and inserting 390W/m^2 to get 288K.)
So what is your explanation of the 288K temperature? Mine is at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the linked 2013 paper.
Hi Everyone,
Hopefully everyone will read what follows and comment upon it. Maybe my essay should be titled: How Science Is To Work. Galileo is said to have stated: “Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.”
Simple Observation of Downward Radiation From Atmosphere With Simple Radiometer Refutes Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect.
Jerry L. Krause @2015
It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement. However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes.
V. E. Suomi, D. O. Staley, and P. M. Kuhn (SSK) [1] designed and constructed a simple, economical balloon-borne net radiometer. In this article they reported a sounding made with this net radiometer. I wish I could credit the unknown author who directed my attention to the fact that the temperature of the upward facing absorbing-emitting (a-e) surface was consistently about 10oC less than that of the atmosphere (observed during the regular weather sounding made an hour later) at the same altitudes. This temperature difference was not noted by SSK in their article.
Traditionally a radiometer is an instrument for measuring the radiant flux (power) of electromagnetic radiation. The SSK net radiometer was designed to have a low mass and rapid response so it could be lifted by the sounding balloon just as the packet of the atmospheric weather instruments was and to electronically transmit its observations to the surface station just as atmospheric sounding’s observations were. Thus, unlike most radiometers, the SSK net radiometer reported the temperatures of its a-e surfaces to the ground station. However, the purpose of the net radiometer was not to compare temperatures, it was to compare the difference between the upward and downward radiant fluxes. So, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the temperatures of the two a-e surfaces were converted to radiant fluxes. Hence, the ambient atmosphere’s temperatures, observed an hour later, were not critical to these conversions. This is a possible reason that SSK did not note the 10oC difference between the temperatures of upward facing a-e surface and the ambient atmosphere.
I constructed a simple, economical radiometer, actually several, according to the design of the SSK net radiometer (one-half of it) using extruded Styrofoam as the lightweight insulating material (not available at the earlier time). And for the temperature sensor, I used a TruTemp registered NSF digital thermometer. Anyone, with practical skills, should be able to construct this radiometer for less than $20 and make observations in their backyard or nearby park, as I have for about two years.
The following is a recent example of a short set of observations (03/27/2015). I woke up at 6:00 AM PDT and saw that the sky was wonderfully clear (clr). So, I set out my radiometer in the backyard (By). The following are my observations along with those observed at the Salem OR airport (Ks, no more than 3 miles distant).
Location Time Amb Temp A-E Temp Rel Hum Dewpoint Temp Sky Cond
By 6:27am 46 37.0 93 44 calc Clr
By 6:41am 46 37.0 93 44 calc Clr
Ks 3:55am 47 93 45 Clr
Ks 4:55am 47 93 45 Clr
Ks 5:55am 47 93 45 Clr
Ks 6:55am 46 93 44 Clr
Ks 7:05am 47 90 44 Sct Cld
By 7:00am 46 42.7 93 44 calc Fog
By 7:33am 47 47.0 93 45 calc Fog
Ks 7:21am 46 96 45 Fog
Ks 7:55am 48 96 47 Fog
Now, it seems observations such of these are sometimes brushed aside because it is claimed they are merely anecdotal. (Anecdotal: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers) As a graduate student and a research associate, I have done the quantitative experimental work which forms the basis for four published, peer-reviewed, scientific articles. While my backyard observations are far more elementary and less demanding than my previous laboratory observations, they cannot be brushed aside because I am an unqualified scientific observer. Since the a-e surface temperatures observed are lower than the environment’s temperatures during the clear sky conditions, the only question about the quality of these observations is the accuracy of the thermometer. Which I have checked by using it to determine the temperature of an ice water bath. Its lowest temperature registered was 31.9oF.
As I was writing this essay (04/5/20115), it happened that the sky was again wonderfully clear and the ambient air temperature about 10oF lower than that of the morning of 3/27. I conclude these observations confirm the claimed accuracy of the a-e surface temperature observations.
Location Time Amb Temp A-E Temp Rel Hum Dewpoint Temp Sky Cond
Ks or By PDT oF oF % oF
By 6:48am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
By 6:48am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
By 6:59am 33 25.9 87 30 calc Clr
By 7:06am 33 26.2 87 30 calc Clr
Ks 5:56am 35.1 92 33.1 SCT
Ks 6:56am 34.0 89 30.9 Clr
Ks 7:56am 36.0 89 33.1 Clr
There is a reason I have calculated the dewpoint temperature from my backyard observations and reported that observed at the airport. For it seems that meteorologists do not recognize the occurrence of scientific laws or their importance. It seems to be an observed fact that the ambient temperature of a natural atmosphere has never been observed to be less than its dewpoint temperature. Which according to the definition of a scientific law that I learned qualifies this lack of observation to be a scientific law.
I became aware of this law a little more than a year ago. And I was quite excited because I thought it refuted the same ‘Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ as I am now claiming the observations just reviewed also refute. However, I was unable to convince skeptics of global warming (climate change) that this apparent new scientific law did such. So, I try again with these new (because I doubt if anyone has observed the downward radiation from the atmosphere with the radiometer designed after the SSK net radiometer, as I have) observations. And I wonder how many who have read to this point, have seen the observations that I claim most definitely refute this ‘Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’.
For a fact is that I made such observations as these over the period of two years and did not see how these observations most definitely refuted this result. Then, for a few day, I considered that a collections of observations made at many different locations and during many different conditions would be needed to seal the deal. But now I see that a single set of observations like the two I have reported, is sufficient to seal the deal. Yes, it is only good science that others make their own observations with the modified SSK net radiometer to confirm for themselves that which I have reported.
The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning. In the case of both mornings, what is limiting the minimum temperature of these mornings is the dewpoint temperature of the surface atmospheric layer. For easily observed, but not reported, was the dew that formed on the top film of the SSK radiometer and on the cars parked along the street near my backyard. And in the cases when the surface atmosphere is so ‘dry’ that no dew, or frost, forms on any surface, it is the thermal inertia of the earth-atmosphere system which limits the minimum temperature of the morning. Again, good science dictates that a doubter of this make his/her own observations to test the previous (unreported) observations of mine.
One other observed fact not directly reported (in the narrative I have referred to the dew observed on the top film of the radiometer on both mornings) is that I never observed any frost (or ice) forming on the top film of the radiometer of the latter morning when the dewpoint temperature, calculated from the observed atmospheric temperature and relative humidity, was 30oF. I only draw attention to this to acknowledge that I am well aware that a highly accurate determination of the relative humidity seems not consistently possible, especially during atmospheric soundings.
[1] V. E. Suomi, D. O. Staley, and P. M. Kuhn “A Direct Measurement of Infra-red Radiation Divergence to 160 mb,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 84, No. 360, Apr. 1958, pp. 134-141.
Jerry,
Your observations in no way, shape, or manner refute the greenhouse effect. I am kind of puzzled why you think that they do. All models of the greenhouse effect have an atmosphere colder than the surface. The temperature you measure with the radiometer is still a lot warmer than what you would measure if there were no atmospheric greenhouse effect…which is that you would measure the temperature to be about 3 K…and you better believe that under such conditions, you would get faster cooling of the surface!
Hi Joel,
I do not have the ability to direct you to JohnKl comment where he refers to the observed temperatures of the moon which has no atmosphere and has a 28 day day. And it lowest temperature never gets close to 3K. At least I have never read that it did.
Have a good day, Jerry
I didn’t say that the surface itself would get that cold. That depends on issues of effective heat capacity and what-not. However, if you directed an IR thermometer up at the sky from the moon, it would probably read pretty close to 3 K. (I don’t have a good feel for exactly how close, i.e., for how big the effects of any residual atmosphere are.)
Hi Jerry L Krause,
Thank you for providing the temp data and dew points. You stated:
“The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning.”
Just curious does the GHG theory make such a claim? Your observations interest me please explain your thinking on this some more, I may not be reading you correctly or missing some aspect I haven’t thought of. Thanks.
Btw, my statement regarding the moon primarily dealt with the dubious claim by many CAGW proponents that the Earth’s atmosphere maintains warmer temps on Earth than the lunar surface which doesn’t have an atmosphere. Imo, the evidence shows and will continue to show the exact opposite effect in regards to the Earth and Moon. Daytime lunar temps greatly exceed the Earth’s surface and if we limit night time temps to the first 12 hours after sunset (similar to Earth’s) we will likely find night time lunar temps to be warmer as well.
Thank you Jerry L Krause for your thoughtful post and observations.
Have a great day!
Hi JohnKl,
“Just curious does the GHG theory make such a claim?”
I repeat the first paragraph of my essay: “It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement. However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes.”
Maybe I should have more accurately written: “It is this proposed result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes.”
I carefully composed what I wrote because I do not know what the GHG (GHE?) proponents claim if it does not involve this temperature difference. To me the presence of atmospheric molecules capable of absorbing and emitting IR radiation must produce downward LWIR radiation. This is a no-brainer.
But if this downward radiation from the atmosphere is not capable preventing the radiometer’s absorbing-emitting (a-e) surface from cooling below the temperature of its environment (ambient air temperature) or below the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature, I have to conclude it cannot be the factor which is limiting the temperature of the atmosphere at about 1.5m above the surface at the time of its minimum temperature of that day.
The reason I keep including the dewpoint temperature is that Roy agrees that it is an observed fact that the air temperature does not cool below its dewpoint temperature. Because any temperature sensor must be shielded from direct sunshine during the daytime is one reason the observed air temperature is usually a degree or two or three above the observed or calculated dewpoint temperature. Dew often does not form on cars in a carport while it does form on nearby cars on the street.
Has Joel or anyone else even attempted to explain how it is the temperature of the a-e surface is below both the air temperature and the air’s dewpoint temperatue? Not that I noticed.
Glad you finally replied.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Jerry L Krause,
You stated:
“Has Joel or anyone else even attempted to explain how it is the temperature of the a-e surface is below both the air temperature and the air’s dewpoint temperatue? Not that I noticed.”
Joel and the like leave many facts unattended and questions unanswered. How they expect CAGW to survive as a rational theory I have no idea. However, if people can be cowed into submission by arrogant posturing and pretending to have all the answers many may be persuaded/deluded.
I’ll try to reply quicker next time. Thanks again for the post…
Have a great day!
Dr Spencer writes:
“…as much as 75% of this bad, greenhouse, effect is ‘short-circuited’ by convective heat loss by the surface…”
We can probably state it to be 100%, over the seven-tenths of the globe which is sea. This is for two reasons, one of which is certain and the other uncertain, but plausible.
The uncertain reason is the supposition that incident IR penetrates water to such a little extent that it effectively “boils away” the top skin (microns) of the water instantly. In this case, any energy brought down to sea-level (whether directly from the sun or otherwise) is immediately available in the atmosphere – as condensation of the vapour takes place – for removal upwards by convection, or radiation, or both.
The certain reason is that convection over the sea does not fundamentally depend on heating (and raising the temperature of) the top (centimeters) of the sea; whereas convection over land does frequently depend on day-time heating of the surface and the immediately adjacent atmosphere.
The air over the sea is always prone to convective instability, whatever the time, or wind, or temperature, provided only it not be saturated. Because:
“Convection arising from heating of the lower levels of the atmosphere is greatly aided by the increased amount of water-vapour which the air takes up, the water-vapour being much lighter than the air which it displaces.”
“Heat” by J. H. Poynting and Sir J. J. Thomson, 1920.
Nigel,
Great post. I fail to see how IR can have any effect on water temperature per your “uncertain” case. Yet, water temps in the Gulf of Mexico reach 31C in the summer. Therefore solar insolation must be higher than the IPCC energy model or the ocean would be frozen.
Saying the earth’s surface receives an average 169 W/m^2 is about as meaningful as a GISS adjusted global temperature. Based on latitude, areas receive significantly more irradiance than others. Modeling DWLIR per Trenberth off an average input from the sun seems erroneous when you analyze the properties of water in the system. Although this argument falls into the Slayer camp.
The way the climatic system operates strongly supports a GHG effect is present. The evidence is as follows:
The way the lapse rate behaves from the surface up through the stratosphere. Latent heat release from water vapor condensation as an example.
The ozone GHG EFFECT in the Stratosphere.
Water Vapor effects on Stratospheric temperatures.
The radiation characteristics over deserts versus jungles giving an entirely different range and temperature profile over the two areas.
Clear skies versus cloudy skies at night giving a different temperature result.
To devices such as Dr. Spencer has which can measure IR radiation. How can you measure something that does not exist?
In any event, I could not go about defeating AGW theory if I did not accept the premise of a GHG effect.
My argument has always been yes a GHG effect is present but it is a symptom of the climate, it does not govern the climate.
This is where I differ with AGW theory.
Tim Folkerts
Thank you. To make my point I tried to keep things as concise as possible.
But I certainly agree with you that in the real atmosphere a lot of heat is actually transported by convection but as far as transport by radiation is concerned the mechanism is quite similar to conduction with the presence in the upper atmosphere of an effective atmospheric layer radiating into deep space that moves upwards when greenhouse gases concentration increases. Thus the “insulating layer”, as you put it, indeed gets thicker.
Yet it is interesting to note that all this still boils down to the decreasing IR photon mean free path l with increasing CO2. Since l is actually inversely proportional to the number of CO2 molecules per volume unit this also implies that l always increases gradually with altitude as atmospheric pressure drops until it becomes large enough for the IR photons to escape into space. At this stage the effective atmospheric layer radiating into deep space is reached. This happens a priori logically only at a higher altitude when CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
alphagruis,
It is indeed always a challenge to know how much depth to go into. Pretty much no matter what level you shoot for in a forum like this, some one will fault you for being too simplistic, and someone else will fault you for being too complicated! :-/
I think that this picture is perhaps still too simple. The dominant mode of the multiline absorption in the lower atmosphere is due to the pressure broadening of the (then Lorentzian) lines. But this broadening is almost entirely due to collisions between CO_2 and either O2 or N2 and hence is nearly completely independent of the partial pressure of CO_2.
It is also not even approximately a constant at any reasonable height in the lower troposphere where doppler broadening is basically irrelevant. Air pressure varies tremendously on a very much secular timescale. There is no single “escape altitude” — there is rather a bleedout from the wings of the cross-section at lower altitude/higher pressure through the lower pressure/higher altitude air above, one that varies by several percent at least with secular air pressure and varies again with the vertical pressure profile. And then there is water vapor.
The papers that estimate the direct GHE due to CO_2 (and predict is saturated logarithmic increase) obviously do not attempt to handle this level of detail, though e.g. Modtran may. I’m not sure to what extent climate models do, or could, include it as it seems to enable some very complex self-organized cooling/warming modes independent of any particular CO_2 concentration, but in principle the variance expected is easily of the magnitude of the variation expected from doubling CO_2 concentration per se and so it could significantly alter the estimates based on ignoring it. This is (fairly enough) a contribution to the probable error in the computation of the no-feedback climate sensitivity.
This isn’t to argue that more CO_2 won’t most probably increase global average temperatures and that the height/temperature of emission isn’t a factor — only that it isn’t a simple factor or a constant factor. It was pointed out to me some time ago that the concept of an “effective radiation height” is one that is so dynamic and spectrally differential that it isn’t, really, that useful an idea at the heuristic level. You can look at TOA spectrographs and infer/interpret in a somewhat ragged and imperfect fashion the height/temperature of emission from the GHGs, but to predict what you will see against all conditions of humidity and atmospheric pressure profiles is no easy task.
Robert G Brown
Please see comment by Tim Folkerts just above yours.
I agree of course that in science or elsewhere any picture grasps at best only part of the reality.
My point was to emphasize that the GHE exist indeed without any serious doubt and doesn’t contradict anything known in physics such as the second principle of thermodynamics.
This is no more a matter of debate for any serious physicist.
That said and because the effect is small in the 1% range of energy fluxes and even more important because it is at at work in a complex system in the technical sense with a lot of feedbacks and emergent phenomena everywhere (such water phase transitions, clouds, ENSO, PDO, etc) we are definitely not capable to quantify this precisely from first principles calculations. And not even were we capable up to now to identify by the observations any clear cut unambiguous signature of the additional CO2 in terms of climate change because of the large natural climate variability.
That’s where the research and debate actually is and should be.
Many on this thread claim there is no proof of GHE. I know Joel posted links showing the proof.
In this link on page 21 they have an actual satellite measurement of the spectrum of IR leaving the Earth System.
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/emission_lecture.pdf
Note to Doug Cotton. You may want to read through this physics so you can understand the physics world is not as ignorant as you believe and they really do know what they are talking about. The problem is on your end not theirs. You can’t understand the higher level thinking so you see them as ignorant buffoons but not yourself. You have the psychological condition of projection. You are the ignorant mind but since you are not capable of understanding real physics you project your ignorance onto the rest of the science world and believe you are this godlike genius that can see thing no one else has been able to see.
In the link on page 21 it shows a huge amount of IR energy that is not leaving the Earth system. The question to all is where is this energy going? It is real energy it can be converted to work or internal energy raising temperature yet it is clearly not leaving the system. There may be very complex energy exchanges going on but the fact is this energy is not leaving the system. So where is it going?
Hi Norman,
despite I agree that some IR can be back radiated, I don’t agree that that graphic at page 21 is the effective amount of not exiting energy. That graph shows what a radiometer with a narrow field of view sees at its nadir.
That graph say me that all that missing radiation has been absorbed, but it can’t tell how much energy is exiting with different angles other than the few around the nadir shown there.
That non-nadir radiation exists only because of the presence of IR active gasses in atmosphere. And as that 666cm-1 bite widen because of the increment of those IR active gases in atmosphere, the non-nadir 666cm-1 emission peak widen too, reducing the effective total “trapped” (???) energy.
Have a nice weekend.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Your point is very good. I can understand it. Would a satellite farther away help as it would be able to get a larger picture of the radiation spectrum leaving the Earth? Or maybe a variable satellite path that has multiple sensors like a bug eye to try and get a true picture of all the radiation being emitted by Earth?
Hi Norman,
I don’t know whether it’s necessary that the satellite goes farther or instead it’s better to put an integrating sphere with an ad hoc slit in front to fit the whole Earth dish comprising the atmospheric layer.
BTW integrating sphere are used in gas spectroscopy exactly to get the diffuse transmittance of the sample because getting only the regular transmittance is not all the transmitted radiation is measured.
See this link:
https://books.google.it/books?id=ptpXbW1NaeMC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=regular+and+diffuse+transmittance&source=bl&ots=TDr0hqrD8a&sig=OS2lPVeXVc92yW2JlAWFqwZTBDA&hl=it&sa=X&ei=DZkpVeqSHtLTaO7XgbgO&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=regular%20and%20diffuse%20transmittance&f=false
Read the description of figure 2.28 about the issue I evidence about the current TOA measurements, while take a look to figure 2.29 the next page for the solution I suggested. Of course the diffuse emitter is impossible for the TOA measurement, but I think that bulid the diffuse detector with an integrating sphere is just a question of do it.
The only issue I see for that setup is that the integrating sphere have an high attenuation, honestly I don’t know what is the the margin of sensitivity of the current satellites, so I don’t know if putting it in front of the detector is feasible.
Have a nice Saturday night (here in Italy is midnight now, so I guess that in “sweet home” Alabama should be about 5:00PM).
Massimo
IR leaving the atmosphere is omnidirectional. A satellite is only looking straight down so would only see a portion of the radiation being emitted.
Hi Kevin,
exactly, but the worse is that the nadir view of the satellite measures a reduction of radiation for any increase of the atmospheric GHGs content, while the tangent radiation is almost perfectly its complement so it increase as the atmospheric GHGs content increase.
Have a nice weekend
Massimo
Hoops!
I wrote Kevin instead of Kelvin, sorry its a quarter past midnight here in Italy 🙂
Don’t worry it happens so much it’s my nickname.
Yes Norman, that issue of the TOA measurements is refuted in my 2013 paper and the reasons given are cogent. If you wish to talk about any such matters, read first what I have said and discuss the content of my counter arguments. That will save us time going back to Square One on such matters. Every objection you have ever raised, or are likely to raise in future, I can answer because I know what is in climatology literature (and thousands of climate blog comments) better than yourself. The cloud formation is explained in a comment just written towards the end of this thread.
I’ve replied to each of you here.
Norman: There is no huge amount of energy not leaving the Earth. The mean TOA input per square meter of the spherical surface is about 340W/m^2 and, over many years, this has not varied by more than about ±0.6% which is about ±2W/m^2.
As you can read here there is net inward radiation in the tropics and net outward radiation in the polar regions. But the IPCC wants you to be gullible enough to believe that the Arctic will warm much more than the world average. Ah well, just another spanner in their works.
Ooops – “as you can read here …
The issue of TOA spectrums was discussed in my 2013 paper. I have also explained such in other comments in this thread.
Here is another link showing upwelling radiation from Earth. In regions of the spectrum where no IR gases are active you can see the
Earth’s surface temperature directly. In IR active gas regions of the spectrum you only see a cold atmosphere but the warmer surface is radiating IR over the whole spectrum but the IR is not leaving the system at the rate the surface is emitting it, only at the rate of a cold atmosphere. Again explain where this energy is going? Empirical measured spectral analysis shows the radiation is not leaving. Empirical measured spectral analysis shows the surface IS radiating this energy. Where does it go?
https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/global-warming-mapsgraphs-2/
Hi Norman,
always nice to exchange posts with you.
Your question:
“Again explain where this energy is going? Empirical measured spectral analysis shows the radiation is not leaving. Empirical measured spectral analysis shows the surface IS radiating this energy. Where does it go?”
Here:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5025/2006/acp-6-5025-2006.pdf
See page 5027 (the third one), do you see the “elephant in the room”?
Is in the upper right graph which shows the radiation tangent to the place that the researcher have considered the TOA for the CO2 radiation (34km).
Being a spherical body that peek of radiation at 666cm-1 is outgoing the atmosphere indeed because it is tangent. That peek is present only, only if there is CO2, and its amplitude is proportional to the CO2 concentration.
This means that the graph that shows the radiation at the nadir doesn’t give a complete value of the effective outgoing radiation, because integrating for all angle horizon to horizon any point of the TOA the resulting graph should have the 666cm-1 bite partially filled (or maybe completely, I don’t know).
Have a nice weekend.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
I read your book link. It would be valuable to make sure that the measured out going IR from the Earth system is complete and accounted for. If it requires different measuring devices to account for the omnidirectional path of IR radiation emitted by GHG’s than certainly such a path should be pursued. Accurate and complete data are most important to scientific understanding.
Hi Norman,
yes, I completely agree with you.
That was an experiment. Note that they were not doing that for demonstrate what I’m arguing, they used that “limb” view just to be sure that the balloon was at an altitude which could be considered the TOA under the CO2 radiative point of view.
Here in North Italy is sunny today and the temperature is around 20°C, the very right spring day for a good trip on the lake.
Have a nice Sunday.
Massimo
Of course the outward flux at TOA does not exceed the internal flux of electro-magnetic energy across an internal boundary such as the surface/atmosphere boundary. What you need to understand is that the flux of electro-magnetic energy is not a flux of thermal (kinetic) energy in molecules. Radiation passes through Space without the need for molecules to pass on its energy. Only some of that energy is converted to thermal (kinetic) energy and only in cooler targets. Read “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” which I’ve linked before, so you can search for yourself this time.
The solar radiation of 168W/m^2 absorbed by Earth’s surface could not raise the temperature even of a perfect blackbody if the temperature of that blackbody were already above -41°C. If there were no atmosphere, and the whole Earth (oceans included) were paved in black asphalt absorbing 168W/m^2 it may get warmed nearly to that -41°C. Radiation from the colder atmosphere also has no hope of raising a warmer surface temperature. You need to think in a wholly different paradigm.
The only possible source of the required thermal energy needed to raise the mean temperature at the base of a planet’s troposphere (with or without a surface there) is downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer which we know happens because the Second Law of Thermodynamics enables us to prove it can happen.
The classical approach for heat transfer by radiation culminated in the Raleigh Jeans Law
The quantum mechanics approach is given by Planck’s equation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html
For some radiation frequencies they are equivalent as the graphs show.
But as radiation frequencies increase they diverge.
In the case of the land – atmosphere interface further complications occur
The land will emit a contentious spectrum which can be represented by Planck’s law
The atmosphere is made up of gases with widely different radiative properties.
O2 and N2 hardly emit whereas CO2 and H2O are significant emitters in thermal IR wavelengths.
So the air near surface atmosphere is a mixture which can be roughly represented by bands of varying emissivity and indeed there are missing thermal wavelengths(the atmospheric window).
This collection of wavelenghts will not follow the T^4 Planck relationship.
Ignoring this is perhaps the reason why the ‘backradiation figures are pitched much too high.
To illustrate this the pyrgeometer instrument which supposedly measures backradiation gives such a history of failure that it now cannot be considered as a reliable instrument
Roy Spencer uses insulation of a house to explain how GHE works. I like the thermos bottle. It has a vacuum between internal fluid and external environment to prevent conduction.
The thermos bottle has mirrored surfaces to reflect (redirect) the radiation flux leaving a hot fluid. Since the fluid stays hot many hours after it would cool if the inner sides were not mirrored but normal material, it clearly shows that energy can be redirected.
The mirror is much colder than the radiating liquid in the inner container but it still sends the radiation back into the fluid. The cold mirror is not heating the liquid! The hot liquid is radiating energy away but the mirror is redirecting the energy back into the liquid keeping the temperature of the liquid hot. If you could design it better (maybe several layers of inner bottles as to eliminate the losses due to conduction of surface contact) you may be able to keep the internal liquid hot indefinitely. If the energy has no way to leave a system the temperature will remain the same.
Also with the Earth system, it is not an isolated system, it receives solar energy on a continuous basis. There is a constant influx of energy. That is why slowing radiation loss in a non closed system will warm it. If you have a thermos bottle and add energy to it with a little heater the fluid will warm up.
Who wants to experiment? Take a thermos and a metal cup and fill both with the same amount of fluid. Put thermometers in both fluids and small heaters that deliver the same amount of energy to both fluids. Turn on the heaters and see which one heats up more after a period of time. I think you will understand Roy if you do this experiment. It will all become quite clear as to what he is saying.
Gordon, you know how a thermos works. Bravo. But, you make the assumption that Earth’s atmosphere behaves like a thermos bottle. That’s a HUGE leap.
But, if you want to believe we live in a thermos bottle, I believe you have that right.
Hi Greek Philosophers,
It is amazing how you can reason, argue, debate but not observe. Look back at 4/11/15 at 7:55AM. Yes, the data tables got a little messed up in the transition from what was submitted and what was posted. But the clever guys you are, you should not have much trouble in solving the puzzle. Wait, maybe you will because putting puzzles together requires observation.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry,
I have now responded to your observations: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188062
As I explain, the observations are (at least qualitatively) exactly in line with what we expect if there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect…and most definitely not in line with what we would expect if there weren’t.
You are wrong Joel Shore about radiation (as explained in this comment. “>this comment) and you are wrong about the Loschmidt effect (as explained in other comments) and you are wrong about the radiative forcing “explanation” of planetary temperatures.
jerry l krause
Hi jerry,
I read through your experiment posted above. I like that you are willing to do an actual test. I read through your conclusions but am not sure what exactly is going on.
You have a radiometer located above the ground. It reads a warmer temperature than the surface. Is this stating the air above the surface at night is warmer? This is also known as an inversion. Surface radiates away energy at a faster rate than air above and air is a good insulator so it only slowly loses energy to the cooling ground.
I wonder if you can restate what you are seeing and how this does not support GHE. Thanks.
Hi Norman,
Sorry, my tables got compacted. The temperature of the radiometer’s absorbing-emitting (a-e) surface is always lower than the ambient air temperature and the dewpoint temperature except when the fog suddenly occurred. Then, the a-e temperature quickly rose to that ambient air and almost to the calculated dewpoint temperature.
My statement was: The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning.
Hence, the downward radiation from the atmosphere (the result of the greenhouse effect) cannot be the factor preventing the surface and atmosphere cooling further. Going back to my opening statement: However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes.
I have clearly identified what I consider my observation, which anyone can make, does prove. I have carefully written what have written because I do not know what others consider the greenhouse effect is. Can you tell me what Joel Shore or Roy Spencer have accurately defined what it is to them? I started with the statement: It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement.
The a-e surface of the radiometer ‘sees’ the downward radiation and adjusts its temperature so that it radiates back toward the atmosphere so there is a radiation balance and the a-e temperature becomes constant, usually for some time not near sunset.
Hopefully I have done what you asked.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Jerry,
“However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.”
Despite I agree that that downward radiation warm the ground, I would argue that attributing all those 33°C to the GHGs is not proven.
Let’s imagine that you can throw an iron ball up some meters and that that ball can touch the ground always the very same place, if the bump was inelastic, after some launches the bumping point became hot because all the energy you used to throwing the ball up is converted to heat (some heat go to the atmosphere too, for example the one converted in acoustic pressure by the bump sound).
This thought experiment is more or less what the Earth surface continuously does with our atmospheric gasses due to its surface temperature (without the ground temperature all gasses would collapse to the ground, the concept of gas at 0 K doesn’t exist at all).
In few word as per the GHGs effect the heat (or radiation in case of the GHGs) is converted to work and successively is back converted to heat at the surface.
Just a difference I would emphasize, in the GHG effect the quantity of energy returned is quantized by the number of GHG molecules, while the work to keep the molecules up in the sky is a continuous, the warmer is the ground the higher the molecules are thrown, the higher is the additional warming. This make the effect a multiplier of the Sun heating, while the GHGs effect is just an heating offset.
Note that also the sea water thermal expansion works the same, so maybe that both the two atmospheric effects could be negligible compared to this last gravitational effect.
So IMHO those 33°C can’t be all attributed to the GHGs effect
Have a nice Sunday.
Massimo
Hi Roy and Greek Philosophers,
In the case of you defined you stated moist soil so you could assume a certain thermal conductivity for the soil whose initial temperature you assumed to be 80F. I wonder what the dewpoint of a shallow (say 10 feet) atmospheric layer might be given these conditions. I doubt if it is less than 25F. You totally ignore the condensation of water vapor which must begin to occur as soil and atmosphere in contact with it cools.
Have a good day, Jerry
Desert Surface Temperatures
FYI 3.3.3.2 Surface Temperatures pp 52-53.
Deserts and Desert Environments, By Julie J Laity
Hi David,
Very good observational information. Entirely consistent with the temperatures, which I observe, of my SSK radiometer’s a-e surface although its midday temperature far exceeds the temperature difference of those at Alice Springs because of its thermal inertia is so low relative to that of any earth surface. Which makes nighttime surfaces temperatures very interesting. Because at this time the differences are quite comparable. This seems relatively easy to explain. For as soon as the surface temperature drops below that of the atmosphere in contact with it, there must develop an atmospheric temperature inversion which isolates the surface from the warmer atmosphere above just as the films of the SSK radiometer isolate the a-e surface from the atmosphere above except via radiation. In the case of the radiometer’s a-e surface, when it is shaded from direct sunlight, the a-e temperature can cool below the air temperature even before sunset. And because of its low thermal inertia it cools even more rapidly after sunset. At the same time the surface is cooling more slowly and the atmosphere (also having a low thermal inertia) in contact with the earth’s surface is tracking with the surface. Now as the temperature inversion increases in altitude, its temperature is greater than the earth’s surface. And as soon as this occurs it begins to be cooled via radiation to the cooler surface. Of course, at the same time the atmosphere is being cooled by radiating upward through a colder and clear atmosphere. So, I know, because I study the data of atmospheric sounding being launched within three miles of my home, that by 4AM local standard time that the top of the temperature inversion is usually a little more than a 1000ft above the surface. Which fact supports my assumption that the atmosphere at all levels up to the top of the inversion and beyond (up to the point where the atmosphere’s temperature equals that of the surface) had been and is still being significantly radiatively cooled due to the seldom considered possibility (likely I believe) that condensed matter (solid and liquid) is a ‘better’ emitter than diffuse matter (the atmosphere).
Hopefully, the Greek philosophers will read what you called to their attention and actually think about it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Dr Spencer,
Thanks for the valiant effort, the attempt is appreciated. I think it’s a fine illustration of the greenhouse effect’s existence. I made it through maybe a third of the comments. Apparently, some people still refuse to understand the concept of NET energy loss.
I don’t think some people realize that Engineers have been accounting for the GHE in cooling calculations for many years, way before anybody really heard of the GHE, come to think of it I don’t remember anyone calling it that back in Numerical Heat Transfer class, I think we just called it the apparent sky temperature and/or IR from the atmosphere. I’ve suggested reading this example many times: http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf
There’s a calculation example of an aluminium disk cooling overnight from 10°C to 0°C with no GHE (92 minutes), with clear sky (5.4 hours), and overcast sky (35 hours, i.e. doesn’t cool to 0°C overnight). Not only does it illustrate how much the GHE can effect cooling but also clues one in on the major influences: water vapour and clouds.
John, your link includes the same mistake often made by Warmists and Lukewarmers. Slowing the rate of cooling is NOT warming. “Warming”, as in raising the temperature, requires new energy (heat source). The atmosphere is NOT a new heat source. It got it’s heat from the Sun.
Of course you are correct, but they are not going to believe you.
Radiation from the colder troposphere can only ever slow that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation.
According to the original NASA net energy flow diagram here about twice as much energy transfers out of the surface by other processes. These processes can and do accelerate and thus may nullify the effect of slowing of radiative cooling, which is nearly all by water vapor anyway, not carbon dioxide. But water vapor and CO2 still have an overall cooling effect because they make the thermal profile rotate downwards at the surface end.
Geran (& Mike),
Raising the temperature of something requires increasing the input of energy OR DECREASING THE OUTPUT (or both). I don’t see why this is a difficult concept.
If an object gets 240 W/m^2 and loses 240 W/m^2, the object will remain the same temperature. The temperature might be 255K. Or it might be 300 K. Or it might be 200K.
If the input remains 240 W/m^2 (for example, from sunlight or an electric heater or a furnace), but the output drops to 230 W/m^2 (for example by adding insulation or by decreasing the emissivity), then the object will start to get warmer.
No new heat source needed!
It is simply not possible for the “greenhouse gas” water vapor to both …
(a) make the temperature gradient less steep by about 30%
(b) raise the surface end of the temperature plot.
To do so would make a very significant difference in the area under the temperature plot and thus very significantly increase the radiation to space, thus throwing out radiative balance by far more than is ever observed and having a very significant cooling effect anyway.
And it is because there would be such a cooling effect that, instead, the thermal plot simply rotates around a pivoting altitude (close to the radiating altitude) and thus becomes lower at the surface end.
That is why water vapor causes lower supported surface temperatures, reducing the otherwise somewhat higher surface temperatures that we would observe if there were only a fraction of the existing water vapor so that the gravitationally induced temperature gradient would be steeper and not reduced as much due to inter-molecular radiation.
Empirical studies confirm this physics and do indeed show water vapor cools. Even Foehn winds support this because they become warmer as they release water vapor and thus make the temperature gradient steeper.
******************************************************
So Roy Spencer doesn’t have a leg to stand on with his fictitious claim that water vapor warms the surface.
******************************************************
Tim,
Reduce the rate at which a hot teapot loses heat by putting a tea cosy on the pot. The temperature does not rise.
Reduce the rate at which the Earth loses heat by surrounding it with an insulating layer of gas. The temperature does not rise.
Shine the Sun on the Earth, the temperature rises, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere. Turn the Sun off, (night), and the temperature falls, but not as quickly as it would in the absence of atmosphere.
Why the concept of slow cooling is called warming, is a mystery to me. Tell me, has the Earth warmed since its creation, because it has cooled really, really, slowly?
I believe the Earth has cooled. I believe geophysicists agree with me. Have you any evidence to the contrary?
Mike Flynn.
Tim, you (and Spencer) are entirely correct, of course. If you keep the heat INPUT to an object constant and then reduce its heat OUTPUT, the object will warm, no doubt. That’s what insulation does.
Defining the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ (rGHE) in this way, we see that the rGHE at Earth’s global surface has strongly weakened since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_surface_net_longwave_flux-all-sky_032000to092014.png
The global surface has strengthened its ability to cool through radiation by about 1.5 W/m2 on average.
All the while, global OHC has increased quite significantly …
Funny, don’t you think?
So, if I start @ 15°C and cool to 0°C OR (with GHE) start @ 15°C and cool to 12°C is not 12°C warmer than 0°C? If I start @ 15°C and cool to 12.3°C (enhanced GHE)is 12.3°C not warmer than 12°C? If something is warmer than it used to be would that not be a warming?
Actually, I’m with you let’s call it Anthropogenic Global Cooling Slowing & Plant Feeding just to make it sound even more benign than Global Warming.
Exactly, 12ºC is not warmer than 15ºc. So, you have NOT heated anything.
Didn’t say I’d heated anything, merely retained more internal energy of the surface by slowing the transfer of energy (heat) from the warmer surface to the cooler space.
I don’t think anyone using the term Global Warming is intending to use warming in a heat transfer sense such that it is synonymous with heating. Warming in common jargon is just warmer, more a relative condition of state than a specific energy transfer term.
If you start with the Earth’s surface at say 4000K, and it cools to 288K, it has cooled. If you claim that it should have cooled to 255K, but has only cooled to 288K instead, it makes no difference at all. Cooling is not an increase in temperature.
It cooled. Slowly. It is still cooling. Slowly. If you can figure out a way to warm a concrete block or a corpse by surrounding it with CO2, I’ll buy you a cigar, provided you light it with something you heated up by surrounding it with CO2.
How to heat something by surrounding in with CO2:
Method 1: Place item to be heated inside pressure vessel. Attach pressure vessel to 4 stage compressor. Connect inlet of compressor to CO2 source (must be @ lower pressure than ending pressure). Turn on compressor. Remove heated item from pressure vessel carefully as it could be rather warm.
Method 2: Place item to be heated inside exhaust pipe from combustion of carbon containing material. Remove item carefully as it could be hot.
Method 3: Heat carbon dioxide then blow it onto item to be heated.
/sarc
Again, the GHE slows cooling it’s not heating. A concrete block outside on a cloudy winter night cools slower than a concrete block outside on a clear winter night.
I suggest all should read this comment.
Conduction is a two-way process in the sense that molecules move small distances in all directions. If the temperatures at each end of a horizontal steel rod are controlled, then the temperature gradient in the rod adjusts such that the thermal profile is linear. If you raise the temperature of the cooler end a little, but not above the temperature of the hot end, the temperature gradient will adjust again, but this involves heat transfers from the cooler end towards the hotter end.
This helps you understand why Robert G. Brown was wrong in his attempt to refute the Loschmidt effect (as published by Watts-his-name) because the wire and the cylinder become a new single system with a temperature gradient that is between the original gradients due to this forcing situation. (See this more detailed explanation.)
The formation of a temperature gradient due to gravity acting on molecules between collisions, and as first postulated by Josef Loschmidt in the 19th century, is a fact, and we can prove that directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics using the Kinetic Theory of Gases as in this paper. This has HUGE consequences pertaining to the fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology which ignores the Second Law.
As you can read here the Second Law is all about entropy increasing by the fastest route to the state of maximum entropy within the constraints of the system.
Increasing entropy is synonymous with reducing unbalanced energy potentials.
The state of maximum entropy (which involves all forms of internal energy and energy transfer processes) is, by definition, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is not necessarily isothermal. In fact it is only isothermal in a horizontal plane. Experiments with centrifugal force prove that force fields like gravity create a temperature gradient, and you see it in every planetary troposphere.
The easiest way to understand how and why the temperature gradient evolves and becomes stable is to imagine two horizontal planes of molecules separated by the mean free path, that being about 90 nanometers in air. The distance is not important, but we will call it dH because we aim to find the temperature gradient which we will assume has a change in temperature dT.
Now, although there is a Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energy in a real situation, we can simplify the thought experiment to one in which we just assume all molecules at any given height have the same kinetic energy. On a macro scale we know there is a propensity for temperatures to level out in a horizontal plane. That is the Clausius corollary of the Second Law, which only applies in a horizontal plane because the entropy equation used to prove it has no term for molecular gravitational potential energy on a micro scale.
Now, the Clausius corollary “works” in a horizontal plane because of the propensity for molecular kinetic energy to level out in collisions. Basically we have an equilibrium state when, on average, molecules about to collide already have equal kinetic energy. This is because, in Kinetic Theory, we know that temperature is proportional to the mean molecular kinetic energy in the translational degrees of freedom.
But, to raise a body by dT we need to add energy to all unfrozen degrees of freedom, this being achieved by the Equipartition Theorem and physically taking place in molecular collisions. The specific heat cp allows us to calculate the energy required for mass m as m*g*dT and we equate this with the difference in gravitational potential energy which is m*g*dH and so determine the “dry” temperature gradient -g/cp. This can be understood by recognizing that molecules moving between the two planes gain KE and lose equal PE as they move downwards, or lose KE and gain PE when moving upwards. In order to have the same KE as the molecule they are about to collide with, they must have come from a cooler region above, or from a warmer region below. QED.
Now the consequences are indeed huge, because this completely smashes the greenhouse comjecture.
It also enables us to understand how thermal energy can in fact move downwards in a planet’s troposphere by molecular collision processes. It happens when the thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed with new energy at the top. Strictly speaking, that process is called “natural convective heat transfer.” In such a process we may detect some net downward movement of molecules, but it is very slow just like the “hot car in garage” example in the website endorsed by our group of persons suitably qualified in (real) physics.
The downward (conduction-like) natural convective heat transfers (which include heat diffusion in physics) supply the thermal energy input which James Hansen thought must have come from back radiation, but can’t. Climatologists incorrectly add 324W/m^2 of back radiation when using Stefan Boltzmann equations to calculate the surface temperature. You can’t do that, and the temperature cannot be calculated from radiative input at all on any planet.
It’s a whole new and completely different paradigm that explains reality.
Sorry – correction:
The specific heat cp allows us to calculate the energy required for mass m as m*cp*dT and we equate this with the difference in gravitational potential energy which is m*g*dH and so determine the “dry” temperature gradient -g/cp.
Footnote:
This “dry” gradient implies that, without any inter-molecular radiation, the surface temperature would be warmer – perhaps a mean of 25°C to 30°C. Radiating (GH) gases (mostly water vapor) then cool the surface by reducing the gradient due to the temperature-leveling effect of inter-molecular radiation, not just due to latent heat release. The overall effect of carbon dioxide is to cool by a minuscule amount well under 0.1 degree.
Please also see this comment above.
Joel Shore should read comments starting here explaining why he and the promoters of the radiative forcing hoax are wrong.
Goodness gracious! Silliness is right. This is really simple people. The greenhouse effect is one of slowing the rate of cooling causing a rise in the equilibrium temperature. That is all it is, a rate change. There is no violation of the second law. If you increase the “insulation” causing the rate change, the equilibrium temperature will rise to higher value. Sheesh…
Yes I am very much aware of what they claim and have studied Pierrehumbert’s book and much more. But the physics therein is incorrect and incomplete, and I can pinpoint where.
I have explained above why only radiative cooling is slowed, whilst the rest of the cooling (which transfers twice as much thermal energy out of the surface) accelerates and thus nullifies the effect of the slowing of radiative cooling. I have also explained in a comment just written above (Apr 12 at 5:49am) why we observe that water vapor cools.
It might be best, Slipstick, if you help Stephen Wilde, geran, jimc, Tim and others answer the question in this comment, also noting the following comment.
It’s not the GHE as you might understand it. That’s because ‘back radiation’ is not a real energy flux, but an Emittance, aka Exitance, aka Radiosity; the potential radiative energy flux in a vacuum to a radiation sink at absolute zero. Not to teach this correct Physics has been the Bad Mistake in US Atmospheric Science for >50 years, which is why it has failed to be able to do the modelling despite the GCMs being sound.
The real answer is self-absorption: more later…..:o)
Yes I quite agree, AlecM. The fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology is a deliberate fraudulent hoax with which people like Slipstick, Tim Folkerts, Roy Spencer, Joel Shore, Norman, Robert Brown and thousands like them have been completely brainwashed. I explained how radiation merely resonates back in March 2012 in my paper linked here.
Mr. Cotton,
You are, yet again, incorrect. It’s not thousands, its millions. Millions of engineers and scientists and inventors who use real physics to analyze, make discoveries, and create new processes that are impossible according to the self-contradictory edifice of nonsense you have constructed.
I can easily prove my premise by experiment.
If there were net mean 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ GHG- thermalised in the first ~30 m of local atmosphere, the mean temperature of the atmosphere would have to be ~ 0 deg C, a trivial S-B calculation for an atmospheric emissivity of 0.75, 396 W/m^2 surface Emittance, 238.5 W/m^2 atmospheric Emittance.
That would be lower than at any time in the past 444 million years.
As Houghton showed in Fig. 2.5 of his 1977 ‘Physics of Atmospheres’, there is zero temperature difference between surface and local atmosphere, a requirement of Lapse Rate convection coupling.
Hansen later accepted the IPCC fraud when he co-founded the IPCC, giving up science for his religion come politics.
No professional scientist imagines that ‘back radiation’ is a real energy flux; it is mass stupidity.
Its good that this thread is looking primarily at night time conditions as lots of competing influences are eliminated.
Most heat transfer situations can be understood as a simplified one direction only heat flow(classical model).
The two direction energy flow and one direction heat flow photon approach also works.
In particular the photon flow model can explain situations where the classical approach seems to fail.
Take the situation of a temperature inversion at night.
The near surface air temperature say at 6C and the ground surface at 2C.
Now the classical model would say that heat can travel only in one direction hotter atmosphere to colder ground.
But we know that this does not happen!
However by using the photon flow model we can explain the situation
The land will emit a contentious spectrum which can be represented by Planck’s and Stephan Boltzmann equation.
The atmosphere is made up of gases with widely different radiative properties.
O2 and N2 hardly emit whereas CO2 and H2O are significant emitters in thermal IR wavelengths.
So the air near surface atmosphere is a mixture which can be roughly represented by bands of varying emissivity and indeed there are missing thermal wavelengths(the atmospheric window).
This collection of wavelengths does not follow the T^4 Stephan Boltzmann equation.
The thin less dense atmosphere does not send enough radiative flux to counter the much more intense radiative flux which results in temperature loss from the much denser Earth surface.
Ignoring this is perhaps the reason why the ‘backradiation figures are pitched much too high.
Indeed the climate alarmists have almost as much backradaion(down) as surface (up) radiation
To illustrate this the pyrgeometer instrument which supposedly measures backradiation gives has an unsurpassed history of failure.
It is now generally accepted that it cannot be considered as a reliable instrument.
“In particular the photon flow model can explain situations where the classical approach seems to fail.
Could you explain this? Which classical model fails? Id don’t see any reason why “photons vs EM fields” or “two energy flows vs net energy flow” make any difference.
“Ignoring this is perhaps the reason why the backradiation figures are pitched much too high.”
1) Ignoring “what”? The previous sentence seemed to make perfect sense for explaining the radiation exchanges between ground and sky, and why the ground cools slowly at night.
2) Why do you think that backradiation figures are “much too high”? What number do YOU think would be more reasonable, and what evidence supports your claim?
(Remember, 60% (give or take a bit) of the Earth is cloud-covered at any given time. Clouds are nearly blackbodies, so clouds radiate nearly as much to the ground as the ground radiates up.)
Tim Folkerts doesn’t see any reason why “photons vs EM fields” or “two energy flows vs net energy flow” make any difference.
No you wouldn’t see, Tim, because you don’t understand the physics of radiation or the ramifications, namely that only radiative cooling is slowed, not the rest of the cooling which accelerates to compensate – and transmits twice as much thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere as does radiation.
This comment is continued in the first seven pages here that you’ve had three years to read since I wrote this review-type paper of the latest 21st century physics pertaining to our understanding of radiative heat transfer.
Tim Folkerts
A simplistic model of the inverted air/ground interface would have the air at a higher temperature than the ground.
So it might be expected that the air heats the ground from the classical approach
This does not happen
At night the ground will continue to drop in temperature.
My explanation involving two way energy transfer is given above
Perhaps you could explain how a one way heat transfer without the ground being able to radiate can describe the situation
There are multiple examples above by people claiming that colder surfaces do not radiate to hotter entities or that such radiation is not absorbed.
“So it might be expected that the air heats the ground from the classical approach”
That is exactly what happens with an inversion.
* Heat flows from the warm air to the cool ground. (Both by conduction and radiation)
* Heat flow from the cool ground to the even cooler outer space (by radiation).
Since the outward flow from the ground is larger than the inward flow to the ground, the ground cools. Either the “one way net flow” or the “two way photon flow” gives the same answer; either explains the situation perfectly well.
“Perhaps you could explain how a one way heat transfer without the ground being able to radiate can describe the situation”
This seems to be where you go wrong. The ground CAN radiate (directly to space). If the ground couldn’t radiate, then NEITHER model would work!
Tim Folkerts
But can the classical model account for the band structure of the airs radiation and the atmospheric window within its own paradigm?
Given this apparently contradictory reality
I think not!
My comments here are to persuade one direction heat transfer without two energy interaction to reconsider their assumptions.
Tim
Presumably the classical theory for air contacting radiative oscillators would involve the Raleigh – Jeans equation.
Here is an interesting historical article.
Good luck with that.
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Downloads/article_id_067_02_0127_0133_0.pdf
either explains the situation perfectly well.
No, that’s not the case – see my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page here.
The reason is that, if the back radiation were converted to thermal energy then that energy could escape by non-radiative processes, and we would have had a violation of the Second Law in the first process.
But you’d have to spend an hour studying the 21st century physics I’ve reviewed in that paper to understand my point.
Pardon me for shouting, but …
IT’S JUST SO DAMN EASY TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE RADIATIVE FORCING GH CONJECTURE IS TOTALLY WRONG …
Point 1: All empirical evidence (such as studies of temperature records, temperature gradients in centrifugal force fields, Foehn winds that warm with reducing levels of water vapor) points to the fact that the so-called “greenhouse gas” water vapor causes Earth’s surface temperature to be cooler, not warmer – as the IPCC would like you to be gullible enough to believe. They imply that each 1% of water vapor causes over 20 degrees of warming, so stay away from rain forests with 4% water vapor over your head – if this point is over your head.
Point 2: It would be impossible for water vapor to raise the surface temperature and at the same time make the “lapse rate” less steep, as we know it does, because radiative balance would be way out, and in fact such imbalance would be causing very significant cooling.
Point 3: You can talk all you like about slowing surface cooling, but if you cannot explain how the surface temperature is raised in the first place you have nothing to support your hoax. All the radiation between the surface and atmosphere is doing is cooling the surface while the Sun tries to warm it. There is also simultaneous cooling (over 100W/m^2) by non-radiative processes. Yet the mean solar radiation absorbed is only 168W/m^2 and that would only support a perfect blackbody at a temperature of -41°C if the above concurrent energy losses were somehow eliminated in an imaginary Earth.
Now, with my inquiring mind, I could not leave it at that. I had to work out how the necessary energy does in fact get into planetary surfaces and even sub-surface regions including the mantle etc. That I have done after thousands of hours of research and good old thinking. And now you don’t even have to buy my book because all you need is free to read at http://climate-change-theory.com where nearly 8,000 have visited in that website’s first three months. You’re missing out if you haven’t.
Doug Cotton
Have you come up with an explanation for cloud formation using your understanding of how the Earth’s energy system works? You like to ignore this question but I will keep asking. That is one thing everyone on this blog can see and then think about. How are those clouds I see forming? Your theory about heat creep cannot explain the formation of clouds. Only surface heating, raising the temperature of a parcel of air containing water vapor, causing this parcel to expand and become less dense. This less dense air will be pushed up by heavier more dense air. As it rises in the atmosphere it expands and pushes on air molecules around it. The result of doing this work lowers its internal energy and it starts to cool. When it cools enough the water vapor condenses and starts warming the air parcel so it does not cool as rapidly (wet lapse rate). But you can see the effect of this process in the cloud formation.
Will you explain cloud formation with your heat creep that claims energy from higher up is moving down to heat the surface? How does this process create clouds? How does it work to cool water vapor and create visible clouds? I think soon most posters will see you as a really poor example of science but a great example of why good science needs rigor and proof (which you will never provide your own experiments).
See my comment just written further down this thread.
Regarding the “heat creep” process go to this comment.
Massimo PORZIO
I hope you had a great time at the lake today!
I was reading your hypothesis on why the ground is warmed by gravity.
If you look at both of Roy Spencer’s models the gravity would be the same in both. Whatever effect is caused by heat creep or gravity would be identical so it is eliminated as a cause between the two models.
But in Roy’s models you can see that if you have no back radiation the ground cools rapidly (and his model is actually supported by desert surface temperatures as provided by David L. Hagen in a post above). In his models the only thing changing is the amount of back radiation. The rate of real world cooling closely matches the back radiation model.
His model would support that the satellite information of IR leaving Earth may actually be valid measurements. I do not think posters really have pointed out glaring flaws in the model.
Hi Norman,
thank you, the lake was great today, not a cloud in the sky and 24°C. A really nice day.
I don’t analyzed Dr.Spencer’s models, but “His model would support that the satellite information of IR leaving Earth may actually be valid measurements. I do not think posters really have pointed out glaring flaws in the model.”
This could be a circular argument because where is that tangent outgoing radiation?
I repeat my point: current satellites measurements are losing all the radiation with angle out of their FOV. And there is no ways to adjust the measurements if you don’t know the various spectra between the nadir one ant the tangent one (other than “modelling” it of course, but that’s not a measurement at all).
Anyways, I’ve been a little superficial in my previous post,
I expected Doug to scold me 🙂 , I still don’t have any proof that GHGs works to heating the ground indeed, my point is that if (I repeat if) they did that way then the mechanism is the same for the other two effects.
Replying to your following hypothesis about how CO2 works at the 14um absorption band: I don’t agree, it’s not like a string, it’s a dipole which resonate and binding the molecular links “capture” a fixed amount of EM energy (the photon) and release it later.
When the photon is “trapped” as binding energy in the molecule, the same molecule became transparent on that band for all the time the molecule needs to return at rest, releasing the photon in a random direction.
It’s no way like a mirror.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Regarding “heat creep” go to this comment and read my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I am thinking the problem in explaining the GHE is because of different understandings of what causes down-welling IR from the atmosphere.
Emissitivity of carbon dioxide is fairly low (around 0.25) because it only radiates energy in a few bands. Water vapor is higher.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0450%281970%29009%3C0365%3AFETFWV%3E2.0.CO%3B2
In order for carbon dioxide to radiate an equivalent energy flux as the Earth’s surface (with an emissitivity of close to 1) it would have to be considerably warmer. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is radiating far less energy based solely on its temperature as a gas.
The GHE works much different. The carbon dioxide molecule acts like a single oscillator a single string. When a 14 micron IR photon is absorbed by CO2 molecule it vibrates the molecular structure like plucking a guitar string. Then the CO2 molecule quickly emits the same energy. The big difference is that it radiates it away in a random direction. The CO2 then acts like a mirror in that it redirects the energy. If no CO2 were present the photon would take a straight line path out of the atmosphere now it is redirected and has only 50% chance of being directed away from the surface. With just one CO2 you have a 50% chance of leaving the system but what if this photon that is now going up is absorbed by CO2 higher up. This same photon has a 50% chance of going up. But from it initial creation at the Earth’s surface as you add CO2 it has less chance of getting out before being directed back to the surface.
I think many view carbon dioxide similar to a black body surface. A surface does not act like a single oscillator but as a group of many many strings. A 14 micron photon hitting a surface will have its energy spread out among many atoms and molecules in the surface and will have very little effect. It takes many photons to get a surface really vibrating (getting all the multiple strings moving and emitting). It is a very different situation with very different effects. If people would start to view this it might help them understand.
I keep reading about the 2nd law and how GHE violates it and this error in thinking is by assuming the single oscillator carbon dioxide molecule is acting like a macro surface composed of trillions of oscillators that are interconnected. The two are different and can’t be compared. CO2 can absorb a 14 (or a couple other) IR photons and emit them shortly after without having to be super hot.
+10
Where is the water vapor and the percent water vapor in the graphs? For 70 years I have observed that the temperature RARELY goes below the dew point, exception is when there is a very strong weather front moving in. My father placed large washtubs of water around the prize apple trees when a frost was predicted. Are farm was near a decent size lake, and we had many ponds to also help prevent freezing. Why do you think they spray water in orchards? To coat the buds, fruit with ice – WRONG. The water itself adds some, but very little, heat and the heat of fusion adds thousands of times more. Do they not teach the properties of water in Meteorology classes or the so called climatology classes?
Water has a property called heat of fusion. IT WORKS BOTH WAYS. to freeze water the heat of fusion must be released. on a clear night in a area with a dew point of 60 degrees before it can go below 60 degrees all of the heat of fusion must be released. how much is that?
Heat of fusion for water: 333.55 kJ/kg = 333.55 J/g
Since the molar mass of water is: 18.015 g/mol, the Heat of fusion for water can also be written as: 6.0089 kJ/mol
How many tons of water are in the air above the average acre of land with a dew point of 60 degrees? That is a LOT of energy. All of the above graphs would flatten out at the dew point and then start decreasing again after there is no longer any water VAPOR in the atmosphere to release HEAT.
You can’t treat water vapor as just a plain old gas like O2, or CO2. It has phases, and each of these phases adsorbs or releases heat to change state.
Suggest all critics look at the dew point for their area and the low temperature for the morning after. It is a good bet that it will not be below that temperature. Better that ten to one odds, probably better than 100 to one odds.
Forgot:
Why does it go below freezing many nights in the summertime, even late summer, in the southwest US?
Why do the “coyotes” warn the “illegals” they are smuggling into the US to pack clothes for “freezing temps” at night and daytime temps of over 100?
Excellent. At night, radiation is clearly in control and downwelling radiation (greenhouse effect) does affect cooling rates. As you point out, convection is active during daytime, when it is the main mechanism for transporting heat away from the surface. When convection is active, greenhouse gasses are less important and lapse rate, which depends more on moisture content, controls the temperature profile and physical movement of the atmosphere controls heat transport. Because convection is such an important part of the picture, sensitivity to CO2 is much less than has been supposed.
If you use Roy Spencer’s simple model and put in the amount of downwelling IR stated for Carbon Dioxide increase. Based upon this article “The added radiative forcing was 0.2 watts per square meter per decade”
From:
http://www.livescience.com/49950-greenhouse-effect-measured-us.html
If you put in 330.2 instead of 330 you see no change. If you go 100 years of this change (which would be 2 watts) you get a 0.2 F change in nightime low. This may explain why the temperatures have flatlined. CO2 is not a powerful greenhouse gas and increase is only having a small overall impact on temperatures.
Norman, as I had pointed out in my post below (which I am sending once again) if one were to dismiss the GHG effect one could not( as you say also )account for why the weather and climate are like they are here on earth.
It is just as asinine to say the GHG effect does not exist as it is to say the GHG effect governs the vast climatic system of the earth.
The way the climatic system operates strongly supports a GHG effect is present. The evidence is as follows:
The way the lapse rate behaves from the surface up through the stratosphere. Latent heat release from water vapor condensation as an example.
The OZONE GHG EFFECT in the Stratosphere.
Water Vapor effects on Stratospheric temperatures, which although water vapor amount are miniscule have a profound effect. Ozone being very sensitive to water vapor for example.
The radiation characteristics over deserts versus jungles giving an entirely different range and temperature profile over the two areas.
Clear skies versus cloudy skies at night giving a different temperature result.
To devices such as Dr. Spencer has which can measure IR radiation. How can you measure something that does not exist?
In any event, I could not go about defeating AGW theory if I did not accept the premise of a GHG effect.
My argument has always been yes a GHG effect is present but it is a symptom of the climate, it does not govern the climate.
This is where I differ with AGW theory.
Doug Cotton,
With your over simplistic study of wet vs dry climate to prove water vapor has no warming effect (GHE), I say to you. Your study is garbage and should be hauled off to the Sydney dump or recycled. Your study is of air temperature so it is an invalid study of GHE acting on the surface. If you want to study the effect and make some type of valid conclusion you would have to study wet and dry area surface temperatures.
Others have pointed it out on this blog. I give you another.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kUBxA5P7YbQC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=measured+desert+surface+temperatures+at+night&source=bl&ots=YnC16SPKqr&sig=Mk-TVb5qJQD1WHtnqmxLyh-iAzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6rMqVfihOYXfoASmh4DoCw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwDDgK#v=onepage&q=measured%20desert%20surface%20temperatures%20at%20night&f=false
One study shows dinural temperature in a desert environment of the surface can be 80C (144F). The air temperature will not be that large since air is a very good insulator and will cool much slower.
You would need to do a study of actual surface temperatures of wet and dry areas to be able to make any valid claim of what effect water vapor has on temperature since the surface is what would be receiving the downwelling IR.
I think the studies of surface temperatures (not air) of deserts seems to be strong empirical evidence that the GHE is quite real and the Earth really would be much colder if we had only had a nitrogen atmopshere.
Above jerry l krause shows that wetter area surfaces do not cool as much as desert surfaces.
“the Earth really would be much colder if we had only had a nitrogen atmopshere. ”
If the atmosphere were wholly of nitrogen with its very limited radiative capability there would still be uneven surface heating causing density differentials in the horizontal plane that would still lead to convection even with no GHGs at all.
As long as there is convection one continues to need a kinetic energy supply at the surface to maintain convective overturning and for a stable atmosphere that supply of kinetic energy must be in addition to that required to match incoming radiation with outgoing radiation.
Therefore the Earth’s temperature would be much the same if it had a Nitrogen atmosphere but the global atmospheric circulation would be configured somewhat differently.
The GHE is real but it is a mass induced phenomenon, not radiatively induced.
Yes of course there would be a temperature gradient in the troposphere. So what? Continued here …
It might be best, Norman, if you help Stephen Wilde, geran, jimc, Tim and others answer the question in this comment, also noting the following comment.
Actual hard surface temperatures and water surface temperatures are precisely what is discussed in the physics in my paper. It’s unfortunate that climate records use stations between 1.5 and 2 meters above the ground, but it is such measurements which AGW hoaxers also use. There’s rarely more than 2 or 3 degrees difference anyway.
Your attempted refutation fails because that difference is such that the atmosphere is usually cooler than the surface whether in wet or dry regions. Furthermore, the IPCC in effect claims a sensitivity of over 20 degrees of warming for each 1%, so how about you, Norman, devise a study which confirms them right?
Beneath descending higher pressure air (50% 0f the atmosphere at any given moment) the descending air warms as it descends and in doing so maintains surface temperature by slowing the rate of radiative cooling from the surface.
Ifradiative cooling of the surface occurs faster than descending air can return kinetic energy to the surface (such as when there is no wind, no cloud and no insolation) then a temperature inversion will develop and the descending warming air can fail to reach the surface.
Over the night time or winter surfaces on average for the globe as a whole it is that rate at which air descends and warms that reduces the overall rate of surface radiative cooling to below the rate expected from a body with no atmosphere
It is that descending warming air that keeps the radiating surface warmer than it otherwise would be at night or in winter. It is not downward radiation from GHGs that has the warming effect.
The source of that warmth is the day side and summer side from which the energy is first taken up in convection before it later descends and warms in other locations on the night side or winter side.
In so far as radiation comes down from above it can only come from a temperature which has been determined by the lapse rate slope and so that source region will always (in the absence of a temperature inversion) be colder than the surface and so cannot warm the surface.
GHGs do not create a temperature inversion that is capable of radiating downward so as to warm the surface.
Instead, GHGs move up and down relative to the lapse rate slope within convective overturning so that on average there are as many GHGs too warm for their position along the lapse rate slope as there are GHGs too cool for their position along the lapse rate slope such that the net radiative effect is zero at the surface.
Warm, rising GHGs cool as they rise and pass their ‘surplus’ energy by conduction to non radiative molecules.
Cool, falling GHGs warm as they fall and draw energy back by conduction from non radiative molecules.
The system is radiatively self stabilising and variable rates of convection supply the necessary mechanism.
It is adiabatic warming of descending air that keeps the surface 33C warmer than the S-B equation predicts and not downward radiation from the atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde: Let me help you with a few basics in physics:
It is in a temperature inversion that we do get heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer downwards into the hotter surface as explained here. An inversion in meteorology does not necessarily have hotter temperatures at the top – just a temperature gradient that is less steep than normal. If you think I’m wrong, then edit this article on Wikipedia which reads …
In meteorology, an inversion is a deviation from the normal change of an atmospheric property with altitude. It almost always refers to a “temperature inversion”
For example, Stephen, on Venus the solar radiation is sufficient to raise the temperature only of regions that are at less than about 400K, according to Stefan Boltzmann calculations. But the surface is about 735K and so solar radiation does not raise its temperature.
Each Venus morning when the Sun is doing such warming in the upper troposphere we get a temperature inversion, and this leads to actual transfer of thermal energy (that energy just absorbed in the region <400K) by heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer down to the hotter surface. It's not hard to understand at http://climate-change-theory.com and my linked paper written February 2013.
An inversion does not cause significant conduction from air to ground because the heat capacities of air and ground are so hugely different.
When the ground surface becomes colder than the air above it then it is the downward convection of warmer air that is blocked. However,horizontal winds then develop above the inversion layer which moves the adiabatically warmed descending air to another location where it does block upward conmvection.
Inversions are a localised and temporary exception to the general picture of convective overturning but because the energy in the descending air is simply shifted horizontally there is no net overall effect on global convective overturning.
After reflecting on this post for over a day, it occurs to me this may be a delayed “April Fools’ Day” joke by Dr. Roy.
Consider:
1) A hand-held IR thermometer, pointed at the sky, is not evidence of GHE. As mentioned above, point the thermometer at an ice cube. Is the IR emitted by an ice cube going to boil the oceans? (Only extreme Warmists believe that.)
2) Night temperatures are below daytime temperatures so that is “proof” of the GHE? Au contraire mes amis (a little French there for our “metric” friends). Night time cooling is, in fact, evidence that there is NO GHE. A real greenhouse holds heat through the night. That is why real greenhouses extend the growing season. And, no “Warmist” successfully answered my question about winters. If the atmospheric GHE were real, why do we have winters? Once again, a real greenhouse maintains temperatures well into winter.
3) And then, there is this (from the post):
<<>>
So, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, the globe continues to warm. That is why, in the last few years, we have seen record cold and snow globally?
Does it get any funnier?
Thanks Dr. Roy for another hilarious April Fools’ Day!
geran,
Real greenhouses hold warmth through the night by preventing convection.
Given enough time, radiation through the glass will bring the interior temperature down to the ambient external temperature.
That is why one should heat greenhouses in winter if tender plants are to survive.
Greenhouses work by letting sunlight in but then preventing convection so that the rate of cooling is substantially reduced.
Stephen, did you not understand my comment, or did you just imagine it was a chance for you to pontificate ad nauseam?
geran,
What did I miss ?
Why the gratuitous insult ?
Did you not understand my comment, or did you just imagine it was a chance for you to pontificate ad nauseam?
Mr. Wilde,
That is partially true, but the glass also slows the rate of cooling by reflecting/retransmitting a fraction of the IR emitted by the contents of the greenhouse, hence the application of the term “greenhouse” to certain atmospheric gases. I believe Dr. Spencer made a post on this site about “backyard” experiments he had conducted in this regard a few years ago.
Slipstick,
Sure the glass radiates back down but it only got hot in the first place due to the restraint of convection.
It wasn’t the downward radiation from the glass that caused the surface heating. It was the radiation from outside PLUS lack of convection.
You don’t get the DWIR from the glass heating up the interior to a level higher than that allowed by incoming sunlight and blocked convection. The DWIR from the glass is a consequence not a cause and so it is out in the open beneath an atmosphere with GHGs.
GHGs can only intercept as much energy from the surface as is placed at the surface by the mass of the atmosphere subjected to insolation in the first place.
Their temperature follows conduction and convection, they do not lead.
Actually, we have not seen record cold globally in the last few years; that is patently false. What we have seen is the concentration of cold air masses in relatively small areas while the temperature of the rest of the globe is above average, in some areas substantially above average.
This past February was unusually cold in the eastern portion of North America. Here is a map of the temperature anomalies for February 2015: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=02&year1=2015&year2=2015&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=rob.
You will note that the area of exceptional cold covers less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, far less than the area of exceptional warmth, and of a smaller maximum anomaly.
slipstick (good screen name, BTW), the record cold in both NH and SH are not global?
Globally means around the globe, not at a few, relatively small, spots on the globe.
By the by, for the uninitiated, “slipstick” is a slang term for a slide rule, the engineers’ and scientists’ constant companion before the TI and HP calculators appeared. I still keep an old Pickett N4 on my desk.
The <> was SUPPOSED to contain this quote:
Of course, downwelling IR from the sky is going on 24-7-365, acting to keep daytime temperatures warmer than they would otherwise be, too.
Warmer daytime + warmer nighttime = Warmer Earth.
(You just got to love how comments get corrupted.)
Roy said:
“I’ve used a handheld IR thermometer to directly measure its effect (the temperature of the surface of a thermopile in the device increases as you scan from pointing straight up in a clear sky to pointing at an angle…voila! Downwelling sky radiation changing surface temperature!). But, no, that’s not enough”
Such instruments are designed to record a temperature at a specific optical depth so the temperature recorded will be taken from the distant location at which that optical depth is achieved.
Beneath a clear sky optical depth is least in the vertical plane and so the instrument records at a higher, colder location along the lapse rate slope.
If one then points it at an angle the optical depth that it focuses on will be placed at a lower warmer height within the atmosphere and so it will record a higher temperature.
If one points it straight up through a clear sky it will record a cold temperature at great height such that if one then interposes a cloud then that cloud changes the optical depth and it will record the temperature at the lower warmer height of the cloud.
Sadly, the output of such instruments has been widely misinterpreted.
They do not record a downward flux of energy. Instead they record the temperature at a remote location which has the specific optical depth away from the instrument that the instrument was calibrated to record.
Stephen you are in denial same for Geran, which takes away from the otherwise good stance you both have on the climate.
IR radiation is being measured all over the globe.
Salvatore
I don’t say there is no downward IR.
I just say that it has no thermal effect at the surface and that IR sensors measure IR emission from a remote location the position of which which is dependent on optical depth at the point of measurement.
IR sensors say nothing about the effect of the temperature at that remote location on the surface around the sensor. Only the thermocouple is affected, not the surrounding surfaces.
Downward IR has no net thermal effect at the surface because convection adjusts to negate it.
If the net effect of GHGs is to radiate to space then less energy is returned to the surface in convective descent than is taken up in convective ascent. That reduction in convective energy returning to the surface cancels the thermal effect of downward radiation from GHGs.
If the net effect of GHGs is to radiate downwards then more energy is taken up in convective ascent than is returned to the surface in convective descent because the additional uplift enhances radiation to space from within the atmosphere which, as before, cancels the thermal effect of downward radiation from GHGs.
One doesn’t get a higher surface temperature to drive the faster uplift because in both cases less energy is coming back down convectively than was taken up convectively.
Thus, no matter what the sign of the net thermal effect from the radiative ability of GHGs the convective adjustment eliminates it.
If the net radiative effect of GHGs is zero then the energy in convective ascent continues to match the energy in convective descent just as in a non radiative atmosphere.
The sole effect of GHGs in conjunction with convective adjustments is to re-apportion radiation to space between radiation from within the atmosphere and radiation direct from the surface.
At all times radiation in continues to match radiation out. Only the location of departing radiation varies as necessary to maintain system stability.
One gets a miniscule change in global air circulation but no effect on total system energy content (kinetic energy plus potential energy).
So, I recognise that DWIR exists but convection negates the thermal effect of IR on surface temperature from an atmosphere.
It is convection that raises surface temperature 33C above S-B by delivering convective energy back towards the surface in descending warming air.
Such descending warming air dissipates clouds to let more sunlight in and reduces convection so that heat can build up at the surface above the S-B limit.
A greenhouse lets sunlight in and reduces convection so the term is perfectly apt for the mass induced greenhouse effect.
Averaged across the globe over day, night, winter and summer the net thermal effect of convection of atmospheric mass up and down is to raise surface temperature by 33C.
Sal! I, at one time, thought you had a clue. Are you saying I am now in denial of that?
Geran, in the end the climate outlook is going to be the same for those us who believe in no GHG effect and those of us who think the GHG effect is the result of the climate not the cause.
That should read:
“Beneath a clear sky optical depth is greatest in the vertical plane”
The ozone in the stratosphere responsible for the temperature profile of the stratosphere shows a GHG effect exist. If it happens in the stratosphere as it does in response to ozone , it can certainly happen in the troposphere in response to Co2 and Water Vapor.
Salvatore,
The ozone in the stratosphere absorbs incoming radiation directly without it reaching the ground so it is not analogous to a glass greenhouse roof which acts by letting energy through to the ground.
Both the greenhouse roof and the warmth of the ozone do restrict convection but the greenhouse blocks convection from the ground whereas ozone in the stratosphere only blocks convection at the tropopause.
Within the tropopause it is descending warming air in high pressure cells that reduces convection from the surface so as to facilitate a build up of surface warmth above S-B.
That is a purely mass induced process and not radiative at all.
Sal, do you own a rock?
Put that rock in the sunlight.
Does the rock heat up?
Does that “prove” the rock is causing global warming?
(If you answer YES, you may get a Nobel. Get in line….)
Geran,
I put my pet rock out at night. It cooled down. Obviously, rocks cause global cooling. Can I have my Nobel Prize now?
🙂
I have been told that the international space station has a surface temp well over 120 C on the side facing the sun and that it makes its orbit going “behind” the earth to cool off at “night”. The space station has no atmosphere with CO2 to help it “warm up”. How does it get so hot since learned men of letters here are telling me that the planet earth would be a frozen ball without CO2. I just don’t get it.
The moon also tells us that the earth without an atmosphere would get a lot hotter than it does since the moon sees temperatures measured to approximately 120 C itself. Now the moon gets about a month to cool off on the dark side before being heated back up —- one wonders how hot it would get if the rotational speed was that of the earth; perhaps “only” 120 C (~ 250 F) but that is pretty hot as my wife does not like the house to get over 78 F inside.
I am wondering how long it will be before the “back-radiations warms up the earth 33 degrees” nonsense is over. At least humankind will be able to read who supported the James Hansen CO2 myth.
Mark, obviously you are not soon applying for a “climate science” grant.
As you know, you would not qualify…
-The moon also tells us that the earth without an atmosphere would get a lot hotter than it does since the moon sees temperatures measured to approximately 120 C itself. Now the moon gets about a month to cool off on the dark side before being heated back up —- one wonders how hot it would get if the rotational speed was that of the earth; perhaps “only” 120 C (~ 250 F) but that is pretty hot as my wife does not like the house to get over 78 F inside.-
If you increase rotation rate of the Moon. The surface daylight would change and it would cool less at night.
But lunar surface would still have huge swings in temperature.
The day time surface is about 50 C warmer than Earth surface ever get, and it night surface could get about 50 C colder than Earth surface gets.
And it’s dampening this wild swing in temperature which what
the earth’s greenhouse effect is.
Now if one were to make the Moon’s surface bright white or pitch black [assuming these color to full solar spectrum.
The white surface would warm up less [5-10 C difference] and would cool less quickly and pitch black is close to what the Moon already is, so even less difference.
Though generally speaking not much difference whether snow white or pitch black.
If one were to add say 1 meter of water over entire surface, that would make an enormous difference. And it also make things more complication.
In terms actually doing this impossible project, the water addition would instantly lower surface temperature to around -150 C. So surface in daylight lower dramatic if on pour hot water on it, and if night side if pout 1 C water on it would freeze but warm up to -150 C [123 K].
hmm it seems it cool the moon down instantly, but lets look at Equator Moon [and Earth]:
“Equator Average Temperature (K) Moon ~206K (390K at noon; ~95 K at midnight)
and Earth: ~299K (303K at noon, ~295K at midnight}”
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
As said the water instantly and without any question freeze a 123 C lunar hot surface. And it’s evaporation cause uniform temperature of about -150 C [123 K].
So Lunar average equator temperature now is ~206K and would
become 123 K. So losses instantaneously about 80 K.
And non equator is presently cooler than Equator so it cools less than by 80 K [C].
So Moon would cool by say 70 K immediately in terms of it’s average temperature.
But it also gain instantaneously a very thin atmosphere [of H2O.
And it depends upon this gas pressure what temperature the H20 ice evaporates at. In Vacuum it’s about -150 C.
And due to lack of lunar surface current heat capacity [very very small compared to 1 meter deep water added. One assume lunar remains the near perfect vacuum it is at the present moment.
But essentially what done by adding 1 meter of water is increased the lunar surface ability to absorb sunlight.
Or one say that by cooling the Moon, one has stop the moon from radiating as much energy as it normally would.
So it was blacbody temperature of 270.7, according to:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
gas]
And water turned instantaneously it into about 123 K.
So roughly getting same amount of sunight, but radiating about 150 K less per average square meter.
Which make in terms of planetary body it would have HUGE amounts of warming over the coming decades.
So HUGE is on the order of increasing it’s average temperature by say 1 K per week.
And Earth apparently has increased it’s average by 1 K per 100 years.
So over a year of warming, the moon will add more water vapor to it’s atmosphere, and as result it evaporates at lower temperature [and less explosively]
“Why Summer Nighttime Temperatures Don’t Fall Below Freezing”
To get straight to the point:
Simply because the weight of the atmosphere on the ocean surface limits the rate of evaporation by fixing the energy value of the latent heat of vaporisation so that the oceans retain enough sunlight for long enough to remain liquid and that warmth reduces the ability of the adjoining land masses to cool down to the freezing point of water on summer nights.
The proof is that the rate of evaporation of water at a given temperature increases at lower air pressures due to a lower energy cost for the evaporative process.
Water in a vacuum evaporates explosively without needing any addition of extra heat.
It might be best, Stephen, if you help geran, Norman, Tim and others answer the question in this comment, also noting my next comment.
Doug,
Your idea about ‘heat creep’ which appears to be mere diffusion or conduction is flawed and unnecessary.
It is adiabatic warming on descent and adiabatic cooling on ascent that has the required effects on the vertical thermal profile.
Stephen
I will keep referring you to this comment until you come up with correct physics refuting mine and explaining the necessary downward heat flows which others have also realized must happen.
No my physics is not “flawed” because it is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is flawed is your understanding of the maximizing of entropy which that law is all about. I throw down the gauntlet to you Stephen to read the physics I have explained and pinpoint any error in physics – which would be pretty laughable for you without qualifications compared with my specialized post-graduate study and two papers on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And, no, such downward heat transfers are a reality and most certainly needed to explain how the temperatures in Uranus build up from the stratosphere downwards without any rising or falling “parcels” of gas or any solar radiation reaching the base of the troposphere, or any surface, let alone an irregular one at the base of that nominal troposphere. So you explain it (as I have asked many times) without my hypothesis.
When I’m talking about heat creep I am not talking about the original formation of the temperature gradient at all, as you would know if you had read the paper.
In regard to “heat creep” go to this comment and read my 2013 paper which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Massimo: In regard to your comments, you’ll find all the explanation needed for all temperatures and energy flows above and below any surface on any planet or satellite moon in my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
Norman was concerned because he thought my study of real world temperature data used tropospheric temperatures rather than the official surface temperatures. That is not the case: it used the normal meteorological temperature data (from ground stations which are required to be between 1.5 and 2.0 meters above the ground, and the data is included in the study, so he could have checked such. That is the same data used by climatologists who maintain it shows excessive warming. Well, it probably does when you start the fiddling and remove records that don’t suit your agenda.
Norman was also concerned that he didn’t think I knew how clouds form. Well Norman, the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient, and the associated thermal profile which is anchored by the need for radiative balance with the Sun, ensures that, at a certain altitude, the temperature will be below the dew point. How do the molecules get there? Well there’s some upward wind in some areas, upward convection in some areas (because, as I said, natural convective heat transfer moves in all accessible directions away from a new source of thermal energy) and there’s a process called diffusion which you can observe by squirting some fly spray in your living room and sniffing around at various heights. Be assured that molecules which move at about 1,700 Km/hour between collisions have quite sufficient kinetic energy to get to the top of the troposphere. And, because they pass on some of that energy to others, they don’t necessarily have to be the ones that get there themselves. And, as any molecule rises, it does some work against gravity, thus losing some of its kinetic energy. Hence the temperature at the macro levels cools at greater heights.
Now it’s your turn to explain planetary temperatures at the base of their tropospheres along with the necessary thermal energy transfers required to warm those regions by day, making up for the cooling the night before.
Dug, do you offer full refunds on your book?
If not, why not?
Yes I did on the ones I sold on eBay. But no-one returned it.
do you also refund return shipping fees?
Yes I offered to pay the $2.10 return postage. And several others have bought it at climate meetings I’ve attended and sometimes been the guest speaker. I’ve received royalties from Amazon too, but did not write this for the money. That’s why you can now read about the content at http://climate-change-theory.com as nearly 8,000 others have in the first three months because it seems that word must be getting around about the new 21st Century paradigm in climate science.
So how about you read it and try to refute the physics pertaining to maximum entropy production as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate.
Do you also offer “double-your-money-back” if the buyer detects some phony physics?
Now, geran, as for Norman, it’s also your turn to explain planetary temperatures at the base of their tropospheres along with the necessary thermal energy transfers required to warm those regions by day, making up for the cooling the night before. Your explanation must conform with the laws of physics.
so, then, do you offer double money back for false science?
Oh, and I did get comments like that below from people who, unlike yourself it seems, understand entropy maximization.
Doug Cotton shows how simple thermodynamic physics implies that the gravitational field of a planet will establish a thermal gradient in its atmosphere. The thermal gradient, a basic property of a planet, can be used to determine the temperatures of its atmosphere, surface and sub-surface regions. The interesting concept of “heat creep” applied to diagrams of the thermal gradient is used to explain the effect of solar radiation on the temperature of a planet. The thermal gradient shows that the observed temperatures of the Earth are determined by natural processes and not by back radiation warming from greenhouse gases. Evidence is presented to show that greenhouse gases cool the Earth and do not warm it.
John Turner B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator)
Have you fully disclosed your relationship with John?
I don’t know him from a bar of soap. I just received that by email.
Have you disclosed your full name and qualifications, as well as your pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo and promulgating the hoax without any reference to valid thermodynamics or the process of maximum entropy production which is fundamental to all natural processes in nature?
So, John only exists in your email inbox.
Curious.
Your deductive reasoning is pathetic and is displayed in all the comments you have addressed to myself.
Now go to this comment.
Doug Cotton,
I am certain you do not understand my post about surface temperatures. You believe that air temperature meters above the surface and the actual surface are one and the same. This is why it is difficult to discuss things with you. You do not have the ability to reason. Likeable as you are, you can’t really think. That is why I feel you are not a human but a BOT. I have interacted with online AI programs and you seem really similar. Repeat things, can’t really reason. What I mean by surface is the real actual surface. The ground, maybe that will help you understand. Put the thermometer on the hot sand at day and record the highest temperature and then at night to get the lowest temperature. Go to a wetter area of Australia and do the same and see which one has the greatest variation.
Doug your explanation for cloud formation is so poor it gets an F. Horrible explanation of anything. It looks like you made it up as you were typing with no thought at all put into what you are saying. It almost makes me physically ill to read how little you understand about any heat transfer mechanism. You really really do not have the slightest clue about what convection is or how it works. Even though I do like you I think interacting with a BOT is a waste of time. If you were a human it might be worth the effort but your ignorance of science is so astonishing it staggers me!
You have not answered the question about the energy transfers that warm the Venus surface.
The dry regions have the greatest variation according to my study, Norman. Why don’t you at least look at the results in my paper? They also have the highest mean daily maximums and the highest mean daily minimums. It’s all there for you to study, including the data used.
See this comment explaining why the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface cannot explain the surface temperature.
Anonymous geran and Norman go back to this comment.
Dug, are you in cahoots with Joel Shore? He also promotes bogus science.
One of you says CO2 heats the planet, the other one says gravity heats the planet. You guys should get together and put out a comic book.
Maybe call it “The Sun Never Shines”.
🙂
What I have explained is not what anyone else here even tries to explain pertaining to all planets and satellite moons.
How about you help Roy with the problem he has here unless of course you agree with what I have said in that comment. Let’s see a bit of physics coming from you, instead of the type of waffle any undergraduate could write, and most do if they have a vested interest in the current radiative forcing rubbish promulgated in climatology circles, and by Roy Spencer in the above post.
Dug, I have tried to explain the 255K to you before, but your were on Venus.
Of course it is energy from the Sun which maintains all planetary temperatures, even in sub-surface regions like the mantle. That’s what my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures“ is all about, you clot.
So, since you admit it is “energy from the Sun”, we can throw out your book, and request our money back (with shipping costs refunded).
Thank you.
It’s not radiation from the Sun into the Venus surface, you clot. If you had read the book or the paper or the website you wouldn’t have fallen into the trap I set you.
Do you, anonymous geran without any qualifications in physics, have difficulty in understanding such simple English as in the comment to Roy below where I wrote …
“So it would take several centuries for the Venus surface to cool right down if the Sun did not warm it back up by the same amount the next Venus day.”
Now, Geran Whoever, before we go any further, how about you explain with valid physics and factual data about Venus, just exactly how you think the required thermal energy gets into the Venus surface in order to raise the temperature of a fixed location on its equator by 5 degrees (from 732K to 737K) over the course of its four month day. No other correspondence will be entered into.
In explaining such warming of the Venus surface, be careful to ensure that entropy is tending towards a maximum and that you specify the mechanism(s) of heat transfer such as …
(1) conduction
(2) diffusion
(3) natural convective heat transfer
(4) forced convection
(5) thermal energy transferred as a result of radiation
Dug, you left yourself wide open, again. Your question is answerable from several different directions, because of the way you phrased it. I understand you do not know radiative heat transfer, so I will try to explain this in terms of things you will understand.
Suppose you have 17 marbles. Each of the marbles have different thermodynamic properties. Five of the marbles have linear heat transfer coefficients. Seven have non-linear coefficients, based on temperature. The remaining five marbles have properties that are not documented The marbles are heated from above and cooled from below.
So, what is the temperature of the 17 marbles at this moment?
I bet you don’t get it….
Doug’s “heat creep” is just a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I have explained radiative heat transfer in my peer-reviewed paper published om several websites in March 2012. Publish your own refutation of that paper somewhere, as this is not the place.
Now answer the question about energy transfer that warms the Venus surface.
Roy, this is what’s wrong with the graphs in your top post:
During the afternoon on a clear day the Sun is still shining upon a solid tropical region of the Earth’s surface where it has raised the temperature that morning. The Sun’s radiative warming effect diminishes with the sine of the angle of incidence until, at sunset it is nil when that angle is zero. That, for a start, suggests that the rate of cooling should be accelerating in the afternoon. Then, during the evening, you say the cooling should be represented by a linear plot which should have the gradient reached at sunset. But it isn’t in real life, now is it Roy?
The rate of cooling in the late afternoon and evening starts to decrease at least by midnight, and the graph may even level out in the early pre-dawn hours as the temperature approaches the supported temperature that is determined by the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient.
After that, the whole troposphere would have to cool, and that slows cooling a heck of a lot. For example, on Venus during its four month long night a location on the equator only cools by a mere 5 degrees. So it would take several centuries for the Venus surface to cool right down if the Sun did not warm it back up by the same amount the next Venus day.
But just exactly how does the energy get into the Venus surface to do that warming?
No one on any climate blog has ever had an answer to that question – other than what is in the new 21st Century explanation of all such temperatures and energy flows on all planets here.
Doug Cotton
I am doing a limited study on your post.
Using this website;
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/SBMN/2014/1/12/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Manaus&req_state=&req_statename=Brazil&reqdb.zip=00000&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=82331
I picked Manaus, Brazil since it is located in the Amazon and picked a date looking for clear skies.
The temperature did not change during the whole night even though it was clear and winds were light.
It could be some clear indication that GHE is real and you are wrong in your data collection.
Look at the humidity, it is at 88%. Clear skies, light rain, high water vapor content and you have little temperature change. Now if your garbage were correct it should not matter if the air is wet or dry as you would get heat creep in both conditions but water vapor would cause some cooling (which I do not see).
I am looking for a desert location with clear skies but so far I find far too much wind to be comparable.
Follow the methodology in my study you clot. You need 30-year mean temperatures, not one day (LOL) !!!!!!!!!!
“The temperature did not change during the whole night”
Yes, well that’s my point isn’t it? Roy’s plot of ongoing linear cooling all through the night is wrong. Stick a meat thermometer into the ground in your back yard and record temperatures in the afternoon of a sunny clear day and then all through that night. Publish your experiment right here. After all, you are the one advocating experimental proof.
And don’t forget to edit Wikipedia here for they must have it wrong in saying dry air in Foehn winds warms the surface. We read …
A Föhn or Foehn is a type of dry, warm, down-slope wind that occurs in the lee (downwind side) of a mountain range.
Föhn can be initiated when deep low pressures move into Europe drawing moist Mediterranean air over the Alps.
It is a rain shadow wind that results from the subsequent adiabatic warming of air that has dropped most of its moisture on windward slopes (see orographic lift). As a consequence of the different adiabatic lapse rates of moist and dry air, the air on the leeward slopes becomes warmer than equivalent elevations on the windward slopes. Föhn winds can raise temperatures by as much as 32 °C (58 °F)[1] in just a matter of minutes. Central Europe enjoys a warmer climate due to the Föhn, as moist winds off the Mediterranean Sea blow over the Alps.
Count that as another experiment confirming my hypothesis, Norman. Perhaps I took some temperature measurements when I drove through 10 countries in the UK and Europe in 20 days. Enjoy my pics here.
Foehn winds are only a partial explanation. The difference between the wet and dry lapse rate slopes only explains why air in the descending column becomes warmer than the air in the ascending column AT THE SAME HEIGHT.
Seperately from that point all ascending air cools adiabatically and all descending air warms adiabatically.
It is that warminmg descending air that raises the surface temperature of any planet (including Venus) that has an atmosphere above S-B.
Roy’s error is in assuming that a non GHG atmosphere becomes isothermal. It cannot do so because uneven surface heating still leads to density differentials in the horizontal plane which inevitably leads to a convective overturning of the atmosphere even with no GHGs.
Stephen writes: all ascending air cools adiabatically and all descending air warms adiabatically.
That’s not correct Stephen. It only applies in an isolated system, and so, if it is wind in any form that causes the ascending or descending there will not be cooling or warming in keeping with the environmental temperature gradient. Why is Earth’s South Pole much colder than the equator, whereas on Venus its poles are at almost the same temperature as its equator? When is convective heat transfer upwards and when is it downwards and when it it horizontal?
Also, you miss my point about the Foehn winds. As in the quote, they warm because they lose water vapor and thus become drier. So we have some evidence that water vapor cools, and reducing its concentration leads to warming. This is the exact opposite of the key contention in the radiative forcing conjecture. It’s just another bit of ammunition we can each use against the hoax.
Regarding “heat creep” go to this comment and read my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Your “reply” is not addressing the Venus question, and anyway I have provided the data used in my study of 15 locations (not just one !!!!!!!) so you can check the data on line or spend a day selecting your own locations with similar selection procedures, such as being at least 100Km from a large body of water. Don’t forget to adjust for altitude!
Now answer the Venus question, because that’s the next step in my teaching process, and you sure need correct teaching to undo all the brainwashing you’ve endured.
The Venus issue is dealt by with the atmospheric mass hypothesis with its convective overturning resulting in adiabatic warming of descending air masses.
As far as I recall the atmospheric mass hypothesis was the consensus science before the radiative hypothesis came to the fore.
My contributions here merely point out that using the old atmospheric mass concept in relation to climate change explains why the models based on the flawed radiative hypothesis are failing to acquire any predictive skill.
Unfortunately, climate science was taken over by those who knew something about radiative physics but nothing about meteorology so their conclusions and expectations went awry from the outset.
No it’s not precisely described by atmospheric mass. You need to explain energy transfers in keeping with te Second Law.
The energy is delivered only in the upper troposphere and above by the Sun. We know the surface warms when the Sun shines and cools at night, as it must. You have to explain how that new thermal energy gets to a much hotter region and you need to do so ensuring that entropy does not decrease. The solution to the dilemma is here.
You see, Stephen, you can’t just generalize with wishy-washy statements about atmospheric mass. Yes I’m the first to agree that gravity plays a role, as is obvious in my paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures published February 2013 after an initial version late 2012.
High pressure is not what causes and maintains high temperatures. The cause is gravity. Gravity forms a state with maximum entropy (thus a stable state) which has a density gradient and a temperature gradient. The pressure gradient is just a corollary because pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature.
And you can’t just assume that atmospheric turbulence does the job. In calm conditions, there is no such thing as a rising or falling parcel of air, because there is nothing to stop molecules escaping through any imaginary boundaries for such a parcel. Unless you discuss maximum entropy production you have no idea as to whether or not your conjecture is keeping within the requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I see no such discussion of entropy in your writings, Stephen, whereas it is the cornerstone of my hypothesis.
In a nutshell, it’s mot about rising and falling parcels of air: it’s about actual heat transfers that are transferring actual new energy from the Sun. The Sun doesn’t even come into your writings, Stephen, so you don’t show why the Venus surface warming coincides with the sunlit period.
geran,
I think your comments are sometimes funny and clever. Not sure what your point on the topic is. Yes for sure the sun is the source of the vast amount of atmospheric energy, no sun only a trickle of energy moving up from the inner Earth.
I am thinking you do not accept the GHE.
Yes Norman, I do NOT accept GHE. Sorry if my juvenile comments confuse you. I try to behave, but it gets harder with age. (That’s what she said.)
See.
geran,
Thanks for the laugh. I like your posts but I also like to learn. If you do not accept the GHE theory I would like to hear the reasons behind it and what you think is going on with the radiation balance.
You have the radiation hypothesis (accepted by most scientist)
You have the atmospheric mass hypothesis
You have Doug’s “heat creep” (unfounded and untested)
I can learn things from all the various views so I am wondering what ideas you have on it. If you have none that is okay. You have amusing posts regardless of your scientific view.
Norman,
The IPCC GHE “science” is bogus. They claim the Earth is supposed to be at an average temperature of 255K. (I’m assuming you can convert temps, but if not, 255K = 18ºC, 65ºF.)
They arrive at the 255K temp by perverting the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Because the average global temp is nowhere near that value, they claim mankind is warming the planet. Hence, the concocted “GHE”.
The IPCC GHE theory is so seriously flawed that anyone can poke holes in it. Hence, we see some people writing books, challenging the false GHE, but using more false science.
I think this is where we say “We live in interesting times”.
Norman, 255K = -18ºC, or 0.7ºF.
(Trying to watch TV, and talking to the wife and commenting seldom works….)
You’ll find more on the Venus dilemma here and when you can answer the question about the energy transfers into the Venus surface correctly all your doubts will be removed as the penny drops.
Norman,
The core of the Earth is around 5000K. The TOA is around 4K.
The surface is between these extremes. In the absence of sunlight, what should the surface temperature be? 1000 K? 100K? 288K?
Influence of GHGs on the surface temperature? A little cooler during the day, a little warmer during the night. Insulation works both ways. Enjoy.
No – a little cooler at night also. Water vapor reduces both the mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures. See the study in the Appendix here.
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
Mike,
In the absence of sunlight, the earth’s surface would cool toward 2.7 K. The core would also cool toward 2.7K. Of course, this would take a LONG time.
Under current conditions, the geothermal heat flux is ~ 0.1 W/m^2, which would be a temperature of ~ 35 K. (Higher above geologically active areas; lower over geologically quiet ares.)
Tim Folkerts,
Indeed. Now how much heat is required to heat a body from 35K to 288K? Less than that from 0K, as I propose?
If you disagree, I suggest that heating water to 100 C from 99 C requires less energy than starting at
0 C. So, no GHE. None, as you eloquently point out, although this may not have been your initial intent.
You see my point. Even in the absence of sunlight, the Earths surface temp is not 0K. The effect of the Sun is merely to slow the relentless progress of the Earth cooling to 4 K or so. I believe we are in agreement to this point.
Mike, I have to admit to being mystified by your comments. Perhaps you could restate them in a more mathematical form.
“Now how much heat is required to heat a body from 35K to 288K? Less than that from 0K, as I propose?”
Well, yes. If we sum/integrate Q = mcΔT from 0K to 288K it will be larger than the same sum/integral from 35K to 288K. So what?
“I suggest that heating water to 100 C from 99 C requires less energy than starting at 0 C.”
Sure. Same reason. And again, so what?
“Even in the absence of sunlight, the Earths surface temp is not 0K. The effect of the Sun is merely to slow the relentless progress of the Earth cooling to 4 K or so. “
No. The earth’s surface has been warmer in the past (age of dinosaurs); the earth’s surface has bee cooler (ice ages). So there is no “relentless progress” (at least not until the sun burns out in 5 billion years or so).
The earth’s surface tends toward whatever temperature will balance the heat flows. If the sun provides 168 W/m^2 of average power to the earth, then the surface will warm or cool until it can shed 168 W/m^2 on average. (Of course, each individual location will separately be trying to reach its own balance, warming and cooling as days and seasons progress.)
“So, no GHE. None, as you eloquently point out”
This is where you completely lost me. The GHE is about (quasi)steady-state heat flows not about heat capacity.
Regarding the “heat creep” process, go to this comment and read my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I’m still waiting for anyone (silent readers included) to answer this question about energy input into the Venus surface – a question which no one on any climate blog has answered in over two years in any way other than what is in my 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science.
Plenty have answered; you just have ignored any replies which do not agree with your ridiculous model, which is all of them.
Then what did they explain?
Oh, and, Slippery, we also found that force fields like gravity do in fact create a temperature gradient, because we found that experiments with centrifugal force do develop such temperature gradients.
We also found with experiments and data (like that region mentioned above where the temperature was constant all night long) that Roy’s conjecture about continuous cooling at the same rate all through the night is wrong too.
Are you left with anything you’d like to put forward to back your horse, namely the fraudulent fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology?
You see Slipstick, you think they answered the question about Venus because you did not read the question carefully, and neither did they. The question relates to why the surface temperature actually rises by 5 degrees in the sunlit period. That requires a net energy input Slipstick, and that net input cannot possibly come via radiation from the less-hot troposphere of Venus, now can it? That would indeed violate the Second Law, Slipstick, because radiation does not transfer thermal energy that way – it goes the other way, Slipstick. Radiation is cooling the Venus surface, day and night, Slipstick. So what exactly is warming it, and why does the cooling happen at night? (That’s an easy one.) How and why and by what heat transfer process does the surface rise in temperature when the Sun shines but only delivers to the Venus surface about 10% of the radiative flux that it delivers to Earth’s surface.
“so what exactly is warming it?”
You know what’s warming it Doug, so why are you asking everybody else? It’s all that “downward thermal diffusion”,”downward convective heat transfer” and “heat creep” from the atmosphere(s)as a result of gravity that’s maintaining the surface temp of Venus and all the other planets right down to their cores, in your new 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science.
By the way you persist in persecuting Roy and everybody with this and they continually disagree..”let the silliness begin”,.. should indicate to you that your hypothesis is crackpot…and nobody seems interested in a “new paradigm of physics”. You’re the one with fizzics Dougie boy.
Doug Cotton the BOT I will see how your program responds.
I have already pointed this out but it does not change the program (Real Doug Cotton you may need to tweek your BOT a bit to update its files).
Venus Surface does not go up 5C during the day!!! You read the article you found this information in incorrectly (as you do with all science material). The 5 C is at the top of the troposphere NOT the surface. Repeat this sentence 10 times so that it might stick and go back and reread the article you got this information from.
I hope the real Doug Cotton will update this information so the BOT uses it correctly in its interaction with humans.
Mack: It only takes one to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics (on which what I say is based) to be wrong. Just try!
Next time talk physics and I will respond. But I rather doubt that you are qualified in such.
And I suppose next thing Norman will say is that a location on the equator of Venus does not cool even a fraction of a degree in all of four months of darkness.
Doug BOT Cotton,
I would not know if Venus surface changes by a fraction of a degree or not at night. I do not think there are really good measurements of the total surface.
If you had even the slightest ability to understand things at least you would be able to grasp how the GHE is supposed to work on Venus. The IR from the surface of Venus goes up and outward, it is absorbed by the many CO2 molecules and redirected in all directions. It is a radiation fog.
Maybe because of the climate you do not have fog in Australia where you live. On a very foggy day where I live you cannot distint light and darker areas in the fog even though the intial visible radiation pattern would have lighter and darker material if no fog were present. The fog smears the light out into a uniform nature. On Venus it is similar with the radiation. The radiation moves extremely fast (around 300,000 km/sec). It is smeared out in all directions and contact points so it will uniform the surface temperature and then you get the same temp on the daylight/night side and equator/pole (at least on the surface).
When you think of downwelling IR think of it as a fog and not a stream. It can’t be focused. And it becomes very uniform and smeared out.
Norman writes: “I would not know if Venus surface changes by a fraction of a degree or not at night.”
Well you would know if you understood thermodynamics. Even Roy’s calculations in this post should give you some idea that no planet’s atmosphere is a 100.000000000000% perfect insulator.
No Norman, the fact is that I have a very clear understanding of what they claim about GH effects on Earth and Venus, and I also understand the difference between what they claim and what correct physics tells us. Such correct (21st Century) physics is reviewed in my 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
Radiation from the less-hot Venus troposphere cannot transfer any thermal energy what-so-ever to the hotter surface.
All thermal energy transfers go the other way and are quantified by the area between the Planck functions. If you think you can prove Nobel Prize winner Max Planck wrong then go and make him turn in his grave.
In regard to the “heat creep” process, go to this comment and read my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Sad to say, Slipstick, but you’re backing the wrong horse. We proved upthread that, because Foehn winds get warmer as they get drier, it follows that, if we increase water vapor, we get cooling. That’s the exact opposite of what the greenhouse hoax claims.
The cooling is from evaporation. While a thermal process, it is peripheral and unrelated to the GHE. Cripes, the more you write, the farther removed from reality your model becomes.
Well go and edit Wikipedia and tell me when your edit sticks …
A Föhn or Foehn is a type of dry, warm, down-slope wind that occurs in the lee (downwind side) of a mountain range.
Föhn can be initiated when deep low pressures move into Europe drawing moist Mediterranean air over the Alps.
It is a rain shadow wind that results from the subsequent adiabatic warming of air that has dropped most of its moisture on windward slopes (see orographic lift). As a consequence of the different adiabatic lapse rates of moist and dry air, the air on the leeward slopes becomes warmer than equivalent elevations on the windward slopes. Föhn winds can raise temperatures by as much as 32 °C (58 °F)[1] in just a matter of minutes. Central Europe enjoys a warmer climate due to the Föhn, as moist winds off the Mediterranean Sea blow over the Alps.
And once again a Spencer thread has devolved into a meaningless tussle between Cotton and All.
Can people please stop feeding this particular troll …!?
Kristian,
You are completely right. If people ignore the BOT it runs out of steam but it is designed to attack and provoke to get a reaction. It is still useful to post against it as it helps people who never studied physics learn about it. Many links are provided for the interested. I think in the long run it is still useful as a means of education.
I kind of like to see how the BOT will react to different posts. I know it is a BOT when you confront it with some point it can’t answer it defaults to Venus. Human would not be this ridiculous and would attempt to answer the point in the post.
Kristian: Silent readers will realize that you are apparently unable to produce a refutation based on physics, as I requested in this comment.
Aw, where’s the fun in that? My favorite upstream comment was where he asserted that downward directed atmospheric radiation doesn’t carry energy to the surface. He lambasts Joe Postma himself upthread, but guess who is the most prominent proponent of this sort of nonsense? Postma!
I myself tend to think in terms of the Poynting vector, where downward directed radiation carries radiative flux into the surface, period. There is also upward directed radiation from the surface going out into the atmosphere. Both terms have to be included in any treatment of energy flow in a radiatively open system, and of course both terms are included in any correct treatment of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which predicts the net rate of radiative energy transfer between two blackbody surfaces on the basis of the temperatures of both surfaces.
But they hate like poison using the word “net”, or acknowledging in any way that there is energy flow from the colder surface back to the warmer surface — it is just not as big is the flow the other way so the effect is net cooling. If they did, they’d have to acknowledge that interpolating a layer of any sort of passive blackbody in between the two would slow the rate of transfer from the original warmer surface to the original colder surface, or (in the event that the system is open and the warmer surface is being warmed and the cooler surface is being cooled) even cause the dynamic equilibrium temperature of the warmed surface to increase.
These are literally textbook problems in thermodynamics. At no point is the second law violated (as one can easily demonstrate by simply computing what entropy does in steady state or during the relaxation process). The equations one writes are the first law.
The really silly thing isn’t this, though. It is that everybody persists in thinking that they can solve the Navier-Stokes equations for the coupled Earth-Ocean system heuristically in their heads. Seriously? You can just look at this enormously complex system and immediately make absurd claims about e.g. the radiative physics that is essential to understanding both the incoming and outgoing net heat flow and then just integrate out all of the latent heat and bulk heat and radiative heat transfers in your head and prove beyond any doubt that CO_2 net warms, net cools, stands on its head and sings that national anthem?
All I can say is I doubt it, sir, I very much doubt it. I don’t even think that computer programs written to do just that are capable of solving the problem (by some 30 orders of magnitude resolution in the coarse grained dynamics).
What one can say is this:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Toft-CO2-PDO.jpg
If one simply fits a two parameter model (one of them the irrelevant “zero” of the anomaly) to HadCRUT4 from 1850 to the present against a very reasonable smooth model for atmosphere CO_2 concentration, the simple no-feedback prediction of all things equal temperature as a log function of CO_2 concentration fits the data with tremendous explanatory power. The purely for grins sinusoidal term (for grins because it has no simple physical basis and almost certainly won’t hindcast and could quit forecasting at any time; IMO likely a transient chaotic mode associated with the decadal oscillations) improves the fit from good to spectacular with two more parameters.
The good news — the estimated climate sensitivity from the fit is around 1.8 C — probably not catastrophic by 2100 even in the worst case CO_2 scenario (the pessimistic curve is pretty close to RCP 8.5). The better news. There is little to no evidence of feedbacks good or bad from water vapor or aerosols, and the range of all unexplained dynamics is order of 0.1 C around the trend.
How seriously should one take this fit? Not too seriously. For one thing, HadCRUT4 probably has thumbs on the scales, sadly. The error estimates (actually displayed on this curve, for once) are absurd. There is literally no way in hell that our knowledge of global average temperature, or the global average temperature anomaly, in the year 1850 was only half as precise as it was in 2014. One end or the other is simply wrong, and one has to think it is the 1850 end. If one double, or perhaps triples, the error bars (as is probably very reasonable) then no fit and no conclusion is going to be particularly meaningful.
For another I do have to model on top of a model for CO_2 pre-1950 (although note well this model almost perfectly matches Mauna Loa from where the ML data starts to the present, visible as color shifts on the curve). The model more or less matches ice core data on the far end but ice core data has substantial uncertainties as a proxy for global average CO_2. In fact, since HadCRUT4 is itself a model — otherwise it is impossible to fill in all those enormous blank spaces of Terra Incognita in the 19th and early 20th century — this is a model of a model fit to a model. I hate that sort of thing myself, so feel free to be hatin’ on it too. My feelings won’t be hurt.
However, taken at face value as at least a direct comparison between the bone-simple predictions of greenhouse warming due to measured CO_2 in the atmosphere and the actual measured (well or badly, as you like), it does not support the assertion that all-things-equal, CO_2 cools the planet. It does not support the assertion that CO_2 is neutral. It does support the assertion that CO_2 differentially warms the planet, that adding it raises the most probable mean temperature. It quantitatively supports the simplest possible radiative model for this process. It offers little support for those that would assert massive feedbacks. It offers moderate support for significant long time scale dynamics at works in addition to CO_2, and consequently it has enormous uncertainty in its assertion of equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Note well that this model contains no lags whatsoever, and hence provides no evidence whatsoever for “uncommitted warming” due to CO_2. There is no capacitative lag visible in the underlying sinusoidal oscillation as CO_2 increases by 1/3! This is not conclusive evidence agains uncommitted warming by any means, but it gives us little reason to think that there is any, especially given the large fluctuations around the mean which one would not expect to regress if there was “uncommitted warming” present. IMO the earth oscillates around detailed balance with at most a weak bias as CO_2 increases and with at most a very weak net positive feedback from all other things. But the unknowns in the possible natural variation are enormous and hence even though the fit is lovely, the 1.8 C ECS is not to be taken too seriously. It is probably precise/accurate enough to exclude being negative, but little more can be said about it.
If Mr. Cotton, or anybody else, wants to post a similarly simple one or two parameter a posteriori model that can describe the last 165 years of data equally simply and that is consistent with the actual physics of the atmosphere including radiation, I’d love to see it.
Yes I’ve done that at http://climate-change-theory.com
Regarding “simply computing what entropy does in steady state” entropy does not change in the state of maximum entropy which is called thermodynamic equilibrium. In such a “steady” state in an isolated system there is no further net transfer of matter of energy across any internal boundary. That’s what we get when the process of maximum entropy production (as per the Second Law) causes there to be a stable density gradient in a planet’s troposphere. That state has no unbalanced energy potentials, so mean molecular (PE+KE) is homogeneous, meaning it has a temperature gradient. You cannot prove me wrong on this without disregarding the Second Law..
Sorry typo: there is no further net transfer of matter or energy across any internal boundary.
It was fun sitting back with a bag of popcorn for the last day or so, enjoying the entertainment as all the proponents of ‘non-standard’ (to be charitable) theories were arguing with each other. 🙂
*******************************************************
Unfortunately, not feeding them doesn’t work. For a few days, no one was responding to Doug, but he was still providing long missives extolling his theory.
And still you can’t prove the physics I have based on the Second Law to be wrong. You just want it to be, and feel you have to write meaningless unscientific comments like the above, because the truth is that you can’t prove me wrong.
Robert Brown writes: he asserted that downward directed atmospheric radiation doesn’t carry energy to the surface.
I said “thermal” energy. Don’t misquote!
That is proven by a professor of Applied Mathematics in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation“ which you should study some day.
And Robert Brown then writes …
of course both terms are included in any correct treatment of the Stefan-Boltzmann law
Well if you do that, then you can “prove” that the exposed rocks at the top of Mt Everest should be over 100°C on a clear day around 22 June when the Sun is at an angle of inclination of about 86°. The calculations are in an earlier comment of mine.
Go to this question you haven’t answered Kristian.
Hi Geran,
you wrote: “The IPCC GHE theory is so seriously flawed that anyone can poke holes in it.”
I agree, it seems that the more I read the less I know about it.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
These threads on GHE are a testament to the biases that each person brings to the argument. It is amazing how many PhDs can fundamentally disagree on something so fundamental to the entire AGW argument.
Whether it is radiative flux calculations or convection vs. IR debates, it seems people come to the debate with preconceived views on the issue.
It seems there should be a base level set of facts to drive the debate first, and then the calculations/mechanisms supporting it can be further parsed.
FACTS
All meaningful energy input for the system comes from the sun (aside from some minimal geo-thermal)
All energy output is from radiation to space
While the measured input and output may vary on short intervals, these two processes are in balance over some long cycle (let’s say five hundred years)
With this base level set of facts, the question is really about the distribution of this energy and its movement throughout the system. Yet, unless input changes or output changes, the earth will exhibit a nominally consistent temperature. Thus, an argument that we are .6 warmer or -.2 cooler for a given day, month, year, decade, century is meaningless.
Now where can this energy be distributed? It can be in the ocean, captured by carbon life forms, evaporating, melting ice, and countless other places.
Regardless of where it is, it is measured thermally, and is dependent on the thermal capacity of the matter that is absorbing and emitting it.
Across the entire earth system, what is the thermal capacity of CO2? Almost meaningless measured against the atmosphere and completely meaningless against the thermal capacity of rocks, plants, oceans, etc…
The argument that we are 33C warmer because of GHE seems to ignore thermal capacity and the lack of change in the emission to space.
Since CO2 is one of the best molecules for IR absorption and emission, and since radiative emission is the only way energy leaves the system. How can its role be catastophic? The massive effort and waste of the world in controlling the increase in a trace gas of from .03 to .04 of the atmosphere is an exercise in futility. We may as well be sacrificing virgins on the top of Incan temples.
“FACTS
…. these two processes are in balance over some long cycle (let’s say five hundred years)
The whole idea of long-term Global Warming is that these processes are NOT in balance over the long term. Thus you are starting with a “fact” that is not true!
If a little CO2 is added to the atmosphere at some point in time, the predicted effect is that more CO2 at the cool top of the atmosphere will radiate less energy than the slightly warmer CO2 a little lower had been radiating before. Since the energy entering is hte same, but the energy leaving is reduced, the whole system will warm. Eventually it will settle in to NEW, warmer steadystate, where “these two processes are in balance over some long cycle”.
But “these two processes” are balanced differently than before. In particular, the outward energy will be a combination of LESS radiation from the cooler top-of-atmosphere and MORE radiation from the WARMER surface. These two will add to equal the incoming solar energy. The processes will not revert somehow back to the original conditions, with surface temperatures where they were before adding the extra CO2.
Tim,
I replied to a comment of yours rather high upthread, but re-post it here, since the original might be difficult to locate:
– – –
Tim, you (and Spencer) are entirely correct, of course. If you keep the heat INPUT to an object constant and then reduce its heat OUTPUT, the object will warm, no doubt. That’s what insulation does.
Defining the ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ (rGHE) in this way, we see that the rGHE at Earth’s global surface has strongly weakened since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_surface_net_longwave_flux-all-sky_032000to092014.png
The global surface has strengthened its ability to cool through radiation by about 1.5 W/m2 on average.
All the while, global OHC has increased quite significantly …
Funny, don’t you think?
Hi Kristian,
do your already read this?:
http://www.ears.nl/user_files/04-Rosema_b.pdf
They concluded that “…cloudiness changes could be the mechanism behind the observed global cooling since 1982: an increase in cloudiness would decrease global radiation and increase rainfall and evapotranspiration. Both effects tend to decrease the surface
temperature.”
Have a nice day.
Massimo
FTOP says: “It is amazing how many PhDs can fundamentally disagree on something so fundamental to the entire AGW argument.”
I don’t see any PhD’s disagreeing on it (at least PhD’s in qualified fields). Sure, if you look at the entire world, you might be able to find a few, but you can find a few nuts anywhere!
There is as much disagreement on this as there is disagreement on whether the Earth is less or greater than 10,000 years old.
The actual fact is that PhD’s (Robert Brown, Tim Folkerts, myself, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Fred Singler) who violently disagree on the seriousness of AGW nonetheless all agree about the basic reality and operation of the greenhouse effect.
So all those listed believe that sunlight delivers less energy to the surface than trapping and reflecting of IR emissions from the surface as outlined in Trenberth’s energy budget?
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/graphics/EarthsEnergyBalance.png
Well, I haven’t asked each of them that actual question (I suppose the ones actually here can weigh in), but I don’t see why they wouldn’t. That may seem counter-intuitive to a layperson, but I don’t think it is particularly so to a scientist with decent training in physics.
And, it can in principle be understood by a layperson. For example, if we were to get to 90% recycling rate for aluminum and we used, say, a million tons of aluminum per year, we could have 900000 tons come from recycling aluminum and just 100000 tons from virgin bauxite ore. That doesn’t mean that all of the aluminum didn’t originally come from bauxite…Just like it doesn’t mean that all the energy in Trenberth’s diagram (modulo a small amount generated by, say, nuclear decay in the Earth) didn’t originally come from the sun.
@ Roy
What happens to the heat of vaporization when the “Water in a vacuum evaporates explosively” in the atmosphere? It has to do something!
What happens to the temperature of the atmosphere by the change in enthalpy when water vapor is ionized by the electromagnet energy that it receives from the Sun, Solar system, Universe, etc? {look at the spectrum of the Sun and the graphs showing that very little of the energy the Sun that hit the atmosphere reaches the earth.) E.g., Essentially none, i.e., very little, of the Sun’s X-ray, Ultra violet, radiation reaches the earth. WHERE DOES THAT ENERGY GO if it does not reach the earth (ground) but impacts the atmosphere?
What happens to the temperature of the atmosphere by the change in enthalpy when ALL of the various elements in the atmosphere (O2, Co2, H20, N2, etc., etc.) are ionized, vaporized by electromagnet energy from the Sun, Solar system, etc.
Why is all the discussion about Light and IR energy? Are the climatologists claiming that the majority of the energy released by the SUN is visible, near visible or IR? That just can not be possible!!! How can they ignore the rest of the energy? The rest of that energy, even though not reaching the ground, ocean has to do something to the atmosphere as it is adsorbed. A 100 watt UV lamp can give you a skin burn in minutes. Radio-wave heating can melt iron/steel. A friend of mine has a patent on a radio wave soldering tool. It will sweat solder copper pipes in seconds. What is happening to all of the rest of the Suns energy?
I think the AGW group has a few holes in their equations.
First of all, let’s consider the facts:
http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/sun_page.html
In particular, look at the Solar Radiation Spectrum in this nice document. You will see that a whole lot of the energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere reaches the surface of the earth. You will also note that that not only do “climatologists” claim that the majority of solar energy that reaches the top of the atmosphere already carries over 90% of its energy in the visible and longer wavelengths, so does everybody else because it is an observational fact.
If you were serious about understanding what happens to the rest and not just agitating for a political position in ignorance, you can easily read about the Earth’s atmosphere. There you will learn that most of the ionizing radiation is (fortunately) absorbed by the very high, thin layers of the atmosphere, the thermosphere and the ionosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
There the gases do indeed get damn hot! 2500 C! Sadly, they are at such a low pressure that if you were thrown out of a rocket ship in the thermosphere you would freeze to death as your blood boiled away.
The stratosphere is the layer where the temperature profile of the atmosphere has a minimum. It is warmer all the way to the ground in the troposphere. It is warmer all or most of the way to space. The Tropopause (in between) is complicated. It is maintained by a mix of convection sustaining the DALR and radiation as the atmosphere becomes thin enough to no longer strongly absorb IR in the GHG bands.
The spectrograph above is very instructive, though, because it shows the relative fractions of the radiation that reaches the ground, not just the radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Obviously it is evaluated on some sort of average basis as well — it isn’t going to describe both a dry mid-day in the Sahara and the middle of a hurricane out in the Atlantic. But you can easily see the differential absorption holes that are the basis of the greenhouse effect.
most of the heat from the sun reaches the surface in visible through near IR, where there is comparatively little resonant absorption by atmospheric molecules. Radiation from the Earth’s surface, however, is at a temperature of only 300 or so degrees (not 6000 or so degrees). It peaks at around 10 microns, which isn’t even on the scale of the graph above. Well inside its blackbody spectrum, the atmosphere has major absorptive holes due to (dominantly) water vapor, then carbon dioxide, then ozone (IIRC) with everything else put together nearly irrelevant.
The bulk of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the surface from wavelengths where the atmosphere is mostly transparent. It is radiated away in wavelengths where a significant and variable fraction is absorbed by the atmosphere which both warms the atmosphere and slows the rate of heat loss of the surface where it is closely coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere. The lapse rate does the rest.
This is by no means all that goes on, and I can’t solve the Navier-Stokes equation for the planet in my head either to tell you exactly what fraction of the mean surface temperature anomaly over the greybody termperature the Earth would have if it were a perfectly absorbing/emitting/conducting blackbody comes from what specific mechanism. In a chaotic system I’m not even certain that the latter is a terribly meaningful way to think of things. But to the extent that one can isolate specific processes in a tighly coupled system, increased CO_2 concentration is very reasonably expected to increase average surface temperatures rather than cause them to fall or remain the same. But natural variations or variations from other things might — or might not — swamp the response. It’s basically impossible to precisely compute, and hence it is very difficult to say for certain.
“If you were serious about understanding what happens to the rest and not just agitating for a political position in ignorance, you can easily read about the Earth’s atmosphere. There you will learn that most of the ionizing radiation is (fortunately) absorbed by the very high, thin layers of the atmosphere, the thermosphere and the ionosphere:”
That I am aware of and that is what I a trying to find out about. And again you dismiss it as being non-consequential. That just does not seem possible. AGW “theory” claims that 0.04% of the atmosphere and the energy it releases has more of an effect than 99.06% of the atmosphere and all of the energy that it is effected by. The potential energy is unknown and the desire to determine it is nonexistent.
Please explain how a gas occupying 0.04 % of the atmosphere can have more of an effect than all of the rest of the energy radiated by the Sun (that is dismmissed as minor or has no effect or does not reach the ground, etc., etc., etc. ) on all of the rest of the elements, gases, vapors, and ions in the atmosphere and the ground/ocean.
The various “Black Body” charts that I have seen ONLY describe the effects of solar radiation between (about) 250 to 2500 nm in length. I have tried and have been unable to find a blackbody chart for the rest of the energy given off by the Sun. I have been told that the BB radiation/adsorption was based on visible and near visible light, in looking for the characteristics for the rest of the energy radiated by the Sun, I have learned that the black body characteristics were originally determined by heating up a black ball to the desired temperature and that it does not/will not work for the rest of the Suns energy radiation spectrum. Please explain to me how that BB model works for X-rays and the UHF, VHF, HF, LW radio waves? Could you please direct me to one that describes these?
Here is a chart of Earths Atmospheric Opacity for you to look at that describes my problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)#/media/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg
You will notice that the typical BB chart of adsorption/emission chart does not cover the area from 0.0001 n, (and shorter) to 100 nm OR from 2500 nm to 1,000 meters (and longer). (See link) The BB chart only deals with about 1/3 of a chart that is actually a logarithmic chart and actually much wider.
I know it must have some effect as even the simplest “Geiger counter”` provides 30 to 100 counts per minute with less than 4 square inches of surface area and that is just X-rays. That is over 200 X-rays per minute per square foot. That is an energy source that got through the Spectrum that the chart you referred to me indicates has 0.00 effect, 100% adsorption in the atmosphere. Are you claiming that ~ 200 hits per minute across every square foot of the earth has no net heating effect? And that the adsorption by the atmosphere of all of those X-rays that did not get through the atmosphere has no effect on decreasing the amount of radiation by the earth back into space? And the same is true for ALL the other solar and cosmic particles and radiation absorbed in the atmosphere has NO effect on decreasing the amount of radiation by the earth back into space? You already admitted it heats the outer atmosphere so it must do something.
Then there are the Radio waves. I can stretch a length of wire between two trees and it will intercept 0.05 mv of signal radiated from Saturn, in the 10 mHz wavelength (I limit to this so that you do not claim it is from the local AM/FM radio transmitter). 0.05 mv x 50 ohm = 2.5 mw. All of that energy is eventually absorbed in the ground/ocean. So what effect does this and ALL of the other radio waves emitted by the sun, solar system, etc. have. It can not possibly be ZERO as I have just provided you with a FACT that is verifiable for just ONE frequency on just one piece of wire.
What does the totally of the rest of the Sun’s energy brushed off as not reaching the ground/ocean have?
Robert G Brown said:
“The bulk of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the surface from wavelengths where the atmosphere is mostly transparent. It is radiated away in wavelengths where a significant and variable fraction is absorbed by the atmosphere which both warms the atmosphere and slows the rate of heat loss of the surface where it is closely coupled to the temperature of the atmosphere. The lapse rate does the rest.”
The absorption by the atmosphere is primarily by conduction and convection from the surface and would occur even with no GHGs at all because uneven surface heating would still cause density differentials in the horizontal plane leading to convective overturning.
The fraction absorbed via conduction and convection is indeed variable and it is that variability which negates the thermal effect of downward radiation.
If GHGs are added to a non GHG atmosphere then to the extent that they radiate directly to space from within the atmosphere they reduce the amount of energy returning to the surface in adiabatic descent.
That reduction in energy returning to the surface in adiabatic descent matches the amount of radiation sent back to the surface by the same GHGs.
Net thermal effect at the surface is zero without needing to deny the presence of downward radiation.
RGB sees that the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere by non radiative means is variable. Convection varies as necessary to arrange that.
The reality is that such absorbed energy varies oppositely to variations in downward radiation.
With no GHGs all energy tasken up in adiabatic ascent is returned to the surface in adiabatic descent.
Adding GHGs allows leakage of energy to space from within the convective overturning so that less returns on the descent than goes up in the ascent.
The thermal effect of downward radiation to the surface is therefore negated.
The absorption by the atmosphere is primarily by conduction and convection from the surface and would occur even with no GHGs at all because uneven surface heating would still cause density differentials in the horizontal plane leading to convective overturning.
I’m curious that you would say this. Not that conduction and convection are factors, but that you state that they are the primary factors. I would expect that conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation all make important contributions and that one cannot possibly do anything like a quantitatively correct analysis without including all four because none of them are negligible in considering the processes that establish approximate detailed balance with the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and ocean at an obviously rather variable spatiotemporal temperature distribution.
I don’t think anybody rational would argue that surface warming doesn’t heat the atmosphere and that the heated atmosphere does not expand and destabilize, creating convective patterns at all length scales larger than the Kolmogorov scale, nor that a large scale effect of this process is not carrying energy in many forms aloft where it is eventually lost via radiation (possibly after several intermediary steps such as latent heat transformations). But then, nobody rational would argue that there isn’t a substantial fraction of the energy of the surface of the Earth that isn’t radiated from that surface and almost immediately absorbed by the air due to the coupling with GHGs. Which is a good thing because air is a lousy conductor of heat and radiation extends the volume of “contact with the ground” much farther than conduction/convection would on their own.
It is also — in my opinion — silly to assert that the net thermal effect at the surface is zero, or that the energy going out from the surface due to radiation “matches” the energy being returned by adiabatic descent. For one thing, they aren’t even happening at the same place or at the same time. They are part of completely distinct (although coupled) self-organized processes. Asserting that you “know” that they balance is once again tantamount to asserting that you can solve the Navier-Stokes equations for the coupled Earth-Atmosphere-Ocean system on an irregular terrain covering a spinning, tipped planet eccentrically orbiting a somewhat variable star, and no, you can’t. Neither can I. You cannot even state that it is probable that this is true, or plausible that this is true. It almost certainly is, if anything, not true. It would be somewhat surprising if it were true. Your argument completely ignores the ocean, latent heat transfer, the variability of albedo, the procession of the seasons, the substantial variation in insolation at the TOA (which everybody does, naturally, ignore in these discussions because trying to explain a 90 W/m^2 annual variation that countervaries with global average temperature is so pesky troublesome when you are trying to get people to fear a 1-2 W/m^2 variation due to CO_2).
You know, it might be worthwhile to respect the difficulty of the climate problem instead of asserting that it is definitely this, or definitely that. IMO it is not only unsolvable, but laughably unsolvable, given our current state of knowledge and resources. We’re doing the moral equivalent of trying to explain the periodic table in the complete absence of chemistry data or spectrographic data or knowledge of the nucleus or any sort of quantum theory. Modern climate science is hardly better than alchemy as far as our ability to meaningfully predict things is concerned. Maybe not even that good.
And yet, everybody is convinced that they have the Philosophers’ Stone that will turn climate models or simple arguments to gold.
I doubt it.
R G Brown said:
“I would expect that conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation all make important contributions ”
There is only radiation or conduction between surface and atmosphere.
Convection and latent heat are a result of one or both. What conducts cannot be radiated and vice versa because once radiation or conduction result in convection the energy becomes potential energy which is not heat and cannot radiate. Latent heat of evaporation is just potential energy which is a by product of water vapour being lighter than air and so water vapour acquires potential energy more readily than air via enhanced uplift.
For a largely transparent atmosphere such as ours the primary method of transferring energy from surface to atmosphere is conduction.
The more radiatively opaque the atmosphere becomes the more radiation takes over from conduction.
Whatever the balance between radiation and conduction for a particular atmosphere the outcome is radiation to space equal to radiation in from space. Variable convection ensures that because energy radiated to space from within an atmosphere cannot be returned to the surface in convective descent. That reduction offsets the thermal effect of downward radiation from within the atmosphere.
The only effect of GHGs must be to reapportion radiation to space between radiation to space from within the atmosphere and radiation to space from the surface.
A non radiative atmosphere radiates 100% to space from the surface.
A fully effective radiative atmosphere radiates 100% to space from within the atmosphere.
In reality, every atmosphere is between the two extremes and the proportion of radiation to space from within the atmosphere is directly related to the radiative capability of that atmosphere.
Every other feature of our climate system can be ignored as being averaged out within the overall scheme of things.
It really is that simple.
This is getting harder and harder to follow. Let me propose writing all this with simple, concise symbols.
* Let S, LW, C, & L stand for energy transferred via Solar EM wave waves, Long Wave EM waves, Conduction, and Latent Heat.
* let s,g,a,o stand for Sun, Ground (and the rest of the surface), atmosphere, and outer space.
* combine these to indicate the type of energy, the source and the destination. Eg “SW_sg” is short wave from the sun to the ground; “C_ga” would be conduction from the surface to the atmosphere.
Trenberth provides estimates for all of these (in W/m^2).
S_sa = 67
S_sg = 168
S_so = 102
C_ga = 24
L_ga = 78
LW_go = 40
LW_ga = 26
(All other combinations are zero. We could split LW_ga = 24 into LW_ga = 350 & LW_ag = 324 if we wanted.)
**********************************************************
RGB: “The bulk of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the surface from wavelengths where the atmosphere is mostly transparent.”
Ie S_sg > S_sa, which is true.
SW: “The absorption by the atmosphere is primarily by conduction and convection from the surface”
We have now switched focus from “S_xx” to “X_xa”.
L_ga = 78
S_sa = 67
LW_ga = 26
C_ga = 24
Not only does SW seem to be wrong, he has picked the SMALLEST transfer mechanism and called it the largest!
RGB: “I would expect that conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation all make important contributions”
I’m not sure why you are “supposing this”. There are pretty good estimates from Trenberth (ie all the estimates I am presenting).
***********************************
This avoids meaningless statements or incorrect statements by forcing precise thinking. Many other statements (especially from SW) don’t seem to make sense, becasue in many cases, they are mixing two different ideas in incompatible ways (for example, by switching to energy flow WITHIN the atmosphere).
If you can’t say it in equations, you probably don’t understand it. 🙂
You have to deal with energy flows WITHIN the atmosphere for it all to fall into place.
Trenberth omits to consider the potential energy that converts to kinetic energy in descending air. He treats evapotranspiration and thermals as one way upward and out to space which is wrong.
If one recognises that the energy in evapotranspiration and thermals becomes potential energy as the air rises and so cannot be lost to space by radiation then one realises that it has to reappear as heat again in the descent.
Trenberth treats evapotranspiration and thermals as a one way heat flow upwards but that is wrong. It is a two way process.
The heat energy that goes up in convection must also come down in convection.
Having overlooked that heat energy coming out of descending air his energy budget becomes unbalanced so he ‘fixes’ it by proposing enhanced DWIR from GHGs of exactly the same amount to make the budget balance again.
The proper solution is as I have proposed.
Energy that radiates out to space from within evapotranspiration and thermals causes a reduction in heat energy returning to the surface in convective descent. That reduction offsets the thermal effect of DWIR from GHGs.
That way, the budget still balances, DWIR is taken into account and the leakage to space from radiative gases within the atmosphere is catered for.
And the surface temperature doesn’t change.
Correction to my 5.16 post.
Evapotranspiration and thermals come to 102 (78 + 24) in the Trenberth diagram and he then balances the budget by proposing that the same energy (102) radiates back down again in the form of additional DWIR.
The problem with that is that the 102 is in the form of potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.
Instead, he should show that 102 coming down again in descending air MINUS any that has radiatively leaked out to space via GHGs in the atmosphere.
That reduction (say 20) should be matched by additional DWIR but no more.
We then have 20 radiated to space and 20 radiated to the ground but no warming effect at the ground because of the reduction of 20 coming down through the descent phase of convective overturning.
THe surface receives exactly the same energy as before GHGs were introduced and stays at the same temperature BUT we have 20 more leaving to space from within the atmosphere from GHGs and 20 less leaving to space from the surface.
The reduction of 20 leaving to space from the surface is due to the shortfall between energy going up in convection and energy cominmg down in convection. That shortfall leads to the next convective cycle grabbing that 20 so that it cannot then radiate to space from the surface.
That scenario keeps the budget balanced despite radiation downward from GHGs with no additional energy available at the surface to raise temperatutre at the surface.
“If you can’t say it in equations, you probably don’t understand it. ”
Tim,
I think this one statement pretty much says it all, except I would say that if you can’t say it equations, then it also is not a theory. It is just random musings. It is really just philosphy or religion, not physical science.
Sometimes AGW skeptics say that models can give you any result that you want…and reading what Stephen Wilde writes, I can see how they get this idea, because Stephen thinks he has a model but he doesn’t. He just has a lot of physicsy-sounding words strung together.
Real mathematical models, constrained by the known laws of physics, are in fact incredibly constraining. You can’t get anything you want; in fact, you can quickly rule out lots of nice sciency-sounding descriptions as nothing but nonsense.
Also, one of the basic issues with all of Stephen’s musings is that he doesn’t even seem to understand what the question is. I.e., I see people Stephen, Doug Cotton, …) spending a lot of time and energy trying to come up with ways to warm the surface by bringing energy down to the surface. They don’t seem to understand that it is not the atmosphere-surface energy budget that is the problem; it is the top-of-the-atmosphere energy budget. I.e., it’s the budget between the Earth + atmosphere and space. (When cornered on this, Stephen will try to explain how that part works but then he descends into nonsensical claims about radiation turning into convection or convection taking some of the energy away from what would be radiated or other nonsense that violates basic known laws of physics.)
And, you really can’t get around the fact that the Earth’s surface is emitting too much radiation for that top-of-the-atmosphere budget ever to balance unless the atmosphere absorbs some of that radiation. That is the only solution…and the satellite data (i.e., Earth’s emissions from satellite) and the close agreement of that with radiative transfer calculations confirm that this is the indeed the solution that Nature has chosen.
Stephen, certainly my suggested variables are only a starting point. We could add internal energy. We could add potential energy. We could divide the atmosphere into 2 or 3 or 1000 layers. But that only INCREASES the need to write things as equations.
You STILL need to be able to write equations. And you still need to define all the quantities precisely.
One specific suggestion: energy does not have little tags saying where it came from and where it can go. For example, “heat energy that goes up in convection must also come down in convection” shows this sort of wrong thinking. It is the very nature of convection that energy is carried away and it is NOT all returned. If ALL the energy returned, then the “hot reservoir” would not be losing any energy and the circulating fluid would be a ‘perpetual motion machine”.
Joel Shore writes:
“They don’t seem to understand that it is not the atmosphere-surface energy budget that is the problem; it is the top-of-the-atmosphere energy budget.”
All TOA measurements this century show radiative balance to be within ±0.6% which is a mere ±2W/m^2 in the 340W being emitted for each square meter of the spherical surface.
Of course we need to consider the thermal energy transfers into the surface if we are to be able to explain its temperature. Whatever you think happens in the colder troposphere, it won’t affect the surface temperature unless there is sufficient inflow of energy to achieve the observed temperature and/or to increase it.
Robert, you say:
“I would expect that conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation all make important contributions and that one cannot possibly do anything like a quantitatively correct analysis without including all four because none of them are negligible in considering the processes that establish approximate detailed balance with the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and ocean at an obviously rather variable spatiotemporal temperature distribution.”
The transfer of energy from the solar-heated surface to the air above happens by way of conductive and radiant heat plus significantly through the latent heat of vaporization. These three direct energy transfers in turn make the air more buoyant (becoming less dense and rising). The internal fluid energy transport mechanism of convection/advection brings the energy up and away from the surface, making room for more energy to be transferred; a highly important process – somehow suppress convection, energy starts piling up, and you get relatively swift and substantial warming …
In other words, ‘convection’ is the mechanism that governs the bulk energy transport and hence, the temperature distribution within a fluid in a gravity field. It brings the energy from where it enters the system – at the heating end – to where it exits the system – at the cooling end. And it does so by mass transfer.
# Conduction is basically a mechanism for transferring energy (heat, Q) INTO the ‘atmosphere system’ (FROM the ‘surface system’), helping to HEAT (warm) it.
# Evaporation/condensation is also basically a mechanism for transferring energy (heat, Q) INTO the ‘atmosphere system’ (FROM the ‘surface system’), helping to HEAT (warm) it.
# Radiation is also basically a mechanism for transferring energy (heat, Q) INTO the ‘atmosphere system’ (FROM the ‘surface system’ AND the ‘Sun system’), helping to HEAT (warm) it.
But in addition, radiation is THE mechanism for transferring energy (heat, Q) OUT again of the ‘atmosphere system’ (TO the ‘space system’), helping to COOL it.
Conduction, evap/cond and radiation transfer energy TO and (in the case of the latter) FROM the atmosphere.
Convection/advection, however, basically deals with (and rules) the transport of energy WITHIN the atmosphere (internal movement of energy inside the Earth system), as a direct response to the (differential) heating/cooling of the three heat transfer mechanisms …
Radiation, for instance, essentially heats down low and cools up high, working towards steepening the temperature gradient up through the tropospheric column and thus provoking convection to speed up the energy transport between the lowermost air layers and the tropopause – strengthening surface cooling in the process.
The decline in temperature with height would still be present without GHGs.
Evaporation and condensation help to pump energy upwards for direct radiation to space from the condensate and aerosols but since it is then radiated from a higher colder location much of the energy is in potential form and cannot escape.
Then the energy converts back from potential to kinetic form during the subsequent descent at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
The only scenario that works is to have variations in the balance between energy in adiabatic ascent and energy ion adiabatic descent.
That variability in non radiative energy transport provides the balancing mechanism for any radiative energy flows within an atmosphere that seek to disrupt the stability of the system
Let’s do some college-level physics.
Suppose we have a solid sphere suspended in a vacuum The sphere is a perfect black body, and is a perfect conductor. The Sun provides about 1368 W/m^2, at TOA. If we reduce that by 30%, to account for Earth’s albedo, we get about 958 W/m^2.
So, at equilibrium, our sphere, receiving 958 W/m^2 would have a temperature of 360.5 K (84.7 ºC, 189.2 ºF), from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. This temperature would eventually be achieved if the sphere were rotating, or not rotating. At the equilibrium temperature, the sphere would be emitting 958 W/m^2, as it was absorbing 958 W/m^2.
This is basic physics, and cannot be disputed.
But, the IPCC CO2/GHE “science” divides the 958 by 4, which results in a photon flux of 239.5 W/m^2. They then use the resulting flux in the S-B equation. The temperature then calculated, by these “Nobel prize winners”, is 255 K.
In other words, they incorrectly apply the S-B equation, resulting in an incorrect value for Earth’s temperature. They then claim that the Earth is 33 ºC warmer than it “should” be, hence their CO2/GHE nonsense.
So, anyone that believes that the 255 K is a meaningful temperature is in denial of the laws of physics. The 255 K value is nonsense and belongs in the trash heap of BS (Bogus Science), along with the CO2/GHE nonsense.
They divide by 4 because at any given moment a sphere only receives one quarter of peak insolation from a point source of light by virtue of simple geometry.
Stephen, you get the geometry correct, but your radiative physics is sorely lacking.
“This is basic physics, and cannot be disputed.”
I sure hope you’re joking, geran, or else you’re making a complete fool out of yourself, for all the world to see.
Kris, do you have any science to go with the attempted ad hominem?
geran,
I do believe you are incorrect in your current understanding of how insolation works. The amount of solar energy hitting a flat circle the same diameter as the Earth is how much energy per meter is available. This circle would receive 1300 watt’s/meter^2 or so. A sphere receives the same amount of energy as the circle but the area is much larger so the watts/meter^2 is less. Same exact energy hits both but one has much more area so the energy per unit area is going to be less.
Here is a link which does include actual measured values of insolation, the llnk also has equations you can use to check up on the reasoning behind the values.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/ideas/Insolation.html
Might be worth your time to read through it.
Norman, you make the same mistake as most. The S-B equation relates an EXACT flux with temperature. You do not get to adjust that flux, lest you invalidate the S-B law. The S-B law is well defined and well tested. There is little doubt about it. That is why it is called a “LAW”.
If the sphere confuses you, consider the exact same conditions as above, only substitute a flat square, perpendicular to the flux. The square will heat to the S-B temperature of 958 W/m^2 (360.5 K).
Now, divide the square into 4 different equal squares. Do you then divide the flux by 4, to apply the S-B equation?
(The correct answer if NO!)
geran,
I am not completely clear in what you are communicating. The S-B Law relates to a Black Body emitting radiation (this law has nothing to do with how much energy a surface receives…if a BB surface is a a certain temperature, it will have a flux based upon the S-B equation).
Here for a refresher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
This law will not determine how much energy a surface receives.
This may help you understand the situation. A thought experiment.
You can fly to these two worlds. Both black bodies and the same distance from the star. There is no atmosphere on either. One is a sphere and the other a flat disc facing the star. Neither rotates.
If you visit the disk you will experience “high noon” on any place you visit on the light side. If you measure the flux it is the same on every spot you visit. Now if you visit the sphere you have high noon at the nadir but if you go along the sphere you will be getting less flux as you move away from high noon. Does this help?
You can go outside in early morning or sunset to understand how solar insolation on a sphere varies depending upon where you are at on the sphere. I hope you really think on this because your thinking is currently wrong and it will not benefit your understanding. Keep reading about it and it will become clear to you after consideration. The scientists are not as stupid as so many believe.
I think too few have actually taken science courses to really understand how much thinking and work really goes on behind the science scenes to get the information you read.
Keep and open mind about things to go along with your sense of humor.
Norman says “I am not completely clear in what you are communicating.”
**************
Let me help—The IPCC’s calculation of Earth’s temperature is incorrect. (See explanation above.)
The rest of your comment appears to be either a rambling “red herring”, incoherent, or wrong.
Example: “This law will not determine how much energy a surface receives.”
So, you believe photons cannot be absorbed, huh? (Sheeeesh, I’ll be glad when we get farther from April 1st….)
geran,
You make this claim: “So, you believe photons cannot be absorbed, huh?”
Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion from what I posted. If you reread the post you would not find rambling but an attempt that you might understand why a flat plate and as sphere will have a different flux.
Both surfaces receive exactly the same amount of energy the sphere is not receiving more.
The equations:
Area of a circle = (Pi)(r^2)
Area of a sphere = 4(Pi)(r^2)
Make the radius 10 units.
In this case area of circle = 314.16 square units
In this case area of sphere = 1256.64 square units
In the case of a point source illuminating only one side of the circle you will only expose half the sphere so divide the value by 2 to get 628.32 square units
Both object receive the same energy say 1000 units.
You take 1000/314.16 = 3.18 units of energy/ square unit of surface for the circle.
For the sphere the exact same 1000 units of energy reach its surface but it has a larger surface area for the exact same radius as the circle so 1000/628.32 = 1.59 units of energy/ square unit of spherical surface.
Why is this easy concept so difficult for geran to understand? Not a really complex concept and if you calculate it yourself you will see your error. Don’t let a big ego get in the way of learning. It takes a bigger man to admit they are wrong. Learn and grow and don’t sit in a state of stubborn arrogance because it hurts to be wrong.
Norman, you stated “This law will not determine how much energy a surface receives.” Are you denying you wrote that?
Then, you started rambling again about how a sphere is different from a disk. You seem fascinated by high school level geometry, yet confused by college level physics. No one is claiming a disk is the same geometric shape as a sphere.
I am talking apples, and you are rambling on about orange peels.
geran,
Yes I do claim the statement. The Steffan-Boltzmann law is not a law that determines how much energy is being receieved by a surface. It is a law that determines how much radiation flux is given off by a black body surface based upon that surface’s temperature.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radframe/sb_tl.html
Look at the equation. It has no terms for how much energy is hitting a surface. This law is for one process. Temperature relation to flux of a black body. If you want the absorption law I think it is Kirchoff’s stating that the absorption and emissitivity are the same.
I am really astounded you consider reality rambling. Please do not be another Doug Cotton. I think you are an intelligent person just stuck on an idea.
I think you use sacrastic humor to cover your lack of understanding and creating this false image of being a knowledgeable person. The geometry is not comparing apples to orange peels. You just do not undertand the reality of the situation and in ignorance lash out.
Think about what is written before you reject it. It is reality and that you can’t grasp the content is somewhat sad. I have strong doubts you have taken even high school physics and you want to pretend you understand a college level of the topic.
Norman, you stated: “You just do not undertand the reality of the situation and in ignorance lash out.”
Here’s some reality for you. The S-B equation applies to the flux emitted by a black body surface, and to the flux absorbed by a black body surface. So, a flat surface, receiving a photon flux perpendicularly would have a temperature, at equilibrium, based on the S-B equation.
So, your statement “This law will not determine how much energy a surface receives” is somewhat misleading.
Now, ramble on….
geran,
Yes now I understand what you are saying. It is an equilibrium condition. It is not high school geometry about the area of a sphere and circle. It is a reality used by all physics levels around the entire world.
Your inability to understand the implications is a loss to you and not the rest of the world. Sometimes the ignorant believe it is the rest of the world who is not getting it, or maybe it is just them.
Read this and try to understand it (if you can)
“Even though the planet only absorbs as a circular area \pi R^2, it emits equally in all directions as a sphere. If the planet were a perfect black body, it would emit according to the Stefan–Boltzmann law”
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
Norman:
“Blackbody radiation” or “cavity radiation” refers to an object or system which absorbs all radiation incident upon it and re-radiates energy which is characteristic of this radiating system only, not dependent upon the type of radiation which is incident upon it. The radiated energy can be considered to be produced by standing wave or resonant modes of the cavity which is radiating. [source]
Notice the references to absorbing, and to standing waves and resonance – just as in my 2012 paper that you should read some day.
“This is basic physics, and cannot be disputed.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
1) You got this wrong,
2) You proclaimed it could not be disputed,
3) You already were familiar with the correct explanation
4) You received a reminder of the correct explanation,
5) YOu did not understand the correct explanation,
As was already pointed out once (and as you already arrogantly ignored once), you really do need to divided by 4. A flat disk pointed at the sun would receive 1368 W/m^2 on one side and 0 W/m^2 on the other, for an average of 1368/2. A sphere has twice the surface area of a (two-sided) disk, and hence an average of 1368/4 W/m^2 incoming solar radiation.
Tim, see if you can understand my reply (above) to Norman.
Geran. Of course I understand what you wrote. That is how I know is it wrong. 🙂
In your square example, the BACK side of the square (the universe is not one dimensional, after all) would ALSO be be 360 K and would ALSO radiate 958 W/m^2. The only way to achieve that would be to have ANOTHER sun on the other side providing 958 W/^2 of additional solar input!
Since it is a “thought experiment”, I have no problem adding a second source, emitting the same flux. Or, you could just imagine the back side is perfectly insulated. My point, which you seem to now understand, is that the 958 W/m^2 would result in 360 K, not 255 K.
“My point, which you seem to now understand, is that the 958 W/m^2 would result in 360 K, not 255 K.”
The thing is, that was NOT your point!
Your point was:
“Suppose we have a solid sphere suspended in a vacuum The sphere is a perfect black body, and is a perfect conductor. The Sun provides about 1368 W/m^2, at TOA. If we reduce that by 30%, to account for Earth’s albedo, we get about 958 W/m^2.”
The scenario was a single source providing light to one side of a sphere. Not two light sources @ 958 W/m^2 on two sides of a flat object. Not 4 sources @ 958 Wm^2 on four sides of a sphere.
For your ACTUAL initial scenario your sphere would have 958 W/m^2 only at the point on the sphere closest to the sun. That one point would be 360.5 K (assuming no rotation). So your claim “this temperature would eventually be achieved if the sphere were rotating, or not rotating” is indisputably WRONG, not indisputably RIGHT.
Tim Folkerts,
I might be wrong, but I believe the sphere is perfectly conductive. Therefore, the sphere is isothermal. The side facing the heat source is precisely the same temperature as the face in darkness. Otherwise there would be a temperature gradient in a perfectly conducting material, which is impossible.
I believe you are implying that the unlighted side of the sphere is somehow at absolute zero, which is again impossible.
I would be interested if you could let me know how the surface temperature can be different on a perfectly conductive sphere, and why. I am inclined to agree with geran, as his grasp of physics appears to accord with reality.
My “point” was as I stated it.
If you are confused by the “perfect” sphere, just use the example of the flat square. I admit the “perfect” sphere is somewhat hard to understand, since it does not exist. Interpreting it your way, it would violate the laws of physics. (It’s even hard to explain!) So, yeah, drop the sphere if it messes you up and just use the square. The conclusion remains the same.
OK, I overlooked the “perfect conductor” part in my last reply.
That STILL doesn’t solve the problem with the original scenario. The perfect thermal conductor would indeed be 255 K everywhere. It receives a total power of P_0 = [(pi r^2)*958 W/m^2] It radiates that same total power, but from an area of 4 pi r^2. So the outgoing radiation is only P/A = P_0 / (4 pi r^2) = 958 W/m^2 / 4.
{A non-rotating perfect insulator would be 360K at one point, and cooler everywhere else (with an average BELOW 255 K). A non-erfect insulator and/or rotating sphere would be somewhere in between.}
The only “way out” is “Since it is a “thought experiment”, I have no problem adding a second source”. In other words ‘the IPCC gets the temperature wrong because they are not imaging the 3 others suns in my thought experiment that are getting the average input up to 958 W/m^2, helping the earth can warm to 360.5 K.’ 🙂
Tim Folkerts,
It’s a perfect conductor. Isothermal by definition. Rotation makes no difference. It’s a perfect conductor. The same temperature eveywhere. The outgoing radiation is the same everywhere – basic physics – as the temperature is the same everywhere. Even Tyndall pointed this out, in the 6th edition of Heat as Motion. His experimental work supported this.
Only one Sun needed.
Mike, I am not sure what the point is in your post here.
“It’s a perfect conductor. Isothermal by definition.”
Yes, I said that in the updated post that focused on perfect thermal conductivity.
“Rotation makes no difference.”
Yes. Again I said that in the previous post. (I also when further and discussed a little bit about what would happen for a sphere that is no a perfect conductor and/or is rotating.)
“The outgoing radiation is the same everywhere … “
Yes, it is 958/4 W/m^2 =240 W/m^2 everywhere on the sphere under discussion.
“Only one Sun needed.”
Not if geran’s “958 W/m^2 everywhere” is correct. Then 4 suns are needed.
I think geran is my vote for the Dunning-Kruger ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect ) award for this thread…and it is not like he doesn’t have some pretty stiff competition!
Joel–It must be hard living with all those “voices”.
Maybe adding more layers of foil will help. Good luck!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
Tim,
I appreciate reading your comments. I am curious of your take on the following scenario.
If a disc was placed in space that had two sides separated by a thin layer that eliminated any conduction from one side to the other. Each side gets direct insulation of 1368 W/m^2 for two hours and then it flips. The dark side cannot fully cool in two hours.
What would you expect the surface temperature to reach equilibrium at? 100% of the calculated temperature for 1368 W/m^2? 50%? Other?
FTOP,
We can consider two limiting cases.
1) If the object never flipped, the front would be (1368/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 394K and the back would be 0 K (or really 2.7 K due to CMBR), for an average of 394K/2= 197 K.
2) If the object flipped rapidly, then each side would be (684/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 331 K, and of course the average would be 331.
In between, the average would be between 197 K and 331 K.
Thanks Tim,
Although you answered both extremes vs. the scenario presented.
“Each side gets direct insolation of 1368 W/m^2 for TWO HOURS and then it flips. The dark side cannot fully cool in TWO HOURS.”
Would this be some number between 331K and 394K based on the rate of IR emission for two hours?
Further, without changing the relationship between each side of the disc, is there a scenario for rotation and heat retention where the disc would reach equilibrium at 394K?
R G Brown said (of my atmospheric mass hypothesis):
“You cannot even state that it is probable that this is true, or plausible that this is true.”
Well we know that descending air warms adiabatically and it must be the case that if radiation to space occurs from GHGs within the atmosphere then the energy so lost to space cannot still be present to warm the descending air.
How do you think the two numbers could possibly fail to be equal?
Furthermore, GHGs radiate randomly in all directions equally so how do you propose that the radiation to space would be significanly different to radiation downward?
I do accept that in the messy real world there are constantly a plethora of imbalances constantly working against one another but unless they all cancel out over time we would not see a long term radiative balance with space would we?
The only way the conundrum can be solved is to accept that there is compensating variability between potential/kinetic energy taken up in convective ascent and potential/kinetic energy brought back down in convective descent.
Nothing else works.
I have considered the AGW proposal that the radiative balance with space is maintained because the stratosphere cools whilst rhe tropopause (and surface) warms.
I have abandoned that idea because the stratosphere is no longer cooling and shows slight warming despite increasing human emissions and simultaneously the tropopause has stopped warming.
It is unlikely that our emissions are anything to do with any of it except perhaps by way of a miniscule global air circulation adjustment as part of the negative convective system response which I describe and that will be wholly swamped by natural internal system variability mostly caused by sun and oceans.
To ROY SPENCER and all readers …
Stephen Wilde writes: Nothing else works referring to his comjecture. Well my hypothesis not only works, but it explains the temperature rise by day and teh necessary energy transfers. Stephen’s does not.
Yes Stephen, the Second Law of Thermodynamics works and you keep ignoring it.
Answer me one simple question:
Why do planetary surfaces (like that on Venus) warm during the day and cool by night when your up and down wind-driven imaginary “parcels” of air could rise or fall whenever the weather conditions so determine?
Yes there is compensating variability between potential/kinetic energy taken up in convective ascent and potential/kinetic energy brought back down in convective descent but it happens at the molecular level as individual molecules swap KE and PE in flight between collisions. We can even derive the dry adiabatic lapse rate from this, because the KE gain is the energy required to raise mass m by temperature change dT where the mass has specific heat cp and so, for a change in height dH we equate PE gain/loss with KE loss/gain to get …
m*cp*dT = -m*g*dH
so the temperature gradient is …
dT/dH = -g/cp
and that temperature gradient is every bit as stable as the density gradient, because gravity forms each and they are each the one and only state of thermodynamic equilibrium which, by definition, is the state of maximum entropy, which occurs when all unbalanced energy potentials have dissipated, which they will have done when there is homogeneous molecular PE+KE. [See http://entropylaw.com where you will learn heaps about the Second Law of Thermodynamics which you do not yet know or understand.]
All the fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology and meteorology that refers to parcels of air somehow clinging together in the absence of wind in an ideal troposphere is garbage Stephen. There is nothing to hold them together. Rising and falling molecules follow the temperature profile because it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
What you continually fail to realize Stephen is that there is no magical creation of energy. New energy is added by the Sun in the upper troposphere of Venus and only where the temperature is less than about 400K. That energy then gets down into the lower troposphere and ends up warming the surface from 732K to 737K slowly over the course of four months of sunlit hours. It does NOT just slow the rate of cooling because the Sun’s radiation cannot do the job of attaining the observed temperatures in the first place on Venus, or on Earth.
And, by the way, using the term “falling” is very misleading for molecules moving downwards. Yes, gravity increases their downward component of velocity by a very small percentage between collisions, but they are going downwards primarily because they dart about at a speed of around 1,700Km/hour in random directions (in three dimensions) following each collision.
Even when there is net downward movement of air, the molecules are still moving in all directions. That net movement is very slow, but the temperature gradient can only be formed by this process, not by wind. In contrast, the rate of transfer of thermal (kinetic) energy can be faster because it is passed on in the collisions, even when the donor molecule bounces back towards where it came. The same happens in conduction in a metal rod. Obviously the molecules are not moving far, but the thermal energy is.
Is a planet’s atmosphere temperature gradient mainly caused by pressure of gas being higher closer to surface ?
Stevek: You are close to the truth, but pressure is not the cause. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be used to prove that gravity forms a density gradient which, at the same time, must have a temperature gradient. This state is stable in an isolated system and it will occur even in a tall sealed and insulated cylinder of gas. The pressure gradient is just a corollary because pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. It’s all proven at http://climate-change-theory.com and in my paper on planetary core and surface temperatures which is linked therein.
stevek,
Not at all. Outer space is around 4K. If the base of the atmosphere is around 288K, physics dictates that the temperature gradient will proceed from 288K to 4K, with no missing temperatures along the way.
Fairly simple, I would have thought.
Temperature gradients supposedly due to static pressure or gravity do not exist. The temperature at the bottom of a 10km column of sea water is around 4C, even though the surface may be at 30C. The pressure at 10km depth is enormous, but precisely no warming is noticed.
Mike Flynn
For the ocean not having a thermal gradient based upon gravity,
Doug Cotton explains it away with his made up intermoleular radiation that moves energy so that a thermal gradient can’t form.
I questioned him about these and his sources but nothing from him yet. He likes to make things up and when you challenge it his response is Venus.
I asked him how come these same intermolecular radiations that prevent the formation of a thermal gradient induced by gravity (warm at bottom cool at top) don’t stop the formation of a thermal gradient in the atmosphere…response….Venus!
Doug/Mike/Norman,
For ocean this is a liquid, so ideal gas law would not apply ? Here pressure/temperature may not be related because it is liquid.
I should have been more clear in my question. I’m more concerned about pressure of gases.
For example, say we have a planet with an atmosphere that has no greenhouse gases. It has some atmosphere of gas but the gas is not a greenhouse gas.
In this case temperature near surface will be warmer due to gravity ?
To be more concise I ask:
Say exact same planet conditions as the above planet existed in another planet that had same size, same distance from sun, same atmosphere, same rotation etc. All the same except mass of that planet was 1/2 the mass of the first planet. Also both planets have no hot core.
Would the temperature near the surface of the higher mass planet be warmer than the lower mass planet ?
Stevek,
High pressure gas is no warmer than low pressure gas. A cylinder of gas at 100 bar cannot be distinguished from a cylinder at 1 bar. If both cylinders are at 20C, they have the same temperature.
A gas at absolute zero will remain so, regardless of gravity. If you say that a gas has to be above its freezing point for gravity to warm it, I point out that you had to supply heat to keep it gaseous.
Remove the heat, the gas freezes, regardless of gravity. Remove all heat – absolute zero.
So, your last question – no. No heat input, no temperature, force exerted by gravity is irrelevant.
–For ocean this is a liquid, so ideal gas law would not apply ? Here pressure/temperature may not be related because it is liquid.–
Ideal gas law is about the kinetic movement of molecules of
gas. Or any molecule with kinetic movement of molecules would
be in the state of matter of a gas or plasma. Liquid and solids are bond together in molecular structure.
When one heats a liquid, the molecules within the structure vibrates until break away from bonding force of the structure and becomes a gas. Or when free moving molecule becomes part of molecular structure, it stops being a gas and is liquid.
–I should have been more clear in my question. I’m more concerned about pressure of gases.
For example, say we have a planet with an atmosphere that has no greenhouse gases. It has some atmosphere of gas but the gas is not a greenhouse gas.
In this case temperature near surface will be warmer due to gravity ? —
Without gravity the gas would not stay on the planet- it would bounce away from it. The higher the gravity the less
it can leave the surface of the planet.
If the surface is cold, the gas molecules will hit the solid surface and increase the degree in which they are vibrating, and take the kinetic energy from a gas molecule.
So it’s like banging on a bell- requires kinetic energy.
But if surface is warm, it adds kinetic energy rather than removing it from the gas molecule. So it hit surface at say 400 m/s and if it’s a warmer surface it moves away from surface going say, 410 m/s. If it then hits another molecule going 400 m/s, it tend to increase the velocity of the 400 m/s molecule.
But it’s an average gain or lost. Same applies the gas hitting a solid- it’s an average thing- depends on when and how it hits.
But we are talking about billion of molecules colliding in fraction of a second. So if flip a coin billions of times you tend to get a consistent result.
–To be more concise I ask:
Say exact same planet conditions as the above planet existed in another planet that had same size, same distance from sun, same atmosphere, same rotation etc. All the same except mass of that planet was 1/2 the mass of the first planet. Also both planets have no hot core.
Would the temperature near the surface of the higher mass planet be warmer than the lower mass planet ?–
The higher gravity means more gas molecules are closer to the surface. Which means per cubic meter there are more molecule.
And the energy of kinetic energy is KE= 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
So if you increase the mass you increase the kinetic energy.
And the amount of kinetic energy of gas is temperature of gas.
Gas temperature is only it’s kinetic energy.
So more molecules in same volume of space [more mass] but going the same velocity as less molecule in same volume of space, would be a warmer gas.
Gbaikie needs to study Kinetic Theory, not make up his own.
He writes: So if you increase the mass you increase the kinetic energy.
What you do is increase the total kinetic energy.
What you do not increase is the KE per molecule, and so you do not increase the temperature.
Yes, you certainly do need to study Kinetic Theory, not make up your own.
To silent readers:
Now we know gbaikie like Stephen Wilde is not qualified in physics, because neither of then even know the basic assumptions of Kinetic Theory, which any of you can look up in Wikipedia or elsewhere.
Temperature is proportional to the mean molecular (micro) kinetic energy per molecule. Increasing the number of (identical) molecules in a fixed space does not increase temperature – it only increases pressure and of course density.
Doug Cotton explains it away as in his paper – not as in your cherry picked words.
–Is a planet’s atmosphere temperature gradient mainly caused by pressure of gas being higher closer to surface ?–
Well in terms of elevation [distant] of 1000 meters. And with earth this temperature gradient is around 6.5 C per 1000 meters.
Then in terms of 1000 meter elevation, it’s most about the gravity of earth.
Or say earth size body had half of Earth gravity. And this could be possible when consider that Earth has high density
[5514 kg per cubic meter of the rock- and Earth surface rock
varies but typical is about 3000 kg per cubic meter [A solid cubic meter of concrete is 2500 kg. Ref of Earth’s density: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ ]
If 1/2 gravity then air density at sea level is less. So less
air and at 1/2 the pressure.
So we have air density at sea level [varying depending on temperature, say 15 C, of about 1.2 kg per cubic meter of air.
And have air pressure of 14.7 psi.
So 1/2 gravity, would be 14.7 divided by 2 is 7.35 psi.
And guess the density be around 1 kg per cubic meter.
Now with your earth air density roughly lower .1 kg per 1000 meters. Or here:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wstdatmo.htm
So with 1.2 gravity world it would lose less than .1 kg per 1000 meter. So roughly say it was .05 kg per 1000 meter.
So the air at say 10,000 km would be denser than compared to our planet and also it’s atmosphere would be higher.
Or we consider that start of space [for having thin enough then to allow spacecraft to orbit] is 100 km. So 1/2 gravity could be instead 200 km high.
And considering roughly everything except gravity is the same, then look at usatoday thing above and density and listed temperature.
So if guess was correct of it being 1 kg, it should be 6.5 C
cooler.
Though it might 1.05 or .9 kg per cubic meter, as 1 per cubic meter is a wild guess. And didn’t allow for difference of pressure 1/2 as much. And some could think pressure is more important than density- but I don’t think so.
Hi Joel, Roy, Greek Philosophers, and most important, those few of you who recognize the importance of actual observations,
Many of you have commended Roy for his blogsite and his posts. I agree with you even though I am usually critical of what he writes and sometimes I am critical of what you have written.
I am going to put together what some of us have written. For there is little continuity as our comments are made. I will first do this without comment and after I have completed this task, I will begin to make my comments relative what has been stated. And yes, it is quite lengthy.
Roy in this posting focused upon the role of thermal inertia as related to the earth-atmosphere’s diurnal temperature oscillation and proposes the temperature oscillation he concludes is unrealistic. However, Robert G. Brown says: April 10, 2015 at 3:03 PM : “There is even empirical evidence to support this. In the bone-dry desert, temperatures do indeed vary by as much as 40 to 45 C in a day. It can be 94 F (40 C) during the day or even hotter and still drop to freezing (32 F/O C) at the surface of the sand at night. This is because in the absence of moisture in the air, there isn’t much of a net greenhouse effect. At the exact same latitudes, tropical rain forest may hardly change temperature from day to night — that’s because there the air is dripping with humidity and there is a very strong greenhouse effect. You can see the same thing in less extreme climates. Dry days have a larger temperature range than wet days, and humid days with haze but no clouds to speak of can easily be incredibly hot and uncomfortable.” Robert G. Brown April 11, 2015 at 9:17 AM continued: “… I was saying the comparative absence of one of those gases — water vapour — is responsible for parts of the Sahara desert not retaining heat at night and cooling at many times the rate that it cools in (say) North Carolina at night where the air is almost never particularly dry, even when there are no clouds in either place. … The moon has no atmosphere (and hence no greenhouse effect at all). It’s surface heats up during the lunar day until outgoing approximately blackbody thermal radiation flux balances the incoming (also approximately blackbody thermal but at a much higher temperature) radiation flux from the sun. When the sun sets, it cools by emitting thermal radiation that is not obstructed or absorbed in any way as it heads out to infinity. It cools even faster than the Sahara desert, both because the Sahara has to lose energy from the air close to the surface as well as the surface itself North Carolina, on the other hand, cools much less than the Sahara (at a roughly equal latitude for at least some parts of it) on an equally still, equally cloudless night.” JohnKl says: April 10, 2015 at 5:58 PM: “Really, average day-time Earth surface temps fall around 10-15+ degrees celsius. Lunar daytime temps fall in radiative balance around 120 degrees celsius as do Earth orbiting manmade satellites! Lunar nightime temps prove low, but that remains due to the fact that a lunar day falls around 28 Earth days giving the dark side of the moon plenty of time to radiate energy away given the lack of any real atmosphere. If the lunar daytime matched Earth’s the dark side of the moon would be much warmer and the daytime side about the same temp for a shorter period of time. As a result imo average temps would not be as much out whack with Earth at all.” fonzarelli says: April 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM: “Gordon, it should seem easy to figure the affect that water vapor has on night time temps when the nights are cloudless… i’ve seen many a cloudless summer night here in new orleans that did not have temps like that of a desert.” jerry l krause says: April 11, 2015 at 10:10 PM: Hi fonzarelli, “That is because your atmosphere at New Orleans does not have a dewpoint temperature nearly as low as that of a ‘true’ desert atmosphere. The reason I stress true is because this morning I looked up the weather record of Alice Springs AU and discovered it had more light rain (0.1 inch to 0.2 in) showers than I would expect for a true desert to have. And the average high and low temperature of a day indicated that I was not looking some uncommon months.” David L. Hagen says: April 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM: “Desert Surface Temperatures
FYI3.3.3.2SurfaceTemperaturespp52-53.Deserts and Desert Environments, By Julie J Laity In Alice Springs, Australia, ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night.(Mabbutt 1977b).” Ross Handsaker says: April 11, 2015 at 12:15 AM: “Cloud cover or high humidity levels at nighttime are readily seen to cause warmer nights. However, the opposite seems to occur during the daytime. For example, daytime temperatures on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere, rise rapidly to above 100 deg. C; in the Earth’s hot desert regions where low levels of humidity prevail, daytime temperatures are much higher than at similar latitudes on the coast where humidity is higher. Where I live (Adelaide, Australia), our hottest summer days coincide with very low humidity (less than 10% Rel. Hum.).” Menicholas says: April 11, 2015 at 12:32 AM: ““At night the soil cools by loss of infrared radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation lets us estimate the rate at which IR energy is being lost based upon surface temperature and emissivity, and simply dividing that by the product of the soil depth and soil bulk heat capacity gives us the rate at which the soil layer temperature will fall.” Maybe I missed something, but one reason (The main reason?) soil does not cool down as fast as, say, the roof of a car, is because of the conductive rate of heat through soil. Same as why the top of the soil gets much hotter in the sun as a few inches down. Conductivity is dependent on many factors, such as degree of compaction (more air acts just like the insulation in your walls), moisture content, soil composition (Peat has less thermal mass, but also far slower thermal conductivity as, for example, sand. And both conduct faster when wet than when dry), etc. Stand outside at sunset and put thermometers in several places, or just watch where and when dew and then frost forms on various surfaces. Stick your hand in soil at midday, late afternoon, early morning…the temperature horizons make it clear that the surface heats and cools quite a bit…but only a few inches down…not so much.” jerry l krause says: April 11, 2015 at 7:55 AM “Hopefully everyone will read what follows and comment upon it. Maybe my essay should be titled: How Science Is To Work. Galileo is said to have stated: “Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so.”
Simple Observation of Downward Radiation From Atmosphere With Simple Radiometer Refutes Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. Jerry L. Krause @2015 It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement. However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes. … The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning. In the case of both mornings, what is limiting the minimum temperature of these mornings is the dewpoint temperature of the surface atmospheric layer. For easily observed, but not reported, was the dew that formed on the top film of the SSK radiometer and on the cars parked along the street near my backyard. And in the cases when the surface atmosphere is so ‘dry’ that no dew, or frost, forms on any surface, it is the thermal inertia of the earth-atmosphere system which limits the minimum temperature of the morning. Again, good science dictates that a doubter of this make his/her own observations to test the previous (unreported) observations of mine.” Joel Shore says: April 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM: Jerry, Your observations in no way, shape, or manner refute the greenhouse effect. I am kind of puzzled why you think that they do. All models of the greenhouse effect have an atmosphere colder than the surface. The temperature you measure with the radiometer is still a lot warmer than what you would measure if there were no atmospheric greenhouse effect…which is that you would measure the temperature to be about 3 K…and you better believe that under such conditions, you would get faster cooling of the surface!” jerry l krause says: April 11, 2015 at 12:03 PM: Hi Joel, I do not have the ability to direct you to JohnKl comment where he refers to the observed temperatures of the moon which has no atmosphere and has a 28 day day. And it lowest temperature never gets close to 3K. At least I have never read that it did.” Joel Shore says: April 11, 2015 at 3:01 PM: “I didn’t say that the surface itself would get that cold. That depends on issues of effective heat capacity and what-not. However, if you directed an IR thermometer up at the sky from the moon, it would probably read pretty close to 3 K. (I don’t have a good feel for exactly how close, i.e., for how big the effects of any residual atmosphere are.)” gbaikie says: April 12, 2015 at 10:06 PM: ““Equator Average Temperature (K) Moon ~206K (390K at noon; ~95 K at midnight) and Earth: ~299K (303K at noon, ~295K at midnight}” http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml ” KevinK says: April 10, 2015 at 1:18 PM:
“Unfortunately adding a blanket to a rock merely changes the response time of the rock. Adding a gaseous “blanket” over a rock only changes the response time of the gases (due to the much lower thermal capacity of the gases relative to the rock).”
Because of the references to lunar temperatures, I had gone to the site to which gbaikie directs our attention. There I read: “heat flow measurements made during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (langseth et al. 1973) revealed that the top 1-2 cm of lunar regolith has extremely low thermal conductivity. The mean temperature measured 35cm below the surface of the Apollo sites was 40-45K warmer than the surface. At a depth of 80cm the daylight/night temperature variation experienced at the surface was imperceptible. … Temperature extremes at the surface: 390K high, 104K low.” The latter values are a little different than those quoted by gbaikie because his are averaged and mine specifically for those at the lunar ‘equator’. The statement—the mean temperature measured 35cm below the surface of the Apollo sites was 40-45K warmer than the surface—can only create confusion. For, are we to believe that when the surface temperature is 390K, that the temperature 35cm below the surface is 40-45K higher? Of, course not. But I have to assume that this statement refers to when the surface temperature is at its 104K low. So I might assume that at 35cm below the surface the temperature oscillates between 144 and 149K or something like that because at a depth of 80cm there is no detectable oscillation. But I really do not know for the information about the temperatures at 35cm and 80cm depths have only been observed at two sites. I can understand that the temperatures of its surface could have been observed from satellites which rapidly (relative to the period of its day) orbited the moon. And it is this plot of this surface temperature oscillation which should be considered. And everyone, it they desired, could go to this site and view the graphical plot of this oscillation. Which, because I am slow of mind, I had to spend too long to actually comprehend what I was seeing.
KevinK referred to what he proposed would happen if he put an insulating blanket over a rock to slow its cooling or warming. I wonder how many have noticed (seen) in the narrative quoted that the lunar surface has an extremely good insulating blanket that is 1-2cm thick. Here, I must admit that Joel is correct when he stated that the temperature of my radiometer’s absorbing-emitting surface would decrease to 3K if upon the moon without an atmosphere. This is because the radiometer has an insignificant thermal inertia. So even if period of the lunar diurnal period were that of the earth, it is likely that at high noon its temperature would be 390K and its nighttime low would be 3K instead of the lunar 104K low.
To best follow what I must now say with words, you need to go to http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml and study the graphical figure of the lunar surface’s diurnal temperature oscillation. David L. Hagen reported that at Alice Springs, Australia, ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night. We normally do not consider what the diurnal surface temperatures are as we focus upon air temperatures. It is commonly observed the earth’s air temperature (here I must add, less we forget, that this air temperature is measured about 1.5m above the surface) does not peak until mid-afternoon. Roy wrote: “it turns out that 0.2 meters of soil is equivalent in bulk heat capacity to about 200 m of atmosphere.” Which is another way of stating the atmosphere has a low thermal inertia.
However, to understand (explain) the observation (ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday) seems to require that we must admit that the atmosphere’s thermal inertia must be a factor. As I begin to write about this observation, which I had thought could be simply explained, I discover it is not easy. So, I turn to C. Donald Ahrens’ text (Meteorology Today 3rd Ed.). He wrote: “As the sun rises in the morning, sunlight warms the ground, and the ground warms the air in contact with it by conduction. However, air is such a poor heat conductor that this process only takes place within a few centimeters of the ground. As the sun rises higher in the sky, the air in contact with the ground becomes even warmer, and there exists a thermal boundary separating the hot surface air from the slightly cooler air above. Given their random motion, some air molecules will cross this boundary: The “hot” molecules below bring greater kinetic energy to the cooler air; the “cool” molecules above bring a deficit of energy to the hot, surface air. However, on a windless day, this form of heat exchange is slow, and a substantial temperature difference usually exists just above the ground. This explains why joggers on a clear, windless, summer afternoon may experience air temperatures of over 50°C (122°F) at their feet and only 32°C (90°F) at their waist.” So, the issue isn’t one of thermal inertia but one of thermal conductivity.
But Ahrens continued: “Near the surface, convection begins, and rising air bubbles (thermals) help to redistribute heat. In calm weather, these thermals are small and do not effectively mix the air near the surface. Thus, large vertical temperature gradients are able to exist. On windy days, however, turbulent eddies are able to mix hot, surface air with the cooler air above. This form of mechanical stirring, sometimes called forced convection, helps the thermals to transfer heat away from the surface more efficiently.”Because I am not a meteorologist, I am not qualified to propose the ‘nonequilibrium’ condition that is necessary to explain the important observation that Hagen brought to our attentions.
However, before leaving his information I do propose that the earth’s surface temperature will continue to increase after midday, because of the surface’s thermal inertia, so that the highest air temperature of the day commonly is reached after mid-afternoon. I review what we generally observe about the earth’s diurnal temperature cycle so we can compare the differences between the earth and moon, to which several commenters have referred.
If the earth’s surface had an insulating surface layer such as the moon’s, I expect its surface temperature would be an uniformly symmetrical, about midday, heating-cooling curve with a significantly greater temperature than its actual maximum temperature (if we ignore the temperature of a dry peat surface). Hence, this expectation can be somewhat checked by observation and maybe should be. An aside: if I had not written what I initially just wrote, I would not have seen the possible experimental observation (where there is an atmosphere present) that might aid (contribute to) our understanding. Here, Roy’s handheld IR thermometer would prove extremely valuable.
The more and more I ponder, the more I have to conclude that the period of the lunar day is not as great a factor as I believed before I started this composition. And that the ‘shape’ of its heating and cooling temperatures as a function of time is not greatly different from that of the earth’s surface temperatures or air temperatures. In both temperature profiles it might generalized that during the heating portion the temperature rapidly (relative to the cooling which occurs between sunset and sunrise) increases to a maximum value (whether midday or midafternoon is not a great general issue) and then almost as rapidly decreases to the time of sunset. Then, between sunset and sunrise, both temperatures cool at a much slower rate.
It needs to be seen that rate of increase and decrease during the warming portion of the diurnal cycle has little to do with thermal inertia. This rate is primarily due to the change of the incident angle of the solar radiation upon the solid bodies’ surfaces. Here we must recognize that our analysis is about solid surfaces and not the nearly 70% liquid surface of the earth.
The cooling of the lunar surface between sunset and sunrise is most informative because there can be no greenhouse effect involved. Yet, it is so similar to the cooling of the earth’s atmosphere about 1.5m above its surface. It is extremely important to remember that the whole issue of the greenhouse effect is the temperatures of the earth’s atmosphere aout 1.5m above its surface. We have already considered observations that there can be large temperature differences between the surface and 1.5m above the surface at midday when this surface layer should be unstable. Vertical convection should occur but often does not if the atmosphere is calm.
But after sunset, when the surface quickly cools to a temperature less than that of the atmosphere at 1.5m, this shallow layer is absolutely stable and no vertical convection can occur. Yes, breezes can mix the warmer upper atmosphere with the cooler base atmosphere in the opposite manner as before. But nights at many land locations are more likely calm than are daytimes. And David L. Hagen reported that at Alice Springs, Australia, ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night. These nighttime temperatures are in the same range that the temperature of my radiometer’s a-e surface is relative to the ambient air temperature at about 1.5m above the surface.
Simple Observation of Downward Radiation From Atmosphere With Simple Radiometer Refutes Generally Stated Result of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect. Jerry L. Krause @2015 It has been stated that the presence of downward longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) from a clear sky is positive evidence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Since the basis of this essay is about the observation of the downward radiation from the atmosphere, I cannot not disagree with this statement. However, it is common knowledge (hence, no need of any reference) that a consequence of this downward radiation is that the earth-atmosphere system’s average temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower than it is if it were not for the presence of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. It is this result of the greenhouse effect that simple observation refutes. … The observed fact that the temperature of the a-e surface is well below the temperature of the radiometer’s environment is positive evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be limiting the cooling of its environment to its lowest temperature of the morning. In the case of both mornings, what is limiting the minimum temperature of these mornings is the dewpoint temperature of the surface atmospheric layer. For easily observed, but not reported, was the dew that formed on the top film of the SSK radiometer and on the cars parked along the street near my backyard. And in the cases when the surface atmosphere is so ‘dry’ that no dew, or frost, forms on any surface, it is the thermal inertia of the earth-atmosphere system which limits the minimum temperature of the morning.
Joel Shore says: April 11, 2015 at 11:45 AM: “Jerry, Your observations in no way, shape, or manner refute the greenhouse effect. I am kind of puzzled why you think that they do. All models of the greenhouse effect have an atmosphere colder than the surface.”
Joel, if you carefully read what I wrote, you will find I never claimed to refute the greenhouse effect. I claimed to refute a generally accept consequence of the downward LWIR radiation from the atmosphere. And if all models of the greenhouse effect have an atmosphere colder than the surface, you better correct these modelers who eventually do not know that ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night at Alice Springs. And they evidently are not aware of atmospheric soundings which observe that the peak temperature of the nighttime inversions are often more than a 1000ft above the surface and that it can nearly 4000ft before there is any atmospheric temperature that is below the atmospheric temperature at 1.5m above the surface, whose temperature, according to observations, might be 5°C or so degrees lower still.
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry, what happens regarding wet and dry regions can be seen in empirical evidence in my comprehensive study of 30 years of temperature and precipitation records from three continents published in the appendix of this paper. The results were …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet: 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium: 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry: 35.7°C 21.9°C
So, water vapor cools, and I challenge any reader to spend half a day following the methodology in that study and somehow producing opposite results. That study alone is clear evidence that the IPCC is wrong about water vapor causing most of their “33 degrees” of warming.
Roy Spencer is also wrong in assuming that back radiation is the only thing that slows surface cooling. Hence his linear plots of night cooling are wrong. He needs only to look at hourly temperatures in the night to realize that cooling slows down, and the one and only reason why it slows down (and may even stop) is not because the troposphere becomes isothermal, but because the stable temperature gradient (which is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium) has been reached, and so plain old nitrogen and oxygen molecules are slowing and even stopping the night-time cooling. It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com of course.
And all those who think that thermal energy can only ever transfer by non-radiative (sensible) heat transfer from hot to cold in a force field are proven wrong by experiments with centrifugal force and by evidence in every planetary troposphere. That is not what the Second Law is all about: it is about entropy maximization.
The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws. … The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process.
[source]
Jerry,
The scientists know about inversions. But, that doesn’t alter the fact that the global-average environmental lapse rate is around 6.5 K per km, i.e., that is on average as you go up in the troposphere the temperature drops.
Hi Joel,
Hi Joel,
You state: “The scientists know about inversions.” But do their models acknowledge this fact? For you stated: “All models of the greenhouse effect have an atmosphere colder than the surface.” Oh, now I see. The statement is true because at some altitude above the inversion the atmospheric temperature does always decrease to a temperature below that of the surface. Maybe I should refer to you as a Sophist (teachers known for adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning) instead of as a Greek Philosopher, who only tended to ignore observation because reason and debate was their game as they honestly sought truth.
I have pointed out the clear fact I never claimed to refute the greenhouse effect as you seemed to claim I had. I claimed my observations, and now those made at Alice Springs AU, refute the claim that the global average atmospheric temperature would be about 33oC (59oF) lower then present if it were not for GHGs. For the downward LWIR radiation from the atmosphere cannot even limit the minimum daily temperature of the atmosphere at 1.5m or so above the earth’s surface. So, you have not yet commented as to my actual claim. So, I am waiting to see one.
A quote of Newton which all scientists, including myself, should thoughtfully consider: “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the thing is false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Joel Shore, Norman, Roy and other hoax promoters:
If you reduce water vapor to half (say from 1.2% to 0.6%) the temperature gradient (“lapse rate” to you) becomes steeper and the thermal plot rotates about an altitude close to the radiating altitude so as to maintain radiative balance with the Sun. That always happens within about ±0.6%.
Now, because of the rotation, the supporting temperature at the surface/atmosphere interface is raised. Thus water vapor cools, and my statistically significant study confirms that. Seeing that you probably won’t deign to read that study, I will once again thrust the results (for 15 locations) down your throats, because I am not gullible enough to come anywhere near believing the fictitiuos fiddled fissics of climatology.
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
[source]
Joel Shore,
Given that the Earths surface is say, 288K, and outer space is say, 4K, any matter between the surface of the Earth and outer space is between these limits.
Radiative physics will demonstrate that in general, the atmosphere cools with height, although the normal definitions of temperature have to be re evaluated as gas pressure decreases with altitude.
The observed lapse rate will depend on composition, density, absolute temperature, latitude and so on. If I am wrong, I would appreciate correction based on fact.
As a matter of interest, the fact that the atmosphere radiates infrared EMR seems to ba accorded special significance, whereas it radiates EMR precisely in relation to its temperature, as does all other matter.
“Because of the references to lunar temperatures, I had gone to the site to which gbaikie directs our attention. There I read: “heat flow measurements made during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (langseth et al. 1973) revealed that the top 1-2 cm of lunar regolith has extremely low thermal conductivity.”
Very low. Or think: “Aerogel is a synthetic porous ultralight material derived from a gel, in which the liquid component of the gel has been replaced with a gas. The result is a solid with extremely low density and low thermal conductivity. Nicknames include frozen smoke, solid smoke, solid air, or blue smoke owing to its translucent nature and the way light scatters in the material.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel
Except the lunar dust is not transparent as is Aerogel.
But it not like dry sand on Earth- because there is air between the grains on Earth and lot more moisture as compared to Moon.
And on the Moon this dust on the surface is everywhere-
say, 99% of surface.
Or if the Moon were bare rock, that would make a huge different in Lunar surface heat capacity.
Bare rock and fast rotation would give a moon equator something vaguely like Earth deserts [though still bigger swings in temperature].
But it should be noted we don’t count measuring desert sand temperature when considering the wide swings in desert temperature.
Or desert sand can be about 70 C, and highest air temperature ever is 56.7 °C [unless counting inside car with windows shut].
And with moon it’s surface is heated up 120 C quickly.
So the large difference of sunlight warming ground to 70 C on Earth, and on Moon heating to 120 C.
So 50 K added to the difference.
Plus even including a fast rotation of moon, it still cools faster [as there is no greenhouse of effect- and an air mass being regarded as a significant part of this greenhouse effect- plus there some effect from the greenhouse gases in terms radiate energy- IMO a very small effect]
Though water is better than bare rock at retaining heat.
And rock better than sand on Earth- because it conduct heat from the Sun better. And Dirt is generally full of water [5-10%]- doesn’t heat up fast but retain heat pretty well- of course dirt varies quite a bit- with clay holding a lot of water.
Hi gbaikie,
You wrote: “But it should be noted we don’t count measuring desert sand temperature when considering the wide swings in desert temperature.” But you did not read: “David L. Hagen says: April 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM: “Desert Surface Temperatures
FYI3.3.3.2SurfaceTemperaturespp52-53.Deserts and Desert Environments, By Julie J Laity In Alice Springs, Australia, ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night.(Mabbutt 1977b).”
Have a good day, Jerry
“But you did not read: “David L. Hagen says: April 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM: “Desert Surface Temperatures
FYI3.3.3.2SurfaceTemperaturespp52-53.Deserts and Desert Environments, By Julie J Laity In Alice Springs, Australia, ground temperatures are characteristically 20-25°C above air temperatures at midday, and between 5 and 10°C lower at night.(Mabbutt 1977b).”
Yes that is correct, I did not read it.
So that appears to be saying with surface ground temperature it is varying around 50 to 60 K.
A bare rock Moon and fast rotation should have surface temperature of about 120 C at tropics and an night probably [and depending on rock] of -10 to -30 C.
And if put 1 meter worth water on Moon and give enough time
and over that time assuming 1 meter remains within 2 meter depth of the regolith- and it could remain without reaching escape velocity when thinking in terms of only say hundred thousand years, and only small portion of which form into permanent polar caps.
Or more water then locked in poles as frozen ice could sink below the 2 meters depth as moon is warmed.
So with above assumptions, and fast rotation Moon with this 1 meter deep per square meter of water over entire moon,
it would not effect daytime highs [as compared to what we currently have] but would significantly increase night time temperatures. So equator night could remain above O C.
And that leave it with equator swing of about 120 K, and seems larger swing in temperature in non tropical zones. Or one would have freezing at night side and you have weather effects which give greater temperature variation in non equatorial region.
But not really counting extreme winds- which could be unimaginably severe [but limited in terms of it’s effects by very thin atmosphere- water vapor]. One might get things like mud rain or mud tornados.
But from a distant, or if you squint, the moon would appear to look about the same within period of less than 100,000 years.
Alice Springs is one of the 15 locations in my study in the Appendix here where it was the driest and about second or third hottest. So what? You cannot prove water vapor warms by over 20 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere. Sorry, I’m not gullible enough to believe a hoax like that. But then, I have done a study of sufficient actual data to give me statistically significant results. Strange that the IPCC doesn’t invest a mere thousand or two to do a similar one to prove their point. If they did, it obviously got scrapped, because you can’t link me to any other study like mine that confirms their case, now can you? I most certainly did not cherry pick the locations in my study. But quoting data for just one or two locations is ludicrous.
–Alice Springs is one of the 15 locations in my study in the Appendix here where it was the driest and about second or third hottest. So what?–
Exactly, so what?
–You cannot prove water vapor warms by over 20 degrees for each 1% in the atmosphere.–
Right I can’t.
And according the Greenhouse Effect theory- which I think is
lousy hypothesis. Water vapor it suppose to have range of:
“By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
water vapor, 36–70% ”
So 36–70% of 33 C is 11.88 C to 23.1 C, the lousy and vague theory does not suggest that for each 1% increase it warms
by 20 C. Or even the highest range does not suggest this.
And the even believers of the pseudo science of global warming, if they have some clue, realize that water vapor
does not increase temperatures, but rather increase the average temperatures which is mostly about reducing the amount of night or winter cooling.
Or the sun during is what warms the surface and makes it
warmer.
What is obviously wrong about Greenhouse Effect theory is the idea that only greenhouse gases can warm the atmosphere
and the surface. So the whole thing about greenhouse gases cause 33 C of warming is wrong.
But I would agree that water vapor causes the most amount of warming of all the greenhouse gases.
But I would say liquid water rather water gas has greatest
warming effect upon planet earth.
So clouds which are droplets of water, do have a quite noticeable effect upon night time temperature- it would be cooler without the clouds.
I am imagine some people may think of clouds as water vapor and therefore a greenhouse gas. But that just one example of why greenhouse effect theory is pseudo science. Or it’s a lousy theory.
And other things can warm, such as actual real greenhouses or parked cars- and such warming has nothing to do with types of gases which are involved.
One also has UHI effect- again, nothing to do with types of gases.
Blocking ocean currents or having ocean a ocean current affects temperatures and global temperature. And again nothing to do with gases. In brief there are lots of things which affect global temperature which have nothing to do with types of gases involved.
But H2O gas does have some warming effect. And probably among all gases involved with warming [including O3] it’s probably somewhere around 36–70% of all their combine
effects. But of course 36–70% is pretty useless guess.
–But I really do not know for the information about the temperatures at 35cm and 80cm depths have only been observed at two sites. I can understand that the temperatures of its surface could have been observed from satellites which rapidly (relative to the period of its day) orbited the moon.–
It can be modeled.
Though reason we have any clue about it, is because we went to the Moon and directly measure it, by drilling holes.
Let’s just say we learn much more if went to Moon and drilled more holes.
And though we gained vast amounts of information from Apollo,
one shouldn’t confuse Apollo as something with a focus on Science. Apollo was a race to Moon against Soviets. It was a PR stunt. It would nice to explore the moon by landing on it
and have the focus mostly on Science.
But idiots are saying we have already “gone to the moon”,
which is idiotic on so many levels. Or it assume the only purpose of “space exploration” is performing various stunts.
So briefly, no one knows.
Estimates of the temperature of the Moon’s core put it at over 1300°C which makes perfect sense to me. The reason is the same as that by which we can explain the steep temperature gradient of around 25 degrees per kilometer in the outer 10Km of Earth’s crust, as has been measured in boreholes. Of course we don’t extrapolate this gradient all through the mantle, where the temperature gradient is understandably less than 2 or 3 degrees per kilometer because net gravitational force (in the numerator of the calculated gradient) declines whilst specific heat (in the denominator) increases, as explained here.
There’s nothing mysterious in the temperatures of any planet or satellite moon, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics “controls” all natural processes, as you may grow to understand if you study sites such as http://entropylaw.com/ and http://climate-change-theory.com where over 8,000 have visited these last three months.
–Estimates of the temperature of the Moon’s core put it at over 1300°C which makes perfect sense to me.–
So 2 feet up the surface lunar surface of say equatorial could be warmer than averaged equatorial temperature but
I don’t think it has much to do with Moon’s core.
But it would be part of the reason.
But if average equatorial temperature is “~206K”
and 2 feet is say 240 K.
Then why is unlit dark craters surface about 30 to 40 K?
Or would you say 10 or 20 feet below the surface of permanent shadowed polar crater surface it would be somewhere around 240 K?
Or something like a 200 K difference with tens of meter or even hundreds of meters from the surface
I would say the temperature 2 feet below the surface varies according to latitude. Or it is varying related to how solar energy is reaching area- which decreases with higher latitude.
And also there could variation of amount heat from the core regards the lunar surface but it’s very slight differences
because lunar surface within millions of years has been volcanically inactive. Or quite unlike Earth with it’s thousands of active regions. And has much thicker and cooler crust than Earth.
Or in comparison, think large size impactor [1 km diameter] which hit the moon in last few million years would tend to leave a much more significant thermal “fingerprint” than size of variation of heat from the core.
Or in neither case is there not much heat involved- whether from interior heat and variation of it or with fairly recent [as in million of years] impactor but I would guess the impactor would be greater amount [in a localize area- hundreds of square km].
Hi Jerry L Krause,
Great post! You mentioned lunar 104K low temps, but again a lunar night lasts ~14.75 earth days if I remember correctly. The lunar low between sunset and 12 hours after sunset will likely prove much higher. If you can provide that data I would be thankful. Your observations in the last paragraph seem to me well made and reasoned. You spend considerable time contemplating water vapor. For what it’s worth, while Fonzarelli’s family apparently reside in New Orleans if I remember correctly my folks reside outside Phoenix near a so called Indian reservation. From first hand experience I can tell you desert summertime nights prove EXTREMELY WARM well into morning despite the lack of water vapor and associated GHG effects. Once when I walked outside early in the morning on a summer day before the sun had a chance to do much of heating anything I noted the lack of any cool breeze and very warm temperatures enough to make me seek to keep my limbs away from my body and possibly sweat. Pool water temperature doesn’t need to be heated remaining upwards of 90 degrees centigrade well into the night and morning. Kitchen and bathroom tap water will often prove HOT whether one used the cool or hot tap handles. Pipes feeding our kitchen and bathroom sinks my dad told me reside approximately 2-3 feet below the surface. Temperatures often reach 118 degrees F and above and remain at elevated levels many months. GHG’s don’t appear required to maintain such high temps round the clock.
Heavy atmospheres like Venus do have the effect of leveling temperatures and conserving heat. Please note though Giovanni Battista Riccioli witnessed Ashen Light in 1643 if I remember correctly. If light emanating from below the Venusian atmosphere on the dark-side of the planet doesn’t indicate the likely presence of massive incandescent regions on Venus then what would? Consider the massive particulate layer extending up to 50km above the surface blocks out 95% of incoming solar radiation, yet observers have seen this glow from MILLIONS of miles away. Frankly it’s NOT EARTHLIGHT. Some claim it’s lightning but from what I’ve read the electro-magnetic mutations required to result in it haven’t been detected. Btw, how clearly visible are Earth lightning strikes from space and at what distance. Recent observations noted in the magazine Wired claim a green cast to light from the planet. However, I know of only one such claim as to color. If one considers the enormous distance of the planet, light absorbing atmospheric material around it, the fact that large fluctuations in volcanic sulfur compounds have been noted in the atmosphere a historically geologically active Venus may turn up many answers.
Have a great day!
Hi Jerry L Krause (and others),
Please accept the following correction to my post. My statement should have read:
“Pool water temperature doesn’t need to be heated remaining upwards of 90 degrees Fahrenheit well into the night and morning.”
Ooops! Sorry!
Have a great day!
And so, Jerry, you will confirm what I wrote about Adelaide in this comment.
Doug BOT Cotton,
I think you are wrong in your unsupported claim that “Roy Spencer is also wrong in assuming that back radiation is the only thing that slows surface cooling. Hence his linear plots of night cooling are wrong. He needs only to look at hourly temperatures in the night to realize that cooling slows down”
You like to make up stuff don’t you Doug. It does not matter if it is true or not you are like a kid with a crayon. Anything you mess up on the paper and you think everyone should be in awe! Here is Hourly temps at Death Valley, you can put in any city you want it might have the hourly data. I chose Death Valley for the clear nights.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNID/2014/7/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Death+Valley+National+Park&req_state=CA&req_statename=California&reqdb.zip=92328&reqdb.magic=9&reqdb.wmo=99999
I looked through a few days of summer nights at death valley and I don’t see the drop in temperature stop. Sometimes it does but it is definitely not a pattern! I think you are goofed up.
Yes, summer nights aren’t always long enough to allow full dispersion of the temporary extra “heat of the day” so once again, you won’t fool me with your cherry-picking – or was it just a naive choice? Either way you continue to show silent readers just how gullible you are in believing the fictitious fiddled fissics of climatology.
Okay Doug Cotton
I already assumed you would make up some reply so here is one of Omaha Ne just yesterday. The temps keep falling in clear and partly cloudy condition and the night is still fairly long around 11 hours.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KOMA/2015/4/13/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Omaha&req_state=NE&req_statename=Nebraska&reqdb.zip=68101&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999&MR=1
I wonder what made up idea you will come up to explain this one. You are wrong Doug, empirical evidence is against you, logic and reason are also against you.
Please Doug Cotton don’t make another post on this thread for the sake of sanity! You have said enough for now!
Norman and other AGW hoaxers, including Lukes:
I’m sorry but you won’t fool me with your promulgation of the fictitious, fiddled fissics wherein IPCC authors claim water vapor warms Earth’s surface by nearly all of 33 degrees, and that radiative flux from the colder atmosphere can be added to solar radiation and the total used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations that supposedly then explain the 288K surface temperature.
My knowledge and understanding of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics just leaves me laughing at the garbage people like you are gullible enough to believe. It is you and your colleagues who should discontinue the fraud for which some are going to have to pay heavily through the courts in the not too distant future I would guess. I have pointed out with plenty of empirical evidence why it is all wrong. For new readers it’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com which our friend, Norman, refuses to study.
To slay or not to slay, that is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the egos and confusion of lukewarmers
Or to take arms against a sea of true believers
and by opposing, end them.
To be Doug Cotton
To slay the slayers!
Ay, there’s the rub.
Norman, you might want to read this…
http://www.principia-scientific.org/stack-theory-mathematics-paper-discredits-greenhouse-gas-climate-alarm.html
Yep – see my page “Slaying the Slayers” here.
Oh, and note the nice pic of Mt Everest on that page with some bare rock near the top which, around noon on a clear June 22 each year probably receives over 1,000W/m^2 of solar radiation – more than just about anywhere at sea level. So why don’t the rocks warm to nearly 100°C as Stefan-Boltzmann calculations say they should? That ought to help you to realize that you can’t work out surface temperatures that way – you need a whole new and vastly different paradigm to explain what’s happening up there – then it’s easy to understand what’s happening everywhere in the Solar System.
Now, Mack, you were wrong in saying on that Slayer thread “Sorry to disappoint…solar radiation is quite sufficient to do so. Solar radiation impinging on the Earth’s surface, anywhere, in the amount of about 340w/sq.m. averaged over the year is exactly the right amount to keep this Earth at the present real temperatures.”
How about you first deduct the 102W/m^2 of simultaneous loss of thermal energy from the surface by non-radiative (sensible) heat transfer, and also the 6% that is reflected by the surface. Your 340W/m^2 is not the mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth’s surface. It would only be that much if the atmosphere did not absorb 20% and the albedo (reflection) were not about 30%. There is a 50% loss of radiative flux on the way down. It’s all explained on that “Slaying the Slayers” page.
But even if we incorrectly use your 340W/m^2 we should then multiply by 0.94 to allow for 6% surface reflection, thus getting down to about 320W/m^2 from which we then deduct that 102W/m^2 to get 218W/m^2. Then we search for our trusty “Stefan Boltzmann calculator” (courtesy tutorvista) and we get 249K.
Nobody pulls wool over Cotton’s eyes, Mack.
And Mack, even your 340W/m^2 is not “exactly the right amount” because it would only raise a perfect blackbody in Space to 278.2748546K which is close to 5°C. But Earth’s surface is not a perfect blackbody by a long shot. Even the IPCC realize they need an extra 102W/m^2 to provide for the non-radiative losses. So they use the correct 168W/m^2 of solar radiation absorbed by the surface and deduct the 102W/m^2 but then add 324W/m^2 of back radiation (168+324-102) to get 390W/m^2 which would be “exactly the right amount” as it gives a blackbody temperature of 287.985344K which is sort of roughly OK to claim as a correction for the fact that the surface is not a blackbody, but of course their error is in adding the 324W/m^2 of back radiation. In fact that is what is supplied not by radiation at all, but by downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer.
“… their error is in adding the 324W/m^2 of back radiation. In fact that is what is supplied not by radiation at all, but by downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer.”
And here we have a glaring example of Doug’s mistaken thinking. Doug has been claiming all along that his gradient is thermodynamic equilibrium. That means that systems would naturally come to this condition when there are no additional outside influences (except gravity); that there are no flows of energy or matter in this situation.
Now he says that even in this state that he considers thermodynamic equilibrium, there is a heat flow of 324 W/m^2 via diffusion/convection. (And not only that, this heat is flowing from cold to hot!)
You can’t have it both ways, Doug. You can’t have 0 W/m^2 of heat flow when the lapse rate is g/Cp and also have 324 W/m^2 of heat flow.
“which would be “exactly the right amount” as it gives a blackbody temperature of 287.985344K”
Actually, it would give 287.98061(27)K. I wouldn’t normally quibble, but if you claim to be EXACTLY right and give 9 digits, you really ought to be right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
Mack,
I have read a lot of material from PSI group. My goal is to keep science good. I will read and consider all types of information. Doug Cotton is wrong on so many fronts it becomes ridiculous. He will make up some hairbrained explanation of a point, then you counter that with sound reason and he goes to Venus.
You should read his explanation for cloud formation.
No it is yourself, Norman, who is wrong on so many points: I have evidence to support what I say; you don’t. Go back to this comment, and remember, you still haven’t been able to explain how the Venus surface warms in the day by x degrees to make up for the inevitable cooling of x degrees the night before. And you still haven’t done a study of 15 locations similar to mine but showing the opposite about water vapor. I look at Sydney temperatures today, Tuesday – 3 degrees of cooling between 3pm and 6pm but only 1 degree of cooling between 6pm and 9pm. Why is it so?
Yes Mack, you should read my explanation as to why clouds are at the temperatures they are. Do either of you ever wonder why the Earth’s surface still warms on a cloudy morning when no solar radiation strikes the surface? The clouds are cooler, so they can’t raise the temperature with radiation.
Diffuse solar radiation does reach the surface despite the clouds. That is why one sees daylight.
I suggest all should read this comment above.
Nearly all of you have a heck of a lot to learn about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the associated state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which is approached as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate. When you do understand maximum entropy production, then all else falls into place, just as I have explained.
Just a lot of speculations and wishful thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics#Speculated_principles_of_maximum_entropy_production_and_minimum_energy_dissipation
No such simple a principle than maximum entropy production can be generally true in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
Entropy can not even be defined in general non-equilibrium systems without a local thermodynamic equilibrium hypothesis. See the work by Prigogine.
The issue is the direction things take as entropy increases towards a maximum. Entropy may be considered as being a measure of the progression of dissipation of (unbalanced) energy potentials, which progression will occur by the fastest overall route. See http://entropylaw.com
The most relevant work is that cited in the Wikipedia page you linked: “Later work by Paltridge focuses more on the idea of a dissipation function than on the idea of rate of production of entropy.”
And it is precisely the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials that I use in the development and proof of my hypothesis. You should perhaps read my two papers (here and here) one about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the other based on such.
Joel Shore said
“And, you really can’t get around the fact that the Earth’s surface is emitting too much radiation for that top-of-the-atmosphere budget ever to balance unless the atmosphere absorbs some of that radiation”
There is no doubt that the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy which is situated at a surface beneath an atmosphere.
However, Joel thinks that just because the surface is at a specific temperature then all energy leaving that surface must depart as radiation and if absorbed by the atmosphere it must be absorbed as radiation. That seems to be the critical misconception.
In reality, a proportion of it is conducted to the atmosphere and if it is conducted it cannot be radiated from the surface at the same time. As soon as convection takes place the absorbed energy becomes potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate so it temporarily disappears from the heat budget only to reappear again as heat in convective descent.
Energy cannot be in two places at once. Conduction from a surface occurs instead of radiation from that surface and once convection occurs the target molecules cannot radiate the energy back out again because it becomes potential energy which is not sensible heat.
A portion of the kinetic energy at the surface is conducted to the atmosphere and the rest is radiated and either escapes direct to space or is intercepted by GHGs.
The portion intercepted by GHGs does not further warm the surface when part of it is radiated downward due to the convective adjustment that I described in detail elsewhere in this thread.
Once conducted energy is incorporated into the convective ‘loop’ in the form of potential energy it stays there forever as long as new energy from continuing insolation is supplied to replace the energy lost to space.
The convective energy ‘loop’ is not a perpetual motion machine because new radiative energy arrives to fuel continued convective overturning as fast as radiative energy departs to space.
It would only be a perpetual motion machine if it could continue after insolation stops and of course it cannot.
You should not need equations to comprehend that broad relationship between the moving parts of the system.
Stephen,
Would you agree that all energy transfer occurs as a result of photons interacting with electrons? This will overcome superseded caloric theory involving terms like conduction, convection, sensible and latent heat and all the other verbiage.
Maybe we could return to physics, and mutual understanding. I can’t see any faults with QED at present, and experimentation seems to verify QED theory. Do you agree?
Mike,
You have to distinguish between radiation which is straight in and straight out from conduction and convection which involves a long time delay (which is what raises surface temperature above S-B)
Both involve photons interacting with electrons but the outcome is different.
“However, Joel thinks that just because the surface is at a specific temperature then all energy leaving that surface must depart as radiation and if absorbed by the atmosphere it must be absorbed as radiation. That seems to be the critical misconception.
In reality, a proportion of it is conducted to the atmosphere and if it is conducted it cannot be radiated from the surface at the same time. As soon as convection takes place the absorbed energy becomes potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate so it temporarily disappears from the heat budget only to reappear again as heat in convective descent.
Energy cannot be in two places at once. Conduction from a surface occurs instead of radiation from that surface and once convection occurs the target molecules cannot radiate the energy back out again because it becomes potential energy which is not sensible heat.”
Stephen,
Repeating debunked nonsense does not make it correct. You have had it explained to you before that this is plain wrong. A body radiates according to its temperature. This is what the laws of physics say; they do not say that if it some heat is also conducted or radiated away then the amount radiated is less WHEN IT IS AT A GIVEN TEMPERATURE. If you think the laws of physics do say this, show us where.
Now, I know this confuses you because you have this question in your head that if an object just radiates vs radiates + convects, how could it possibly radiate the same amount in both cases. However, the answer to this apparent paradox is that the Earth’s surface is at a lower temperature than it would be if radiation were the only heat loss mechanism. So, it is, in a very real sense, radiating less than it would if there were no other heat loss mechanisms, but that is by virtue of the fact that it is at a lower temperature and not because it is violating the laws of physics, which say that the amount of radiation it emits depends on its temperature and not in any direct way on any other heat loss mechanisms.
Hi Stephen,
You strangely claimed:
“Energy cannot be in two places at once…”
Really? You can’t find energy on the moon and the Earth at the same time? You probably meant THE SAME ENERGY CANNOT BE IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES AT ONE (OR THE SAME) TIME. Just a little clarity…
Have a great day!
Hi Joel Shore,
You state:
“A body radiates according to its temperature. This is what the laws of physics say; they do not say that if it some heat is also conducted or radiated away then the amount radiated is less WHEN IT IS AT A GIVEN TEMPERATURE.”
When did Stephen claim that?
You go on:
“However, the answer to this apparent paradox is that the Earth’s surface is at a lower temperature than it would be if radiation were the only heat loss mechanism. So, it is, in a very real sense, radiating less than it would if there were no other heat loss mechanisms, but that is by virtue of the fact that it is at a lower temperature…”
What paradox do you refer to? Of course it’s at a lower temperature, because thermal energy is also being conducted/conveyed away!
Hi Stephen, you apparently claim:
“Conduction from a surface occurs instead of radiation from that surface and once convection occurs the target molecules cannot radiate the energy back out again because it becomes potential energy which is not sensible heat.”
Frankly it seems difficult to make heads or tails out of what you’re trying to claim here! It makes little sense at all from what I can make out, especially the last part involving potential energy.
You also state:
“…As soon as convection takes place the absorbed energy becomes potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate so it temporarily disappears from the heat budget only to reappear again as heat in convective descent.”
No! The absorbed energy becomes INTERNAL energy (i.e. internal to the absorbing molecule) and it can be heat if going from a warmer to a cooler object like the surface to the atmosphere! Btw, the energy does not DISAPPEAR and I have no idea why you think it cannot be re-radiated but must apparently DISAPPEAR until some other molecule makes it RE-APPEAR AND CONVEYS IT AWAY! Truly strange physics, please explain.
Have a great day!
— JohnKl says:
April 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM
Hi Joel Shore,
You state:
“A body radiates according to its temperature. This is what the laws of physics say; they do not say that if it some heat is also conducted or radiated away then the amount radiated is less WHEN IT IS AT A GIVEN TEMPERATURE.”
When did Stephen claim that?–
He did above.
I have wondered about that when Stephen has mentioned it a few time. But this time, I remembered something which sort of support it. I think what reminded me is “conducted” away.
Anyway, the entire greenhouse effect theory is based upon
this principle of being conducted away to reduce the amount of energy radiated.
In other words greenhouse starts with a ideal blackbody, So ideal blackbody in vacuum at earth distance from Sun is suppose to have a UNIFORM temperature of 5.3 C.
Or instead having a temperature of about 120 C in noon sun- like the Noon. With the ideal blackbody the temperature would be 5.3 C. Because it’s heat is conducted away to uniformity warm the entire blackbody sphere.
So those who proposed the greenhouse theory assumed this was possible and the model is entirely based on this assumption.
So if you accept the greenhouse theory one needs to except
the premise that heat can be conducted away so as to limit
emission by cooling the surface.
And of course in terms of conducting the energy away so as to lower surface temperature so as to lower emission is commonly observed.
But convecting the heat away rather than conducting wasn’t quite as obvious me. But now that think about it- it should not cause any doubt.
The issue is that the surface involves the microscopic, and one needs a very good conductor.
With the ideal blackbody model that the assumption is extremely good conductor of heat- and there is no known conductor which has such properties.
One of the best conductors of heat are diamonds. And one best metals is copper. And diamonds are some something like 4 times better than copper at conducting heat. And an ideal blackbody would need to be something 100 times better than diamonds.
Oh, let’s find some numbers:
Copper: 401
Diamond: 1000
Iron: 80
Rock, solid: 2 – 7
Sand, dry: 0.15 – 0.25
Sand, moist: 0.25 – 2
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
And I believe there has been diamonds made/found which higher heat conductivity, but according to above, diamonds appear to be only 2.5 times better than copper.
Now, let’s search “why are diamond cools to the touch”:
http://www.abazias.com/diamondblog/diamond-education/why-diamonds-are-called-ice
It’s interesting. [and says diamonds “as a thermal conductor is four times better than copper’s” and another link said 5 times. So it seems it’s commonly accepted to be 4 to 5 better. But I thought read somewhere that diamonds are cooler than air temperature, and says they aren’t.
Ok Not really the scientific explanation I expected to find from quick search[maybe need better keywords to search].
So I will forgo that quick way to explain it.
So let’s start with the concept that material [like steel,gold, or everything] is transparent if sliced thin enough. So microns thick- thickness and degree transparency
varying with the type of materiel. And it’s at this level that one interaction in terms of radiating and convection.
And there are billions of gas molecules interacting with a surface per square cm/inch and hitting that the surface at 400 meters per second. So at micron level, tiny tiny stuff hitting it. And near such surface would inhibit the random direct gas molecule can go. Or near surface their world is more 2 dimensional than 3 dimensional. Or one could it’s less well mixed or it’s sort of like a inversion layer.
And so one visualize a wall that stuff is banging on, and through the wall radiant energy is passing thru [as that the level of scale the wall is transparent.
It also should noted the thicker a material is the longer
it takes to conduct heat.
And is why for ideal blackbody needs such good conductor of heat- conducting heat over scale meters and kilometers.
Or:
” Example – Heat Transfer by Conduction
A plane wall is constructed of solid iron with thermal conductivity 70 W/moC, thickness 50 mm and surface area 1 m by 1 m. The temperature is 150 oC on one side and 80 oC on the other.
The conductive heat transfer can be calculated
q = (70 W/m oC) (1 m) (1 m) ((150 oC) – (80 oC)) / (0.05 m)
= 98000 (W)
= 98 (kW) ”
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
So iron, a poor metal conductor, if temperature difference is large and an 50 mm thick is able to conduct a fair amount of heat per square meter. But if it’s thicker iron and/or lower temperature difference, it capable of conducting significantly less heat.
So at micro level even a poor conductor of heat [say, dirt] and not much difference in temperature can conduct a fair amount of energy, it’s limited as compared to much better conductor of heat.
Anyways, briefly the activity, of the interaction of gas molecules and activity of atoms radiating heat are occurring
in same room, and dirt 2″ deeper or sky above are miles away.
And so how heat capacity is there is .01 mm of material which one meter square. And how long does it take for grain of sand to warm or cool in atmosphere?
Just to re-emphasize, Stephen, your statements here directly violate the laws of physics. You can’t just make up your own laws of physics. These laws are well-tested and verified. If you allow yourself to violate basic laws of physics, then you can come up with whatever nonsense your heart desires but it has nothing to do with reality.
Joel,
Fair comment.
The surface may well radiate at 288K but the surface plus atmosphere only radiate to space at 255K.
The ‘extra’ 33K of radiation from kinetic energy at the surface does not make it to space because that 33K of kinetic energy is actually conducted and convected up and down within the mass of the atmosphere IN ADDITION TO any up and down radiation within the atmosphere.
If conduction and convection were only an upward process then the surface would be at 255 as per S-B and not at 288 because conduction and convection would reduce the surface radiating temperature from the observed 288K to the theoretical 255K.
BUT you also have downward convection above half the Earth’s surface at any given moment which suppresses upward convection beneath it which allows the surface temperature to rise above S-B at any given level of insolation.
Averaged across the globe that raises surface temperature 33K above 255K for the observed 288K
The surface may be radiating at 288K but the combination of surface and atmosphere is only radiating 255K to space because of the intervention of conduction and convection which offsets the up and down radiative exchange within the atmosphere.
If the up and down radiative exchange within the atmosphere goes out of balance for any reason (as proposed in AGW theory) then the conductive and convective exchange varies in an equal and opposite thermal direction.
If GHGs radiate energy to space from within the atmosphere then that energy is no longer available in the descent phase of convection.
That reduction of energy in the descent phase is equal and opposite to the DWIR from the same GHGs for a net zero thermal effevct at the surface.
“The ‘extra’ 33K of radiation from kinetic energy at the surface does not make it to space because that 33K of kinetic energy is actually conducted and convected up and down within the mass of the atmosphere IN ADDITION TO any up and down radiation within the atmosphere.”
Stephen: Again, this does not obey the laws of physics. Radiation cannot be prevented from making it to space because of what you describe. It can only be prevented from making it to space if it is absorbed…or reflected…by greenhouse elements (greenhouse gases or clouds). Again, the laws of physics are a constraint that you must satisfy in order to have a real hypothesis.
“If conduction and convection were only an upward process then the surface would be at 255 as per S-B and not at 288 because conduction and convection would reduce the surface radiating temperature from the observed 288K to the theoretical 255K.”
Nope…The reason that the surface is above 255 K is because the atmosphere is only unstable to convection if the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate…and hence convection cannot make the atmosphere isothermal but can only drive down the lapse rate to the adiabatic lapse rate.
And, by the Second Law, the effect of convection is to transfer energy from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, not the other way around.
Joel,
I’ll persevere because I think you are getting to the nub of the issue.
I realise that you and AGW theory propose that the reduction from 288K radiating up at the surface to 255K radiating out to space can only be caused by the intervention of radiative molecules in the atmosphere.
Consider these points:
i) I accept that with no atmosphere radiation in equals radiation out and for Earth the surface temperature would rise to 255K at current levels of insolation.
ii)The thing is that that is the MINIMUM surface temperature one can have because it is predicated on energy coming in and going out with both processes being at the speed of light. It therefore follows that if any LOWER surface temperature is to be achieved then the radiation out has to move faster than the speed of light which we know is impossible.
iii)We also know that conduction and convection occurs but those processes are slower than the speed of light so if energy coming in stays stable they can never reduce the surface temperature below 255K
iv)Instead, the energy absorbed by conduction and convection during the first convective cycle reduces radiative energy exiting at the top of the atmosphere so from space the temperature of Earth appears to drop to 222K whilst the surface remains at 255K. That is only the case whilst the first complete convective overturning cycle is still in progress and incomplete.
v) On completion of the first convective cycle the energy being taken up by conduction and convection returns to the surface so then the surface temperature rises to 288K and viewed from space the surface appears to revert to the correct figure of 255K.
vi) That is exactly what we observe.
vii) Logic and the observational evidence both suggest that conduction and convection are processes that can indeed convert radiative energy at the surface to potential energy in the atmosphere( potential energy is not heat and is not able to radiate) so as to constantly suspend the mass of the atmosphere off the ground against the force of gravity whilst at the same time maintaining the radiative balance with space.
I do not see that as inconsistent with any laws of physics.
Indeed, I find the AGW theory to be inconsistent with the laws of physics because it ignores the role of conduction and convection in slowing down loss of energy to space below the rate achievable by radiation alone.
AGW theory also implies that a non radiative atmosphere MUST become isothermal but that is impossible because uneven surface heating will always lead to density differentials in the horizontal plane with global convective overturning as a consequence.
Instead, in a non radiative atmosphere, all incoming energy is radiated from the surface to space but there is still a reservoir of potential energy permanently locked into convective overturning which means that the surface will still be warmer than S-B.
Stephen,
“On completion of the first convective cycle the energy being taken up by conduction and convection returns to the surface so then the surface temperature rises to 288K and viewed from space the surface appears to revert to the correct figure of 255K.”
Again, you don’t even understand the question. The question is not involving the energy balance between the surface and atmosphere. It is involving the top of the atmosphere energy balance.
At this point, we are back to where Tim left you: Show us the equations. You have just put together a bunch of words in confusing ways to try to get around the fact that 1 + 1 = 2. There’s no mathematical interpretation to what you write because it is just a lot of nonsense jargon.
Physics ultimately has to be reduced to mathematics. We use words to describe the mathematics in terms that others can understand. You use words to avoid writing down any math and just run yourself and everyone else around in circles.
Do you understand that until you write down the equations, you don’t have anything. And, of course, you will never be able to write down the equations because your words are either some variation on 1 + 1 = 3 or they are claiming things that contradict the laws of physics.
Joel,
You have no answer.
The energy balance between surface and atmosphere is key to the difference between radiation at the surface and radiation escaping to space for a non blackbody.
Tim Folkerts has got it but has not yet processed the implications.
I said this to him downthread:
“You are right for a black body but if it isn’t a blackbody then the internal energy can stabilise at any figure at all as long as energy in equals energy out.
For a non black body the surface temperature will then be related to the ability of the non blackbody to conduct and convect internally and will not radiate to space at the temperatutre of the surface.
For the Earth the point of stability is 288K at the surface, 255K escaping to space and the balance of 33K constantly recycling up sand down within convective overturning.
As you say:
“ANY amount of input energy can hold an object at ANY temperature, as long as the output energy flows are EQUAL to the input energy flows”
Do you realise that realisation of that point destroys the radiative theory of AGW?”
The inescapable fact supported by all physics and observations is that conduction and convection are processes whereby radiative energy at the surface is converted to non radiative potential energy constantly recycling up and down within the atmosphere and that creates the 33K discrepancy between radiation at the surface and radiation escaping to space because that 33K of potential energy is unable to escape to space.
It is held permanently within the mass of a convecting atmosphere for as long as the mass of that atmosphere remains suspended off the ground against gravity.
Radiative theory is incomplete.
Joel ,
You want equations?
Energy in = 255K (radiative)
Energy out = 255K (radiative)
Energy from surface to atmosphere = 33K (non radiative)
Energy from atmosphere to surface = 33K (non radiative)
System balanced
At the point of balance:
Energy in of 255K at top of atmosphere + energy from atmosphere to surface of 33K= 288K
Energy out from surface of 288K – energy from surface to atmosphere of 33K = 255K
Simple 🙂
Those numbers successfully combine the thermal effect of the radiative and non radiative energy flows.
Your only response is that radiative flows cannot convert to non radiative flows or vice versa.
You are clearly wrong.
All mass converts radiative energy flows to (internal) non radiative energy flows and back again.
In the process, that mass rises in temperature and in due course stabilises at a higher equilibrium temperature than would have been the case from radiative flows (the S-B figure) alone simply because internal non radiative flows are slower than the speed of light and therefore impede the free flow of radiative energy.
But that mass at the higher than S-B equilibrium temperature still radiates out no more than it receives by way of radiation.
That is basic and accurate physics
“The inescapable fact supported by all physics and observations is that conduction and convection are processes whereby radiative energy at the surface is converted to non radiative potential energy constantly recycling up and down within the atmosphere and that creates the 33K discrepancy between radiation at the surface and radiation escaping to space because that 33K of potential energy is unable to escape to space.”
Stephen,
If you can find one PhD physicist that would read this sentence and say that it correctly represents a possible physical situation, I’ll give you $100. This is just nonsense.
As for your “equations”, setting an energy equal to a temperature is not an equation.
Again, if you can find one PhD physicist who will look at “Energy out from surface of 288K – energy from surface to atmosphere of 33K = 255K” and say that this correctly describes a real physical situation, I’ll give you $100.
It’s not just that you don’t understand physics…It’s that you don’t even understand what constitutes physics, and hence, you are cognitively unable to be aware of your own lack of understanding of physics.
Joel,
Every gas molecule floating off a surface carries potential energy.
What is your theory as to how it got there?
Go to this comment.
The Sun’s direct radiation into the Earth’s surface cannot achieve a mean temperature of 288K. If it could, then some regions in the tropics would be over 100°C on clear days.
The required (and very necessary) extra thermal energy comes from solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere and subsequently conveyed downwards into the surface by non-radiative processes that are obeying the Second Law and thus maximizing entropy.
Stephen,
As I explained to you before, there are things in the world called “non-conservative forces” that can’t be described in terms of a potential energy. The buoyant force is such an example.
The correct understanding of the adiabatic lapse rate is that it is derived by considering the adiabatic expansion of a neutrally-buoyant parcel as it rises through the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with potential energy, although you can come up with a wrong derivation using potential energy if you make other errors (like not distinguishing between specific heat at constant pressure and volume). I say this because I made some of these mistakes when I tried to work through it before getting it right. (Unfortunately, derivations you can find written down will generally go through it correctly but will not note explicitly note incorrect things, like considering gravitational potential energy but ignoring buoyant force.)
There is not much transfer of thermal energy out of the surface by radiation. The original NASA Energy Budget is roughly correct, though you need to realize that the conduction out of the surface is a net figure of conduction into and out of the surface. It all balances, and is correct enough for me. But note that the surface temperature is not set by radiation at all. The mechanism is much more like the process that makes the wall of your bath below the water surface nearly the same temperature as the water. There’s no issue of much radiation being involved – just molecular collisions that are reducing unbalanced energy potentials.
As explained in my review-type paper the actual transfer of thermal energy by radiation is only that portion of the radiation from the (effectively) hotter body which does not resonate in the target. This is quantified (in engineering for example) as being related to the area between the Planck function for the target and the (effective) Planck function for the source after attenuation by distance, atmospheric absorption, albedo etc. The Earth’s surface absorbs a mean of about 168W/m^2 of solar radiation, so, from the surface, the effective temperature of the Sun is (a mean of) only -41°C. Hence the only (mean) transfer of thermal energy by radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is that percentage shown in the above linked NASA met energy budget that is cooling the surface.
And Stephen there are numerous graphics of molecules moving around such as here and typical speeds are about 1,700 Km/hour between collisions. So I’m asking you how you imagine (from such a graphic) the molecules somehow grouping together into balloon-shaped “parcels” that apparently only ever rise, ignoring other molecules on the way, though you also want them to fall, but you never precisely explain how and why they do which, or when, like day or night or any old time, hail, rain or shine. If you introduce wind you get the goooong, because the warming and cooling takes place as molecules exchange their own KE and PE, and wind just helps to supply KE so the molecules don’t have to use their own, just like when you take that vacuum flask of air up a mountain it doesn’t get colder.
Doug,
I think you are nuts.
Finally, after 505 comments, something we can all agree on. 🙂
Agreed
Reminds me of the film, A Beautiful Mind.
In other words Stephen you are completely stumped because you know that a location on the equator of Venus must cool in four months of darkness with no input of thermal energy and inevitable output of energy. So, if it cools by x degrees (which we can calculate as about 5 degrees) then it warms by x degrees in four months of sunlight. But a mere 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface cannot raise the temperature from 732K to 737K in four months – not even in a billion years. Nor can the solar radiation raise the temperature of anything that is above about 400K as found in the upper troposphere of Venus. You can confirm that with Stefan Boltzmann calculations. So it is obviously only in that region that the electro-magnetic energy in solar radiation is converted to thermal energy.
So, Stephen, each Venus morning the Sun starts to supply thermal energy only to the upper troposphere of Venus where its <400K. But we know there must be an input of thermal energy into the surface of Venus during the sunlit period in order to raise the temperature, so that thermal energy must be being transferred by some heat transfer mechanism which can be explained within the laws of physics, from the less-hot upper troposphere down to lower hotter regions and into the surface. Back radiation cannot do it.
Others have realized that this must happen but I am one of only two in the world who have worked it out from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The other person (Teofilo Echeverria) did so independently and I only got to read his book when he drew attention to it in this comment on January 20, 2014. One day, perhaps in another decade, it will be common knowledge. What happens on Venus happens to some extent in all tropospheres on all planets, everywhere in the Universe.
Because you, Stephen, ignore the most important law of Nature, your hypothesis fails to explain how the energy actually transfers into hotter regions. Likewise the radiative GH conjecture fails because it ignores entropy considerations. You are close in recognizing that PE converts to KE, but you have assumed that your imaginary “parcels” are doing the trick, when in fact you should have been applying the Kinetic Theory of Gases to individual molecules that exchange PE and KE in flight between collisions. Then, when you understand what happens when all energy potentials dissipate (and we thus get thermodynamic equilibrium) you will then understand what happens when that state is disturbed. It’s all in the “heat creep” diagrams here (and in the linked paper) and it’s quite easy to understand.
Footnote:
Absolute (K) temperature is proportional to mean molecular kinetic energy. Thus molecules in the highest regions of the troposphere, where it might be about -70°C in the tropics (ie 203K) still have over 70% of the kinetic (thermal) energy that those at 288K near the surface have, where their speed between collisions is about 1,700 Km/hour. In the upper troposphere they are still moving at over 1,400 Km/hour, so they don’t just decide to “fall” back down again Stephen. If strong downward winds take them down, such as from the -50°C upper troposphere above the South Pole down to the -50°C surface they don’t warm at all because it’s not an adiabatic process in an isolated system. One day, perhaps, Stephen you’ll understand the physics in which you are not qualified and should not make a fool of yourself dabbling therein.
Doug Mr. Wrong Cotton the computer BOT,
Where do get the ridiculous idea that air moving up a mountain from a plain below does not cool on the way up. What are you sources goofy. Again you just make up stuff with no evidence, no support. I really think you are as nuts. Most people have some idea or hypothesis they prefer you just make up stuff. Like Venus surface changing 5 degrees during day. There is no evidence of this you just made it up and then you use it like it is an established fact.
Or Uranus lower atmosphere temperature. No one has a measurement of it but you go on and on about it like it is an established fact even though I have asked you to provide evidence you never do.
Please just SHUT UP and quit posting. Your moronic posts are not even funny after awhile. Get some supporting evidence for your stupid claims goofy! Or quit making them.
Prove your stupid claim that air moving up a mountain does not cool on the way up. Except that clouds and rain form along the way up goofball!!!
Hi Doug and Norman,
Norman states:
“Like Venus surface changing 5 degrees during day. There is no evidence of this you just made it up and then you use it like it is an established fact.”
Well Doug? Norman makes a valid point. From my reading the longest any probe survived the Venusian surface proved to be only a few minutes. It seems very doubtful we have anything like comprehensive temp data for the Venusian surface, especially day and night time temps over a territory or region large enough to prove conclusive. Moreover, the massive (103-5 x larger than Earth) Venusian atmosphere and particulate layer extending from the surface to 50km above the surface blocks out 95% of incoming and likewise outgoing radiation making any observation of the Venusian surface from space quite doubtful. How do you arrive at this seemingly specialized knowledge that mere mortals seem deprived of? Thanks and…
Have a great day!
Wind is the only thing that actually transports large numbers of molecules in any particular general direction. In the absence of wind you get heat transfer but very little net movement of molecular mass, such as when hot air in your car appears to empty into a closed garage when you open all doors. There’s still about as much air remaining in the car. Individual molecules do not move very far relative to the spread of the thermal energy via molecular collisions. That is natural convective heat transfer, as distinct from forced convection as brought about by wind or an electric fan.
Now, if you put a valve in the lid of a vacuum flask and take it up a 1000 meter high mountain the air inside does not cool by 6 to 10 degrees. You might say that’s because it doesn’t expand. Well, release the valve so it does. It will still not cool inside the flask. How could it? None of the molecules that are still inside have lost any kinetic energy, because they did not have to use their own KE to gain the PE – you gave them the extra PE using some of the energy derived from the fuel in your vehicle. So it is the same with warm wind that blew across a hot plain and then got diverted up a mountain slope, still remaining almost as warm when it gets to the top. And likewise cold wind blowing downwards above the South Pole does not get warmer.
Natural convective heat transfer has to be driven by a new source of thermal energy that disturbs the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. The heat flow will then be in all accessible directions away from the source of new thermal energy and spreading out over the sloping thermal plane.
(continued)
You know this happens when, for example, you warm one side of a room, or the gas inside one end of a horizontal sealed insulated cylinder. The unbalanced energy potentials thus created tend to dissipate, because that’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Such energy potentials involve all forms of internal energy. But we can assume no nuclear or chemical reactions take place, or phase changes in that horizontal cylinder. So that leaves us with molecular kinetic energy and molecular gravitational potential energy in each molecule. Only the KE affects temperature, but in the horizontal plane PE does not change, and so we get the Clausius corollary of the Second Law (that only applies in a horizontal plane) wherein KE tends to even out, meaning temperatures tend to even out. The process is not reversible because it gets to a state of maximum entropy within the constraints of the system, and entropy can never decrease.
Now, rotate the cylinder about its center to a vertical position. Gravity causes some net movement of molecules downwards and thus some net gain of KE in the lower regions, offset by a loss of KE in the upper regions. It’s not hard to understand that energy potentials are all dissipated when there is a homogeneous sum of molecular (KE+PE) at all heights, and so there is a temperature gradient when maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) is attained because there is an offsetting gradient in gravitational potential energy.
Mr. Wrong (aka Doug Cotton),
How many times can you be wrong and not think maybe it is time to go take a REAL college physics course and quit pretending I am a degree student in physics (which you are not except in your make believe world).
Here is a simple experiment they have students do. Try and it and learn or mouth some stupid made up response. You are not a brilliant man Doug, really you are not even intelligent. Intelligence is ability to learn. You display none.
http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/ExpansionCooling.pdf
Doug,
Isn’t this shown by the heat equation ?
Norman:
There is no such thing as a “parcel” of air in an isolated system undergoing adiabatic change.
What you linked is a hypothetical “experiment” which the author thinks will give the results he assumes, but it doesn’t. People think the air rushing out is cold because it causes evaporation from their skin.
You are hand-waving again Norman, and quoting typical meteorology/climatology fictitious fiddled fissics – but thanks for yet another example of such, easily proven wrong.
The air that remains inside the bottle still consists of molecules that have not lost any kinetic energy: they just move further between collisions, but so what? None of those molecules have done work on the other molecules outside. The temperature remains the same inside the bottle. Show me documented measurements of the inside temperature. Then point the bottle downwards so the air rushes out into slightly warmer air below.
Yet again I remind Norman and others that the Ideal Gas Law tells us …
pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
In the bottle experiment the pressure and density inside the bottle decrease simultaneously and in proportion to each other. So temperature is constant.
— Doug Cotton says:
April 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM
Norman:
There is no such thing as a “parcel” of air in an isolated system undergoing adiabatic change.
What you linked is a hypothetical “experiment” which the author thinks will give the results he assumes, but it doesn’t. People think the air rushing out is cold because it causes evaporation from their skin. —
Nope. It how’s refrigerators work.
My thoughts on what Dr. Salby tried to convey.
Dr. Spencer, here is where I am at.
After having time to think about this, I think the truth is human emissions of CO2 are causing the total concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to be higher then if they were not present. Does added CO2 cause some warming ? I think it does. Do natural sources for CO2 account for most of the CO2 concentrations? Yes they do.
Given that, the question comes down to this. How much added contributions of CO2 from human emissions are needed to off set natural processes? I think the answer to this question given the contributions from human versus natural emissions of CO2 is human emissions will have to be much greater then they are today UNLESS the amounts of CO2 emissions coming from natural sources stays at a steady state.
The greater the natural emissions of CO2 stray from this steady state the less significant will be the overall human impact.
I would say unlike the last 150 years, going forward emissions of CO2 from natural sources are no longer going to continue to rise but fall. With this said I think it will only take a tiny drop in CO2 emissions from natural sources to fall which would be able to overwhelm the human added contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
The increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 150 years being mostly due to natural emissions. The test will come when CO2 emissions from natural sources begins to fall when /if the temperature trend begins to fall. How big of an impact this may or may not have on future CO2 concentrations will depend upon the magnitude, lag time and the duration of time that lower natural emissions for CO2 take place.
Does this reasoning sound logical? If not why?
Another factor that comes into play is the saturation factor. How much of a difference are increases in CO2 concentrations at this level going to contribute to the overall GHG effect? The argument is at this level any increases in CO2 concentrations would be minimal.
I know your view on this issue is not quite the same Dr. Spencer.
Hi Stephen and Joel,
“Stephen Wilde says:
April 14, 2015 at 10:39 AM
“Joel, Fair comment.
“The surface may well radiate at 288K but the surface plus atmosphere only radiate to space at 255K.
“The ‘extra’ 33K of radiation from kinetic energy at the surface does not make it to space because that 33K of kinetic energy is actually conducted and convected up and down within the mass of the atmosphere IN ADDITION TO any up and down radiation within the atmosphere.
“If conduction and convection were only an upward process then the surface would be at 255 as per S-B and not at 288 because conduction and convection would reduce the surface radiating temperature from the observed 288K to the theoretical 255K.
BUT you also have downward convection above half the Earth’s surface at any given moment which suppresses upward convection beneath it which allows the surface temperature to rise above S-B at any given level of insolation.
“Averaged across the globe that raises surface temperature 33K above 255K for the observed 288K.
“The surface may be radiating at 288K but the combination of surface and atmosphere is only radiating 255K to space because of the intervention of conduction and convection which offsets the up and down radiative exchange within the atmosphere.”
Now, I see (understand) where some of the confusion, that now exists, arises. I have been operating on the assumption that the 33K difference being referred to in the above was only the result of an Arrhenius radiation balance calculation which is commonly referred to in introductory meteorology textbook. But now I see, and accept, it is now based upon actual observations made at the earth’s surface and from satellites orbiting the earth.
However, before reading the above and understanding its implications this morning, I had noted the fact that I had not yet, in my responses to this posting of Roy, referred to the fundamental topic which have been a major part of my responses (comments) to his posts. And Joel knows first-hand what this topic is because we have had a conversation about what Richard Feynman taught physic students at Caltech about light scattering by cloud droplets. (The Feynman Lectures on Physics pp 32-6,7) I have quoted what Feynman taught but will not because anyone really interested can find this book, it is readily available, and read what Feynman taught; which I cannot find any other physicist teaching. So, while I can understand the result of what he taught, I do not know if what he taught is valid. But common observation strongly suggests it is.
Instead I will quote an notable meteorologist of the past. R. C. Sutcliffe, F.R.S. (Weather & Climate) wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the differences between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter.” (Pp33,34). On page 34 he continued: “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as though they were black bodies.” As to the latter portion of this quote there is abundant observation as to its validity.
However, there is serious tension between what Feynman taught about light scattering by cloud droplets and that long-wave radiation from the earth is totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds. The latter is still the accepted understanding of meteorologists and climatologists such as Roy and most physicists such as Joel.
But I doubt (do not trust my memory) the words cloud(s), unless it was cloudless, has not been written in response to Roy’s posting or to any comments (many, many) of the responders. Clearly, the profound effect of clouds on our climate referred by Sutcliffe has been replaced by the profound effect of GHGs on our climate. This even though the influence of clouds “is obvious enough if we only think of the differences between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and a clear frosty night in winter”.
My understanding is it is the role (whatever the mechanism) that clouds play upon the outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the earth’s surface that resolves the 33K difference between what is emitted from the surface and what finally is transmitted to space.
Have a good day, Jerry
Well Jerry, we don’t need clouds doing all this in order to get the observed -g/cp temperature gradient throughout the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus, where the only source of new thermal energy is solar radiation absorbed in the stratosphere. Up there it’s about 59K, whereas as the base of the nominal troposphere it’s hotter than Earth’s surface all due to a mere 4W/m^2 absorbed from the Sun, not any long-term cooling off or energy generation due to ongoing compression as on Jupiter.
My reply is continued in this comment above where Stephen Wilde is tied in knots, and thus resorts to attempted smears rather than discussing physics.
Doug keeps warping facts to fit his theory. Measurements show Uranus emits 1.06 +/- 0.08 times as much energy as it absorbs from the sun. Thus the best estimate is that there IS upward heat flow from the interior outward. Sure it is POSSIBLE that the correct answer is 1.00, but it is just as likely to be 1.14.
The support for Doug’s hypothesis is an unlikely outlier. Frankly, if I were proposing a new theory that went against all the textbooks in the world, I would want data that was close to 100% certain, rather than close to 0% certain.
So it could be emitting only 98% of the 4W/m^2 that it receives, or at most emitting 14% of 4W/m^2 extra. Now that 14% is thus about half a watt per square meter. In contrast, the small solid core (about 55% the mass of Earth) is at about 5,000K and would thus lose a lot of energy by conduction into the atmosphere if it were cooling and not receiving back balancing downward convective heat transfers. Apart from conduction and convection, the 5000K solid core would emit a hefty 35,437,500W/m^2 of electro-magnetic radiative flux according to our trusty on-line Stefan Boltzmann calculator courtesy of tutorvista.com – which kind of eclipses that half a watt at the top. Oh, and don’t forget it could be 2%, namely 0.08W/m^2 into the system. My words were “there is no convincing evidence of significant energy loss” and I stick by that statement.
““the small solid core (about 55% the mass of Earth) is at about 5,000K and would thus lose a lot of energy by conduction”
Really? Care to show us your calculations of the heat flow by conduction through 20,000 km of fluid with a temperature difference of 5000K. That works out to about 0.00025 K/m. Conduction with such a temperature gradient will be PRETTY SMALL.
“Apart from conduction and convection, the 5000K solid core would emit a hefty 35,437,500W/m^2”
Only if the core was radiating to 0 K surroundings. But as you point out in another post, thermal radiation will only travel a fraction of a meter (“nanometers” you say). Suppose it travels even 0.1 m throught the dense fluids near the core. Then the surrounding would be on the order of 0.000025 K cooler. The “back-radiation” would be about 35,437,499.3 W/m^2 for a new outward flux of 0.7 W/m^2. Hmmmm … pretty much the same order of magnitude as observed at the surface.
“and don’t forget it could be 2%, namely 0.08W/m^2 into the system. ”
YEAH! COOL! I’m going to come up with a proposal where Uranus sucks energy from the empty space around it! That makes as much sense and fits the data just as well as your theory. 🙂
Jerry,
Part of the greenhouse effect is indeed due to clouds, but only part of it. I don’t remember quite what the fraction is…but I think clouds account for maybe a quarter of the greenhouse effect (in the global average).
Clouds definitely do not account for the full 33K difference.
Joel
Sure – well explain the warming at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus, where it’s hotter than Earth’s surface, as discussed in my other comments today, and help Stephen Wilde answer the question about Venus.
Just remember that you are engaging in fraudulent activity promoting a false hoax that causes poverty, starvation and death and for which there is no explanation using any valid physics. I throw down the gauntlet to you to disprove the physics I present here.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for responding. Much better than nothing even though you basically disagree.
You wrote: “Part of the greenhouse effect is indeed due to clouds, but only part of it. I don’t remember quite what the fraction is…but I think clouds account for maybe a quarter of the greenhouse effect (in the global average).”
I understand the LWIR observed via satellite is either originating from the earth surface or from the tops of clouds. Is that correct?
Have a good day, Jerry
No…It is originating from various layers of the atmosphere, not just the tops of clouds…and, in fact, you can observe the spectrum with no clouds by looking at an area where there aren’t any clouds.
And, then you can use the known spectra of the various GHGs to compare the observed spectra seen from space to the predicted spectra. We may disagree, but it is not an even disagreement. On my side is an overwhelming amount of evidence AND theory; on your side, I am afraid there is little more than wishful thinking.
And I note the quote …
“you also have downward convection”
No it wasn’t myself who wrote those words.
It seems like there’s now some agreement that downward convective heat transfers (that is, “convection” for short) do happen. I’d even agree that this downward heat creep does in fact happen about half the time on Venus and Uranus anyway. It’s not accurately half the time on Earth because some regions of Earth’s surface are indeed absorbing solar radiated energy directly, rather than acquiring it almost entirely by heat creep, as is much more the case on Venus. And, seeing that day and night each take about “half the time” on Venus, I would agree for that planet anyway.
The simple mistake that AGWers consistently make is to attribute the difference between actual surface temperatures and SB expectations entirely to radiative properties of GHGs. In fact, in the presence of ANY atmosphere, GHG-independent convective processes dominate in the transfer of heat away from the surface. And when surface evaporation comes into play, the atmosphere is even more rapidly warmed, relegating radiative transfer to a minor, nearly null-net, role.
Sounds cool, but doesn’t actually make any sense when you think about it. The radiative balance that we’re talking about is the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative balance. If the surface is emitting 390 W/m^2 of radiation and only 240 W/m^2 is making it out to space, it is not rocket science to realize that the only explanation is that some of the emitted radiation is being absorbed (or reflected).
Convective processes cool the surface and are the reason why the surface temperature is only 33K above SB expectations. In the absence of radiation, I believe calculations show that the difference would be about twice that.
Joel Shore
Your “SB expectations” (that is, 390W/m^2 causing 288K) are totally false because it is incorrect to include the 324W/m^2 of radiative flux from the colder atmosphere in those calculations. Even Roy Spencer knows that such radiation does not penetrate water by more than a few nanometers, so how is it going to help the Sun’s radiation to warm that transparent surface layer of the oceans that represents about 70% of the surface? Even the solar radiation mostly passes through the first meter or so of the oceans.
If you were right then you should be able to make the bulb of a thermometer in the Sun register a higher temperature by using mirrors to reflect some of its own radiation back onto itself.
I suggest you read, study and inwardly digest this article written by a professor of Applied Mathematics, which is very similar to physics.
Then turn to http://climate-change-theory.com as over 8,000 others have in the last three months. You are fighting a losing battle with your promoting of the fraudulent radiative forcing GH hoax that is causing poverty, starvation and death.
If you’re going to talk about the TOA radiative balance, then you should stick to measurements of that, instead invoking theoretical surface emissions, which you mistake for actual heat transfer. It’s your mixed-up rationale, featuring such gems as “in the absence of radiation,” that makes no sense. Every mass of matter, not just GHGs, radiates somewhere in the EM spectrum. The net heat transfer by ALL mechanisms–not just radiation–is what determines the surface temperature.
First, you are correct that I had a typo. When I said “In absence of radiation…”, I meant “In absence of convection…”
We also agree that the net heat transfer by all mechanisms is what determines the surface temperature. Hence, the surface temperature would be even higher if not for convection.
However, if we are just getting the magnitude of the greenhouse effect by observation, we don’t need to calculate convection. We just need to observe what the surface temperature actually is and compare it to the largest it could be if the atmosphere were transparent to the emitted terrestrial radiation. Then, this gives us the magnitude of the greenhouse effect (after convection has reduced it from what it would otherwise be if we could somehow “turn off” convection).
Yes well, Joel (promoter of the hoax) Shore read this comment just below.
And if the atmosphere were “transparent” and without water vapor, there would be no clouds and the atmosphere itself might as well not be there. So then the surface would receive a mean of 342W/m^2 which would make it nearly 6°C, not -18°C. Given that a location like Invercargill (New Zealand) that is close to the mean latitude of 45°S has a mean temperature of only 9°C I suggest that the 14°C postulated in the IPCC website could easily be overstated 5 degrees, but if not, then bear in mind that the main inhabited areas would be much hotter, even getting up to about 120°C as happens on the Moon. Yes the mean temperature might be about 6°C, but that would be mainly due to far colder temperatures in polar regions – which is not much use for life on the planet. I’d rather have what we have.
Why AGW Stefan Boltzmann calculations are wrong:
Only direct solar radiation should be counted in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and you need to deduct the simultaneous loses by Earth’s surface due to non-radiative (sensible) heat transfer and evaporative cooling.
On average, the solar radiation is 168W/m^2 and those losses are 102W/m^2 and so the remaining 66W/m^2 doesn’t have a chance in regard to maintaining the global mean of, say, 288K that requires an extra 324W/m^2, that is a total of 168+324=492W/m^2 of solar radiation, not 168W/m^2. (S-B calculations give 288K for 390W/m^2 and the energy budgets get that input from 168+324-102=390W/m^2.)
Now, yes it is possible for the Sun to warm some regions, mostly in or near the tropics on clear cloudless days. Then the incident solar radiation may be reduced by only 30% instead of about 50% in the atmosphere because we don’t have clouds reflecting 20%. So, if the angle of incidence is around 60 to 90 degrees, we use 70% of 1360W/m^2 multiplied by the sine of that angle of incidence and we can indeed get up to 950W/m^2 in the one location on Earth where the Sun is directly overhead. The non-radiative losses also increase, perhaps to 200W/m^2 and so the remaining 750W/m^2 could potentially explain a temperature of 339K (66°C) but we don’t get there because the angle of incidence is not 90 degrees all through the day and the Sun doesn’t have long enough to quite get there.
However, if the IPCC were correct in adding back radiation, their 324W/m^2 is 83% of the 390W/m^2 being emitted. So the back radiation from our 750W/m^2 would be 83% of that, namely 622W/m^2. Now, following their logic, we would need to add that to the 750 and thus get 1372W/m^2 for which S-B calculations then give us a totally unbelievable maximum Earth surface temperature of 394K which is 121°C.
PS: Note that the 1372W/m^2 is close to the 1360W/m^2 which one location of the Moon receives when the Sun is directly overhead, and the maximum temperature on the Moon does indeed get to just over 120°C.
Tim,
I used the word ‘but’ because you said this:
“The only energy that really counts for SB calculations is the INTERNAL energy of an object that determines the temperature of the object.”
The fact is that if there is ANY internal MOVEMENT of energy then it is not a black body.
A black body absorbs perfectly and then emits perfectly so any internal processing of energy detracts from that black body perfection.
So, as soon as one has conduction and convection it is no longer a black body and need no longer obey S-B.
The more conduction and convection the less like a black body it becomes.
The factors that control the amount of conduction and convection are atmospheric mass and the strength of the gravitational field and NOT radiative capability because gas density at the surface determines the proportion of energy passing through that can be absorbed by conduction and convection.
Conduction and convection do however respond equally and oppositely to any changes in radiative capability within the atmosphere in the way that I have described.
Thus:
i) If the net effect of GHGs is radiation to space then less energy comes down in convective descent than goes up in convective ascent.
ii) If the net effect of GHGs is radiation to the surface then more energy goes up in convective ascent than comes down in convective descent.
Either way the imbalance that the radiative capability of GHGs introduces is cancelled by the convective response because less energy then comes down in descent than went up in ascent.
If there are no GHGs then both ascent and descent carry the same energy and all radiation to space goes out from the surface.
The more GHGs there are the more goes out to space from within the atmosphere and the less goes out from the surface but the total going out stays the same (at equilibrium) as that coming in.
This is messed up in SO many ways!
The only energy that really counts for SB calculations is the INTERNAL energy of an object that determines the temperature of the object. Not “direct solar radiation”; not “Direct solar & back radiation”. It can be interesting how it got that energy, but really that is secondary. Once the energy has become internal thermal energy, it carries no information about its source.
If a surface is 288K (and a black body) then the outgoing thermal EM flux will be 390 W/m^2. Period. End of sentence. Call it “radiance” if you like.
If the surface is going to remain at 288 K, then the total energy in must equal the total energy out. Again, not “direct solar radiation” but all energies in and all energies out. If (energy in) = (energy out), then the over all Q = 0 and, since Q=mc Delta(T), then Delta(T) is zero. IF the total energy in is 168 W/m^2 and the total energy out is 168 W/m^2, the temperature will remain steady wherever it is. That could be 255 K or 288 K or 150 K or 600 K.
I should repeat that since many people seem to miss this point. ANY amount of input energy can hold an object at ANY temperature, as long as the output energy flows are EQUAL to the input energy flows. The surface of Venus can stay warm with very small heat inputs if the heat outputs are equally small. The troposphere of Uranus can be kept warm with minimal heat input as long as there is an equally small heat output.
You are right for a black body but if it isn’t a blackbody then the internal energy can stabilise at any figure at all as long as energy in equals energy out.
For a non black body the surface temperature will then be related to the ability of the non blackbody to conduct and convect internally and will not radiate to space at the temperatutre of the surface.
For the Earth the point of stability is 288K at the surface, 255K escaping to space and the balance of 33K constantly recycling up sand down within convective overturning.
As you say:
“ANY amount of input energy can hold an object at ANY temperature, as long as the output energy flows are EQUAL to the input energy flows”
Do you realise that realisation of that point destroys the radiative theory of AGW?
The critical events which radiative theory fails to capture are these:
i) Insolation heats the surface to 255K
ii) Heat at the surface conducts to air molecules which then rise convectively creating potential energy from that surface heat and potential energy cannot radiate so it stays in the atmosphere, unable to escape to space.
iii) The energy so conducted and convected does not reduce surface temperature below 255K because new insolation continues to arrive at the previous rate thus replacing it constantly. Instead the energy lost to space by radiation is reduced temporarily during the first convective cycle.
iv) That potential energy takes time to rise up and then it falls back in convective descent.
v) As the potential energy returns to kinetic energy during the descent the air warms and so distorts the lapse rate slope which reduces the rate of convection from the surface below the descending column.
vi)That reduction in convection allows additional heat energy (above S-B) to build up at the surface. Just like a glass greenhouse.
vii) That additional heat energy at the surface goes into the next cycle of conduction and convective uplift and so cannot radiate to space.
viii) The Earth’s surface needs to reach 288K in order to enable 255K to radiate to space past the obstacle presented by conduction and convection within the mass of the atmosphere.
It is basic physics to assert that all mass presents an obstacle to the free flow of radiation because it can absorb that radiation and move it internally at a rate slower than the speed of light.
The discrepancy between surface temperature and radiation to space from the top of an atmosphere is thus explained by conduction and convection inside the atmosphere.
Stephen says: “You are right for a black body but …”.
Why did you add “but”. You are joining two thoughts, both of which agree with my statement. “… if it isn’t a blackbody then the internal energy can stabilise at any figure at all as long as energy in equals energy out.”
So whether or not it is a black body, it can stabilize at any temperature as long as (energy in) = (energy out). If they are not equal, then the temperature changes until they are equal. (Of course, if the inputs are changing, then the temperature of the object simply chases this sort of balance, eg cooling at night, but rewarming during the day.)
“Do you realise that realisation of that point destroys the radiative theory of AGW?”
NOT AT ALL! Anything that impacts energy out impacts the final temperature.
Radiative gases change the energy output from the surface by restricting loses by IR radiation. The surface finds a higher steadystate temperature in this case than if such a restriction was not in place.
“Radiative gases change the energy output from the surface by restricting losses by IR radiation. The surface finds a higher steady state temperature in this case than if such a restriction was not in place.”
Radiative gases allow radiation direct to space from within the atmosphere which is not possible in their absence. To that extent they enhance energy loss (potentially).
They do radiate downwards as well but the downward radiation does not require a higher surface temperature because it is offset by the weakening of the downward transfer of energy within convective descent which has been caused by the radiative loss to space from within the atmosphere.
The energy loss from the surface remains as before but less is lost as radiation direct to space and more is lost to conduction and convection in order to make up the shortfall in the convective cycle previously caused by GHGs radiating to space from within the atmosphere.
GHGs just reapportion WHERE the radiation departs from between atmosphere and surface. They do not affect TOTAL energy loss.
It is the TOTAL rate of energy loss that must change if surface temperature is to change.
Yes, the outward radiation from the surface is 390W/m^2 and the thermal energy transferred out of the surface by radiation is about 66W/m^2.
The balance is seen below …
Thermal energy in …
Solar radiation: 168W/m^2
Thermal energy out:
Radiation: 66W/m^2
Non-radiation: 102W/m^2
Total out: 168W/m^2
To each side we should add x representing extra inward convection and conduction by day and outward by night. Radiation plays only a small role and if it is slowed then the other processes compensate by accelerating and nullifying any slowing of radiative cooling.
Stephen Wilde writes:
i) Insolation heats the surface to 255K”
No it doesn’t. You have not deducted the simultaneous energy losses of 102W/m^2 by non-radiative processes, and you have used a figure for solar flux which ignores the fact that an extra 20% is absorbed by the atmosphere on top of the 30% that is reflected.
Solar radiation absorbed by the surface: 168W/m^2
Less simultaneous losses by non-radiative processes: 102W/m^2
Net solar radiation into surface: 66W/m^2.
Stephen says“i) Insolation heats the surface to 255K”
Step one and you are already off to a bad start!
Insolation heats the surface. Period. IF the only way the surface can lose energy is via blackbody radiation, then the surface warms to 255 K (averaging in some way over the various swings), at which point the power out equals power in, and the temperature is stable (again, averaging over the various swings).
“iii) The energy so conducted and convected does not reduce surface temperature below 255K because new insolation continues to arrive at the previous rate thus replacing it constantly. Instead the energy lost to space by radiation is reduced temporarily during the first convective cycle.”
You are now contradicting yourself!
EITHER
* the temperature drops and radiation drops
OR
* the temperature stays the same and radiation stays the same.
The equation is P/A = sigma T^4. You can’t change T without changing P as well.
Tim Folkerts says, April 15, 2015 at 5:18 AM:
“Anything that impacts energy out impacts the final temperature.”
So if we simply doubled the atmosphere’s mass, then – all else being equal – mean evaporation rates from the global ocean would go down and force global SSTs to rise in order to restore balance. And if we halved it, then – all else being equal – mean evaporation rates from the global ocean would go up and force global SSTs to drop in order to restore balance.
“Radiative gases change the energy output from the surface by restricting loses by IR radiation.”
I refer you once again to CERES and its estimated evolution in global surface cooling rate by radiation alone since 2000. It has strongly increased (by ~ 1.5 W/m2), which means that the atmosphere’s RF on the surface seems to have severely weakened over the last 15 years, and that even as the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by 7.5-8 % (global WV and cloud cover rose also):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ceres_ebaf-surface_ed2-8_areaaveragetimeseries_deseasonalized_surface_net_longwave_flux-all-sky_032000to092014.png
“GHG-independent convective processes dominate in the transfer of heat away from the surface.”
Yes, and also into the surface, as here.
The questions I have are what will be the future CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere? Will a cooling climate if it should take place, reverse CO2 increases and or the GHG EFFECT or at least slow them down? If so how soon and by how much?
That aside how much of an influence would a further increase in CO2 concentrations exert on the global temperature? How much of an influence does CO2 have on the temperature now?
These are the questions which need to be answered.
My feeling is I think a cooling climate will at the very least reduce the amount of CO2 increase and or the GHG effect. I do not know by how much or what the lag time may be. Maybe 5 years due to the CO2 residence time if that is correct.
As far as the influence of CO2 on global temperatures I think it is around .1c to .2c but this is overwhelmed by natural variability many times over.
If global temperatures should be overwhelmed by natural variability as data suggest and the GHG effect is at least stabilized in the process the global temperature trend should be down because all of the natural variability factors which influence the temperature going forward should be in a cold mode for the most part.
Natural Variability Factor And Mode
SOLAR IRRADAINCE-cold mode.
AMO -cold mode
PDO – cold mode.
ENSO – mostly a cold mode.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT – cold mode.
Those factors by themselves should overwhelm CO2 warming effects going forward. When possible Solar Secondary Effects ,Milankovitch Cycles and the Geo Magnetic Field trend are added to the mix it makes the possible cooling trend much more likely and even more pronounced.
How about discussing how much a variation of 1% in the concentration of the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor would cause in surface temperatures. Then compare your 20 degrees or more per 1% WV with reality, as I have in the study at the back of the paper linked here.
Planetary core and surface temperatures only decline in accord with long term decline in the intensity of radiation from their star, in our case, the Sun.
Some will have significant internal energy generation due to fission, radioactive decay and sometimes contraction of the whole gaseous planet, wherein gravitational potential energy in molecules is converted to molecular kinetic energy which is thermal energy that then gets converted to electro-magnetic energy in extra outward radiation, such as is observed coming from Jupiter. However, the internal energy generation is not sufficient on its own, and nor would it (by coincidence) be just the right amount to explain and maintain the temperatures in all regions.
Planets will also experience long term climate cycles which lead to relatively small variations in radiative balance even when there is no internal energy generation. For example, Earth would have had net losses in the hundreds of years between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. Uranus may well be in the cooling phase of a long term natural cycle and thus losing at most a mere half a watt per square meter. As pointed out in another comment, if it were free to cool off it sure would be losing a lot more than that from its 5000K core. But instead, what happens in my hypothesis, supplies the right amount of energy to maintain the core temperatures and all the other temperatures down to the radiating altitude at just the right level and with just the right temperature gradients based on the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases or solids involved, but reduced a little in magnitude due to inter-molecular radiation such as between water molecules in our troposphere.
Doug,
Admit you are a BOT and not a human. You keep repeating the same things over and over almost without any change like an AI program with a large data file that it throws out. Let us all rest easy and come clean. It is your coming out moment, announce to the world. “I am not a human being! I am an artificial intelligent program designed by my master Doug Cotton”
Then how about you discuss the calculations in this comment, Norman? And don’t forget to answer all the questions you have failed to answer correctly.
You don’t really give me or anyone the impression that you are genuinely searching for the truth. Your motive is tainted by your gullibility in absorbing the AGW garbage “science” and you did not even pick up on Joel’s glaring error with his “240W/m^2” exiting at TOA instead of about 340W/m^2 which matches the 340W/m^2 coming into the Earth’s system.
Joel Shore
I have a question for you about a previous post where you stated “If the surface is emitting 390 W/m^2 of radiation and only 240 W/m^2 is making it out to space, it is not rocket science to realize that the only explanation is that some of the emitted radiation is being absorbed (or reflected).” This difference in radiation amounts was a big factor in me being convinced GHE is quite real and proven science but then Massimo PORZIO points out the satellite measurement of outgoing longwave radiation may only be picking up a fraction of the energy. His claim is the detectors on the satellites only pick up straight line radiation directly below them. Carbon Dioxide and Water vapor will send radiation in all directions like a fog of energy. Do you know how the satellites actually gather the radiant energy to be certain to collect all the radiation leaving the TOA?
I think Massimo makes a really good point and I would like to have some certainty on this. Thanks.
Joel Shore’s figure of 240W/m^2 is garbage. Also, the 390W/m^2 is only a flux of electro-magnetic energy, most of which is just re-emitted back radiation that has been pseudo scattered.
The TOA radiative imbalance is rarely outside the range ±0.6%. It is the result of natural warming or cooling, and not the cause.
You do nothing but demonstrate how gullible you are, Norman. No wonder you’ve been so easily brain washed with the fictitious, fiddled physics of climatology.
Try reading my comment Apr 14, 5:36PM
Hi Doug,
I never entered your debate with Norman, despite I’m by your side for what you wrote above, I must disagree with your method of approaching Norman.
In my point of view he is doing a right question here, which I already did but it seems I’ve not been able to explain correctly the point, because Joel responded that the surface radiation is diffused too.
I well know that the radiation is already diffused, but that kind of diffusion is called lambertian source, it is well parameterized over any , so it just need a calibration of the satellite radiometer for the current content of GHGs using some reference ground stations and “et voilà”, the satellite became precise measuring the global outgoing energy.
But if the issue I’m exposing here really existed then as the GHGs content consistently changes, the satellite measurements will diverge from the real ground energy emission.
In my opinion the whole climate measurement system should be discussed and proven to be reliable for any energy balance estimation.
I’m not arguing that satellites are not working for measuring ground or air temperature, IMHO they are just not reliable for measuring the outgoing energy.
Anyways, Doug I believe that Norman and anybody here have the right to ask for an explanation about any issue they have with the matter.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
If Norman actually did ask me genuine questions about what is in my paper, rather than just writing comments like this then perhaps I might not come down so hard on him about the numerous errors he makes because he has no qualifications in physics and no correct understanding of entropy and energy potentials.
As an example, Norman writes above: “This difference in radiation amounts was a big factor in me being convinced GHE is quite real” and that was based on Joel’s error (maybe a typo) when he wrote 240 instead of 340W/m^2. Yes 100W/m^2 difference would be a “big factor” but, as I have mentioned in comments that Norman could have read, the difference in radiation received and emitted at top of atmosphere is nearly always between ±0.6% and so 340W/m^2 inwards nay lead to 342 or 338W/m^2 outwards.
Energy imbalance at TOA is the result of natural climate cycles and not the cause of any climate change.
Hi Doug,
I agree that Norman had been a little not polite with you, I particularly disliked when he accused you to neither know the meanings of integral, I’m not taking the part of you or him about that.
Anyways, I believe that being tolerant is a winning strategy for communicating to the others your own thought.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Doug Cotton,
You make some valid points regarding Norman’s comments. However, I’ve noticed when questions have been directed to you often times you dismiss them asking people to read your papers while and sometimes simultaneously claiming they don’t know anything (and often they don’t know much about the topic at hand). Sometimes you choose to answer their questions obliquely which confuses some. In any case, such techniques don’t often PERSUADE and apparently to Norman and others makes you come off as arrogant and nutty. When you make a sweeping statement regarding the atmosphere without providing a full rationale and answering all questions fully and immediately people will leap to conclusions and not read all your papers. Moreover, you should avoid making any factual, numerical pronouncements about anything that hasn’t been measured. For example, I cannot understand why you make claims about the core temperature of the moon for example if it hasn’t been measured. Why bother? It makes you appear pretentious and willing to just put stuff out there without any empirical basis, not serious. In addition, if I remember correctly you once claimed a molecule at some given elevation could not transfer KE to a molecule at a higher elevation. That seems empirically untrue. If I misunderstood what you claimed please let me know. It has been a while since I read that post. Frankly, I’ve agreed with a number of claims you’ve made but your rhetoric and tone could improve. Thanks for your time and consideration and …
Have a great day!
Hi Doug Cotton,
One other thing! You mentioned Joel Shore’s statements regarding surface radiation. In past reading I’ve noticed he’s claimed wildly varying figures as well if I remember correctly. It seems he’s cited 240w/m^2 and 390w/m^2. He makes flippant comments seemingly without rational foundation like implying radiative frequency doesn’t have much to do with temperature (I think he called such claims MAGIC) relying it seems on some bogus notion of total energy flow no matter how or in what form the energy flows as if anything else would be irrelevant. To me he often seems not serious. If he teaches such things academically students will suffer. Many on this blog-site seem to believe without rational basis that INTENSITY of radiation determines temperature and discount FREQUENCY. Imo, evidence (including Max Planck) has always supported the exact opposite conclusion. You know the kind of reasoning I’m talking about. Don’t be tempted to imitate them they may appear to some as bearing light, but sometimes it’s just a mirage. Thanks and…
Have a great day!
Joel Shore continues to reiterate his incorrect figure of 240W/m^2 – see this comment.
JohnKl:
No it wasn’t me who said: a molecule at some given elevation could not transfer KE to a molecule at a higher elevation. Please understand that I am not wanting to reproduce over 20 pages of detailed explanation in my two papers here.
My apologies Doug! Thank you for the clarification and…
Have a great day!
Massimo PORZIO
I like your argument about the satellite view but after more research it seems that the scientists involved took care of the problem of narrow view. The latest satellites use wide field of view so that a narrow view missing critical information is no longer an issue. The low IR leaving the TOA in the absorption bands of Carbon Dioxide are probably what they say they are and the GHE is probably real science that has been empirically measured.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mQ1DiDpX34UC&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=how+does+a+satellite+measure+outgoing+radiation?&source=bl&ots=M0pk_lexND&sig=XponK05OsdRWRLq8TUYCLHQbsYg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=79ctVbLNKIjooATAvoCoDg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=how%20does%20a%20satellite%20measure%20outgoing%20radiation%3F&f=false
I may be wrong in my understanding but at least it is worth considering.
Yes as usual you are indeed wrong, Norman. The energy absorbed by carbon dioxide is often transferred eventually to water vapor molecules via molecular collisions. It then exits the atmosphere by way of water vapor frequencies. Funny that no one discusses a lot of absorption by water vapor.
Hi Doug,
“The energy absorbed by carbon dioxide is often transferred eventually to water vapor molecules via molecular collisions.”
I fully agree, this is one of the reasons that I believe (just a believing of course) that the bite at 14um/666cm-1 could be there also with the full Earth dish FOV.
Have a nice day
Massimo
Good to see you agree, Massimo.
There is no convincing evidence that outward radiation from the whole Earth system is significantly less than radiation received. The difference is rarely more than 2W/m^2 which is about 0.6% of the 342W/m^2 coming in and out.
Hi Norman,
very thank you for searching about this issue.
I read the chapter but I don’t see any reference about spectral measurements with wide FOV.
I read about the 2.5*FOV of ERB scanning radiometer and I already knew that the second CERES radiometer on Terra satellite (if I remember well) have a scanning view horizon by horizon, but it’s a radiometer not a spectrometer. Thus, for what I know, the measurements reported a CO2 sensitivity almost half the one at Nadir, but reporting a “noisy” data. In my opinion that “noisy” data along the scan is because the spectra at the radiometer slit is changing along the scan.
If the instrument was a spectrometer I’m almost sure that the issue showed up.
Consider that I’m Italian, in case I missed some detail in the reading, please could you write an excerpt of that text with the details I missed here?
Again thank you for you interest to the issue.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Norman,
Thank you for the link and the post.
LW radiation absorbed by CO2 in the lower atmosphere gets re-radiated to other molecules sharing the same bandwidths and/or conveyed to other molecules. CO2 at TOA being an even slightly scarcer trace gas than at the surface then radiates much of the tiny portion remaining to space. Being a trace gas the low amount of 15um radiated gets labeled a “bite.” Such terms reflect persuasive propaganda not physics.
On another thread you responded to comments I made about the Earth’s magnetic field and warming of the upper atmosphere, claiming if I remember correctly that it doesn’t have much impact because the Earth’s magnetic field energy lacked the requisite power to have much effect. The problem with that line of reasoning ignores a basic fact. The magnetic field not only blocks and/or absorbs CME’s but “traps” certain high frequency radiation like oh! I don’t know…how about UV! In the Stratosphere Ozone (O3) accomplishes that task to a great extent but at higher elevations (perhaps like the Thermosphere) the magnetic field has greater relative impact than at lower elevations. Don’t know if this helps. Thanks again and…
Have a great day!
JohnKl
I remember my post about the magnetic field. I was not because of a lack of field strength that I made the comment. It was about the fact that magnetic fields only will effect ions (there path) not neutral molecules. I can’t remember the whole extent of the post.
Hi Norman,
Thank you Norman for the clarification, which relates to CME’s and solar plasma. However, as I mentioned the Earth’s magnetic field also traps high frequency radiation like UV. This helps warm the atmosphere where present. Thanks again and…
Have a great day!
Roy,
You said “Now let the sillyness begin…” and didn’t it just!
I do wonder how many of your impassioned contrarian responders actually bothered to look at your spreadsheet. Your key formula for the SOIL COOLING RATE for each 30 minute period (I have omitted fixed scaling constants for clarity) is:
SOIL_COOLING_RATE = (UPWELLING_IR – DOWNWELLING_IR) / (SOIL_DEPTH * HEAT_CAPACITY)
So there it is, loud and clear: soil cooling rate depends on the difference between the up and down radiation values, in conformance with standard radiation physics. (You correctly omitted the non-radiative losses due to thermal and evapotranspiration because, as you say, your purpose is only to make a comparison between Slayer and non-Slayer treatment of ‘back radiation’).
And, of course, the direction of heat transfer is from warmer (surface) to cooler (atmosphere), fully in conformance with the Second Law.
Here is where I believe the core confusion lies:
Contrarians think that the upwelling and downwelling radiation figures in your spreadsheet are actual energy flows, not just potential flows that offset one another.
This leads them to all sorts of logical confusions including the perennial nonsense that if back radiation existed it would cause runaway warming. In fact, because the up and down radiation figures are only potentials, they can’t on their own cause anything. It is only the difference between them that causes actual energy flow, always from warmer to cooler.
Trenberth (2008) didn’t help at all by mixing potential and actual flows in his famous diagram. All the figures in that diagram are actual energy flows except for (i) upward radiation from the surface (396W/m^2); and (ii) downward radiation towards the surface (333W/m^2). Those two figures are potentials that directly offset one another, resulting in an actual energy flow of a modest 63W/m^2 upwards. Once this is appreciated, all the flows in the diagram make sense.
The best analogy I know is an electrical one – between a potential voltage (also known as an electromotive force, or EMF) and an actual voltage that causes a current to flow in a circuit. If two potential voltages exactly oppose one another, no current flows in the circuit. If one potential voltage is larger than the other, only the difference between them is available for inducing current flow.
For example, suppose a TV remote controller contains two 1.5 volt batteries connected in series to provide a 3 volt supply. If you accidentally insert one of the two 1.5 volt batteries the wrong way round, then no current flows and your remote does not work. The two 1.5V potentials exactly offset one another leaving zero volts available to power the circuit.
But if (hypothetically – don’t try this at home!) the first battery exerts 10 volts and the incorrectly inserted second battery exerts 7 volts then the resultant voltage available to drive current round the circuit will be exactly 3 volts and your remote will work perfectly.
The confusion arises when discussing radiative transfer because your resident mainstream academic physicists, Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts and Robert Brown, quite properly promote the particulate (microscopic) thermodynamic theory in which photon transfers occur in both directions. They are way beyond talking in terms of the classical macroscopic theory of electromagnetic potential fields and they are not wrong in this (the conclusions are exactly the same and we are after all the 21st century!) But it seems that for untrained people already going up a steep learning curve this approach does prove to be an insurmountable complication, perhaps best avoided.
Best wishes
David Cosserat
Roy,
Further to my earlier comment, I see that Tim Folkerts has made an important key observation (April 14, 2015 at 10:33 PM):
ANY amount of input energy can hold an object at ANY temperature, as long as the output energy flows are EQUAL to the input energy flows. The surface of Venus can stay warm with very small heat inputs if the heat outputs are equally small. The troposphere of Uranus can be kept warm with minimal heat input as long as there is an equally small heat output.
It is a failure to understand this key truth that leads contrarians into such trouble. And even if/when they DO finally get to understand that Trenberth’s radiative energy flow from the earth’s surface really is only a modest 63W/m^2 upwards, they add to this to the non-radiative upward flows from the surface due to thermals (24W/m^2) and evapotranspiration (78W/m^2) and get a still-modest total of only 165W/m^2, shove this into the S-B equation, and get a temperature that is much lower than the observed mean surface temperature of 288K.
Their S-B calculation is completely wrong because the correct figure to put into the S-B equation IS the 396W/m^2 potential radiative figure and IS NOT the 165W/m^2 actual figure. The potential figure defines the temperature of the surface. The actual figure, being the energy flow rate from the surface for steady state temperature conditions, is due to something entirely different: the complex real physics of the intervening atmosphere.
Best wishes,
David Cosserat
The lower tropospheres of Uranus and Venus, and the surface of Venus are not kept at their current temperatures by direct solar radiation into those regions. There is none reaching down there on Uranus anyway. And neither is Earth’s surface – see this comment above.
Roy has left out all the effects of sensible heat transfers into and out of the surface. At night there is about twice as much thermal energy transferred out of the surface by non-radiative processes as by radiation as shown here.
You can’t ignore this non-radiative cooling, because these rates accelerate and nullify the effect of any slower radiative cooling.
Now all of you could have learnt that three years ago from this paper from which I quote from Section 5 …
Hence, while the surface remains warmer than the base of the atmosphere, any radiation from the cooler atmosphere will undergo resonant scattering and this process leaves no additional thermal energy in the surface. So, under normal weather conditions, no thermal energy can be transferred from the atmosphere by radiation or any other spontaneous process.
In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other, because of the way in which the area between the Planck curves reduces. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere.
David,
You introduce an interesting argument here that I would be surprised to see Shore, Folkerts and/or Brown getting behind, that the DWLWIR and UWLWIR arrows/figures in Trenberth’s Earth energy budget diagram are merely to be considered as potential energy flows/fluxes, directly offsetting each other, not real and separate energy fluxes in their own right.
You claim that it is the ‘contrarians’ that get this wrong, that confuse the two approaches. My impression is the complete opposite: It is the ‘warmists’ that appear to take for granted that the DWLWIR and UWLWIR are indeed real, distinct fluxes of energy moving down and up respectively, and that the DWLWIR ‘flux’ (the atmospheric “back radiation” to the surface) is then to be considered as a separate INPUT flux of energy to the surface, IN ADDITION TO/NEXT TO the solar heat flux, forcing the surface to go from an ideal, maximum steady-state S-B temperature of 232K (from a purely solar radiative equilibrium, 165 W/m2 IN, 165 W/m2 OUT) to a steady-state S-B temperature of 289K (165 (sol) + 345 (atm) – 112 (conv) W/m2 = 398 W/m2).
I couldn’t agree more with what you say here:
“In fact, because the up and down radiation figures are only potentials, they can’t on their own cause anything. It is only the difference between them that causes actual energy flow, always from warmer to cooler.
Trenberth (2008) didn’t help at all by mixing potential and actual flows in his famous diagram. All the figures in that diagram are actual energy flows except for (i) upward radiation from the surface (396W/m^2); and (ii) downward radiation towards the surface (333W/m^2). Those two figures are potentials that directly offset one another, resulting in an actual energy flow of a modest 63W/m^2 upwards. Once this is appreciated, all the flows in the diagram make sense.
The best analogy I know is an electrical one – between a potential voltage (also known as an electromotive force, or EMF) and an actual voltage that causes a current to flow in a circuit. If two potential voltages exactly oppose one another, no current flows in the circuit. If one potential voltage is larger than the other, only the difference between them is available for inducing current flow.”
If Shore, Folkerts and/or Brown (or Spencer, for that matter) could come out and give their unconditional approval of this particular approach, it would be highly appreciated, for all I’ve ever seen offered by these people in this regard are evasion tactics. My suspicion is that they do in fact agree (as physicists), but that they feel it inconvenient actually admitting it.
So I ask:
Are there – in a radiative heat transfer – two completely independent (‘bulk’) flows of energy moving simultaneously in the opposite direction, occupying the exact same volume of space, both freely depositing their ‘load’ in the opposing object, in and of itself causing, upon absorption of the energy, direct heating of that object (an increase in its ‘internal energy’ [U] and thus a rise in temperature), only with more cooling than heating in the warmer object and more heating that cooling in the cooler one?
Or is this just the formal way that a problem of a real physical process like a ‘radiative heat transfer’, actually only ever observed as a UNIDIRECTIONAL transfer, would be mathematically solved and thus hypothetically described?
Shore? Folkerts? Brown? Spencer?
Kristian writes:
(1) “not real and separate energy fluxes in their own right.”
Yes, Kristian, you could have learnt that from my March 2012 paper. I’m years ahead of you.
(2) “It is the ‘warmists’ that appear to take for granted that the DWLWIR and UWLWIR are indeed real, distinct fluxes of energy”
Quite correct. The AGW hoaxers add back radiation to solar radiation to get the radiative flux that “explains” the 288K surface temperature. You could have read that in one of my comments above – even the same calculations.
(3) “Are there – in a radiative heat transfer – two completely independent (‘bulk’) flows of energy moving simultaneously in the opposite direction”
You didn’t even need to ask – the answer (and all you need to know about radiation) is in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” where it’s been for over three years. Yep, I’m years ahead of you. In another three years you’ll be talking about what’s in my 2013 paper. Both papers are linked on the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com
I’ve explained all this before Kristian, but here it goes again:
(1) Yes, there are two independent flows of energy. The modern (20th century) understanding of physics requires it. [You could quibble with the word independent because nature does impose constraints, such as Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation and the fact that thermal emission at a given wavelength is a monotonically increasing function of temperature, that guarantee that the colder object absorbs more energy from the warmer than the warmer from the colder. But, I assume you still would call such a situation “independent flows”.]
(2) It is actually irrelevant to the existence of the greenhouse effect whether or not you interpret the equations as meaning there are two independent flows or you simply work in terms of the net heat flow, but the correct microscopic picture is of two energy flows. If you had experience solving steady-state problems, you’d understand this; With no experience solving them, you are libel to be tripped up by the sort of nonsense that Joe Postma peddles.
(3) It’s interesting that the analogy to the flow of current when a voltage is applied has been made because you guys appear not to know about the microscopics of that either. Look up Drude Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model). Your picture of there being no current is a macroscopic picture about the net flow of charge. It does not mean that the electrons are not moving around at the microscopic level. In fact, for typical applied voltages in, say, a metal wire, the thermal velocities of the electrons are typically about 10 orders of magnitude larger than the drift velocities. Hence the picture is of electrons moving around in all directions, with only a very, very tiny bias in the direction of higher potential (which is lower potential energy for negatively-charged electrons).
(4) You say: “…direct heating of that object (an increase in its ‘internal energy’ [U] and thus a rise in temperature), only with more cooling than heating in the warmer object and more heating that cooling in the cooler one?” This part of your statement is somewhat problematic because I think it is more sensible to attribute the steady-state temperature to the NET energy flows than each energy flow individually. Also, as soon as you use the word “heating” it becomes confusing because that is an ill-defined word that we seem to place a lot of different meanings on. This is more a semantic issue than one of the basic physics. I.e., what can be said is that all energy transfers including the one you describe from the colder object to the hotter one, have to be accounted for in order to determine the steady-state temperature (and how the temperature is going to change when you are not in steady-state). But, at some point, like I said, how you describe that becomes a semantic argument, and hence not particularly interesting as far as I am concerned. For example, in my wealth tax analogy (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188116) do you think the government is making you wealthier by giving you a 20% rebate on the wealth tax? I am not sure whether that is semantically the best way of describing it, but undoubtedly, You do end up with more money than if they do not give you the rebate.
Thanks for that, Joel.
So take heed, David Cosserat!
The first of your resident physicists does not agree with you. At least he won’t admit to it. It would be an inconvenient position to hold, after all, for the further discussion on the ‘greenhouse effect’.
The DWLWIR and UWLWIR terms are NOT seen as mere potential flows of energy. They are each considered independent, separately working flows of energy. According to him it is these that are the real fluxes of energy and the ‘net’ of the two (the ‘heat’) is simply the numerical result of their individual emissions/absorptions at the two bodies involved.
Hi Kristian,
I believe I have no disagreement with Joel Shore over this. The whole point of what I am trying to put across is to say that it doesn’t matter whether you adhere to classical thermodynamics theory or to modern statistical thermodynamics theory, the Trenberth energy flow estimates are exactly the same.
Of course Joel, as an academic physicist, prefers the latter theory because it is nowadays regarded as a more fundamental model of what is going on. It was totally unknown to 19th century classical thermodynamics. To date, it has never been falsified.
My beef is with people who say that, if you treat the opposing energy potentials between surface and atmosphere (as calculated individually using the S-B formula) as real energy flows (which Joel and most physicists have every right to do), this somehow makes a difference to the outcome. It does not.
Using Trenberth’s 2009 figures, the classical theory says that the net radiative energy flux upwards is 396-333 = 63W/m^2. The statistical theory says that the net radiative energy flux upwards is 396-333 = 63W/m^2. Spot the difference? There isn’t any. If there were any difference then the theories would not be compatible and one or other would have to be rejected!
The difficulty comes because people who are more familiar with the classical analysis tend to examine Trenberth’s separate numbers (396W/m^2 up and 333W/m^2 down) individually looking for what they imagine are sly tricks. They focus on the 333W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ figure and accuse Trenberth et. al. of fraudulently inventing a number to boost the temperature of the surface artificially. They forget that the numbers come as a pair, locked together by the real world situation of two surfaces facing one another.
The bottom line to all of this is that the temperature of the surface is known observationally to be 288K – that’s one of the key starting points for Trenberth’s diagram. The corresponding 396W/m^2 upward radiation figure is simply a calculation from that 288K number using S-B. If you are an adherent of statistical thermodynamics, it represents the upward photon flux. If you prefer the classical theory, it represents the upward radiative potential.
Likewise, the 333W/m^2 downward radiation figure is an estimate (as are many of the other Trenberth energy flows), based on best, but imperfect knowledge. If you are an adherent of statistical thermodynamics, it represents the downward photon flux. If you prefer the classical theory, it represents the downward radiative potential.
Whichever way you care to interpret these two numbers doesn’t matter because they come as a pair. You can’t just discard one or the other. The Trenberth diagram models a real-world situation in which a slightly hotter surface faces a slightly cooler lower atmosphere, with a resulting upward radiative flux of 63W/m^2, from warmer to cooler body in full conformance with the second law of thermodynamics.
All the best
David
David,
Like I said, I actually agree with your take on this. However, this is exactly why I’m so bemused that you would take on the role as apologist for the nonsense being propagated by Climate Science^TM and its proponents (like Shore) in this regard. They’re the ones, after all, spreading this confusion, David, no one else. I’m at a loss as to how you can’t see this.
– – –
So in what way, if we don’t already know the surface temperature from before, how do we find it by looking only at the actual, directly measured (detected) fluxes in the Earth system?
The only real radiant flux emitted by the global solar-heated surface of the Earth, with the warm, massive atmosphere lying on top of it, is the radiant HEAT. That’s all we can ever measure.
So if the surface absorbs a Q_in flux (the solar heat) of 165 W/m2 and sheds a total Q_out flux (conductive+evaporative+radiative; 24+88+53= 165 W/m2) of the same intensity, then all we can know is that the surface would be in a steady state, its heat IN exactly balanced by its heat OUT.
There is, however, no way we could ever know its physical mean temperature from this. 165 W/m2 IN, 165 W/m2 OUT. 232K? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?
The radiant heat flux in this scenario could be the net result of an upward 53 W/m2 sfc radiance and a downward 0 W/m2 sky radiance, or it could be the net result of an upward 20000 W/m2 sfc radiance and a downward 19947 W/m2 sky radiance. It wouldn’t make a difference to the radiant heat flux. It would be 53 W/m2 in either case.
So how can you determine the surface temperature?
There are two ways of doing this:
You could 1) actually … measure it.
Or you could 2) cool an IR-sensitve detector down as much as possible (ideally to absolute zero) and direct it towards the surface. If this detector were sensitive to ALL wavelengths of EMR impinging on it, you could have a direct reading of the full power of the radiant heat flux transferred to it from the surface. A more practical approach would be to determine the peak wavelength of the surface blackbody radiation absorbed by the detector. Both of these values could then be used as input to compute the surface temperature. Of course, the sfc temp varies from place to place all across the globe and from minute to minute all throughout the year, so it would be a formidable task gathering enough information to estimate a global average by this method.
Just measuring the temperature straight off is easier.
A pyrgeometer, for instance, is entirely dependent on direct measurements of the temperature of its sensor, or else it would be unable to compute the UWLWIR and DWLWIR ‘fluxes’.
This is because the sensor itself only ever detects the radiant HEAT moving into or out of it. The UWLWIR and DWLWIR ‘fluxes’ are never directly measured. They couldn’t be. They are always computed by the instrument. Based on the physically detected sensor temperature and the physically detected radiant heat flux to/from the sensor.
– – –
This is the point: The classical approach bases itself on what we actually, physically observe in a heat transfer – the unidirectional transfer of heat. The modern approach uses a descriptive MODEL to try and explain what we observe. Nothing new is observed. Something new is hypothesized.
No one has ever seen the two hypothetically independent, opposing emissive fluxes inside a radiant heat transfer. Because it can’t be done. You can’t see the one without the other. This is pretty elementary.
So they remain hypothetical, inferred. The statistical approach to thermodynamics simply says that the observed UNIdirectional heat is hypothetically divided into two opposing radiation fluxes, making up the heat (the ‘net’) in between them.
So how could this ever be falsified? When there is no way you could experimentally/empirically determine whether or not these two opposing radiation fluxes in fact exist independently inside the observed radiant heat transfer, and when they simply end up netting out to what we actually observe, the heat?
Of course the two approaches are totally compatible. The one is saying 1 = 1, the other one’s saying 2 – 1 = 1.
The problem only arises when the bidirectional explanation is used specifically to obtain the surface temperature of the Earth.
You can’t (by radiative theory) get to a physical temperature of 289K through a heat budget of 165 W/m2 IN and 165 W/m2 OUT.
You can only get there if you start out by assuming that the surface actually absorbs much more than just the 165 W/m2 and must therefore also emit much more:
Energy IN (in reality, Q_in): 165* + 345** – 112*** = 398 W/m2
Energy OUT (in reality, Q_out): 398 W/m2****
*solar INPUT
**atmospheric INPUT (DWLWIR ‘flux’)
***conductive/evaporative loss (OUTPUT)
****surface OUTPUT (UWLWIR ‘flux’); the emission flux to 0 K of a blackbody at 289K (and voilà! there it is!)
This is what the ‘slimy trick’ of Climate Science^TM amounts to, David. I’m sorry you still won’t see it …
Joel Shore says, April 16, 2015 at 6:17 AM:
“It is actually irrelevant to the existence of the greenhouse effect whether or not you interpret the equations as meaning there are two independent flows or you simply work in terms of the net heat flow (…)”
It is by no means irrelevant. The distinction lies at the core of the rGHE hypothesis.
The average Q_in to the global surface of the Earth is 165 W/m2 (the evened-out solar flux).
In a steady state, this is the average value that the Q_out from the surface needs to match.
And it does: 24 W/m2 (conduction) + 53 W/m2 (radiation) + 88 W/m2 (evaporation) = 165 W/m2.
The 53 W/m2 is the average radiative HEAT flux emitted by the global surface. It couldn’t be more than 165 W/m2 (in a purely radiative situation, no atmosphere). With an atmosphere it is naturally less, because then the solar-heated surface will lose energy in the form of heat by available mechanisms other than radiation. The surface of the Earth is basically immersed in a sea of air, and this sea of air brings energy away from the underlying surface as this is being heated by the Sun. This makes a difference.
What the rGHE hypothesis claims (via the ‘bidirectional approach’) is that the 53 W/m2 radiative heat flux is nothing but the ‘net result’ of two real, opposing fluxes of energy, one from the surface up and one from the atmosphere down.
The claim is then that, if there were no IR-active substances in the atmosphere, there would be no downward flux and consequently the upward flux would be uncountered, as if facing a perfect vacuum at absolute zero.
So there would be no ‘net flux’ (radiative heat) of 53 W/m2 from the surface. There would only be an upward 398 W/m2 flux emitted from a surface blackbody temperature of 289K.
So the surface would absorb a (solar) heat flux of 165 W/m2, but emit a total heat flux of [24+88+398=] 510 W/m2.
So the surface would have to cool down considerably, until the surface heat OUTPUT once again matched the INPUT:
[24+88+53=] 165 W/m2
According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this would require a mean sfc temp of only 175K.
But, wait, this can’t be!
Of course not. Two things will (apparently) change in the meantime:
1) All sfc loss through conduction and evaporation would eventually cease, because the atmosphere would somehow become entirely isothermal (even with the surface still being heated constantly by the Sun). So the surface, even with a massive atmosphere on top, would end up in a purely radiative situation, so would radiate its entire heat IN back out again.
2) There would be no atmospheric absorption of incoming solar heat, so the solar flux at the surface would be equal to the one through the ToA: 240 W/m2.
What (apparently) wouldn’t change is global albedo (even without any clouds). It would remain at 0.3.
So the global sfc in this scenario would ideally end up at 255K, emitting 240 W/m2 directly to space.
In other words, the warmer global surface of the Earth needs to absorb the 345 W/m2 of extra input energy down from the cooler atmosphere for its temperature to be able to rise all the way to 289K. The solar input alone could, after all, only ever heat it to a max of 232K (165 W/m2). With an additional 345 W/m2, you get a total of 510 W/m2 absorbed, and then all you need to do is subtract the conductive/evaporative loss (24+88= 112 W/m2) to get the 398 W/m2, which is what a blackbody sfc at 289K would emit:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
(Derived from Stephens et al. 2012.)
“If you had experience solving steady-state problems, you’d understand this; With no experience solving them, you are libel to be tripped up by the sort of nonsense that Joe Postma peddles.”
Falling back into the condescending mode again, are we, Joel?
“It’s interesting that the analogy to the flow of current when a voltage is applied has been made because you guys appear not to know about the microscopics of that either.”
More condescension. Still no real substance. Love it!
“Your picture of there being no current is a macroscopic picture about the net flow of charge. It does not mean that the electrons are not moving around at the microscopic level. In fact, for typical applied voltages in, say, a metal wire, the thermal velocities of the electrons are typically about 10 orders of magnitude larger than the drift velocities. Hence the picture is of electrons moving around in all directions, with only a very, very tiny bias in the direction of higher potential (which is lower potential energy for negatively-charged electrons).”
Yup. And still no one is deluded enough to try and explain an electric current as simply ‘the net result at each end’ of two real, independent, separately working currents of electrons flowing in opposite directions through the same wire. Ever wondered why, Joel?
Because a ‘current’ (a directional, macroscopic, bulk flow of mass or energy) is something very different from simply masses of individual microscopic particles flying around in all directions within a volume of space completely at random.
Joel Shore still continues to reiterate the incorrect figure of 240W/m^2 – see this comment.
Hi Doug Cotton and Joel Shore,
Remember what I mentioned earlier about Joel Shore labeling the connection between frequency/wavelength and temperature MAGIC? Apparently, he just read my post he now states:
“[You could quibble with the word independent because nature does impose constraints, such as Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation and the fact that thermal emission at a given wavelength is a monotonically increasing function of temperature, that guarantee that the colder object absorbs more energy from the warmer than the warmer from the colder. But, I assume you still would call such a situation “independent flows”.]”
So apparently I know something about modern physics! The connection between frequency/wavelength relates much to Planck’s Law of Radiation although Kirchhoff had much to state as well. Btw, the fact that the 2nd Law of Thermodyanmics limits the amount one radiating body can effect the temperature of another must mean a similar connection between all radiating bodies and radiative frequency. Does it still seem like magic Joel?
Allow me one other obvious point. The above statement also means GROSS ENERGY FLOWS between objects such as a planet’s surface and atmosphere DO NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINE TEMPERATURE! Why? Well, obviously if hundred’s of watts per meter squared get re-radiated back to the surface from an atmosphere that just absorbed the same from the surface how can that effect temperature? It greatly depends on FREQUENCY/WAVELENGTH NOT MAGIC!
Thanks and…
Have a great day!
Joel asks regarding back radiation: how can that effect temperature?
Good question. Ask the IPCC, because their energy diagrams imply that it does because they add it to solar radiation and use the total to work out the surface temperature.
Kristian:
Glad to see someone with the time and patience to explain the crucial difference between heat transfer rates (a conservative metric) and directional radiative intensity (a non-conservative metric). Conflating the two leads to the classic misconception about backradiation “heating” the surface, endemic in post-modern, soft-science academic minds.
sky,
Thanks. Case in point:
One of the main precipitates from this cauldron of (deliberate) confusion is the argument frequently broadcasted by people like Joel Shore and Chris Colose as perhaps the most convincing one for there being an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect, the claim that about 158 W/m2 of radiant flux somehow ‘goes missing’ on the way from the surface to the ToA, being sort of ‘held back’ inside the system. 398 W/m2 are allegedly being emitted from the global surface of the Earth, but only 240 W/m2 of these ever reach space, the rest apparently ‘trapped’ by the intervening atmosphere.
Problem is, in making this claim, they are not just comparing, but equating an actual, directly measured (detected) radiant HEAT FLUX (the global ToA flux to space, 240 W/m2) with a purely mathematical construct, a hypothetical Stefan-Boltzmann-calculated emission flux from a blackbody surface at 289K radiating straight into a vacuum at absolute zero (the UWLWIR ‘flux’ from the sfc, 398 W/m2).
These two are not at all comparable. They are NOT the same thing.
So why do they pretend that these fluxes are somehow direct equivalents?
To confuse. To confuse people who are not themselves able to distinguish the one kind from the other.
In reality, only ~53 W/m2 of radiant flux leaves the global surface on average. This INCREASES to 240 W/m2 at the ToA. No radiant heat is ‘trapped’ by the atmosphere in the steady state.
All that enters naturally exits. That’s the ‘dynamic equilibrium’ of our Earth system.
– – –
The same kind of confusion is being promoted with the case of the solar flux (165 W/m2) vs. the atmospheric DWLWIR ‘flux’ (345 W/m2). They are squarely regarded as equivalent energy INPUTS to the global surface, AS IF THEY WERE both actual and separate HEAT fluxes in their own right.
Problem is, once again, that only the former one is an actual HEAT flux. The solar flux is the Q_in to the surface. The hypothetical atmospheric DWLWIR ‘flux’ is NOT a Q_in2. It is the one (smaller) half of a mathematical expression giving the surface radiant Q_out:
Q_out(sfc) = σ(T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4)
Only the Q_out(sfc) on the lefthand side of this equation represents a ‘real’ flux (transfer) of energy, the radiant HEAT, the actual result of the operation at hand, and the only thing (besides the temps of the opposing objects) that could ever be physically detected in such a process (a heat transfer).
The two terms on the righthand side are mere temperature potentials. They WOULD’VE been heat fluxes in their own right only if the other object weren’t there, if they were instead faced with a perfect vacuum at absolute zero. That is, in a purely radiative situation.
None of these terms, in the present scenario, represent actual energy INPUTS to the surface. You can’t split them apart and consider them separately as individual, independent fluxes.
Mathematically you can; physically you can’t. It would be an entirely un-physical thing to do. The two are completely and at all times integrated in ONE, the heat.
Kristian,
You say: Problem is, in making this claim, [people like Joel Shore and Chris Colose] are not just comparing, but equating an actual, directly measured (detected) radiant HEAT FLUX (the global ToA flux to space, 240 W/m2) with a purely mathematical construct, a hypothetical Stefan-Boltzmann-calculated emission flux from a blackbody surface at 289K radiating straight into a vacuum at absolute zero (the UWLWIR ‘flux’ from the sfc, 398 W/m2). These two are not at all comparable. They are NOT the same thing. So why do they pretend that these fluxes are somehow direct equivalents? To confuse. To confuse people who are not themselves able to distinguish the one kind from the other.
I am afraid it is you who are getting confused, having picked up on my earlier careful distinction between two different (but equally valid) ways of analysing the Trenberth energy balance diagram (using either classical or statistical thermodynamics) and have twisted it round to your own incorrect viewpoint.
Your 240W/m^2 is indeed a flux because it is directed towards outer space which for the purposes of this discussion can be considered to be at absolute zero temperature and so offers no resistance. However your 398W/m^2 upwelling radiation from the surface does not face outer space. It faces resistance, namely the lower atmosphere, a body that has an effective temperature only slightly lower than the surface and which consequently exerts radiation of 345W/m^2 towards the surface, a figure you failed to mention.
ANALYSIS CHOICE 1
Applying classical thermodynamics the 398W/m^2 number is an upward facing radiative potential, not a flux. Likewise the 345W/m^2 number is a downward facing radiative potential, not a flux. The classical rules say that the resultant flux is the difference between the two, namely 53W/m^2 upwards.
ANALYSIS CHOICE 2
Applying statistical thermodynamics the 398W/m^2 is indeed an upward flux (a photon stream) and the 345W/m^2 is indeed a downward flux (a photon stream). The resultant net flux is the difference between these two, namely 53W/m^2 upwards.
Notice something similar about those two results?
The people you are accusing are not ‘pretending’ that the 240W/m^2 and 398W/m^2 are somehow direct equivalents – because if the problem is analysed from the point of view of statistical thermodynamics (which is what they are doing), they ARE direct equivalents. And they are not cheating anyone mathematically either because staring out at us on the same diagram is the third figure, the downward 345W/m^2 flux that you somehow failed to mention.
So, if anything, they could accuse you of cheating, couldn’t they? 🙂
Er, no, David. You apparently didn’t read what I wrote before you decided to start writing yourself.
In Shore’s and Colose’s specific argument for the reality of the rGHE, there is no downward 345 W/m2 component. There is only the upward 398 W/m2 component being reduced to 240 W/m2 on its way from the surface to the ToA.
Shore/Colose are not talking about the 53 W/m2 surface radiant heat flux at all. Because in their world, this can not in any way achieve the temperatures we’re dealing with here. It is way too small.
So it is not me who ‘failed to mention’ the 345 W/m2 downward component. It is the people promoting the “Sfc radiance being ‘trapped’ by the atmosphere on the way out to space” argument of the rGHE hypothesis.
Take the discussion with them, David.
And then you end with a statement which is just absurd, going directly against what you started out saying when you first entered this thread:
Originally: “Trenberth (2008) didn’t help at all by mixing potential and actual flows in his famous diagram. All the figures in that diagram are actual energy flows except for (i) upward radiation from the surface (396W/m^2); and (ii) downward radiation towards the surface (333W/m^2). Those two figures are potentials that directly offset one another, resulting in an actual energy flow of a modest 63W/m^2 upwards. Once this is appreciated, all the flows in the diagram make sense.”
Now: “The people you are accusing are not ‘pretending’ that the 240W/m^2 and 398W/m^2 are somehow direct equivalents – because if the problem is analysed from the point of view of statistical thermodynamics (which is what they are doing), they ARE direct equivalents.”
They are NEVER direct equivalents, David. Because the former one is an actual, physically detected flux of energy (a HEAT flux), while the latter one is NOT an actual, physically detected flux of energy (it is NOT a heat flux, but one conceptual component of an actual heat flux, the 53 W/m2 one).
The 240 W/m2 ToA radiative heat flux is ONLY equivalent to the 53 W/m2 sfc radiative heat flux.
(The 240 W/m2 Earth flux is also a ‘net’ flux, David. It is nothing like the mathematically derived 398 W/m2 UWLWIR ‘flux’. How can you even think that!? Just because it doesn’t appear to be ‘countered’ in any meaningful sense, doesn’t mean it doesn’t constitute Earth’s ‘heat’ to space. In fact, it is after all countered, only to such a miniscule degree (by the 2.7K radiative temp of space) that one can safely ignore the ‘opposition’.)
It’s astonishing how the PHYSICAL fact that–unlike insolation–backradiation introduces NO energy into the climate system gets totally obscured in the academic mind by the mere ALGEBRAIC equivalence of radiative surface heat transfer to the net photon flux inferred via SB. Totally overlooked is that there’s an INFINITY of supposedly opposite photon fluxes that can produce the same net 53W/m^2 result.
This lack of firm mathematical closure is what renders the customary explanation of GHE an intrinsically aphysical conjecture, patched over by ad hoc interpretation of empirical results.
–In reality, only ~53 W/m2 of radiant flux leaves the global surface on average. This INCREASES to 240 W/m2 at the ToA. No radiant heat is ‘trapped’ by the atmosphere in the steady state.–
Is this low number of ~53 W/m2 related to the fact that only a small part of the Earth is warmed by the sun at any point
in time?
So specifically I mean that 1/2 of globe of Earth is sun lit at one time, and this radiant flux of 53 W/m2 is not coming from night side of the globe, but the quantity of 53 W/m2 has been reduced because it’s average with region which no radiant flux?
In addition of the side which has light from the sun, only a small portion of this 1/2 of the sunlit side of the globe has net warming from the direct light of sunlight.
So is that part reason ~53 W/m2 is such low value?
This aspect can also be related to area of the global at any moment which can harvest solar energy.
Which on average is 6 hours a day [if there isn’t clouds].
Or on average there is 12 hours of sunlight but more 1/2 of the 12 hours does not have much solar flux intercepting the ground. This due to two factors: the low angle of sunlight
does not much solar fluw if pointing at it to measuring it,
and other factor the sunlight hits the surface at angle causing less flux per square meter.
And the 6 hour of 12 hours is **not** merely half the entire sunlight half of the global but much smaller portion
of entire sunlit area.
And one the reasons solar energy is not economically viable- particularly in in regard to a “world solution” for electrical power needs.
David Cosserat said:
(You correctly omitted the non-radiative losses due to thermal and evapotranspiration because, as you say, your purpose is only to make a comparison between Slayer and non-Slayer treatment of ‘back radiation’).
That is why I am neither a Slayer nor an AGW proponent.
It is confusion over the effect of thermals and evapotranspiration that has caused the problem.
The energy in both those flows is potential energy which cannot radiate and is not heat and it returns as kinetic energy as it moves towards the surface which is then warmed above S-B because descending warm air reduces convection beneath it.
Trenberth omits the thermal effect of that downward transfer of energy.
“Potential energy” , “kinetic energy”, “descending warm air”, “downward transfer of energy” (from the atmosphere?!).
Further up the thread you were thinking that Doug Cotton was nuts, Stephen…but with respect, you’re beginning to sound a little bit like him.
Yup, Stephen is only ‘better’ than Doug in the sense that he’s a little bit more polite and not as extreme in his tendency to flood, and thereby highjack, discussion threads with his utter nonsense.
The hypothesis that Stephen promulgates is just as stupid and contrary to physical laws as Doug’s. And Stephen is just as impervious to opposing arguments and facts, having serious gaps in his fundamental knowledge of how natural processes work, the most obvious being his ideas surrounding the ‘adiabatic process’.
You can’t prove anything at all in my hypothesis to be contrary to the laws of physics – on which it is based.
I throw down the gauntlet to you, Know-all Kristian.
Put up or shut up.
Mack,
All well known terms in meteorology.
Descending air warms adiabatically as it descends. No getting around it.
It reduces convection beneath the descending column which allows the surface to become warmer than S-B, just like a greenhouse.
Kristian thinks that a diabatic process is an adiabatic process but no point explaining that again here.
Stephen Wilde says, April 15, 2015 at 7:16 AM:
“Descending air warms adiabatically as it descends. No getting around it.”
Hehe, you are the funniest, most pigheaded character around (next to Doug, of course). And exactly why and how does the air warm (adiabatically) as it descends (and cool on ascent) according to your revolutionary perspective on physics and meteorology, Stephen?
Can you please spell it out for us ignorant fools that have only known about this since high school (or even earlier). Let’s just see how many of the physicists here agree with your particular explanation …
“Kristian thinks that a diabatic process is an adiabatic process but no point explaining that again here.”
Nope. Sorry to disappoint you. I, unlike you, know the elementary difference between a ‘diabatic’ and an ‘adiabatic’ process. I also know the difference between ‘heat’ [Q] and ‘work’ [W] and between the MICROscopic (internal, molecular, disordered) energy of a system and the MACROscopic (ordered, bulk mechanical) energy of the same system. You (and Doug) obviously don’t.
Adiabatic means no transfer of energy in or out of the rising or falling parcel of air.
Diabatic means energy does move in or out during the rising or falling process.
You say that when a parcel rises then energy does move out from the rising parcel to surrounding molecules so that it cools. The opposite when it falls.
That is a diabatic process.
In contrast, the adiabatic process of convective uplift involves work being done against gravity which converts KE (heat) to PE (not heat) so the temperature falls with no energy moving in and out.
No amount of bluster changes those facts.
“Adiabatic means no transfer of energy in or out of the rising or falling parcel of air.”
Nope. ‘Adiabatic’ means no transfer of energy AS HEAT [Q] in or out of the system, leaving Q=0, and so all change in the system’s U (‘internal energy’), and hence temperature T, comes solely as the result of a transfer of energy through the performance of WORK [W], either into or out of the system. In accordance with the 1st Law for a closed system.
This is universally known and completely uncontroversial. You can look this up in ANY textbook on meteorology and thermodynamics.
When air expands, it does so into its surroundings, pushing on it, so is doing work on it (so-called ‘PV work’), and as a consequence, since (according to the Clausius sign convention) this work [W] is positive, U (and hence, T) drops. The opposite happens when the air is compressed.
dU = δQ – δW ; in an adiabatic process, δQ=0 and δW=PdV, and so:
dU = – PdV
This has been explained to you many tens of times, with reference to various physics and meteorology sources, it is just SOOOOO basic, that I really wonder why I still bother. Because you simply refuse to get it.
“Diabatic means energy does move in or out during the rising or falling process.”
A diabatic process is one where air, for instance, is simply heated by conduction, radiation or the release of latent heat of vaporization. It is what initiates the adiabatic cycle in the atmosphere.
“You say that when a parcel rises then energy does move out from the rising parcel to surrounding molecules so that it cools. The opposite when it falls.”
Yup. By way of ‘PV work’ done by and on the parcel.
And I don’t just say it. I point it out to you. It is what happens.
“That is a diabatic process.”
No. It is – per definition – an adiabatic process.
“In contrast, the adiabatic process of convective uplift involves work being done against gravity which converts KE (heat) to PE (not heat) so the temperature falls with no energy moving in and out.
No amount of bluster changes those facts.”
I need no bluster to change these ‘facts’. Because they aren’t facts in the first place. This is just you not getting at all what’s what.
You do not convert ‘internal (microscopic, disordered, temperature-related) kinetic energy’ of an object or a parcel of air into ‘gravitational (macroscopic, ordered, mechanical) potential energy’ by lifting it. Nothing cools simply from being lifted, Stephen. These two kinds of energy do not relate. They operate on different levels, in different realms. Whatever the one does does not affect the other.
This fundamental distinction is what you and Doug are simply unable to grasp …
Kristian,
If heat moves in or out of a system then that is a diabatic process.
Saying that heat moves in or out as a result of work done does not make it adiabatic.
No heat can be transferred in or out. Period.
Stephen says: “Adiabatic means no transfer of energy in or out of the rising or falling parcel of air.”
Of course, anybody who has had even a first introduction to thermodynamics would know that what Stephen is saying is absolutely wrong and what Kristian is saying is absolutely right. Unfortunately, I am not sure Stephen even knows the distinction between internal energy and heat…He seems to use them somewhat synonymously.
It never ceases to amaze me that someone who would be hard-pressed to even pass an intro physics course nonetheless thinks that he understands atmospheric physics better than all the scientists in the field! The Dunning-Kruger Effect is really much more powerful than I ever realized…As someone who is cursed with the self-awareness that allows me to recognize the multitude of stuff that I don’t know, it’s just bizarre to me that there are people like Stephen around that are just so profoundly lacking in such self-awareness. In a way, I envy them! It must be nice for them to live in this sort of bubble, although it is pretty painful for the rest of us!
Kristian:
I have very clearly indicated that I am referring to micro KE & PE. If you are not 100% certain as to what I have said, I suggest you read and quote by copying and pasting from you clipboard. Otherwise you seem to get it wrong.
You still have this comment for which I await your response.
“The energy in both those flows is potential energy”
No Stephen. Gravitational potential energy is not “energy” in any “flow.” It is precisely the same for all identical molecules at the same height. It doesn’t “flow” anywhere. If a molecule moves upwards in flight between collisions, it gains PE whilst losing KE.
Molecules don’t run out of KE in the tropopshere. They move at about 1,700 Km/hour near the surface, and are slowed, but only to about 1,400 Km/hour at the top of the troposphere. When the density gradient is stable it is the state of maximum entropy and so, by definition (and the properties of thermodynamic equilibrium) there are no further net flows of matter or energy across any internal boundary. That trumps your hypothesis.
So, if you want to introduce wind to force your imaginary fictitious “parcels” of air downwards, that’s fine. I know it happens in some regions (but not everywhere) and likewise there are some upward winds. But any such winds entering the isolated system we are considering will just muck things up, and will certainly not create or repair the temperature gradient.
If a molecule moves upwards in flight between collisions, it gains PE whilst losing KE”
Exactly, and the reverse on the descent.
Air flows up in low pressure cells (half the atmosphere) and down in high pressure cells (half the atmosphere).
Lack of meteorology knowledge is the problem here.
I think with this debate we have to start with simpler scenarios. This forms a basis for further debate if people can agree on the simple scenarios.
We need answers to following:
Suppose we have 2 planets. Both are equal distance from sun, assume opposite sides of sun.
They have same atmosphere of a non-greenhouse gas. Both atmospheres are identical in composition and mass.
Both planets have no radioactive elements in core and no heat generation coming from core. ( due to friction / radiation etc ). Sun provides all the energy!
Both planets have exactly the same volume. Only difference is one planet has twice the mass as the other.
They rotate as same rate, they are made up of material with same heat capacity, heat conduction etc.
Only difference is the mass.
What will be daytime temp difference between the two planets at the surface. Will one have higher temp? What about at 1000 meters in altitude? Will one planet have higher temperature ?
Stevek: The issue of imaginary planets without any IR-active gases at all is something of a red herring, because it never happens. It it were possible, then the actual solid surface becomes the “radiating altitude” because it is just as if there were no atmosphere if indeed it is 100% transparent. So there would be no difference in temperature in your example.
But if there were some IR-active gases (even 1%) they will absorb and radiate and cause the radiating altitude to be somewhere in the troposphere usually, depending somewhat on the altitude with the modal concentration of these gases. The temperature gradient is related to the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases, though reduced by up to about a third by inter-molecular radiation between these IR-active gases. Then we just use simple geometry to determine the intersect of the thermal plot with the surface, because that plot is anchored in altitude and temperature by the need for radiative balance with the Sun and its gradient can be calculated.
The interesting point is that, for Uranus, there is no solar radiation at the base of its nominal troposphere, and its anchor point is at about 58K in the stratosphere (more than 350Km above) probably due to methane. Then its temperature gradient is close to the “dry” rate and we thus can calculate that it’s hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of that troposphere, even though 30 times further from the Sun.
stevek,
The planet with the greater mass will have stronger gravity.
Stronger gravity makes the density of the atmosphere greater at the surface.
Greater density at the surface will absorb a greater proportion of the surface heat by conduction and convection.
The planet with the greater mass will have a surface temperature further above S-B than the planet with the lesser mass.
The size of the temperature difference will be proportionate to the greater gas density at the surface which will be proportionate to the greater strength of gravitational field which will be proportionate to the greater mass.
More wild nonsense from Stephen Wilde …
“The size of the temperature difference will be proportionate to the greater gas density at the surface which will be proportionate to the greater strength of gravitational field which will be proportionate to the greater mass.”
Greater density does not cause greater temperature. All we know from the Ideal Gas Law is that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. (Take your vacuum flask of air up a mountain, release a valve in the lid and the gas inside expands, becoming less dense, but it does not cool.)
The strength of the gravitational field is primarily related to the solid mass of the planet, and is not proportional to the mass of its atmosphere, Stevey boy.
And no, apart from solar radiation, the temperature difference depends on the height of the troposphere, the altitude of the anchor point, the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This gives the “dry” gradient (and thus its effect) which is then reduced by inter-molecular radiation, so water vapor on Earth and carbon dioxide on Venus lower the thermal plot at the surface end, as explained in our group’s website and my paper linked therein.
All this has also been explained in other papers as here but the required energy flows have not been explained by other than my hypothesis, which is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Both stevek and I refer to the mass of the planet and not the mass of the atmosphere.
And another corker from Stephen:
“Greater density at the surface will absorb a greater proportion of the surface heat by conduction and convection.”
For goodness sake, Stephen, are you implying that’s what makes it hotter? Learn some basic physics one day, like Kinetic Theory.
The temperature of a gas is proportional only to the mean kinetic energy of the molecules, no matter how many molecules there are.
So the density is irrelevant and does not determine the temperature. See the “vacuum flask taken up the mountain” example above.
Greater absorption by conduction and convection in the ascent leads to more energy coming down in the descent and since insolation remains the same then yes, it does make the surface hotter (AFTER THE FIRST CONVECTVE CYCLE COMPLETES).
The surface molecules are then receiving both continuing insolation and returning KE from descending PE so the mean kinetic energy of the surface molecules rises.
The paper by Dr Hans Jelbring refers to atmospheric mass not the mass of a solid planet which determines its acceleration due to gravity.
I’m not saying Jelbring correctly explained the necessary energy flows, but his work on this in the late 1990’s for his PhD in climatology was along the right path and a forerunner for the new 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science for which I have solved the “mystery” of the necessary energy flows.
Doug,
You might be on to something. But I think you have to devise a simple experiment to prove things.
You must predict what will happen in the experiment and the current physics being used must predict another result.
If your result is the correct one based on observation then you have something.
Otherwise we just end up arguing about “why” things occur. Science is more interested in results instead of the “why” part. Two different explanations can end up at same result but sometimes which explanation is better is a matter of opinion.
Experiments that produce a different result than standard physics take away the subjective part of argument.
Devise experiment. Show what current physics predicts and show current physics is incorrect and then submit to journal. Show your prediction is correct.
The experiments have been done and results agreed with my calculations – see http://climate-change-theory.com and read the first two pages – also my calculations on the “Talk” page for the Wikipedia “Vortex Tube” article.
–The paper by Dr Hans Jelbring refers to atmospheric mass not the mass of a solid planet which determines its acceleration due to gravity.–
Both are involved.
You got Titan low gravity and huge atmosphere as
compared to Earth of less atmosphere, less air density,
but greater gravity.
Titan atmosphere probably would last long near the Sun. And if Titan had less gravity, it could hold on to large atmosphere.
Earth obviously could hold a very large atmosphere near the sun, as Venus proves.
Earth with twice the atmosphere but 1/2 the gravity would have same pressure at the surface and roughly twice the density, but I don’t think it would be warmer. Instead getting
1000 watts at noon on cleat sky, it would around 800 watts.
The atmosphere if as warm would hold more tonnage of water vapor and tonnage of clouds.
I would think the most important aspect is how warm could
the ocean get and don’t see how ocean would warm more than than they do with Earth.
But Earth with twice the gravity would have twice pressure, which would reduce evaporation of oceans, meaning ocean surface temperature could be 5 to 10 C warmer. And have higher air density at sea level. Though seems it would have drier air and lower troposphere.
All the data you quote, and much more, can be explained with my hypothesis in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” linked here which fact, I suggest, confirms that my hypothesis is highly likely to be correct in that it also complies with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Another go at it:
“The paper by Dr Hans Jelbring refers to atmospheric mass not the mass of a solid planet which determines its acceleration due to gravity.”
Let’s quote it:
“Hence, the atmospheric mass exposed to a gravity field is the cause of the substantial part of GW. The more atmospheric mass per unit planetary area, the greater GE has to develop. Otherwise Newton’s basic gravity model has to be dismissed.”
So on Earth we have 10 tonnes of atmosphere per square meter.
I think if we had 20 tons of atmosphere per square meter there would be more GE, but not necessarily be warmer.
Everyone seems to assume more GE means warmer, but I would say GE mean less difference of air temperature.
Or seems without doubt if double our atmosphere, less sunlight would reach the surface to be directly warmed by the sunlight.
So not sure whether I disagree with Dr Hans Jelbring regarding this point. But btw, I agree with a lot of what he says.
And if Earth had twice the gravity there would be 20 tons of weight [not mass] and that would not inhibit sunlight from reaching the surface- we would still get 1000 watt per square meter at noon- and it seems it would cause more warming of earth, though I see no reason it would cause greater GE- or it seems possible to have greater temperature differences.
Or more atmospheric mass keeps the heat more, so with say forest fires, and volcanic heat, it’s heat is retained better. And increasing gravity does not do this- though could cause more mixing [more violent mixing] and I believe more violent mixing of say the oceans would be a GE type effect. Or would allow entire ocean to warm more over the long term, though in short term or the immediate effect is cooling.
Dr Hans Jelbring was getting there, but was not quite right. There is indeed an association between atmospheric mass and the height of the atmosphere, and the planet’s mass affects the acceleration due to gravity which appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient. You would have understood this if you had read our group’s website that has now had over 8,100 hits since early January.
**I think with this debate we have to start with simpler scenarios. This forms a basis for further debate if people can agree on the simple scenarios.
We need answers to following:
Suppose we have 2 planets. Both are equal distance from sun, assume opposite sides of sun.
They have same atmosphere of a non-greenhouse gas. Both atmospheres are identical in composition and mass.**
…
–What will be daytime temp difference between the two planets at the surface. Will one have higher temp? What about at 1000 meters in altitude? Will one planet have higher temperature ?–
How is this simple.
So you eliminated water.
So it’s like the Moon.
Let’s put a greenhouse on the Moon.
And worry about gravity later.
Now a basic problem with greenhouse in vacuum, is if
want 5 psi of pressure, you need a structural strong
greenhouse to withstand even that low pressure.
So if made 20 foot diameter dome, with strong clear plastic.
And fill it with nitrogen, during the day, it becomes much
hotter than a parked car with window shut- say air temperature of 100 C [or hotter]. That’s simple but
not very helpful.
And it would be cooler if you made tall ceiling- like say 100 feet tall and 20 diameter. But not much cooler. Or
it would take longer to warm up.
Again I doubt anyone would disagree. But not to helpful.
So let go crazy and make greenhouse 100 feet in diameter
and 1000 feet tall. That would be cooler. And one could argue and go into how much heat the tall walls radiate
as far as effecting the temperature. So if widen the structure the wall will have less effect. So will going
even bigger. Say 1000 meters wide and 10,000 meters tall.
Now going have the Moon have 1/2 Earth’s gravity. And have
wall near the ground made of 1 foot thick plastic, and as it goes higher the walls will get thinner- maybe it’s 4″
thick at the top and the dome will be 4″ to middle of 2″
thick.
So per 1 meter high there is 785,397.5 cubic meter.
Earth has about 1 kg per cubic meter of air. So start
will adding 785,397.5 kg of nitrogen. And since it’s 10,000
meters tall, and if air was uniform, it would be about 1/10,000 of earth’s density of it’s air.
So lets add 100 times more. Making it:
78,539,750 kg or 78,539 tonnes of nitrogen.
So that makes it about 1/100th of Earth density- if it was uniform throughout the 10,000 meters of elevation.
Let’s change it to Earth gravity. And 10,000 meter on Earth
has density of 0.41 kg per cubic meter. With 0 elevation being 1.2 kg at 15 C air temperature.
So at 10,000 meter the density will be about 1/3
And 7000 meter is 1/2.
So roughly at 0 elevation instead of 1/100th, it will be
around 1/50th. So make it a 1/5.
So in total added 785,397,500 kg of nitrogen.
And so at 15 C it will have 1/5th density and about 3 psi
and at the top about 1 psi. Roughly.
15 C is 288 K. And if air 200 K [-73 C] and air becomes more
dense and air pressure drops at the top. And if it becomes
hotter say 400 K, air pressure increase at top and everywhere else. But it probably wouldn’t explode.
So we are night time and air is -50 C. And the sun comes up.
And how much does the sun warm it up. So give it equal to 24 hours of Noon sun. And we have 1360 watts per square meter. And square meter we started 1 kg, times by 1000.
1000 kg of nitrogen per square meter.
The specific heat of nitrogen at 325 K is 1.040 kJ/kgK
Per K increase of temperature requires 1040 watts of heat
per kg. So 1000 kg means roughly 1000 seconds to become
326 K. Or in hour increase 3 to 4 K. So in 24 hour get close
to 400 K. Maybe 350 K or something- which not including lot of factors. And obviously if 24 hours of day and night cycle
it’s not 24 noon sun, and heats up less.
But keeping with weird idea of 24 hours of noon sun, what temperature is the ground.
When air -50 C the ground would around -50 C. Let’s say the ground is dark colored concrete.
So sun not going to warm the air directly, it’s going to warm the ground, which in turn will warm the air.
Now if there was no air and the ground was -50 C how long does take to warm 1 square meter of concrete?
The specific heat of concrete is 0.75 kJ/kgK.
and 10 cm thick concrete is 250 kg per square meter
750 time 250 is 187500 joules/watt seconds. Or about 4 times
faster than the air. So about 16 K per hour. So going to take almost 4 before it’s above freezing and it’s warming the air by any significant amount.
Well that is fun. Lets add some oxygen. So 1/5th of 785,397,500 kg of oxygen. Then you walk in there after 4 hours with bare feet and ground not that and air pretty cold. And in another 4 hour ground warm and air still pretty cold.
Now if you had 1/2 gravity. the ground after 8 hour would hotter and the air would be cooler.
Let’s see if anyone agrees.
feet and ground not really cold
Tim Folkerts said:
“EITHER
* the temperature drops and radiation drops
OR
* the temperature stays the same and radiation stays the same.”
Of course, but there is no law of physics that requires energy radiated at a surface beneath an atmosphere to be the same as energy radiated to space from the top of an atmosphere. Quite the opposite. There is a discrepancy wherever there is a planet with an atmosphere and the discrepancy is not proportionate to the radiative capability of the atmosphere but rather is proportionate to the mass of the atmosphere. That is why the temperature within the atmosphere of Venus is near the same temperature as that of Earth AT THE SAME PRESSURE.
Anyway,
The temperature at the surface and radiation stays the same at 255K DURING THE FIRST CONVECTIVE CYCLE)
but
FROM SPACE THE TEMPERATURE OF EARTH PLUS ATMOSPHERE DROPS TO 222k because conduction and convection are busy converting radiation from the surface to potential energy within the atmosphere and so a portion of the surface radiation fails to get past the mass of the atmosphere to space.
AFTER THE FIRST CONVECTIVE CYCLE the temperature at the surface rises and radiation rises to 288K and since the surface has become 33K warmer the Earth plus atmosphere as viewed from space also rises by 33K to 255K exactly as observed.
Meanwhile that 33k cycles between potential energy and kinetic energy within the atmosphere and the lapse rate slope is caused by the balance of PE (not heat) and KE (heat) at every point along the vertical temperature profile.
The simple fact is that the mass of an atmosphere via conduction and convection prevents part of the surface radiation from escaping to space.
Why is that so hard to understand?
It must be the case because conduction and convection shift energy more slowly than radiation and it applies to every planet with a gaseous atmosphere.
Stephen, your situation is ill-posed, and violates conservation of energy at various times in various ways.
If you are going to look at the evolution of the system, you need to be precise about the starting conditions. Your surface is apparently 255 K. So What precisely is your atmosphere like before the “fist convective cycle”?
* does it have GHGs or not (it seems it does)
* Is it 255 K everywhere? Is it 222 K at the top? Some other condition?
Until you stipulate such INITIAL CONDITIONS, there is no way to know how it will EVOLVE.
I see no conservation of energy problem.
The surface with no atmosphere is at 255K as per S-B.
Introduce an atmosphere and both conduction and convection begin to convert heat at the surface to potential energy within the atmosphere at the expense of radiation leaving at the top of the atmosphere.
That happens whether or not GHGs are present due to uneven surface heating causing density variations in the horizontal plane.
The 255K is average surface temperature as per S-B but it doesn’t have to be any particular temperature for the general principle to apply.
“Introduce an atmosphere … ”
How do you introduce the atmosphere? All at once or slowly? GHG’s or not? It the atmosphere 255K everywhere when introduced or some other temperature distribution? These sorts of initial conditions need to be addressed before proceeding.
These things matter. For example ….
* How can there be uneven surface heating when you already stipulated the surface was 255K everywhere?
* If the atmosphere has no GHGs and is already 255K at the bottom, then no energy will be transferred and no convection started.
* Is the radiation at the top reduced because it is blocked by cool GHGS, or perhaps because the ground itself is cooling?
“The simple fact is that the mass of an atmosphere via conduction and convection prevents part of the surface radiation from escaping to space.”
No, the simple fact is that the IR properties of the cool GHGs in the atmsphere prevents part of the surface radiation from escaping to space. Pressure does not prevent IR. Neither convection not conduction prevents IR.
Tim,
i) The average temperature is 255K under S-B but that is derived from widely varied temperatures between day and night side and winter or summer hemispheres. You do recall that peak insolation was divided by 4 due to a sphere being illuminated by a point source of light don’t you?
ii) If there are no GHGs those surface temperature variations will still exist and so there will be density variations in the horizontal plane that will create a global convective circulation.
iii) The radiation at the top is reduced because the top is colder and colder locations radiate less. The molecules at the top contain the same total energy as those at the bottom but more is in the form of potential energy rather than kinetic energy and potential energy is not heat and does not radiate so it is not as hot and radiates less.
iv) Conversion of kinetic energy low down to potential energy higher up prevents IR because potential energy contains no sensible heat and so produces no IR.It is the creation of radiatively inert potential energy by conduction and convection that prevents IR from departing to space and not the IR properties of the cool GHGs
Is it too much to expect you to apply some real thought to all that I have told you?
“Is it too much to expect you to apply some real thought to all that I have told you?”
I could ask the same. 🙂
One issue I still have is “the first convective cycle”. The initial conditions need to be MUCH more precisely stipulated for the details of the “first” anything to be well-defined.
It makes much more sense to talk about the “last” cycle, where everything has had time to settle down. Then the initial conditions don’t matter, because any initial conditions will asymptotically approach the correct steady-state solution.
In steady-state convection with GHGs in the atmosphere, convective circulation draws heat into the cooler atmosphere from the warmer ground. The less dense, warmed air carries that energy aloft, where it loses heat to space by radiation from the GHGs. The cooled, dense air sinks back to the ground where it picks up heat from the warmer ground.
Heat in at the bottom, heat out at the top. NOT an “adiabatic loop”!
****************************************
So … yes, there is often convection. *IF* the atmosphere has GHGs, then the GHGs “prevents part of the surface radiation from escaping to space.” But only if there are GHGs. This is not some general property of convection or pressure or density. A GHG-free atmosphere will not warm the surface above 255 not matter how thick it is.
Do we agree on all this?
–Stephen, your situation is ill-posed, and violates conservation of energy at various times in various ways.
If you are going to look at the evolution of the system, you need to be precise about the starting conditions. Your surface is apparently 255 K. So What precisely is your atmosphere like before the “fist convective cycle”?–
A molten ball of lava with hot Fe gas?
–* does it have GHGs or not (it seems it does)–
Is iron gas a greenhouse gas?
Though there would be lots of things like sulfur compounds as gas, lead, and other stuff including H20 and CO2 gases.
And it seems sunlight would not be reaching the surface at
the beginning point of Earth’s formation. But after it cooled below say, 1000 C for last time, the sunlight would probably shine thru and add some light to the surface. And then could see a huge molten Moon occupying a large chunk of the sky for millions of years.
Go back to this comment.
The Sun’s direct radiation cannot achieve a mean surface temperature of 288K. If it could, then some regions in the tropics would be over 100°C on clear days.
The required (and very necessary) extra thermal energy comes from solar radiation absorbed in the atmosphere and subsequently conveyed downwards into the surface by non-radiative processes that are obeying the Second Law and thus maximizing entropy.
Doug – Is this process called “thermal conduction”. The word conveyed and conduction have same root. See wikipedia topic “Thermal Conduction”.
The process is described in detail here but I don’t have time to re-write a dozen pages here.
The presence of the lapse rate slope is proof of my description.
It is a trace of the effect of conduction and convection working on surface radiation as that radiation seeks to filter up through the mass of the atmosphere.
Conduction and convection at every level up through the atmosphere steadily converts radiation emanating from the surface to potential energy in the atmosphere.
The lapse rate slope marks the changing proportions of KE and PE as one moves upward.
When conduction and convection have ceased their work there is 255K of radiation left to be shed to space and no more.
The rest is returned to the surface in convective descent and forever recycled within the mass of the atmosphere.
“The presence of the lapse rate slope is proof of my description.”
No…It isn’t. The lapse rate is understood correctly as being due to the fact that the troposphere is heated strongly from below (by both solar radiation warming the surface & greenhouse gases) plus the fact that the adiabatic lapse rate represents a stability limit (i.e., lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate spark convection that drives the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
There is no need to invoke mechanisms that make no sense AND violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Joel,
My description is consistent with exactly those assertions.
The mechanisms make perfect sense and do comply with the 2nd Law.
That adiabatic stability limit is set by atmospheric mass plus the strength of the gravitational field which together determine the density gradient from the surface upward.
Density determines the proportion of insolation that can be conducted and convected and that proportion sets the slope which sparks convection.
The convection which is duly sparked then provides the mechanism by which radiation to space is shared between surface and atmosphere depending on the radiative capability of the atmosphere.
Sorry that you just can’t see it.
So Stephen, how is convection “sparked” at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where no solar radiation reaches and there’s no surface anyway? Don’t crib the answer from http://climate-change-theory.com – think about it first.
And what triggers your downward convection, or whatever it is, because (come to think of it) you keep telling me that my downward convection can’t happen.
The presence of the temperature gradient, Stephen, even when physical air movement stops is proof of my hypothesis that the temperature gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which, by definition, has maximum entropy.
A different way to attack the GHG effect is through water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere which is the major contributor to the overall GHG effect.
OBSERVATION- Recent observations have indicated contrary to AGW theory( which is almost always the case) that the mixing ratios in the tropics (water vapor) have been falling not rising as called for by AGW theory. No hot spot for example.
My thought is rather then evaluate the future GHG effect based on CO2 concentration changes in the atmosphere maybe a better way to go about it might be through future water vapor concentration changes in the atmosphere.
After all water vapor accounts for some 75% of the atmospheric opacity. Therefore even a very slight change in this greenhouse gas concentration level is going to impact the overall GHG effect regardless of CO2.
I CAN say regardless of CO2 concentrations, because the data has proven conclusively, that the positive feedback between an increase in CO2 concentrations and water vapor does NOT exist. If anything the opposite is happening. That is what the data says to the dismay of AGW enthusiast , but they will ignore it as usual.
That aside a cooling climate (oceans cooling) should diminish the amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to the fact less evaporation would be taking place. Under this scenario convection would be less which would cause the corresponding temperature of the surface of the earth to drop less if the GHG effect were in a steady state. However the GHG effect would be less due to the lower amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere due to less evaporation from the cooler oceans. The diminish role of convection although causing less cooling per say in regards to the surface temperature of the earth would not be able to compensate for the overall cooling due to the diminish GHG effect therefore the temperature trend would be negative.
This argument is the opposite of the false argument AGW theory is trying to put upon the public presently which is increasing concentrations of CO2 will create a positive feedback with water vapor(increasing it) which will amplify the temperature rise from CO2 . Although convection would increase under this scenario a cooling mechanism it would only be able to retard the overall temperature increase due to the overall increase in the GHG effect.
I have just proposed the opposite take and the data thus far is more supportive of my scenario rather then the scenario AGW theory has put forth.
“I CAN say regardless of CO2 concentrations, because the data has proven conclusively, that the positive feedback between an increase in CO2 concentrations and water vapor does NOT exist. If anything the opposite is happening. That is what the data says to the dismay of AGW enthusiast , but they will ignore it as usual. ”
First of all, the correlation between CO2 and water vapor is through the temperature changes. So, you have to look at trends over long enough times that the temperature trend is robust and you are not just looking at noise. Alternatively, you can also look at how the water vapor varies due to “noise” (e.g., ENSO oscillations) in the global temperature trends.
The results of such analysis show that the water vapor feedback does seem to occur…and at about the magnitude predicted. See, for example,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.short
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/LPWdetail.png
No Joel the data does not show any positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor.
Joel, the mixing ratios over the tropics have been DECREASING NOT increasing.
Joel, the data you have presented is BS, and we all know that to be the case because the tropospheric hot spot is missing.
More AGW manipulation of the data.
Really? I give you 3 peer-reviewed papers and you respond with one unexplained piece of data over a very limited time interval grabbed off a blog which was a from a guest post of Ken Gregory, the well-known shill for the Canadian astroturf “Friends of Science” organization (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science). Is the phrase “More AGW manipulation of the data” the excuse you use to cherry-pick your data from known poor sources and ignore the wealth of data that disagrees with you?
The issue of the tropical tropospheric hot spot is way more complicated than you make it out to be. The multidecadal trends disagree in different data sets, as well they should, since there are lots of artifacts that can contaminate these long term trends. However, the data sets do show the magnification of temperature fluctuations on shorter timescales as you go up in the tropical atmosphere and hence all agree that the basic physics of the water vapor feedback seems to operate perfectly well on those time scales. Since the processes that are involved with this are on pretty fast, it is hard to understand why the models would do such a fine job on those time scales and then diverge on the longer ones, which is why the U.S. Climate Change Science Report on the subject concluded that it seemed more likely that the remaining discrepancy was most likely due to residual data issues. (I say “remaining” because the discrepancy used to be larger until a significant bug was found in the UAH analysis.)
At any rate, even if one assumes the “hot spot” is really missing on the long time scales, it is hard to say exactly what this means. Isaac Held has pointed out that apparently the net effect of the hot spot on climate system is a small negative feedback because the magnitude of the negative lapse rate feedback it produces is larger than the magnitude of the ADDITIONAL positive water vapor feedback it produces (i.e., over and above the water vapor feedback that would be produced if the tropical atmosphere warmed uniformly).
Joel , stop talking and making excuses and prove to me why the data you gravitate toward is correct while the data I am using from many sources is not correct.
Once you can do that maybe you will have some credibility.
Massimo PORZIO
Maybe this new satellite will satisfy your question of outgoing longwave radiation at TOA. It has not launched yet but is scheduled for launch sometime this year. It uses carbon nanotubes to absorb energy emitted from Earth.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/satellite-will-measure-earths-radiation-balance.html
You are right, maybe I am too hard on Doug (even though I am not sure there is an actual person behind the post, just a reactionary BOT). My biggest problem with Doug’s posts is his use of unproven facts as if they were established Truth. (Uranus temperature or Venus surface temperature). He makes up stuff with no support and keeps doing it. He claims air going up the side of a mountain is the same temperature at the top. Where does he get this from? He just makes things up and acts as if they are reality. You have mountains in Italy, do you see clouds and rain forming on the windswept side? This is a empirical evidence the air is actually cooling as it rises up the mountain side.
He also does not accept that expanding air (in the horizontal) will cool. I told him to grab a can of computer duster and spay it at a thermometer or even spray it and see how cold the can becomes. But your level headed approach is always superior to an emotional reaction. Thanks for the reminder and have a really nice day!
Hi Norman.
“You are right, maybe I am too hard on Doug (even though I am not sure there is an actual person behind the post, just a reactionary BOT). My biggest problem with Doug’s posts is his use of unproven facts as if they were established Truth.”
I’m not sure I’ve been clear, I don’t believe I have the right to decide how you or Doug have to discuss the various puzzles of Doug’s theory, I just externalized my point of view, that is I don’t like discuss the ability of the others I prefer read what they have to say, and this is valid for your former messages about Doug and vice versa his messages about you. My point is: stop ad hominem attacks, return to the climate questioning, even the silliest question asked by the dummies in this field (who I am) should have a polite answer, if the science was really established then the answers should be easy to write.
Anyways I don’t believe Doug’s theory has more inconsistencies than the ones of the acclaimed CAGW theory.
At least Doug’s theory is young, and personally I believe that some aspects of his approach could be just an another way to deal with the climate, in a way alternative to the more pragmatic method of the moving air parcels, which in my opinion is an axiomatic method to simplify the approach to the chaotic behavior of the atmosphere.
I read about the new satellite, honestly I don’t really know if the nano tubes detector have or not a wide FOV, the day they publish the satellite specs, we will see.
Thank you again for your interest about this supposed issue.
You are much better than me in searching information about this argument.
By the way, I never see a spectrum plot of the upper Venusian atmosphere just below the sulfuric clouds layer, do you ever see any?
What is intriguing me is:
if the lapse rate was due to the GHGs photons re-emission and not to the gravity force, up there below the ceiling clouds, there should be visible evident peaks at the CO2 narrow absorption bands because at least one quarter of the ground 19kW/m^2 Planck’s black body shaped flux emitted from the ground should be directed upward, following the GHG theory. Do you remember? The isothermal profile should became more hot in the lower layers and more cold in the upper ones, introducing a linear lapse rate along the whole atmospheric depth. But since the CO2 atmosphere emits only on few narrow bands, at least one 4th of the area below the BB curve should be “captured” by the molecules and re-emitted upward producing those peaks on those bands.
Moreover, I can’r really imagine how could about 86% of that bunch of energy of that BB at the ground be avoided to exit the outer space looking to that few CO2 narrow absorption bands.
See:
https://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/venus-co2-spectrum-lg.jpg
Compared with:
https://scholarsandrogues.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/venus_atmos_right-corrected.png
Do you get my point?
I never see a spectrum plot of the radiation below that Venusian clouds, it could useful to see it.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Sorry, Norman, but my hypothesis is very convincingly supported by extensive and very varied evidence, experiments and studies.
You’re “too hard” on me are you Norman? Your words are water off a duck’s back because you never ever discuss the actual physics in my book, paper and website.
I go back to what I said earlier
Pretty much no matter what level you shoot for in a forum like this, some one will fault you for being too simplistic, and someone else will fault you for being too complicated!
To understand this whole issue, you have to build up from the simplest freshman physics in the simplest scenarios, to complex, chaotic, evolving scenarios. Unfortunately, different people have different levels of understanding AND are focused on different complications. What is blindingly obvious to some people is over the head others. And what is blindingly obvious to some people is wrong! :-/
So a simplest scenario might be …
* uniform, constant sunlight with insolation I
* falling perpendicularly
* onto a flat surface
* with an albedo of a= 0
* and an emissivity of ε=1
* with perfect insulation on the back
* within a vacuum
* surrounded by 0K space
I *think* everyone here could use I = (1-a)σ ε T^4 to find T.
From there all hell breaks loose! What if the albedo or emissivity are different? What if the surface was part of a sphere? What if the sphere was illuminated evenly on all side with insolation of I or I/4? What if the sphere was rotating? What if we added a steel or glass shell around the sphere? What about an atmosphere that may or may not absorb some incoming sunlight and/or outgoing IR? What if … ? What if …?
I suspect even very simple scenarios would rapidly start to produce wildly diverging answers.
For example … uniform insolation of 240 W/m^2 onto all surfaces of a sphere with a=0 and ε=1 surrounded by glass that is perfectly transparent to sunlight but perfectly opaque to thermal IR. Or … surrounded by an atmosphere that is perfectly transparent to sunlight and perfectly transparent to thermal IR.
If we can’t agree on such “simple” scenarios, we are never going to agree on more complicated scenarios. ESPECIALLY when people don’t even define the scenarios they are actually considering!
https://twitter.com/bigjoebastardi/status/577264038893252608
More data which strongly supports there is NO correlation between CO2 increases and water vapor increases.
As I have said earlier this is the way to go about attacking AGW absurdity. A theory that does not conform to the real data and instead has the data conform to it by either ignoring the data, manipulating the data or changing the data when it does not conform to the theory.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/humidity/specific-humidity-global-andel.gif
More data showing my assumptions are correct.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png?w=614
Let us add insult to injury. Another solar /climate correlation far superior to the CO2 fabricated positive feedback with water vapor.
AGW theory is nothing more then claims with nothing to back them up with.
The only thing they are correct about is there is a GHG effect, but that follows the climate as is evidenced by the data time and time again. CO2 follows does not lead the temperature.
But as I said you can attack this theory through water vapor, and my bet with high confidence is the water vapor concentrations will continue to lower throughout the atmosphere in response to cooler sea surface temperatures which will be in response to lower prolonged solar activity.
Wow…You’re on a real roll tonight. I give you three peer-reviewed papers and you respond with the source of Ken Gregory, Joanne Nova, and TallBloke? Do you go to any real sources to get your scientific information or do you just live in this propaganda bubble?
By the way, the Joanne Nova one (and I think much, if not all, of the Gregory one) is using the data that has already been debunked by Dessler here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract (Note: You may not like this source, since it is another peer-reviewed paper, rather than a right-wing blog, so it actually takes a skeptical view of data, rather than just uncritically accepting any data which agrees with their ideological viewpoint and ignoring the rest.)
Joel ,below is the data if you choose to ignore it fine. You can continue to live in your AGW theory fantasy world, which is when the data does not support the theory the data is wrong.
Joel where is the lower tropospheric hot spot? The answer is no where to be found and it will never take place because there are NO CO2/water vapor positive feedbacks. None.
The difference when arguing with me is I have the data which backs up what I claim whereas when you argue with Doug, and Stephen it is all about speculation. I do not hold their views on the GHG effect or lack of it.
I am with Dr. Spencer on the GHG effect, but where I part is I claim it is a symptom of the climate not the cause and I feel I have the data to back up my claim.
Joel below is the data in black and white which proves I am correct and you are wrong unless you want to call this data in error. If so prove it!
https://twitter.com/bigjoebastardi/status/577264038893252608
What does that plot that Bastardi tweeted even show? There is no careful analysis…Maybe over the time period he has chosen since the PDO flip, the temperature trend has been negative, since we know it can and has been over periods of that length. Then, you would actually expect to see a decrease in water vapor. You do understand that the “water vapor feedback” works through the temperature, i.e., it is not the CO2 directly that causes the increase in water vapor; it is the increase in temperature that the CO2 causes. However, the temperature trends, as we know, are very noisy.
Do you understand that random tweets and plots without some explanation and analysis of the data are useless and, even worth than useless, when produced by people with an agenda, like the ones you have shown here are.
You are in denial of any data that does not conform to your precious absurd AGW theory.
People like yourself an AGW enthusiast make my point over and over again which is if the data does not conform to the theory the data is either wrong, not representative or in error. BS Joel!
AGW has no data to support the claims it makes and you will learn that fact as this decade proceeds.
Actually, Salvo, I have the data, the experiments and the studies that back up my hypothesis.
Dessler is a climate moron, and if you want to put your faith in the likes of him fine. The blind leading the blind.
You have no concept of the short comings of this theory which is nothing more then mere speculation with no data to back up any of the claims it has made.
If you want to believe bogus contrived peer review papers that have only one purpose which is to keep this theory alive go ahead. As far as I am concerned they are not worth the paper they are written on. Garbage in a word.
The way I am going about defeating this absurd theory is the way to go which is through observation and data which totally supports the view that this theory is a shame.
What you are engaging in is called “poisoning the well”, whereby you impeach the credibility of reputable sources, so all that we are left with is right-wing blogs and think-tanks.
If you just want to look at the opinions of those who share your ideological worldview and ignore the opinions of the scientific community at large, don’t let me stop you. But, don’t be surprised when the scientific community and the politicians who have enough respect for science to listen to the scientific community, reach diametrically-opposed conclusions to what you reach.
Joel , you and the scientific community at large in support of AGW theory are an agenda driven, who are all talk with baseless predictions NONE of which have seen the light of day, and it is only going to get worse as this decade proceeds.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract
Not impressed. Again show me the hot spot. Show me the data.
Joel said:
“The correct understanding of the adiabatic lapse rate is that it is derived by considering the adiabatic expansion of a neutrally-buoyant parcel as it rises through the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with potential energy,”
If it is neutrally buoyant how does it rise?
It would stay in the same place.
A rising parcel has positive buoyancy because it is less dense than the surrounding air.
The essential point about adiabatic uplift is that as the less dense parcel rises the surroundings get less dense at the same rate and so the density differential with the surroundings is maintained and uplift continues indefinitely with no addition of more energy as heat.
That is the critical aspect that no one here seems to have ever been taught.
Uplift only stops if a temperature inversion is reached such as at the tropopause whereupon the density differential then disappears and uplift ceases.
It is everything to do with potential energy because if the process is reversed then kinetic energy is recovered back from potential energy and the parcel warms again without injection of any new heat from the surroundings.
Sadly, the nature of adiabatic warminhg and cooling seems not to have been taught widely for 30 years or so.
Meteorologists and students of aeronautics understand but they seem to have little voice in climate matters these days.
“If it is neutrally buoyant how does it rise?
It would stay in the same place.”
Sort of. Consider a sphere on a flat surface. This is also “neutral equilibrium”. Any infinitesimal push will start it rolling and keep it rolling. Neutral equilibrium means it can keep moving (unless there is some friction.) If the parcels is truly positively buoyant, it would ACCELERATE upward — leading to turbulence, which causes the parcel to transfer energy to the surrounding air. ie the parcel IS losing energy and will get to the top with less energy than it started with!)
“Uplift only stops if a temperature inversion is reached such as at the tropopause whereupon the density differential then disappears and uplift ceases.”
And WHY does it stop rising? Because when ti get to the tropopause, it can start radiating net energy away to space, so that it no longer has more energy than the surrounding air. Yes … it LOSES ENERGY at the top. Then when it returns to the surface, it has less total energy than when it started rising. It is cooler than when it started at the surface at the beginning of the convective loop. As the air moves along the surface, the air warm, and the ground cools.
The ONLY way to drive convection is for parcels to collect energy at the bottom (from the warm earth) and deliver it to the top (out to outerspace). It is NOT an “adiabatic loop!
It is indeed an adiabatic loop.
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_45.htm
“Remember, in an adiabatic process an increase in temperature is due only to COMPRESSION when the air sinks or subsides. A decrease in temperature is due only to EXPANSION when air rises, as with convective currents or air going over mountains. There is no addition or subtraction of heat involved. The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another.”
i.e. from kinetic energy to potential energy and back again.
The reason one derives the adiabatic lapse rate by looking at a neutrally-buoyant parcel is that the adiabatic lapse rate is the stability limit, so the idea is to look at something right on the boundary of stability, rather than just something in the middle of the unstable regime. This sort of thing is done in physics all the time.
“Sadly, the nature of adiabatic warminhg and cooling seems not to have been taught widely for 30 years or so.”
Hogwash…It is still taught, but it is not misused as you do to make claims that are wrong. Same with the ideal gas law. You were on a kick for a while about how noone knew about that and how that explains the elevated surface temperature too. That was also hogwash.
Adiabatic processes in isolated systems do not form “parcels” of air or any gas. No law of physics says a gas must cool just because it expands.
The Ideal Gas Law says pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. It says nothing more. At constant pressure, for example, expanding (lowering density) causes higher temperatures. There are infinite possibilities, many of which do not produce cooling when density decreases.
What does happen is that gravity forms stable density and temperature gradients, whilst the pressure gradient is just a corollary. Molecules rise with their own translational kinetic energy and “cool” (lose some KE) as they do work against gravity.
Obviously gravity is what acts on molecules and affects their kinetic energy as they move up and down. Everything happens at the molecular level, and you also, Joel Shore, do not understand Kinetic Theory and entropy maximization.
Now go to this comment.
Doug Cotton,
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) does definitely say a gas will cool if it expands by pushing against other air (if won’t do so if it expands in a vacuum Joule tested this already). It has to do work to push that mass (you cannot move a mass without using energy so pushing the air out of the way, its actual mass, requires energy).
Here it is explained easily and in complete detail for you. I would suggest reading the material and working on changing your current understanding of this topic (expanding gases) because you are wrong and I have answered you question and gave you the physics law that clearly states an expanding gas will cool if it does work (which it will if there is any air surrounding the expanding gas). Please take out your computer duster can and spray and feel the can get very cold (not just the air coming out).
http://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/0053615/files/34624_Lecture%205.pdf
Please carefully read this pdf. Thank you.
Note though, that gas expanding into a vacuum does no work against gravity if the vacuum is at the same height as the gas.
s soon as there is any movement up or down within the gravitational field then work is done against or with gravity and the gas will either contract and warm or expand and cool.
Work done against surrounding molecules is a diabatic process because heat moves in or out.
Work done against gravity is an adiabatic process because no heat moves in or out.
Most movement up or down involves both because no adiabatic process is perfect.
It is the adiabatic portion that creates the mass induced greenhouse effect.
I don’t need to discuss expanding imaginary parcels of air that have nothing to hold them together, Norman.
My hypothesis is derived directly from very basic, standard physics, notably the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you think you can find fault in the physics in the website and/or the linked papers, then publish your official refutation and I will look into it and respond promptly, displaying your inevitable errors.
Pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature. That’s the only relevant law of physics here, so show me how you apply it to deduce your result in all circumstances, including expansion which happens to move into warmer regions, like that which goes downwards.
Feel free to make your submission for the AU$5,000 reward … see this comment.
You may copy your submission (including the study) here for open discussion and exposure of your inevitable errors. None of the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology pertaining to imaginary parcels of molecules will be entered into: only standard physics using standard Kinetic Theory, for example. The only statement of the Second Law accepted will be pertaining to maximum entropy production. The Clausius “hot to cold” corollary will not be accepted if applied to other than a horizontal plane.
Joel said:
“Sadly, the nature of adiabatic warming and cooling seems not to have been taught widely for 30 years or so.”
Hogwash…It is still taught, but it is not misused as you do to make claims that are wrong. Same with the ideal gas law. You were on a kick for a while about how no one knew about that and how that explains the elevated surface temperature too. That was also hogwash.”
The Ideal Gas Law is part and parcel of the adiabatic process. My earlier comments about the Ideal Gas Law remain valid
Those here who have no knowledge of meteorology are completely unaware of the way the laws of physics play out in a real atmosphere.
It was common knowledge 40 years ago.
“Those here who have no knowledge of meteorology are completely unaware of the way the laws of physics play out in a real atmosphere.
It was common knowledge 40 years ago.”
How those laws play out is discussed in any basic climate science textbook.
Claiming to know meteorology does not allow you to violate the laws of physics. Just because you have misunderstood the laws of physics for 40 years does not mean that the rest of the meteorology and climate science communities have.
I totally agree, Joel, the laws of physics can never be violated.
Regarding “40 years ago” I am reminded of a comment by BigWaveDave here ..
Because the import of the consequence of the radial temperature gradient created by pressurizing a spherical body of gas by gravity, from the inside only, is that it obviates the need for concern over GHG’s. And, because this is based on long established fundamental principles that were apparently forgotten or never learned by many PhD’s, it is not something that can be left as an acceptable disagreement.
SW writes: “and uplift continues indefinitely with no addition of more energy as heat.”
No it doesn’t. The additional extra energy absorbed from the surface on a hot sunny day also gets dispersed horizontally especially from land to ocean (which is why the poles of Venus are nearly the same temperature as the equator) and so the net molecular movement upwards fades to insignificance. And that’s also an example showing why your “parcels” of air, Stephen, don’t cling together unless there is significant wind. Strong upward and downward winds occur in the well-known cells mostly around latitudes 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° which does not represent much of the total surface.
Once again I need to explain to silent readers that Stephen Wilde is not qualified in physics and has no correct understanding of Kinetic Theory or entropy maximization. In that he continues to disregard the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and probably could not even explain such) his “physics” is incorrect.
I have 60 years study and observation of meteorology and have beemn a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968
Well, at least you have an excuse for not understanding radiative physics.
The essential point about adiabatic uplift is that as the less dense parcel rises the surroundings get less dense at the same rate and so the density differential with the surroundings is maintained and uplift continues indefinitely with no addition of more energy as heat.
Furthermore, rising into a region of lower pressure does not require work to be done against adjoining molecules and nor does falling into a region of higher pressure because in both cases the parcel of air expands or contracts at the same rate as the adjoining parcels are expanding or contracting.
The adiabatic part of the process involves work done in relation to gravity and nothing else.That is why no heat moves in or out, gravity supplies no heat and takes away no heat. The existing energy is simply transformed between KE and PE.
Sure, there is some work done against adjoining molecules because no process is perfectly adiabatic but such work involves a transfer of heat in and out and so is diabatic (that is Kristian’s point of confusion).
The MOST CONVINCING PROOF EVER that GREENHOUSE RADIATIVE FORCING is FALSE PHYSICS
I’ve shown below, using the AGW conjecture, that we should expect some areas on Earth to reach temperatures of over 100°C when the flux from the atmosphere is added to the Solar flux in Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) calculations. Hence the whole concept that such flux can be added is obviously false, and so too are the rest of the energy budget diagrams (K-T, NASA, IPCC etc) and of course the computer models.
It is obvious that in climatology physics courses they brainwash students who end up like Joel Shore and Roy Spencer being adamant that we must add the back radiation to the solar radiation. That is shown to be wrong in my March 2012 paper and also by a professor of applied mathematics in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation“ written towards the end of that year.
Let me explain it simply:
The AGW proponents correctly estimate the mean solar radiation being absorbed by the surface as 168W/m^2. They then add 324W/m^2 of back radiation and deduct 102W/m^2 to allow for the simultaneous losses by evaporative cooling and conduction, convection etc. This gives them the “right” 390W/m^2 that coincides with 288K that they claim is the mean surface temperature. (Personally I think it’s closer to 10°C than 15°C.)
Now we need to understand that this 168W/m^2 of solar radiation is a 24-hour annual mean for an average location at a latitude of 45°(S or N) that is half way between the Equator and the relevant Pole. Even that location will receive a mean of twice that in 12 hours of average daylight with average cloud cover. Locations such as this in the far south of New Zealand have mean annual temperatures around 9°C or 10°C.
You need to remember that we start with the solar constant of 1360W/m^2 which is what the one location on Earth where the Sun is directly overhead would receive if there were no atmosphere. But, again on average, there is about 30% reflection and 20% absorption which reduces that to about half. So, on an average day with average cloud cover at noon where the Sun is directly overhead, that location would receive half of that 1360W/m^2, namely 680W/m^2. But on a clear day there is only about 10% reflection, not 30% because two-thirds of the albedo is due to clouds. So that location receives about 70% of 1360W/m^2, namely about 950W/m^2.
However, the AGW proponents claim that an average location at 288K receives back from the atmosphere 83% (324/390) of the radiation it emits. I don’t dispute that. But the electro-magnetic energy in that radiation from a cooler source is not converted to thermal energy in the surface. The AGW proponents say it is. Hence they add it to the solar radiation in S-B calculations.
Now, the solar radiation does not achieve the S-B temperature we might expect for two reasons, the first being that there is simultaneous energy loss by non-radiative processes and the second reason is because there may not be enough time in the day for the solar radiation to reach the maximum temperature. However, if we deduct 200W/m^2 from that 950W/m^2 as a reasonable estimate for losses by non radiative processes (that are only half that amount at 288K) the resulting 750W/m^2 does explain the observed temperatures which have been recorded in the forties and fifties °C. But let’s just use 600W/m^2 (which has a blackbody temperature of 48°C that is realistic) thus making an allowance for the limited time in the day.
But, if we were to now add 83% back radiation (that is, 83% of something like 600W/m^2 that would be emitted by regions like this on clear days) we get about 1100W/m^2 which of course gives ridiculously high temperatures in the vicinity of 100°C.
Hence it is obviously wrong to add back radiative flux to solar flux and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. And so the whole GH radiative forcing paradigm is wrong, as are those models, and that’s why you need to consider the totally different 21st century paradigm here that is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
1) The top post shows that the ground cools slowly all night long. The flip side is that things would warm up slowly during the day as well. Hence we would not expect 100°C even with your numbers.
2) Smaller objects could certainly warm faster … but they are immersed in the cooler atmosphere, and hence will also cool. Of course, you could somehow seal the area to prevent airflow. Hmmm … the interiors of cars DO get super hot from the noon sun.
3) You realized that we want to remove clouds to get maximum heating from the sun. You overlooked that a BIG chunk of the back-radiation comes from clouds. 83% might be a good average, but cloudless skies will be MUCH smaller. So you are adding in a bit much for back-radiation.
***********************************
Here is an interesting link … reporting temperatures inside cars reaching 120 C with outside temperatures at 40 C. So temps over 100 C due to solar radiation and “back-radiation” can indeed reach the temps you call “ridiculously high”.
If you don’t expect 100°C because the ground warms slowly (which I have allowed for anyway by using 600W/m^2 instead of 750W/m^2) then it would also warm up slowly with the 390W/m^2 (including back radiation) which the energy diagrams show. Hence, if it doesn’t get near 100°C with 750W/m^2 (plus 500W/m^2 of back radiation) then it won’t get to 288K (15°C) with 390W/m^2 that includes 324W/m^2 of back radiation.
However you look at it, the actual solar radiation received by the surface especially in tropical regions at noon on cloudless days is way above the mean 24 hour average of 168W/m^2 taken over day and night, and typical of locations like the very south of New Zealand that is further south than any part of Australia including Tasmania.
So, if your AGW hoaxers want to use 390W/m^2 of solar and atmospheric radiation to explain 15°C then they should be prepared to acknowledge that up to about 1100W/m^2 of solar and atmospheric radiation does exist in some places. In such places the solar radiation on its own is sufficient to explain temperatures of, say, 48°C which we know can occur. So, if they were correct, the extra (and higher level of) back radiation (now 500W/m^2) would take the temperatures to around 100°C if it were true.
When such 48°C temperatures do occur the surface is emitting 602W/m^2 but, if the AGW hoaxers were right, there would then be another 83% of that 602W/m^2 (ie 500W/m^2) coming back from the atmosphere and warming the surface much more, because the S-B temperature for 1100W/m^2 is almost precisely 100°C.
Doug Cotton,
I posted this link above but you must have missed it so here it is again.
https://books.google.com/books?id=kUBxA5P7YbQC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=measured+desert+surface+temperatures+at+night&source=bl&ots=YnC16SPKqr&sig=Mk-TVb5qJQD1WHtnqmxLyh-iAzA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6rMqVfihOYXfoASmh4DoCw&ved=0CFAQ6AEwDDgK#v=onepage&q=measured%20desert%20surface%20temperatures%20at%20night&f=false
I think you need to concentrate on the actual surface for your arguments about radiation rather than the air temperature a few meters above that surface (air is a very good insulator). Look at this book. Measured temperatures of the surface have been up to 88 C (190 F). Pretty close to the 100 C you are talking about there Doug. You might want to back up from your argument a bit.
I have measured in ground temperatures in my experiments, Norman. Have you also stayed up all night doing so and discovering that air is indeed a very good insulator with all that nitrogen, oxygen and methane unable to radiated energy out of said air, and thus slowing the rate of surface cooling almost to a stop in calm conditions in the early pre-dawn hours?
It must be nearly time for you to read about what you “teach” me in my paper. /sarc
Yes, and at 88°C (in direct sunlight of course) just think of how much extra back radiation that would then create and which AGW hoaxers would then use in S-B calculations just as in K-T, NASA and IPCC energy diagrams where they count the back radiation as helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature.
When we talk about climate change and temperature trends, Norman, we talk about temperatures measured in the shade, not by sticking a probe into near-melting black asphalt.
“However you look at it, the actual solar radiation received by the surface especially in tropical regions at noon on cloudless days is way above the mean 24 hour average”
Of course it is!
1) Anytime there is an average of anything, there will be higher and lower values.
1) What do you think drives the evaporation, the Hadley cells, and the ocean currents? They all utilize the above average inputs to drive energy from the equator toward the poles. By doing so, they cool the tropics and warm the mid and upper latitudes.
“… be prepared to acknowledge that up to about 1100W/m^2 of solar and atmospheric radiation does exist in some places … So, if they were correct, the extra (and higher level of) back radiation (now 500W/m^2) would take the temperatures to around 100°C if it were true. “
Again, you overlook several things.
1) Super-hot sandy/rocky areas have relatively high albedo – reflecting about 40% of sunlight. So right off the bat, we are removing about 450 W/m^2, dropping the absorbed energy from 1100W/m^2 to about 750 W/m^2
2) MODTRAN (http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/) suggests that back-radiation would be more like 400 W/m^2 for 50 K air on a clear day, not 500 W.m^2.
So now, instead of your 1100 + 500 = 1600 W/m^2, we have more like 750+400 = 1150 W/m^2 of absorbed energy.
3) Super-hot areas will of course have WAY above average convection (but below average evaporation). so we can pull out maybe 100 W/m^2, bring us to 1050 W/m^2 absorbed energy.
4) will still need to include heat capacity and thermal lag.
Overall, your numbers are consistently over-estimated. When more detail is includes, the numbers look a lot more reasonable.
–Again, you overlook several things.
1) Super-hot sandy/rocky areas have relatively high albedo – reflecting about 40% of sunlight. So right off the bat, we are removing about 450 W/m^2, dropping the absorbed energy from 1100W/m^2 to about 750 W/m^2–
Albedo refers to visible light, and only about 1/2 of sunlight is visible light.
And one can have sand which is darker than normal,
or have a black sand deserts [such as the Karakum Desert].
Or whiter, like the White Sand desert- which become quite hot, btw.
I said nothing about sandy areas – even metropolitan Adelaide in South Australia gets temperatures around 42°C sometimes, and Sydney, Melbourne and Perth do too.
Work out the radiative flux for that, then add 83% of it as back radiation and of course you’ll get a much higher temperature. That is precisely what the AGW energy diagrams imply you need to do – add the back radiation to the solar radiation and then work out the temperature.
What AGW hoaxers promulgate (and teach their own recruits) is totally wrong, fictitious, fiddled physics which shows no understanding what-so-ever as to how radiation transfers thermal energy when (and only when) it does not resonate in the target. It really is time you read my review of the physics involved in my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” published on several website over three years ago.
It’s as simple as this Tim …
If you work out the radiation that hottish regions (let’s say above 30°C) are emitting, and then you add 83% of that as back radiation to whatever you realistically calculate the solar radiation is on a clear day, you will inevitably get a hotter temperature than that which you had for the surface in the first place.
AGW people think back radiation flux can be added to solar flux in Stefan Boltzmann calculations of surface temperature. That’s wrong.
No, Doug, it is as simple as this. Incoming solar radiation is not used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations of surface temperature. Incoming solar + incoming thermal IR ALSO is not used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations of surface temperature.
In fact nothing about the incoming energy is used. You have it pretty much completely muddled. The energy ALREADY there — the temperature of the surface — predicts the outgoing radiation.
The questions is “what determines the current internal energy?” It is NOT the incoming solar radiation, it is ALL energy flows. Since IR is part of that, IR is part of what determines the temperature and hence the outgoing IR.
Tim, things are raised to the temperature they are at as a result of net input of thermal energy. What they then radiate is a result of that net energy input, not the cause thereof.
The plain fact is that the figures in the energy diagrams add to a net of 390W/m^2 of input of something. They think the “something” is all thermal energy (but it’s not) and they use it incorrectly in Stefan Boltzmann calculations.
When NASA first did their net energy diagrams (without backradiation) they realized the solar radiation absorbed by the surface did not explain the surface temperature on its own. It still doesn’t to this day, and it doesn’t have to for the reasons explained here because there is a heap of other non-radaitive input of thermal energy into the surface that is obeying the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Go to this comment.
I do not want to cloud the issue (okay, bad pun), but there is proof that CO2 and water are the primary absorbers and emitters of radiation in the atmosphere. Scientist have the luxury of speculation, but engineers do not. Over the years, engineers have developed models for absorption of radiant heat in furnaces. The temperatures involved are much higher than the atmosphere, but there is an absolute correlation between CO2 and water vapor in the combustion gases with radiant heat transfer. Most of the oxygen is consumed in a well run furnace, but there is lots of nitrogen and it does not emit thermal radiation of any consequence. All of the thermal radiation in the fire box of a furnace comes from the CO2 and water vapor which are the products of combustion of the fuel. Many furnaces will have a convection section above the fire box where finned tubes remove heat by convection at lower temperature, but the primary heat transfer in the fire box is by radiation from the CO2 and water vapor with no significant contribution by the nitrogen or residual oxygen content.
More red herrings from Tim.
Water vapor cools – there is solid empirical evidence of such, and you have never proved with empirical evidence that water vapor could warm by over 20 degrees for each 1% concentration in the atmosphere in accord with the IPCC claim that the mean concentration (a little over 1%) does almost all of “33 degrees” of warming.
Even the 33 degrees is wrong, because, if there were a completely “transparent” atmosphere the surface would receive all of the 340W/m^2 on average and that would raise its temperature to just above 5°C. So try “10 degrees of warming” courtesy Stefan Boltzmann when you realize that, in his “gold standard” climatology textbook, Pierrehumbert made a huge mistake in doing calculations for such a transparent atmosphere as if it still had clouds.
Now go back to this comment. You’re a beggar for punishment as I’ve said many times.
Tim writes: “the primary heat transfer in the fire box is by radiation from the CO2 and water vapor with no significant contribution by the nitrogen or residual oxygen content.”
Yes exactly, as if I didn’t know! (LOL)
That’s why IR-active molecules like water vapor and carbon dioxide act as “holes in the blanket” because they are the only ones which can radiate energy out of the atmosphere.
But about 98% of the total thermal energy in the atmosphere is stored in the “blanket” of nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules. These molecules rise and collide with cooler IR-active molecules already up there, and then the collisions cause the IR-active molecules to warm and emit radiation. Since radiation only ever transfers thermal energy to cooler sources, the only heat transfers by such radiation in the troposphere are upwards and, eventually, to Space.
If you want to experience lunar-type temperature swings on Earth, just make the atmosphere transparent by removing all IR active gases. Then its mean surface temperature might be only 5°C (eg in the south of New Zealand where it’s currently 9°C) but maximum surface temperatures in the tropics would indeed be over 100°C and the poles would be far colder than they are – likewise the nights everywhere. Thank Heavens for greenhouse gases.
Sorry – should read “Since radiation only ever transfers thermal energy to targets that are cooler than the source”
1) This “Tim” is not me.
2) While I don’t know details of boilers, most of this sounds pretty reasonable.
3) Fighting potential red herrings with more red herrings is not particularly effective. The claim was “CO2 and water are the primary absorbers and emitters of radiation in the atmosphere”. This claim has nothing (directly) to do with whether areas with high humidity are warm or cool. The absorbing properties are well documented.
I you, Tim Folkerts wish to agree with the other Tim, then at least read my response to him here.
Now read this comment.
Tim
Thank you for the post. If any do not believe what you correctly state I have a link to demonstrate.
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~prabal/gas-radiation.pdf
These are equations that are actually used in the design of power plants.
The last equation states it clearly. A hot furnace gas will transfer heat based upon the emission of the hot gas MINUS the absorbitivity of the gases. The amount of energy absorbed by Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor does not make it to the receiving surface.
Yes – exactly as explained in my 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” because, believe it or not, physics teaches the same formula as engineers use and it is based on the area between the Planck curves which represents the actual (one-way) transfer of thermal energy, and that’s because the Stefan Boltzmann equation is based on the integral of the Planck function and so the difference which engineers calculate is the difference in the areas under the Planck curves – just as I wrote three years ago. It’s good to see you’re learning standard physics such as I always use.
Here is another link that really gets into things and shows how absorbitivity of IR active gases does prevent some energy from reaching the receiving wall.
This would be very strong evidence that satellite data that shows a big chunk of energy missing from outgoing longwave radiation at TOA is an accurate reality that the energy is not reaching the end source (in this case outer space).
The energy that is generated in the fireball of a furnace does not vanish when it is absorbed, it just does not make it to the opposite receiving wall. So what happens to it?
Hi Norman,
I’m missing something or do you missed to post the link?
I’m very interest to see the information you anticipated.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
“This would be very strong evidence … blah .. blah”
No it would not be for the reasons I have already explained about how carbon dioxide transfers thermal energy to water vapor (by molecular collision) which then radiates it out of the atmosphere with its own frequencies, so the energy looks like it was blocked by carbon dioxide, but in fact it just came out another gate.
Mean radiative imbalance at top of atmosphere all this century has been within ±0.6% and so, if 420 watts comes in for each square meter of the surface, then the amount going out is (420±2)W/m^2 and you cannot find evidence to the contrary, because the whole Earth system (including the atmosphere) acts like a blackbody, but nothing internal to the system does so.
Stop trying to fight against the laws of Nature and thus disagreeing with Nobel Prize winner Max Planck.
Roy, Norman, and others, the radiative forcing GH conjecture is false because you cannot add back radiation to solar radiation in order to explain the surface temperature by using the total in Stefan Boltzmann equations. I have explained this in other comments in this thread.
Hi Norman,
You stated:
“This would be very strong evidence that satellite data that shows a big chunk of energy missing from outgoing longwave radiation at TOA is an accurate reality that the energy is not reaching the end source (in this case outer space).”
That satellite data doesn’t seem to be news. The so called CO2 bite can be easily explained. While it is true that CO2 at higher altitudes will absorb IR emitted by lower level CO2 molecules the upper level CO2 molecules will still radiate to space and the more CO2 molecules that exist at the upper levels the more IR will be radiated to space. How do I know? Well Mars seems to be many millions of miles further from the Sun than Earth. Over 93% of it’s atmosphere comprises CO2. No doubt higher altitude CO2 blocks lower altitude CO2 in the Martian atmosphere from emitting to space. Nevertheless, CO2 in the upper Martian atmosphere emits large amounts of IR in the 15um bandwidth as can be easily seen by JPL thermal imaging satellites near Mars. Keep in mind the Martian surface temperatures at the poles falls to -123 degrees Centigrade. The upper atmosphere above it must be much colder than that yet CO2 in the region still emits extensively there in that bandwidth.
The CO2 “bite” that appears in the 15um bandwidth owes to the fact that CO2 comprises only a small fraction of the gasses in the atmosphere and thus the 15um bandwidth (largely unique to CO2) comprises a tiny portion of total emissions.
You also stated:
“The energy that is generated in the fireball of a furnace does not vanish when it is absorbed, it just does not make it to the opposite receiving wall. So what happens to it?”
Please explain this observation more completely, I’m unsure what precisely you claim. It seems very unlikely energy released in the center of a furnace cannot make it to the inside container walls. Do you mean simply a specific EM bandwidth?
Please let me know your thoughts and…
Have a great day!
Correction my statement should have read:
“The CO2 “bite” that appears in the 15um bandwidth owes to the fact that CO2 comprises only a small fraction of the gasses in the EARTHS’S atmosphere and thus the 15um bandwidth (largely unique to CO2) comprises a tiny portion of total emissions.”
Thank you for your patience.
Btw, I just wish to amplify one point. The Martian upper atmosphere will likely prove much COLDER than Earths upper atmosphere yet it emits large amounts of IR at 15um bandwidth!
Have a great day!
688 posts! Is that a record?
No, there were over 1,000 on the February temperature data thread.
Some meteorology education for those who need it:
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_45.htm
“Remember, in an adiabatic process an increase in temperature is due only to COMPRESSION when the air sinks or subsides. A decrease in temperature is due only to EXPANSION when air rises, as with convective currents or air going over mountains. There is no addition or subtraction of heat involved. The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another.”
i.e. from kinetic energy to potential energy and back again.
and:
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/33/
“An adiabatic process assumes no heat, mass or momentum pass across the air parcel boundary”
Note that no momentum passes across the boundary. That deals with the false impression that some have here that the rising or falling parcel has to push anything out of the way.
The essential point about adiabatic uplift is that as the less dense parcel rises the surroundings get less dense at the same rate and so the density differential with the surroundings is maintained and uplift continues indefinitely with no addition of more energy as heat.
Furthermore, rising into a region of lower pressure does not require work to be done against adjoining molecules and nor does falling into a region of higher pressure because in both cases the parcel of air expands or contracts at the same rate as the adjoining parcels are expanding or contracting
Meteorology is a specialised discipline that studies how the laws of physics actually play out in a real atmosphere. Simply knowing the laws of physics is not enough because they often play out in unexpected ways.
There is nothing in anything I have said in this thread that is inconsistent with the laws of physics or the specialised discipline of meteorology which I have been studying for a lifetime. I was engaged in such study long before any of you chaps took the slightest interest in climate matters.
Hi Stephen,
if I get it right, the air parcel approach is just a way to simplify the chaotic behavior of the single molecules in the atmosphere and deal with them, but the underlying physic (molecular energy is always PE+KE) is hold valid.
Am I right?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Simplify is sense one can not know where molecules are going
and generally individual molecules within the troposphere don’t go anywhere, due it being crowded with very fast moving molecules but the parcels move and are patterns of collision rather individual molecules which move. Though air parcels can combine into a air movement such as up draft or down drafts- and then the molecules moving as larger unit.
Or wind is mass of air molecules moving, each molecule not going anywhere at 400 m/s as changing direction [from collision] every nanosecond. So it’s completely chaotic, though give a clue of problem of going at speed of sound.
No, the ‘adiabatic process’ does not at all concern the hypothetical conversion from molecular KE to molecular PE. Read a textbook on the subject, Massimo.
There’s nothing “hypothetical” about the interchange of molecular KE and PE in motion between collisions. It’s using standard Kinetic Theory in which the motion of the molecules may be treated classically. If you think not, then edit Wikipedia and tell me when your edit sticks here where we read …
The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
These particles have the same mass.
The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.
These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.
The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
This implies:
1. Relativistic effects are negligible.
2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.
3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.
The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the absolute temperature of the system. The kinetic theory has its own definition of temperature, not identical with the thermodynamic definition.
The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.
Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.
Kristian,
If you dispute the interchangeability between PE and KE then how do you explain:
“The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another”.
–If you dispute the interchangeability between PE and KE then how do you explain:
“The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another”.–
I would say get that with actual air movements such updrafts
or downdrafts
Stephen, you ask:
“If you dispute the interchangeability between PE and KE then how do you explain:
“The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another”.”
The conversion of ‘work energy’ [W] into ‘internal energy’ [U] (when the air is compressed) and the conversion of U back to W (when the air expands). Both reversible processes, because only ‘work energy’ [W] is exchanged. Unlike diabatic heating and cooling, which are irreversible processes, because ‘heat energy’ [Q] is exchanged.
Now, Stephen, here is how your source describes adiabatic heating:
“When a parcel of air descends in the free atmosphere, pressure increases. To equalize the pressure, the parcel must contract. In doing this, work [W] is done on the parcel. This work energy [W], which is being added to the parcel, shows up as an increase in temperature.”
Massimo
Yes, the underlying physics is correct in that total energy content for an atmosphere suspended against gravity is kinetic energy plus potential energy.
The air parcel approach is a simplification but also reflects reality as one can see from the bumpiness of flight through parcels of differing densities.
As always, Stephen, you make it too easy. You say:
“The essential point about adiabatic uplift is that as the less dense parcel rises the surroundings get less dense at the same rate and so the density differential with the surroundings is maintained and uplift continues indefinitely with no addition of more energy as heat.”
Straight from your first source above:
“As the air rises, the pressure decreases which allows the parcel of air to expand. This continues until it reaches an altitude where the pressure and density are equal to its own.”
So no ‘indefinite uplift’ as you claim. The more the ‘parcel of air’ is heated, the more it expands and the more it is out of balance with the average state of hydrostatic equilibrium at its original level. So the higher up it needs to go before the initial imbalance is equalised. Gravity does not allow the air to simply rise ‘indefinitely’ …
Also from your first source, only on the preceding page, the ‘adiabatic process’ in the atmosphere is specifically described. If you were actually interested in learning about this subject, you would of course have read and understood it already:
“The adiabatic process is the process by which a gas, such as air, is heated or cooled, without heat [Q] being added to or taken away from the gas, but rather by expansion and compression. In the atmosphere, adiabatic and nonadiabatic processes are taking place continuously. The air near the ground is receiving heat [Q] from or giving heat [Q] to the ground. These are nonadiabatic processes. However, in the free atmosphere somewhat removed from Earth’s surface, the short-period processes are adiabatic. When a parcel of air is lifted in the free atmosphere, pressure decreases. To equalize this pressure, the parcel must expand. In expanding, it is doing work [W]. In doing work [W], it uses heat [not Q, but ‘internal energy’: U]. This results in a lowering of temperature as well as a decrease in the pressure and density. When a parcel of air descends in the free atmosphere, pressure increases. To equalize the pressure, the parcel must contract. In doing this, work [W] is done on the parcel. This work energy [W], which is being added to the parcel, shows up as an increase in temperature. The pressure and density increase in this case also.”
(The bracketed terms are my clarifications. If you don’t like them, ignore them.)
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_44.htm
This is from your quoted source, Stephen. So even the sources you yourself prefer to use to back up your bizarre claims directly contradict you and rather fully agree with me.
Strange how that happens every single time, don’t you think, Stephen? Might have something to do with the basic fact that I’m right and you’re not.
– – –
Another (randomly picked) physics source has this to say about the adiabatic process (basically the same as EVERY source on the subject would say):
“In an adiabatic process, no heat [Q] is added or removed from a system. The first law of thermodynamics is thus reduced to saying that the change in the internal energy [U] of a system undergoing an adiabatic change is equal to -W [work]. Since the internal energy [U] is directly proportional to temperature, the work [W] becomes:
W = -ΔU = U_i-U_f = 3/2nR(T_i-T_f) = -3/2nRΔT
An example of an adiabatic process is a gas expanding so quickly that no heat [Q] can be transferred. The expansion does work [W], and the temperature drops. This is exactly what happens with a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher, with the gas coming out at high pressure and cooling as it expands at atmospheric pressure.”
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Firstlaw.html
Funny, the CO2 doesn’t rise at all, it only expands quickly against lower external pressure … and so cools.
– – –
I could go on like this ‘indefinitely’, but will now leave you to your self-studies, Stephen.
Sorry Stephen but “Remember, in an adiabatic process an increase in temperature is due only to COMPRESSION when the air sinks or subsides.” is not correct because there is no law of physics that you can quote to prove it.
All changes in temperature in any gas are due to changes in the mean kinetic energy of the molecules. High pressure does not maintain high temperatures.
See the assumptions of Kinetic Theory copied in another comment I wrote today. Edit Wikipedia if you think I’m wrong about temperature depending only on the mean kinetic energy per molecule.
Doug
Compression and expansion directly affect the mean kinetic energy of molecules.
You seem to not have noticed that the quote you allude to comes not from me but from the meteorology link that I provided.
Increasing pressure forces molecules closer together so that they warm.
Decreasing pressure allows them to move apart so that they cool.
Please read the links and start thinking instead of blindly defaulting to your preferred prejudices.
Disregarding phase change and reactions, all that affects molecular KE is …
(1) an interchange with PE during flight between collisions
(2) molecular collisions with other molecules wherein KE is shared.
See this comment.
Mow go to this comment.
Expansion does not always cause cooling, not compression warming.
Consider a horizontal sealed insulated cylinder with a removable partition in the middle. The temperature on each side is the same initially, but the pressure on one side is, say, three times that on the other side, so the density is also three times. Remove the partition and a new equilibrium is established without any change in temperature. You would say that the side with lower density would be compressed and get to twice the density which you think would warm it, whilst you would think the other side would cool. But obviously they can’t end up with different temperatures.
Stephen – see this comment.
Doug,
You say (April 15, 2015 at 5:55 PM): It is obvious that in climatology physics courses they brainwash students who end up like Joel Shore and Roy Spencer being adamant that we must add the back radiation to the solar radiation. That is shown to be wrong in my March 2012 paper and also by a professor of applied mathematics in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation“ written towards the end of that year.
I thought I had carefully explained in my comments up thread (April 15, 2015 at 3:22 AM and April 15, 2015 at 4:14 AM) that the error you are accusing Joel and Roy of making is simply due to a confusion between radiative potential and radiative , both of which are measured in watts per square metre.
Trenberth’s 396W/m^2 upward radiation from the surface and 333W/m^2 downward radiation towards the surface are radiative potentials NOT flows. Only the difference between them (63W/m^2) is a radiative flow and that is upwards, from warmer to cooler in full conformance with the 2LT. All the other figures in the diagram are radiative flows.
Of course the concept of a radiative potential (a field) is only applicable in 19th century classical thermodynamic (macroscopic) theory. For perfectly sensible reasons, most modern academic physicists adhere to the 20th century particulate (microscopic) theory of statistical thermodynamics. And this is why you (and other contrarians) think they are doing their sums wrong. Under the particulate theory, photons do indeed travel in any and all directions from a radiating body. But the photon stream from a cooler body towards a hotter body always carries less energy than the countervailing photon stream from the hotter body towards the cooler. The net transfer is always the difference between them.
It then becomes an exercise in exquisite sophistry to discuss whether the photon travelling from the warmer to the cooler body is absorbed by the cooler body (as suggested by standard statistical thermodynamics) or is deflected back to itself (as promoted by Professor Claes Johnson, whom you call in aid). In either case (using Trenberth’s figures) the net transfer of energy is the same: 63W/m^2. Just as it also is in the classical thermodynamics theory.
You (and many other contrarians) also make another fundamental mistake. You assume that Trenberth’s 396W/m^2 upward radiative potential field is derived from the other figures in the diagram. No it is not. Actually it is the starting point for the whole diagram, derived via the S-B formula from the best information available, namely the observed value of ~255K for the earth’s mean surface temperature. Of course all the other radiative transfer flow values must conform to it: and they do.
Doug, you have developed an interesting non-GHG surface warming theory based on energy diffusion down the atmospheric column. It may or may not prove to be correct but, either way, you do your cause a terrible dis-service by repeating over and over (along with many other contrarians) a palpable falsehood about ‘back radiation’.
All the best,
David
Above makes sense to me probably because I have mathematics background and no physics background.
Dealing with photons seems easier for myself. Then we can think of markov processes, and steady states.
One thing that confuses me though is even when dealing with photons do we have to consider the wavelength of the thermo electric radiation ? How does this play a part ?
No David, check the figures in AGW energy budget diagrams. They treat radiative flux of electro-magnetic energy just as if it were an equal flux of thermal energy, and they claim that photons always deliver such thermal energy to targets, regardless of the relative temperatures.
It’s primitive, imaginary, fictitious, fiddled fissics that has no bearing on reality. They should not add back radiation flux to solar flux in Stefan Boltzmann calculations, but they do, as you can check for yourself because 390W/m^2 warms a perfect blackbody to 288K.
And if you want more information on all this, then read my paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” linked in another comment. Also read “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation.”
Doug,
Are you saying the photon itself has a temperature ? Meaning the photon contains some information about what the source it came from was ?
” stevek says:
April 16, 2015 at 4:36 AM
Doug,
Are you saying the photon itself has a temperature ? Meaning the photon contains some information about what the source it came from was ?”
If one could detect where it’s from, it must have information.
The wave form has the information.
stevek:
What I am saying is what is in my 2012 paper on Radiated Energy which is linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page at http://climate-change-theory.com.
Hi David Cosserat,
You stated:
“It then becomes an exercise in exquisite sophistry to discuss whether the photon travelling from the warmer to the cooler body is absorbed by the cooler body (as suggested by standard statistical thermodynamics) or is deflected back to itself (as promoted by Professor Claes Johnson, whom you call in aid).”
There seems to me at least two falsehoods in this statement.
1) Claes Johnson DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF PHOTONS!
2) From what I’ve read by Claes Johnson he never claimed that EM radiation traveling from a warmer to to a cooler body would be “deflected.” He did suggest that EM radiation traveling from a cooler body to a warmer one would be pseudo-scattered or something like that if I remember correctly, and such radiation would not resonate.
Hopefully my points clarify the situation. If I have misstated anything please let me know. Thanks and …
Have a great day!
JohnKl,
Apologies for missing your comment of several days ago.
Firstly, I made a silly mistake in my post by typing “warmer to cooler” when of course I meant “cooler to warmer”!! Please re-read it accordingly.
As I understand it, the Claes Johnson hypothesis is an alternative to statistical thermodynamics only in the sense that it has a different explanation of what is going on internally ‘under the hood’. Yes, you are in fact correct when you say that Claes Johnson doesn’t believe in photons. He has derived an alternative hypothesis that he believes eliminates the necessity for statistical mechanics. Just as a flavour, here’s an extract from his paper “Computational Blackbody Radiation”:
We shall thus present a resolution where Planck’s statistical mechanics is replaced by deterministic mechanics viewing physics as a form of analog computation with finite precision with a certain dissipative diffusive effect, which we model by digital computational mechanics associated with a certain numerical dissipation.
Mmmmm…
As far as I can see, at the macroscopic level of energy flow between radiating bodies, the Claes Johnson hypothesis gives identical results to those of statistical thermodynamics. (If it didn’t it would be dead in the water!) I think therefore it is of no particular interest in connection with the GHG effect.
On the other hand, Professor Johnson is also well known for his criticisms of the GHG theory. Unfortunately he articulates the same misunderstandings about back radiation that many others have done, namely that the Trenberth et.al. (2009) figure of 333W/m^2 downwelling radiation from atmosphere to surface was added in to the energy balance in order to ‘fake’ a GHG effect. In fact, as I have tried to explain at length up-thread, that figure cannot be viewed in isolation but must be offset against the Trenberth et.al. upwelling figure of 396W/m^2, the difference between the two being a mere 63W/m^2, flowing from (warmer) surface to (cooler) atmosphere as one would expect.
The widespread accusation that Trenberth et.al fiddled their numbers, inserting the 333W/m^2 number to achieve a fake GHG effect, is complete and utter nonsense. If you read their 1997 and 2009 papers, it is clear that they started with two observed and uncontroversial energy fluxes, 341W/m^2 top-of-the-atmosphere incoming solar radiation, and 396W/m^2 surface to atmosphere upwelling, the latter calculated directly the S-B formula from an observed and uncontroversial mean surface temperature of 288K. They then trawled the literature for best estimates for all the other energy fluxes that must then logically occur between surface, atmosphere, and space.
Sorry! Second paragraph: “…a confusion between radiative potential and radiative,” should read “…a confusion between radiative potential and radiative flow.”
Sorry again!! In the penultimate paragraph 255K should of course read 288K.
Kristian:
You are so confused that it is not worth my while commenting. I’ll leave others to disentangle all that if they have the stamina to do so.
Kristian
“In expanding, it is doing work [W]. In doing work [W], it uses heat [not Q, but ‘internal energy’: U]. This results in a lowering of temperature as well as a decrease in the pressure and density”
The work done is against the force of gravity and NOT adjoining molecules.
If the work involves adjoining molecules then heat is transferred out to those molecules and the process is diabatic not adiabatic.
Glad to see you’re starting to say similar to what I’ve been saying – indeed the work done by molecules is against gravity as they move on towards their next collision in a higher place. We equate PE gain with the negative of KE loss to get:
m*cp*dT = -m*g*dH to get the temperature gradient
dT/dH = -g/cp
Doug,
I agree with some parts of what you say but you go off the rails in the matter of convection because you hang your entire thesis on the flawed concept of downward diffusion / conduction.
I do no such thing. My hypothesis is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is considered infallible.
There is still a $5,000 reward for the first in the world to prove the physics I present to be substantially incorrect and to support his or her “proof” with a similar empirical study to mine, but showing instead a warming of at least 15 degrees for each 1% of water vapor instead of cooling, as my study shows.
As for yourself, Stephen, it seems you don’t even understand what temperature is a measure of. Answer!
Stephen Wilde says, April 16, 2015 at 3:46 AM:
““In expanding, it is doing work [W]. In doing work [W], it uses heat [not Q, but ‘internal energy’: U]. This results in a lowering of temperature as well as a decrease in the pressure and density”
The work done is against the force of gravity and NOT adjoining molecules.
If the work involves adjoining molecules then heat is transferred out to those molecules and the process is diabatic not adiabatic.”
No, Stephen. The air parcel does not do work against gravity when it expands. It does not oppose gravity when expanding. Remember the CO2 inside the fire extinguisher? It does not rise when entering the atmosphere. Rather the opposite. Still it cools. Because it expands. Against a lower external pressure.
Whenever something expands, it expands INTO something, Stephen. It pushes something else out of the way. And it is this something else that the expanding something is doing work on (force times distance). This is elementary stuff.
But don’t take my word for it.
– – –
http://www.luc.edu/faculty/dslavsk/courses/phys478/classnotes/rising-air.pdf
“Let’s imagine a parcel of air on the surface of the Earth that begins to rise. As the parcel rises to higher elevations, it enters regions of lower external air pressure. Remember that air is a poor conductor, so different masses or parcels of air do not readily or rapidly merge with each other. As the parcel experiences regions of lower air pressure, the parcel expands since there is less external confining pressure acting on it.
(…) In order for the parcel to expand as described just above, the parcel has to do work to push other air molecules out of the way in order for the expansion to occur. This means that the parcel has to use up some of its energy to expand. Since temperature is just a measure of the energy of the molecules in a system, the temperature of the parcel will decrease as its molecules use some of their energy to expand against the external atmosphere.”
– – –
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/stability.html
“For example, if we raise a parcel of air from ground level to 100 meters in height, the temperature will decrease by 1°C. The parcel cools at a rate of 1°C per 100 m or 10°C per km.
The parcel expanded and did work on its environment!
Now, bring the parcel back down to the surface. The environment did work on the parcel.
This is an adiabatic process and is reversible.”
Continues below …
Continued from above:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
“In thermodynamics the simplest form of energy conservation is the balance between ‘internal energy’ (the kinetic energy of the body’s internal molecular motion – directly proportional to its temperature), and the amount of ‘heat’ added to the body minus the ‘work’ done by the body on its surroundings.
As our air parcel expands in response to the lowering of the outside pressure, the force of its internal pressure is moving the walls of the container outwards. When a force is moving an object over a given distance it does work. Thus the expanding air parcel does work on its surroundings. This work must come at the expense of internal energy (remember, heat is neither added nor taken away from the parcel in this experiment). Thus the molecular motion within the parcel will slow down, and the parcel’s temperature will drop.
The expanding parcel will experience not only lowering of its pressure and density, but also of its temperature. All three state variables: pressure, density, and temperature will remain in balance as described by the ideal gas law. The process described above is called adiabatic expansion, implying the change in parcel density without the exchange of heat with its surroundings, and its consequential cooling. The opposite will occur when the parcel is compressed. Adiabatic compression leads to warming.”
– – –
http://www2.fiu.edu/~hajian/MET3502/MET3502_Synoptic_Lec2.pdf
“Adiabatic Process: No heat added or removed, but temperature and/or water mixing ratio change as the parcel
– Expands into lower pressure using internal energy to do work
– Is compressed by higher pressure converting work done by its surroundings into internal energy”
– – –
http://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/iop_atmospheric_stability.pdf
“For example, consider a small, isolated parcel of air. When the air is forced to rise (maybe because it has encountered a barrier such as a mountain, or because heat has been added to it from the Earth’s surface and it is warmer than the surrounding air) it expands with PV/T = constant according to the Ideal Gas Law, because the pressure is lower at higher altitudes. As the air parcel expands, it pushes on the air around it, doing work. Since the parcel does ‘work’ and gains no ‘heat’, it loses ‘internal energy’, and so its temperature decreases. The reverse occurs for a sinking parcel of air.”
Continues below …
Continued from above:
https://books.google.no/books?id=5Dx-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT171&lpg=PT171&dq=air+parcel+expanding+cooling&source=bl&ots=njb8XMYnLH&sig=j6bf3spvN3bLeabYieMNTdHugRg&hl=no&sa=X&ei=kPwvVeugOaTIyAPM3ID4BA&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=air%20parcel%20expanding%20cooling&f=false
“”At Earth’s surface, the parcel has the same temperature and pressure as the air surrounding it. Suppose we lift the air parcel up into the atmosphere. We know from Chapter 1 that air pressure decreases with height. Consequently, the air pressure surrounding the parcel lowers. The lower pressure outside allows the air molecules inside to push the parcel walls outward, expanding the parcel. Because there is no other energy source, the air molecules inside must use some of their own energy to expand the parcel. This shows up as slower average molecular speeds, which result in a lower parcel temperature. If the parcel is lowered to the surface, it returns to a region where the surrounding air pressure is higher. The higher pressure squeezes (compresses) the parcel back into its original (smaller) volume. This squeezing increases the average speed of the air molecules and the parcel temperature rises.”
– – –
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter6/adiab_cool.html
“consider a rising parcel of air –>>
As the parcel rises, it will adiabatically expand and cool (…)
adiabatic – a process where the parcel temperature changes due to an expansion or compression, no heat is added or taken away from the parcel
the parcel expands since the lower pressure outside allows the air molecules to push out on the parcel walls
since it takes energy for the parcel molecules to “push out” on the parcel walls, they use up some of their ‘internal energy’ in the process.
therefore, the parcel also cools since temperature is proportional to molecular internal energy”
– – –
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/cooling_processes/cooling_processes.html
“Adiabatic Processes
No energy exchange through heating: ΔH [ΔQ] = 0
Temperature changes associated solely with work [W] (expansion/contraction): pΔα [PdV] = -c_vΔT
Increase in volume (expansion) produces decrease in temperature
Decrease in volume (compression) produces increase in temperature
Adiabatic processes are reversible
Adiabatic processes in atmosphere mainly related to vertical motion
Vertical motion subjects air parcels to changes in pressure
Rising air parcels expand due to reduced pressure and cool
Sinking air parcels contract due to increased pressure and warm”
But I’m sure all of these sources are as utterly confused as I am, the people writing these things not knowing anything at all about how the adiabatic process in the atmosphere really works …
Kristian said:
“An example of an adiabatic process is a gas expanding so quickly that no heat [Q] can be transferred. The expansion does work [W], and the temperature drops”
That is a different process which does not involve uplift against gravity.
The expansion is so fast that there is no time for heat to transfer in from the surroundings and the expansion does indeed push against the surroundings but due to the speed the process is essentially adiabatic in the very short term.
That illustrates my point that the raw physics is not helpful. You have to study meteorology to know how it plays out in a real atmosphere where the cooling in uplift is caused by relatively slow work done against gravity and not rapid or explosive work done against the surrounding molecules at the same height as in that example.
Yes, Stephen, and the work is not done by wind either. Sadly for your conhecture, there can also be net horizontal molecular motion (convection) away from a new source of thermal energy, or just towards a region (on one side or another) that happens to be cooler. So your “parcels” don’t hang together as you would know from “raw” Kinetic Theory, as used successfully by Einstein and many since.
Read the links I provided.
A major problem people have with the idea of gravitational potential energy in relation to gases is in envisaging why such a small force as is required to raise the height of a tiny molecule can have such a large thermal effect when gases are involved.
The cause of the drop in temperature is not just the work done against gravity but also the work done by the individual molecules in the gas parcel expanding away from each other against the intermolecular attractive forces into the larger volume around a sphere that becomes available with height. The work done against gravity is merely the initial trigger for the subsequent expansion.
That expansion into the larger volume multiplies the creation of potential energy many times to achieve the results that we observe along the lapse rate slope.
For the raising of a liquid or solid against gravity no such multiplying effect occurs because the intermolecular bonds of attraction are strong so the liquid or solid cannot expand into a greater volume.
That is why objections based on the lifting of a rock or other solid or liquid are not valid. In such cases the creation of potential energy is far smaller in relation to the mass involved than for gases yet even so a falling solid contains a lot of potential energy that is released on impact.
The potential energy carried by gases relative to their mass as a result of uplift is many magnitudes greater than that for a mere solid or liquid.
Stephen: The “intermolecular attractive forces” are considered negligible in the assumptions of Kinetic Theory, which I have copied in another comment.
The outer 10Km of the Earth’s crust exhibits a gravitationally induced temperature gradient (of the right magnitude) and that’s a fact, Stephen. That’s why the word “Core” is in the title of my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.” You should read it some day, because it contains correct physics based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Your generalizations about what happens in upward and downward motion of a gas are incorrect in a gravitational field because you are not drawing your conclusions with any appropriate (and necessary) consideration of the Second Law and maximum entropy production with dissipating energy potentials.
Until you take note of this highly relevant law of physics, and apply it, your conclusions are wrong, Stephen. The reasons are in my paper.
Argue with the links I provided.
How about you edit Wikipedia here and tell me when your edit sticks as some of mine have over the years. Note: the bit I’ve bolded …
Assumptions[edit]
The theory for ideal gases makes the following assumptions:
The gas consists of very small particles known as molecules. This smallness of their size is such that the total volume of the individual gas molecules added up is negligible compared to the volume of the smallest open ball containing all the molecules. This is equivalent to stating that the average distance separating the gas particles is large compared to their size.
These particles have the same mass.
The number of molecules is so large that statistical treatment can be applied.
These molecules are in constant, random, and rapid motion.
The rapidly moving particles constantly collide among themselves and with the walls of the container. All these collisions are perfectly elastic. This means, the molecules are considered to be perfectly spherical in shape, and elastic in nature.
Except during collisions, the interactions among molecules are negligible. (That is, they exert no forces on one another.)
This implies:
1. Relativistic effects are negligible.
2. Quantum-mechanical effects are negligible. This means that the inter-particle distance is much larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength and the molecules are treated as classical objects.
3. Because of the above two, their dynamics can be treated classically. This means, the equations of motion of the molecules are time-reversible.
The average kinetic energy of the gas particles depends only on the absolute temperature of the system. The kinetic theory has its own definition of temperature, not identical with the thermodynamic definition.
The time during collision of molecule with the container’s wall is negligible as compared to the time between successive collisions.
Because they have mass, the gas molecules will be affected by gravity.
And Stephen, gravitational potential energy (relative to a reference level such as sea level) is just m*g*H and is of course proportional to the mass m at any given height.
The gravitational potential energy is not “released on impact” because what is released is thermal energy, sound and maybe some physical damage which came from kinetic energy into which the gravitational potential energy was already being converted all the way down, not just at the moment of impact. This is pretty basic physics, Stephen, and you give away the fact that you have no qualifications in such by your loose use of standard terms in physics, just as you did in that comment.
On impact, gravitational potential energy is released as kinetic energy which generates heat, sound and if energetic enough, light.
Your point is ?
My point is that it was already kinetic energy just before impact. Gravitational potential energy doesn’t even change much during the actual impact because the matter remains at about the same height, namely ground level.
Now, Stephen, rather than make your hand waving comments about heat creep that you have not read about in my paper at all, let alone studied the diagrams which explain it and link it as a corollary of the Second Law, how about you answer the question about Venus, which I shall continue to link you to here until you do answer.
I don’t see it any different, but rather that a small change
in velocity of the mass of lower atmosphere is a lot of heat
gained or lost. Or takes enormous amount energy to expand the atmosphere and one gets enormous amount energy contracting.
Or he kinetic energy of entire atmosphere is something like
the mass of atmosphere divided by 2 times 400 times 400.
KE= mass /2 time velocity squared.
And then you got potential energy in addition to Kinetic.
Roughly half mass of atmosphere is “Fifty percent of the total mass of the atmosphere is located in the lower 5.6 km”
wiki
So mass of atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg.
If you magically removed the lower part and let the top half
fall 5.6 km. So 2.55 x 10^18 kg falling 5.6 km, takes 33.8 seconds to hit the surface and adds 331 m/s. And 331 + 400 m/s
basically incinerates everything. Or is 1.3 x 10^23 joules.
And Mega ton nuclear warhead is 4.2×10^15 Joules so equal
to 30 million 1 megaton bombs.
Of course atmospheric can’t fall by half it’s distance.
And not sure how distance is involve, but it only 10 tens or
100 meters it’s significant amount of energy.
And in the day and night cycle one one having one half of atmosphere involved at a moment in time, though in 24 hour period it’s entire atmosphere. And including weather and seasons it’s less simple.
Stephen,
We in fact all understand the concept of adiabatic expansion as the pressure on a gas decreases. It is you who seems to have confused this correct notion with other incorrect notions like “The cause of the drop in temperature is not just the work done against gravity…” and “That expansion into the larger volume multiplies the creation of potential energy many times…”
The first statement is true if amended to “The cause of the drop in temperature is not due to the work done against gravity (because the buoyant force and the gravitational force cancel for the limiting case of a neutrally buoyant parcel)…”
The second is just nonsense that I can’t really make heads or tails out of.
And you also seem confused by the difference between “adiabatic” which means a process in which is there is no heat exchange with the rest of the world and “isothermal” which means there is no change in temperature (and hence internal energy, at least for an ideal gas).
You may have missed this comment, Joel.
Regarding “heat creep” (downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer) go to this comment and read my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Does anyone else have any vague idea what Stephen means?
That expansion into the larger volume multiplies the creation of potential energy many times to achieve the results that we observe along the lapse rate slope.
Such water-tight physics! /sarc
By the way, Stephen, is it only gravitational potential energy you’re talking about? If so, it’s the same for all identical molecules at any given height, and it increases linearly with height quite regardless of whether there was expansion, contraction, wind, kinetic energy acquired from another molecule that gave it a knock, or whatever that got the molecules to that height.
Stephen Wilde
Tim Folkerts post at
April 15, 2015 at 6:24 PM
“If it is neutrally buoyant how does it rise?
It would stay in the same place.”
…puts it very well
You should read any reread it several times if you hope to make any progress.
Kristian and Joel Shore making much the same points
Further to Tims post, we cannot regard the motion of the parcel as truly adiabatic.
In the horizontal direction it is adiabatic.
Any change in the parcels internal energy is brought about by work being done on or by the parcels surroundings
In the vertical direction there is heat transfer from surface to space, obviously a non adiabatic process.
There is also some difference in use of word convection; some usage will confine it for situations where there is an unbalanced force on the parcel others use it for any vertical motion whether at constant speed or not.
It is quite surprising that at night the neutral or DALR condition can exist for significant periods of time.
This might lead people into thinking that perhaps this is the natural or default position of the atmosphere.
However that would be misleading.
All the textbooks agree that in a very tall adiabatic enclosure if left for a long time then an isothermal distribution is achieved.
However our atmosphere is constantly changing for example by pole to equator temperature difference and the diurnal effect so the isothermal situation is never given long enough to settle.
“It is quite surprising that at night the neutral or DALR condition can exist for significant periods of time.
This might lead people into thinking that perhaps this is the natural or default position of the atmosphere.
However that would be misleading.
All the textbooks agree that in a very tall adiabatic enclosure if left for a long time then an isothermal distribution is achieved.”
It takes time to make a tropospheric column isothermal after turbulent mixing as a result of surface heating has ceased. But it will get there in the end. You only need to observe the Antarctic troposphere/lower stratosphere temperature gradient evolve during the polar night. There is no surface heating at all, only radiative cooling all the way from the surface (where the highest rate is to be found) up to about 20 km above the surface, where the Sun is still shining. This gradual cooling goes on through months of darkness, but the atmosphere still never manages to get truly isothermal; the gradient is eventually brought down to about 1-3 K/km. During this period, the tropopause (the border between the tropopause and the stratosphere) is, for all intents and purposes, erased and cold stratospheric air is freely allowed to flow down to the surface inversion layer, from where it spreads out radially northwards.
You can never get an isothermal atmosphere around a rotating sphere illuminated by a point source of light because uneven surface heating constantly creates density differentials in the horizontal plane which leads to convective overturning.
There will still be a decline in temperature with height without any GHGs at all.
A very tall enclosure is a completely different matter.
Stephen Wilde says, April 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM:
“You can never get an isothermal atmosphere around a rotating sphere illuminated by a point source of light because uneven surface heating constantly creates density differentials in the horizontal plane which leads to convective overturning.”
This we agree on. And not just in the horizontal plane, but in the vertical plane too. Because the atmosphere is free to expand upwards when warming. There is no rigid, immovable lid at the top. ‘Internal/thermal pressure’ vs. atmospheric weight.
Case in point:
The surface air pressure on Venus is 92 times that on Earth. Its surface air density, however, is ‘only’ 51 times Earth’s.
If the Venusian atmosphere had the same composition as Earth’s atmosphere, and the surface had the same average temperature as on Earth, 288K, its sfc air density would’ve been about 92 times Earth’s. However, being composed almost exclusively of CO2, its 288K sfc density would’ve been even much higher than this, 141 times what we experience here on Earth, because CO2 gas is ~1.5 times denser than regular air.
So how come the sfc air density on Venus is only 51 rather than 141 times Earth’s with a sfc air pressure of 92 bar?
Because, as we all know, the mean Venusian sfc air temp isn’t ~288K, but rather ~737K. So the Venusian atmosphere has been vastly thermally expanded against its own weight, thus substantially lowering its mean density below what one might expect from atmospheric pressure alone.
Bryan,
Please read the links I provided.
Stephen Wilde never did and never could explain how what obviously happens on Venus happens.
Fact 1: The surface warms by day because it cools by night.
Fact 2: The Sun warms only the upper troposphere and above where the temperature is less than about 400K. (S-B law)
Fact 3: The surface needs a new source of thermal energy to raise its temperature from 732K to 737K, as happens slowly over the course of about 4 months.
Fact 4: The only source of such new energy into the surface must be energy from the Sun that is absorbed where the temperature is <400K.
So how does the thermal energy get transferred downwards from the region <400K into the far hotter surface?
Doug Cotton
You keep using the Venus surface temperature changing from night to day. Where do you get this information. I think Roy wants to maintain somewhat of a science blog. You make stuff up. Have no supporting information to go with it. And keep using it as if it is established reality. Get a grip man! Making up information does not make it true, correct or real but you are using it in your posts and arguments as if it was established. Where is your source for this Venus surface temperature. I do not know of any extensive surface temperature measurements done on Venus. For all I know it may vary from place to place for different reasons (composition of material, heat capacity, radiation emissitivity, radiation absorption, wind speed, etc). If we are free to make up information I can claim the poles of Venus are really only 500 K who to say I am wrong? I made this claim so it must be totally right! Do you see what I am saying Doug.
Please quit making up information and peddling it as true facts. If no one confronted you on this I would consider you just ignorant and able to learn. When you do this after you have been told of your error you are noting more than a dishonest person because now you know better but still peddle misinformation intentionally trying to mislead people who do not know your tactics. Very very dishonest Doug. Please change this bad behavior!
Where do you get this information. From the Second Law of Thermodynamics – things like planet surfaces cool at night – I thought you might have noticed here on Earth. Why wouldn’t they – especially in 4 months of darkness as on Venus?
Doug
When Venus first formed from hot gases and debris the temperature profile was hot at the newly developed surface and cooler with height.
That was enough to set up convective overturning which forever thereafter maintains surface temperature as long as losses to space are replenished by insolation at any level in the atmosphere.
You might have had a point if Venus started as a cold inert rock but it did not.
Oh so you have a perpetual motion machine now – congratulations.
Actually I don’t have any proof that Venus was hotter than at present when first formed, so I must dismiss your comment as you provided no proof either. If it had been cooler, the Sun would have warmed it to the current temperature anyway by my calculations using the 21st Century (correct) Paradigm based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics which controls all natural processes.
Wiki:
“The terrestrial embryos grew to about 0.05 Earth masses (M⊕) and ceased accumulating matter about 100,000 years after the formation of the Sun; subsequent collisions and mergers between these planet-sized bodies allowed terrestrial planets to grow to their present sizes (see Terrestrial planets below)”
And below:
“Terrestrial planets
At the end of the planetary formation epoch the inner Solar System was populated by 50–100 Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos. Further growth was possible only because these bodies collided and merged, which took less than 100 million years. These objects would have gravitationally interacted with one another, tugging at each other’s orbits until they collided, growing larger until the four terrestrial planets we know today took shape.”
How big is 0.05 Earth masses. So Earth is 5.97 x 10^24 and
the Moon is 0.073 x 10^24 [7.3 x 10^22].
5.97 * .05 is .2985 x 10^24.
So bigger than our moon and 50 to 100 of them, so would ejected out of inner system- this I would say this is the reason for large uncertainty of 50 to 100.
And Mars is 0.642 x 10^24. So roughly between the Moon and Mars size bodies.
One also look at Late heavy bombardment:
“The Late Heavy Bombardment (abbreviated LHB and also known as the lunar cataclysm) is a hypothetical event thought to have occurred approximately 4.1 to 3.8 billion years (Ga) ago, spanning the Neohadean and Eoarchean eras. During this interval, a disproportionately large number of asteroids apparently collided with the early terrestrial planets in the inner solar system, including Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. The LHB happened after the Earth and other rocky planets had formed and accreted most of their mass, but still quite early in Earth history.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment
So the big and quite visible craters such as Hellas basin on Mars [or Hellas Planitia :”4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellas_Planitia%5D and Lunar South pole, Aitken basin, “is thought to have formed about 4.3 billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Moon itself”.
http://www.spaceanswers.com/solar-system/whats-the-biggest-visible-impact-crater-in-the-solar-system/
Are thought to be generally around Late heavy bombardment.
Video illustrating theory that Moon was formed from larger
impactor:
http://www.history.com/shows/the-universe/videos/creation-of-the-moon
Interesting, but not really relevant to current planetary core and surface temperatures which depend on the level of solar radiation.
A sequel for Moon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msFzwil5HM
But in terms of Venus. Moon is far better understood than
Venus.
I would like to see more exploration of Venus.
Mainly things flying in it’s atmosphere. And since surface is hard to get to and have anything survive for long, things like sample return is probably unlike in next fifty years.
And need to look at the rocks of Venus. And with Venus thick
atmosphere it seems to me unlike we will discover any meteorites from Venus.
Yeah, sure! And when and where precisely do your “parcels” of air rise and when do they fall and why at those times and locations do they decide to change direction – were they tired of the view up there, Stephen?
And how does the energy absorbed in the less-hot atmosphere get into the hotter surface in order to raise its temperature back up by x degrees that it cooled by at night?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x
Joel read. Maybe you will come to a realization.
Yes, that is the one peer-reviewed article you can find that supports your point of view about the water vapor feedback and it was thoroughly debunked by Dessler: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract He showed how that one reanalysis is an outlier and is not believable in a variety of ways.
Cherrypicking bad data and using it unskeptically…That’s what “AGW skeptics” like you do best!
Dessler does not know what he is talking about. The blind leading the blind.
Doug,
You say (April 16, 2015 at 4:20 AM): …check the figures in AGW energy budget diagrams. They treat radiative flux of electro-magnetic energy just as if it were an equal flux of thermal energy, and they claim that photons always deliver such thermal energy to targets, regardless of the relative temperatures.
You aren’t listening. No competent scientist has ever claimed that the earth’s surface is losing energy by radiation to the atmosphere at a net rate of 390W/m^2. Certainly none of the academic physicists engaging here (Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts, Robert Brown) have said that. And it is their absolute right to use statistical thermodynamics if they wish, which assumes that:
(a) there are 2-way photon transfers between radiating bodies that are within each other’s view
(b) the energy contained in each of those photon transfers is absorbed by the receiving body
(c) the net rate of transfer of energy by radiation is the difference between the two rates of transfer, always from warmer to cooler body
Alternatively, it is your absolute right, if you wish, to follow classical thermodynamics which simply says that the net radiative energy flow between two bodies in each other’s full view is equal to the difference between the hotter body’s radiative potential and the cooler body’s radiative potential.
Or, if you really must, you can even apply Claes Johnson’s wacky theory.
But whichever theory you favour, using Trenberth’s radiative potential figures of 390W/m^2 and 333W/m^2 for the earth’s surface and atmosphere, in all three cases the net transfer of energy by radiation is the same: 66W/m^2 upwards.
The key points you are missing are:
(i) The radiative potential of a body is determined according to its temperature – NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
(ii) The radiative potential of a body DOES NOT DETERMINE THE RATE AT WHICH ENERGY FLOWS INTO OR OUT OF THAT BODY.
To take an extreme example: a body at a temperature of 1,000K is enclosed within a larger body also at a temperature of 1,000K. Let us assume for simplicity that both bodies have emissivity 1. Using the S-B equation, we find that their radiative potentials are both 56,704W/m^2. Yet the rate of flow of energy between them is not 56,704W/m^2, is it? Nowhere near, is it? It is ZERO!
Until you get your head round all of this, I think you will simply continue to devalue your efforts to promote your non-GHG diffusion theory, the merits or demerits of which certainly don’t depend on a continuing diversionary vendetta against ‘back radiation’.
David
David,
Joel Shore doesn’t agree with you. He does not see the UWLWIR and DWLWIR as mere potenital fluxes, but as real fluxes in their own right.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188753
David I know more than you about radiative heat transfer – I wrote a comprehensive review of 21st Century physics on such in my 2012 paper. I’m not wasting time rewriting teh paper here. But see “Comment #900.”
My point is as in the paragraph you quoted – namely 168+324-102=390.
“Comprehensive review of 21st Century physics” without presenting any formulas or calculations? Are you kidding?? I have a feeling your essay did not pass peer-review, right?
http://www.solarchords.tps1.com.au/uploaded/82/87-34171-450015_56globalrelativehumidity3.jpg
One last one. I made my point.
I am sure we will agree to disagree.
Doug Cotton,
Please take the time to read and ingest the material in this article. It explains very well air parcels, boundary conditons, cloud formation, cooling as air rises, environmental lapse rate (what it actually means).
Lots of good material.
http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/Sect14_1b.html
Environmental lapse rate is defined as the actual lapse rate of the air (measured). It is used in meterology to determine how severe weather may become. This lapse rate can vary greatly because of air movements above and below.
Norman,
Good find. Supplements my earlier links and confirms my points.
Meteorology has the answers. People here should read some.
I have probably studied the relevant areas of meteorology more than yourself, Stephen. You didn’t even know the strict (and original) definition of an inversion in meteorology. It is when the temperature gradient is less steep than normal, not only when the temperature is hotter at the top than at the bottom. But of course (in order to support the hoax) many meteorology texts and websites now simplify it to being only when hotter at the top. They do this because they realize that downward heat transfers take place in inversions (even when it is just that the gradient is less steep but still negative) and that would refute the GH radiative forcing conjecture. That’s why climatologists fight like hell to try to disprove the Loschmidt effect with articles like Robert Brown wrote that are incorrect for the reasons here.
The difference is that I have pinpointed the errors in the physics they teach within the framework of meteorology and climatology. It’s a closed loop, all oriented to supporting the GH radiative forcing conjecture, imaginary parcels of air, incorrect assumptions about “net” effects in the Second Law, incorrect assumptions about radiation supposedly always transferring equivalent thermal energy, etc, instead of using standard physics, notably Kinetic Theory and the correct statement of Second Law of Thermodynamics which pertains to maximum entropy production as explained here.
Until you make an effort to read and study my paper, and to understand why the Second Law does not preclude downward non-radiative (sensible) heat transfers from cooler to warmer regions in a planet’s troposphere you will never be able to answer the question about Venus or have a correct understanding of energy transfers on Earth either.
You have never even been able to explain how, when and why your imaginary, fictitious “parcels” of air (that have nothing to keep the molecules from straying outside their boundaries) decide when it’s time to go up, down or perhaps sideways.
Molecules don’t decide to go downwards only because gravity pulls them down, Stephen. Even at the top of the troposphere they still move at about 1,400Km/hour between collisions. Do you imagine it is gravity accelerating them to that speed just in the distance of the mean free path?
I doubt that you could explain at the molecular level precisely why the density gradient becomes stable, whereas I have explained such using Kinetic Theory. Until you understand why, you won’t understand how, when and why there could be any upward or downward net movement of molecules when, with a stable density gradient in an ideal troposphere there are in fact no net transfers of mass or energy across any internal boundary.
The stable density gradient is the state of maximum entropy, so things only change when something disturbs that state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
You, Stephen, have never explained what it is that disturbs it, and what the consequences are – like heat creep for example.
Yes – all to do with weather. Why would that happen in a tall, insulated sealed cylinder where a temperature gradient must evolve (as per the Second Law) and heat creep can be made to happen?
From Norman’s link:
“As we have pointed out, in an unstable layer, the initial lifting force is only needed to get to the parcel going upwards. Immediately after the lifting begins, the parcel is buoyant and convection will continue on its own.”
Convection continues on its own because the rising parcel cools at the same rate as the surroundings so that the density differential is maintained.
That density differential will be eroded by some diabatic cooling to the surroundings because no adiabatic process is perfect but in general the adiabatic uplift continues indefinitely until the rising parcel reaches a warmer layer such as the tropopause where the density differential disappears.
Go back to this comment, Stephen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
This is how we should go about attacking the absurdity of AGW theory, instead of making the absurd claims the GHG effect does not exist.
Time would be better spent accepting the GHG effect premise and then exposing it as being false as far as it being a governor of the climate by attacking the principals AGW theory is based on and showing through the data those principals are wrong. I have yet to find one atmospheric process that this theory has predicted to be correct.
Data supports all of the items I present below as forecasted by AGW theory as being wrong.
HUMIDITY INCREASES IN GENERAL THROUGOUT THE ATMOSPHERE- wrong.
INCREASE IN WORLD DROUGHTS- wrong.
TROPOSHERIC HOT SPOT- wrong.
A GREATER TREND TOWARD A +NAO/AO – wrong.
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- If anything prolonged minimum solar activity(less ozone and no major volcanic activity could account for this, along with the phase of the PDO/AMO. Data shows the cooling trend of late at any rate has reversed.
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND- wrong.
OLR TO SPACE TO DECREASE- wrong.
ENSO TOWARD MORE EL NINO PHASES- wrong
ANTARCTIC SEA ICE TO DIMINISH – wrong
GREATER HURRICANE/TORNADIC ACTIVITY – wrong.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT- linked to solar, for IR radiation can only penetrate the surface skin of the ocean to the tune of 1 mm. In addition ocean heat content has leveled off.
ARCTIC SEA ICE DEATH SPIRAL- wrong.
I listed the biggest blunders there are so many more. To get more blunders go to the web-site icecap.com and then go to the greenhouse score card.
If a GHG effect does exist which I think is correct and an increase in CO2 all things being equal is going to cause a temperature increase,a tropical hot spot,and OLR to decrease, why is it that none of this is happening?
The most sensible explanation is there must be a flaw in AGW THEORY and how it views the GHG effect.
When one looks at the data objectively the data shows no temperature increase despite CO2 increases, no reduction in OLR radiation despite CO2 increases, no lower tropospheric hot spot despite CO2 increases, and a lower mixing ratio/ specific humidity trend in all levels of the atmosphere from varied data sources,despite CO2 increases. Given that one has to conclude perhaps a flaw in AGW theory exist. That flaw being the strong positive feedback claim it makes between CO2 and water vapor.
For if this feedback between CO2 and water vapor were as strong as AGW theory suggest the tropospheric hot spot would have been in evidence beyond a doubt by now, and humidity levels through out the atmosphere would not be dropping. They would instead be in a definite up trend.
This leads me to believe that there is either no positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor or that a stronger positive feedback probably exist for water vapor then CO2. That stronger positive feedback being sea surface temperatures. Evidence of this being strongly supported by the drop in specific humidity levels in the tropics which have been shown to correlate very strongly to the phase of the PDO. A warm PDO being associated with higher specific humidity levels and vice versa. View data below.
https://twitter.com/bigjoebastardi/status/577264038893252608
This makes sense because evaporation the source for water vapor in the atmosphere is less when water is colder and or in a cold environment, in contrast to when the water is warmer and or in a warmer environment.
If one follows this train of thought going forward it is easy to see why in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions ,water vapor in the atmosphere would lessen. The reason being sea surface temperatures will become colder because the visible light and long wave UV light emissions from the sun would decline and since they penetrate the skin of the ocean surface waters to several meters in depth in contrast to IR radiation which can only penetrate the skin of the ocean surface to a depth of 1 mm or so, it stands to reason solar variation is the major force in the determination of sea surface temperatures, and ultimately water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Reduced solar activity correlating to reduced sea surface temperatures and vice versa.
With a decline in sea surface temperatures in response to lower solar activity this would lead to reduced evaporation which would then lead to reduced water vapor in the atmosphere hence making the GHG effect as called for by AGW theory at the very least being diminished, if not null and void.
This is why the data between sunspots and water vapor correlate so strongly. This is also why I think the data keeps showing CO2 concentrations following the temperature rather then leading it. CO2 never being the major driving force of the GHG effect, but subjugated to water vapor concentrations. Thus when water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere decrease the temperature trends on earth decrease which eventually leads to the trend in CO2 concentrations to decrease.
AGW theory has it backwards. It is water vapor that is the driving force behind the GHG effect not CO2. One could say CO2 is correlated to water vapor but water vapor is not correlated to CO2.
See data below.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png?w=614
As far as the convection factor I talked about that in my earlier post on AUG. 15 at 9:40 AM.
Should be earlier post on Apr 15 at 9:40 am
“If a GHG effect does exist which I think is correct and an increase in CO2 all things being equal is going to cause a temperature increase”
We know that all molecules radiate, some more readily than others.
If you wear clothes they will radiate back some of your bodies energy.
Would we call this a Greenhouse Effect?
In that case all cases of insulation can be called the Greenhouse Effect.
Since it it such a universal situation, giving it the title of a special and unique “effect” is misplaced.
Where are the defenders of the “classic Greenhouse Theory” of being an effect so powerful that it can cause a 33K increase in a shoebox size enclosure?
For example Professor Vaughan Pratt
Or others who claim that human caused CO2 increase can produce on its own significant climate temperature increases.
There is no such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect as proclaimed by climate alarmists
“Where are the defenders of the “classic Greenhouse Theory” of being an effect so powerful that it can cause a 33K increase in a shoebox size enclosure?”
There is no such “class greenhouse theory” except in the imaginations of your head. The real greenhouse effect does not operate in a shoebox and you’ve had explained to you enough that you should know this and, if you don’t, you never will.
Your logic, as best as I can discern it, is: “Because the greenhouse effect does not work in the way I want to misunderstand it, there is no such thing.” I don’t think we really need to explain to you why that is not very good logic.
I should add that you can use tabletop experiments to learn simple things about the absorption of radiation by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. However, you cannot use it to quantitatively replicate the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect is way more complicated than that.
— Bryan says:
April 16, 2015 at 1:09 PM
“If a GHG effect does exist which I think is correct and an increase in CO2 all things being equal is going to cause a temperature increase”
We know that all molecules radiate, some more readily than others.
If you wear clothes they will radiate back some of your bodies energy.
Would we call this a Greenhouse Effect?–
A human manages it’s heat by evaporation, mostly.
Prevent evaporation and in room temperature you will overheat.
Another mechanism which effects human body temperature is convection of heat. Clothes are mostly about reducing the convective of heat.
Shoes reduce conduction losses from cold ground.
One way to stop all radiant energy form leaving one’s body
is to be under water- and under water evaporation does not work. Water would conduct heat and warmed water rises [convection]. Water which 10 C or 50 F is fairly lethal to unprotected person in about 1 hour of time. With a wet suit- it’s obviously wet but keeps the water warmed by human
body heat and prevent conduction of heat of that warmed water to say colder ocean water. A dry suit- obviously dry works preventing heat loss by conduction with water around- it’s waterproof.
Spacesuits are kind like small spacecraft. Spacesuit cool the human body. One does not need heater. Space has no temperature which should not be confused with zero temperature. But universe in terms radiant consideration is about 2 K [close to zero temperatures]. Spacesuits or spacecraft tend to designed to not warmed up, plus systems
which prevent uneven heating. Or problem is getting rid of heat considering that one electronics which have waste heat. But if something in space has no sunlight heating or other sources of heat, it will eventually reach 2 K due to radiating heat.
Anyhow the human body generates a lot of heat. So human body in spacesuit if shadowed from the Sun, is quite warm and have cooling system which make person more comfortable.
The cooling system is network if tubing and is cooled by system of evaporation into space. And tubing does more than cool as it also distributes to heat to limbs which do radiantly cool more. But no heater, just system which has net cooling- or resembles a human circulation system which also warms the limbs [and head].
http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/AGW_Falsified_Michael_Hammer.pdf
Joel Shore or Tim,
Can you explain simply for once and always to laymen, as i am,why the mass of the atmosphe or gravitaty does not play any role in the energyhoushold of the earth?
I might think of the stratosphere where higher altitude leads to higher temperaratures, whereas gasses are getting thinner, by altitude.
Or maybe liquid oceans where temperatures drop by depth. And of course waterpressure is so much higher deeper in the sea.
Peter,
As Tim notes, it is hard to know at what level to answer these questions, but I’ll try. At the simplest level, the Earth’s surface temperature is determined by a balance of the rate at which the entire system (Earth + atmosphere) receives energy from the sun and the rate at which it emits it back out to space. This is because if it receives energy at a higher rate than it emits it, the Earth will warm (and will then emit more) and if it emits energy at a higher rate than it receives it, the Earth will cool (and will emit less).
Now, we know that the Earth receives 240 W/m^2. We also know that the surface temperature of the Earth is such that it is emitting 390 W/m^2. If all that escaped to space, it would be severely out of balance and rapidly cooling. However, it doesn’t because of the radiative properties of the atmosphere, i.e., the fact that the atmosphere absorbs some of this radiation and also emits radiation, but emits less into space than it absorbs from the surface of the Earth so that, in fact, only 240 W/m^2 escape to space. It is this phenomenon of the atmosphere absorbing some of the radiation emitted by the Earth that thus allows the Earth to have this elevated surface temperature.
Neither gravity nor mass can cause an atmosphere to absorb radiation. The absorption of radiation depends on the constituents of the atmosphere. [The width of the absorption lines of the various greenhouse gases like water vapor does depend on pressure, so it is not true that the mass of the atmosphere and gravity are completely irrelevant, but you can’t evoke them as magically ways in which the surface can be at the elevated temperature. Also, the greenhouse effect is reduced to the extent that convection can reduce the surface temperature by transferring energy up into the atmosphere and the gravitational acceleration comes into the equation for the adiabatic lapse rate, which determines the degree to which convection can do this, so again, we are not saying that gravity is completely irrelevant. But, the point is that you still need the greenhouse effect to explain how we can have the elevated surface temperature that we do.]
Of course gravity doesn’t “cause an atmosphere to absorb radiation” and I’m curious as to why you even said such. I suggest you read my comment just below and this comment to Stephen.
only 240 W/m^2 escape to space.
That’s not correct Joel Shore.
A total of 1360/4 (340) watts escapes to space on average above each square meter of Earth’s surface. Likewise the input is 340W/m^2. The variation being input and output has not varied (on am annual global basis) by more than about 2W/m^2 (that is 340±2) all this century, for example. As I have said many times, radiative imbalance rarely gets outside the range of ±0.6% and even then the error bars in the measurement of each of the inward and outward fluxes are of the order of 0.5% and so there is no convincing evidence at any one time as to whether there is in fact any imbalance.
Sorry typos: The variation between input and output has not varied (on an annual global basis) by more than about 2W/m^2 …
Density of gases at an irradiated surface clearly leads to absorption of kinetic energy via conduction and convection proportionate to the density.
If kinetic energy is so absorbed then how can it simultaneously be radiated away ? THe same parcel of energy cannot be in two places at once or carry out two functions at the same time.
S-B relies on there being no conduction and convection.
The truth is that a surface can be at 288K and be radiating commensurately at the surface but in addition conduction and convection needs to draw on the available kinetic energy to support the weight of the atmosphere against gravity so that only 255 K leaves to space from the top of the atmosphere.
The kinetic energy so drawn out by conduction and convection fails to reduce the surface temperature because that same energy is being returned to the surface in descent in addition to continuing insolation. That energy is then immediately taken up again in the next convective cycle so that it cannot leave the system as radiation.
Conduction and convection draw out their kinetic energy requirements at the rate determined by the rate of decline in density with height (all else being equal) which gives the declining temperature with height as per the lapse rate slope.
The lapse rate slope with its declining temperature is a trace of the radiative energy declining from 288K to 255K as one goes up through the mass of the atmosphere and as kinetic energy is removed to potential energy by conduction and convection.
The height within the atmosphere at which that 255K is achieved matters little and in any event that height varies according to the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere which is itself determined by the amount of conduction and convection and the radiative capability of atmospheric gases.
“S-B relies on there being no conduction and convection.”
Find me any legitimate physics sources that backs up this claim.
“The truth is that a surface can be at 288K and be radiating commensurately at the surface but in addition conduction and convection needs to draw on the available kinetic energy to support the weight of the atmosphere against gravity so that only 255 K leaves to space from the top of the atmosphere.”
The fact that you can write things like this with a straight face is just mind-boggling. Stephen, I think we need to just put you on the same IGNORE list as Doug Cotton. You can dish out nonsensically ramblings faster than we can correct it.
You don’t create a theory by stringing a bunch of scientific-sounding words together. Come back with equations, by which I mean, real equations. (They can be for a simplified model but they have to be real equations that obey the laws of physics.) Otherwise, please, please, please stop wasting our time with your nonsense.
Find me any legitimate physics sources that backs up this claim.
Easy. Just look up the definition of a blackbody.
Boy or boy, is your “physics” ever sadly lacking?
Joel, is in denial of the short comings of this theory which I have clearly pointed out.
Not only do we have the data to support this but the observations as well.
In my post sent at 10;34 am it brings to light the fact that every single atmospheric process this theory has predicted has never seen the light of day. In many cases the opposite is happening.
Again it is the only theory that demands the data to conform to it rather then the other way around.
In my post at 12:48am I make a strong case as to why this theory is a very flawed theory.
My comment for today is something all should read here if you are genuinely seeking the truth and wanting to understand why planetary surface temperatures are higher than the planet’s effective radiating temperature, and hotter than direct solar radiation could ever make them.
Roy’s discussion in the top post is irrelevant, because it says nothing about the supporting temperature which is what slows all cooling in the early pre-dawn hours. It’s like streams of water flowing at different rates down mountains surrounding a lake. They all stop their downward motion at the same level, namely that of the lake. You’ll understand what I’m talking about when you understand what is explained in the website and linked papers, which are all endorsed now by several with suitable qualifications and understanding of the relevant physics involving Kinetic Theory and the entropy maximization process relating to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
How true are the words “if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
David Cosserat
David,
You say Trenberth’s coming and going wattages from the surface to the atmosphere…and you give them as 390w/sq.m as outgoing and then 333watts/sq.m backradiation (Trenberth’s diagram gives 324w/sq.m backradiation)….are radiative “potential” figures, with a “net transfer” of 66w/sq.m upwards.
As an aside…It’s amazing the varience of watts/sq.m uttered by everybody here. Doesn’t anybody know what the figures actually are?
It would have been nice for Trenberth to have told us that these two were radiative “potential” figures.
It reminds me of a non alcoholic drink called Claytons, you could have in place of a drink, advertised as “The drink you’re having when you’re not having a drink….a Clayton’s ”
So it’s a Clayton’s backradiation then David?
Joel , your logic in your post at 3:37 pm I have no problem with.
The problem is not that the GHG effect is real, but what determines it’s relative strength or weakness from this point in time going forward.
The next problem is AGW theory has come up with conclusions about the GHG effect itself and what effect it may have on the climate that has not been able to verify in any way shape ,form or manner.
Every prediction this theory has made based on it’s ASSUMPTIONS about the GHG effect have so far been baseless and have yet to see the light of day.
I made a strong case to show why this theory is not correct which explains why the results this theory keeps expecting to take place never materialize.
If I am correct the GHG effect is going to be real but it is going to be proven to be a symptom of the climate.
The reason I can oppose this theory is not based on some wild thought I may have about the GHG effect as some that post here have , but rather on the fact that much of the data just does not support much of what this theory calls for. This is the best way to go about showing AGW theory is false and I think I have made a very strong case to that end.
The figures are here Joel Shore where they use 1366W/m^2 as the solar constant and thus use 342W/m^2 instead of 340W/m^2 as about a quarter of 1366 instead of my rounded 1360, but that’s a detail.
They show …
Solar radiation received: 342W/m^2
Radiation leaving the planet …
Reflected radiation: 107W/m^2
Other radiation: 235W/m^2
Total radiation leaving the planet: 342W/m^2
Measurements show that the difference rarely exceeds ±2W/m^2.
And because of the error bars in the actual measurements of the 342W/m^2 coming in and the 342W/m^2 going out, there is no convincing evidence of any difference in radiative balance anyway.
So all the garbage about trapping energy is not substantiated.
In fact, because Roy’s temperature data shows a slight decline since 1998 we can say that it is more probable that in all the years since 1998 there has been a slight net loss rather than a gain (trapping) of global energy overall.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
My case and it has much support. One choosing not to agree is an entirely different matter.
Joel Shore says:
April 16, 2015 at 3:20 PM
What you are engaging in is called “poisoning the well”, whereby you impeach the credibility of reputable sources, so all that we are left with is right-wing blogs and think-tanks
My reply is what gives you the right to decide who is or is not a reputable source?
As far as I am concerned your so called reputable sources are nothing more then agenda driven incompetent climate imbeciles who ignore any and all data that prove their climate scam to be wrong.
For once I agree with you.
Me too 🙂
But not just for once since Salvatore and I agree on a number of matters.
I also agree with much of what Doug says other than the heat creep / downward diffusion issue.
And I agree with Kristian on mny aspects other than his understanding of the definition of adiabatic.
There’s no law of physics that says heat cannot pass from cooler to warmer regions in a gravitational field.
You are very confused, Stephen, because you are thinking of the Clausius statement (a corollary of the Second Law) which applies only in a horizontal plane, because the only way you can prove it computationally is to assume only internal KE varies, and so you are assuming all other forms of internal energy (like gravitational potential energy) are held constant. I’ve explained this many times, but you must have missed that early physics lesson I tried to help you with Stephen.
In a gravitational field, when considering how entropy is maximized, you will find (as explained in great detail in my 2013 paper) that heat creep will occur when extra thermal energy from above drives downward convection – just the reverse of upward convection driven by a hot surface below. It’s not hard to understand my explanation in the paper, Stephen. Oh, and it’s not a perpetual loop that only started because of some imagined initial heat in the planet.
Regarding “heat creep” read this comment and my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
An adiabatic process must be fully reversible by definition.
Let’s test Kristian’s proposal accordingly.
If I understand correctly Kristian avers that a rising air parcel cools because it does work against the molecules above it and energy is transferred as work across the parcel boundary so that the rising parcel cools.
Leave aside for the moment as to how energy can be transferred as work when work is a process and not energy in itself.
Following Kristian’s logic a falling air parcel must be doing even more work against the molecules beneath it because density increases as one moves down.
On that basis the falling parcel must cool even faster than did the rising parcel.
In reality the falling parcel warms.
Thus Kristian’s proposal is not reversible and cannot be adiabatic.
The effect of work done against gravity in uplift and with gravity in descent is reversible and is therefore adiabatic.
When I explain the physics involved in convective heat transfer in any direction I am talking about entropy maximization. That is the only way you can work out what will happen.
https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/f/fd/Picard-no-facepalm.jpg
Kristian,
Is that ‘facepalm’ a consequernce of you realising at last why your proposed mechanism is not adiabatic ?
If not, you do need to set out your reasoning.
How can work done by a rising parcel against other molecules result in cooling when exactly the same process involving a falling parcel does not ?
There is no doubt that a rising parcel does lose some energy to surrounding cooler molecules and that a falling parcel does acquire some energy from surrounding warmer molecules but that is not the adiabatic process. That is a diabatic process involving contact between molecules whereas the adiabatic process is a consequence only of the change in height / density / pressure with NO heat exchanged with surrounding molecules whether via work done or otherwise.
When the textbooks say that a rising parcel loses heat to the surroundings they do NOT say it loses heat to surrounding molecules.
The surroundings in question are the volume of space and the gravitational field and heat is lost (KE) but energy is not lost because total energy in a molecule is KE plus PE.
That is why the link I referred you to referred to energy being transformed, not lost.
Heat (KE) is lost as a result of the interaction with the surrounding space and the gravitational field but energy is not lost, merely converted from KE to PE.
That is the correct science.
“Is that ‘facepalm’ a consequernce of you realising at last why your proposed mechanism is not adiabatic ?”
No. The reason for the facepalm is clearly stated just below the picture, Stephen:
“Because expressing how dumb that was in words just doesn’t work.”
You appear to continue your habit of simply ignoring everything that contradicts your ideas of how things work and just move on spouting your nonsense as if nothing’s happened. A sad sight to behold. You are a sad case, Stephen; not lagging particularly far behind Doug, I’m sorry to say …
I provided several meteorology/physics links and quotes above, pertaining to the ‘adiabatic process’ in the atmosphere. Care to respond?
Or is it all “Lalalalalala, Can’t hear you!” with you, as usual?
No it’s yourself, Kristian, who does not understand maximum entropy production with dissipating energy potentials.
You’ll find it’s not too hard to understand the new 21st Century physics that several scientists are now talking and writing about – it’s in my papers too.
“Following Kristian’s logic a falling air parcel must be doing even more work against the molecules beneath it because density increases as one moves down.”
You don’t even understand how ‘work’ is expressed, Stephen. Is that even possible!? I cringe. Hence the facepalm.
For your information (not sure if it’s ever gonna help):
Work equals FORCE x DISTANCE.
If the parcel expands, distance INCREASES, so the work is POSITIVE.
If the parcel contracts, distance DECREASES, so the work is NEGATIVE.
Hi Kristian, I cringe too. This is but a continuation of the 1000 post article over at Roger’s site trying to ‘straighten out’ Stephen Wilde. Sigh. Hopeless.
One trouble is there is no real ‘descending parcels’ at all (or maybe extemely rare). Thermals rise fast in streams (not parcels) to levels where the temperatures equal and that air just becomes part of the general atmosphere at that point. My guess is that only about 5% of the atmosphere is rising quicly in thermals and 95% is just slowly subsiding the replace what is rising much faster than that lowering. Also, the vast majority of thermals peter out and equalize at some 4000 to 8000 feet, not 11 km unless large storms.
However, that does create a question in my mind… that 95% is very slowly descending and is being compressed as a whole to replace the mass going up so is there a small boost to the temperature due to this slow compression? Right off I would say no, since the atmosphere is monotonically stratified the temperature lower is always warmer anyway but this might be a factor ‘why’ the lapse is there at a value that it is.
I see now what you meant by your words so your process is reversible but it is still diabatic and not adiabatic for the other reasons I gave you.
In both situations heat is transferred across the boundary which is not allowed for an adiabatic process.
In neither situation is the energy in the parcel transformed as referred to in the meteorology link that I gave you.
The confusion was caused by the impression you gave that the rising or falling air was doing the necessary work in both cases
In fact you now say that in the rising situation the parcel was doing work on the surroundings so that heat moved out (positive work) whereas in the falling case the surroundings were doing work on the parcel so that heat moved in (negative work).
That is reversible but it is still diabatic.
wayne said:
“One trouble is there is no real ‘descending parcels’ at all ”
and:
“My guess is that only about 5% of the atmosphere is rising quicly in thermals and 95% is just slowly subsiding.”
My turn to do a facepalm.
What goes up must come down.
At any given moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is descending.
That is why we have a global air circulation divided into high and low pressure cells.
Read some meteorology and THINK.
— April 17, 2015 at 9:58 AM
wayne said:
“One trouble is there is no real ‘descending parcels’ at all ”
and:
“My guess is that only about 5% of the atmosphere is rising quickly in thermals and 95% is just slowly subsiding.”
My turn to do a facepalm.
What goes up must come down.–
But wayne seems to be say 5% is going fast up and 95% is
going slow down.
So saying it goes down slowing. Or I suppose like one cue ball can cause many pool balls to move.
Or lots of people fly glider using thermals and maybe less
are killed by downbursts or something.
Like:
“Interesting facts:
ONE OF THE WORST: An usually strong and widespread downburst event hit northern Wisconsin on the 4th of July, 1977, with winds that were estimated to exceed 115 mph, and completely flattening thousands of acres of forest.”
***But*** it’s not really about thermals or downburst as being a significant factor in terms of air temperature.
They are useful examples as they can be very noticeable and obvious to see.
It’s like seeing birds flying and assuming something could fly in the air.
So it’s a larger and generalize/commonplace process and which does not have to be involved with the many individual molecules rising and falling as an air masses [wind], but it can be the cause such things.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/What_is_a_downburst.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/a-reply-to-born-how-to-represent-temperature-feedbacks-in-a-simple-model/
Mack,
Nice points and thanks for responding.
The reason why there seems to be a lot of uncertainty in the ‘Trenberth numbers’ is because there is! There were two Trenberth et. al. publications, one in 1997 and an updated version in 2009. On top of that the IPCC has published similar diagrams with slightly different numbers. And NASA has also got in on the act from time to time with their own variants. All of this variability answers your question: nobody is at all sure about the various values because there are still significant uncertainties in many of them, as is readily admitted by Trenberth et.al. in their papers.
The figures I gave are from Trenberth 2009. I use them simply as ‘placeholders’ in my argument. From my point of view, the precise values of the variables are really not that important.
The key issue is that it is clearly not correct to accuse Trenberth and others of ‘fiddling the numbers’ just because they appear to have provided ‘large’ values for upward and downward radiation (respectively 390 W/m^2 and 333W/m^2). The only important number is the difference between them – which is some tens rather than hundreds of watts per square metre of net energy flowing upwards. The individual ‘large’ numbers are a straightforward consequence of the temperatures of the respective bodies (surface and atmosphere), subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. They have not just been made up by alarmists as some contrarians, including Doug here, like to maintain.
Welcome to the backradiation party – and have a non-alcoholic drink on me!
Read, study and inward digest this comment above. How come the 83% back radiation gives the right 288K result, whereas using 83% for regions which, on clear sunny days, may get to over 35°C is nowhere near correct.
What they do incorrectly is add the back radiation flux to the solar flux and then deduct non-radiative losses (supposedly correcting for the fact that the surface is not a blackbody) and use the net total (342+168-102=390W/m^2) to get 288K. It is totally incorrect use of the Stefan Boltzmann equation and totally incorrect understanding of radiative energy transfer, so why does it “fluke” the right answer? It certainly doesn’t in regions where, during clear days, the Sun’s direct radiation actually can raise (and fully account for) the observed surface temperatures over 35°C. But if you then add the 83% back radiation you get absurd temperatures of about 80°C to 110°C, the latter at the top of Mt Everest on clear days around June 22 because it is only 4 degrees of latitude outside the tropics and more than half way up the troposphere where there has been less absorption of incident insolation.
Doug,
I just noticed this howler: How come the 83% back radiation gives the right 288K result…
It doesn’t. You have got your analysis of Trenberth et.al. exactly arse-about-face. The 288K number for the earth’s mean surface temperature is not a result dreamed up by Trenberth et.al. – it is an observed value. It is the starting number for the whole diagram!
Another starting number for the diagram is the Sun’s incoming flux at the top of the atmosphere (341W/m^2), determined from satellite observation.
Apart from these two relatively certain values the remaining internal fluxes shown in the diagram are just best approximations, as Trenberth et.al. fully acknowledge in their 1998 and 2009 papers. Do take a look.
As I said, read the comment I linked in the first line above.
There would have been long term losses of global energy between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. But there was still plenty of the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor supposedly trapping energy and some carbon dioxide too.
There is no logic in assuming that levels about 800 years ago led to cooling, but slightly higher levels of total greenhouse gases (say, increasing by 0.04% out of a total of about 1.2 to 1.4% due to doubling CO2) are going to start to warm indefinitely.
Any radiative imbalance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere is rarely outside the range ±0.6% (that is, about 2 out of 342 W/m^2) and it is the result of natural climate cycles, not the cause. Despite all the carbon dioxide in the Venus atmosphere there is no evidence (since temperature records started) of any global warming on Venus. I would suggest that there never has been such warming in the life of the planet Venus since the time when its current atmosphere was in place.
All planetary temperatures, right down to their cores, are maintained by solar radiation because of the physics explained in my paper based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The crux of the matter for Joel and many others (the entire AGW community in fact) seems to be understanding how a surface at 288K fails to radiate to space at 288K rather than 255K without radiative gases absorbing 33K from the ground and bouncing it back and forth between those gases and the ground forever in a purely radiative loop.
The answer is that conduction and convection within the mass of an atmosphere creates a potential energy loop that raises the surface temperature by 33K whilst denying that additional kinetic energy to the radiative exchange between surface and space.
The energy that supports global convective overturning must come from somewhere.
AGW theory proposes that it is their radiative loop between GHGs and the surface that provides the energy for convective overturning which is why they insist that an atmosphere without GHGs would become isothermal (no decline in temperature with height and no convection).
That cannot be right because even an atmosphere with no GHGs would have unevenly heated surfaces, density differentials in the horizontal plane, a decline in temperature with height and a full system of convective overturning.
The truth is that it is the mass of the atmosphere in an adiabatic convective potential energy loop that blocks 33K of surface energy from getting out to space.
Whilst that 33K of kinetic energy is being recycled up and down within the mass of the atmosphere the 255K from the sun effectively gets a free pass straight through the system so that 255K also leaves to space.
The entire debate boils down to this choice:
Is convective overturning fuelled by a radiative loop betweeen GHGs and the surface?
or
Is convective overturning fuelled by a potential energy loop caused by conduction and convection.
You takes your choice but it is pretty clear to me that if convection can develop without GHGs then AGW theory is stuffed 🙂
How can one have a fully isothermal atmosphere with the same temperature from surface to space and no convection ?
How could gravity possibly retain an atmosphere that had a full load of surface heat at the boundary with space in addition to the direct heat from fresh insolation as in the thermosphere?
On that basis the sun would have no difficulty heating the atmospheric molecules to the extent that the atmosphere would blow away in the solar wind.
The fact is that it is the conversion of kinetic energy at the surface to potential energy with height that reduces the temperature of atmospheric molecules higher up so that the sun cannot defeat the pull of gravity by blowing them away.
That ‘extra’ 33K at the surface is IMHO caused by the mass induced potential energy loop and not a GHG induced radiatve loop.
It certainly has to do with (natural) convective heat transfer (“convection” for short) and conduction across the surface/atmosphere boundary. But there is no such thing as a potential energy loop, and never will be. Gravitational potential energy (relative to sea level) is just mgh where h is the height above sea level. As molecules (in their normal translational motion between collisions) move with any component in an upward direction they lose some of their molecular kinetic energy (associated with that motion) and gain equivalent gravitational potential energy, and we know this from Kinetic Theory where we can treat their motion classically, as per Newtonian mechanics. That motion is at about 1,700Km/hr near the surface and it slows to about 1,400Km/hr at the top of the troposphere.
However, in the absence of wind, no particular molecule actually moves a very significant distance on a macro scale: they just pass on kinetic energy, and that process is natural convective heat transfer which, by definition in physics, also includes heat diffusion. There can be some net movement that is just detectable on the macro scale, but the movement is in all accessible 3D directions away from a new source of thermal energy, and so it is rapidly attenuated. See the “hot car in garage” experiment here. Wind is not natural convection.
What happens is explained at http://climate-change-theory.com and the reason for the difference between Stephen’s conjecture and my hypothesis is the fact that mine is derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And the reason relatively few molecules fly off to Space from the Exosphere (thus named) is because we can deduce from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that, as gravity forms a density gradient, that gradient is stable (because it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium with maximum entropy) and so there are automatically fewer molecules at greater heights and the density decreases continuously with altitude.
What Stephen doesn’t seem to realize is that there can be a gain in kinetic energy in the upper atmosphere as molecules acquire new thermal energy that came from the Sun. Some of them absorb such radiation (especially in the stratosphere) and then pass on the new thermal energy to nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules via molecular collision. That is why they still move at 1,400Km/hr in the upper troposphere which is not much slower than 1,700Km/hr near the surface. (You can work this out from observed temperatures.) And that is why the actual environmental temperature gradient is less steep than the calculated -g/cp gradient that is induced by gravity. IR-active molecules reduce the slope because radiation has a temperature leveling effect.
But in the thermosphere some molecules absorb radiation and actually move much faster than many of those near the surface. Some of these molecules heated in the thermosphere do actually escape the planet via the very extensive exosphere above the thermosphere.
My point is that it is the density gradient which leads to there being relatively few molecules in the thermosphere and exosphere regions, and it has nothing to do with Stephen’s fictitious fissics.
See my tresponses to Mack.
“The fact is that it is the conversion of kinetic energy at the surface to potential energy with height that reduces the temperature of atmospheric molecules higher up so the sun cannot defeat the pull of gravity by blowing them away.”
Sounds like a bit of mumbo-jumbo there Stephen. If you mean the “atmospheric molecules higher up” to be those of the themosphere…then they certainly are not cooler, so to speak. The newer outer satellites show them actually to glow with heat. The whole thermosphere expands and contracts depending upon the amount of solar radiation.
As for molecules “blowing away” in the solar wind…well who knows?
Having joined the backradiation party, I might have that drink after all.
Also a little food for thought for Tim , Joel, et al, What sort of wattage/sq.m at the TOA,( just above the thermosphere,) would cause all these molecules to glow red hot? ….342 watts/sq.m incoming solar? According to the Earth Energy Budget diagrams? Nah, Don’t think so.
Any height attained involves creation of PE at the expense of KE leading to a temperature drop and less radiation emitted.
So I mean any molecule at any distance off the surface but the higher one goes the colder the molecules become and the less radiation is emitted.
Convection does not cool the surface if insolation continues at the original level.
Instead, it cools molecules progressively with height along the lapse rate slope so that less radiation is emitted as one rises higher.
The energy lost to space by radiation (255K) is then set by the average temperature through the whole vertical column and NOT by the temperature at the surface (288k).
Conduction and convection remove kinetic energy (heat) progressively through the whole vertical column leading to the temperature fall and radiative emission then drops with that temperature fall so that the net radiative flow to space is set by an average temperature for the entire atmosphere and that temperature is found at a variable height within the atmosphere and NOT at the surface.
The thermosphere is a special case because molecules there are heated directly by incoming solar radiation and thus do become very hot though one could not ‘feel’ that because there are so few such molecules up there.
They can be retained by the gravitational field despite their heat because most of their energy content at that height (other than the new radiation being received) is PE and not KE. Thus the new radiation does not make them hot enough to fly out of the gravitational field.
If the atmospherte were isothermal then those molecules would hold as much KE as those at the surface PLUS that high level of new radiation coming in.
They would become far hotter than they actually do and would escape the gravitational field far more treadily.
Not mumbo jumbo. Science fact.
Go back to this comment and request, Stephen.
Read the meteorology links that you have been given.
This potential energy Stephen…does it actually manifest itself? Or is it just potential energy..ie a stored energy. Nothing in the way of “heat” , so it’s irrelevant isn’t it?
–This potential energy Stephen…does it actually manifest itself? Or is it just potential energy..ie a stored energy. Nothing in the way of “heat” , so it’s irrelevant isn’t it?–
When and/or where it’s cooler it falls, becoming kinetic heat
which will convert into heat.
When and/or where it become warmer it rises gain PE. And
rather than being radiated as heat when warmer it’s converted into PE.
So kind of like a tidal dam, tide comes in and fills the dam, tide goes out and it’s PE can then be converted into Kinetic energy.
So convection and increases PE is a cooling process when warm and is warming process when cooler.
A different topic but similar topic is if heating air to say 30C, one has more heating if heating done at higher elevation- and related to PE.
Or if at zero elevation the air above the surface warms to 30 C, but if surface at 5000 meter elevation and warmed to 30 C it becomes warmer air at 0 elevation.
Or with lapse rate of 6.5 C per 1000 meters. It’s 5 times
6.5 C. So 32.5 + 30 C. And equal to 62.5 C
And that is why Venus is so hot. Sulfuric acid droplets of clouds are warmed which in turn warm the air, and they are 25 to 75 km in elevation.
With earth clouds, say 2000 meter elevation and air temperature at sea level at 20 C, the air at 7 C, and sunlight warms clouds a few degree, which then warms the air
is transferable to the ground as equivalent to few degree
over 20 C.
–The crux of the matter for Joel and many others (the entire AGW community in fact) seems to be understanding how a surface at 288K fails to radiate to space at 288K rather than 255K without radiative gases absorbing 33K from the ground and bouncing it back and forth between those gases and the ground forever in a purely radiative loop.
The answer is that conduction and convection within the mass of an atmosphere creates a potential energy loop that raises the surface temperature by 33K whilst denying that additional kinetic energy to the radiative exchange between surface and space.–
I would say that is only one mechanism.
I would say it would be a major mechanism if our planet was not covered with 70% of surface with ocean.
This 33K difference that you and greenhouse effect refers
is related to earth radiating 240 watts per square meter.
And if one had planet without an atmosphere, though perhaps thin atmosphere like Mars, but not a thick atmosphere like Earth, and if measured from space an area which was emitting
240 watt per square meter that would indicate an temperature
of 255 K.
In terms of average watts per square meter, earth should
emit about 1360 watts divided by 4 which is 340 watts per square meter – because it’s spherical. So that includes reflected light as well as heat radiated which was absorbed from the sunlight. And the 340 watts equals 5.3 C [278.45 K}
So Earth or Moon can’t have more average 340 watts per square meter of energy radiating from them, unless it’s emitting a significant amount of internal heat and/or somehow generating heat. So give 340 watts. And if reflection the Earth and the Moon will be a source of 340 watts of electromagnetic energy which got there there from the Sun.
But in terms the sun’s energy converted into infrared electromagnetic energy the Earth emit about 240 watts, and the Moon less. And the nearer to the Venus emits less.
The difference between 240 watt and what it “should” be if Earth were body that absorbs and converts all sunlight into infrared electromagnetic energy which would be 340 watts.
So the difference of 100 watts is Earth reflects 100 watts.
And if a planetary body were to absorb all sunlight and convert it into infrared, and since humans can’t see infrared that body would appear completely black or lacking any light. So obviously the Earth, Moon, and Venus are not vaguely like a black body or ideal black body, as they are easily seen by human eyes.
So spherical black body which emits 240 per square meter in terms of distance from the Sun, would where sunlight equals
240 time 4, 960 watts. Since Mars distance vary by 700 to 550 watts that blackbody would be between Earth distance and Mars.
So if there was black body at distance where sunlight was 960 watts per meter how warm would the surface be. Well it depends many things, but it would radiate on average 240 watts per square meter. If was exactly like the Moon composition and rotation that would be very close to black
body, but very different than an ideal black body.
Or Moon if ideal blackbody would have uniform temperature of 5.3 C, but the moon does not absorb all sunlight and conduct the heat uniformly across it’s entire surface. So day time surface reaches about 120 C rather than 5.3 C and the night side plunges down to -150 C, rather than remaining at 5.3 C. So if a moon at distance of 960 watts
the surface in daylight would warm to about 80 C. And it’s night would slightly colder than our Moon- and colder only because beneath the surface was not warm as much during daylight, it would a minor difference of few degrees.
So the biggest difference is surface in daylight does not get as hot- but hotter than humans feel comfortable.
Or other than the vacuum, humans would be happy. Solar power on this moon would work economically. Keeping warm at night in some kind of house, would be easy- lower heating or cooling energy usage as compared what most people on Earth use. Human would worry about air temperature as there isn’t atmosphere- nor is there weather other than solar weather. Plants could grow in greenhouse and keeping greenhouse above freezing would be easy. You could use the thermal mass of water, add to water temperature with solar thermal heating so it was say 40 C, and with enough water, that last the night.
On Earth one has one average about 6 hours of usable solar power, this moon one has near twice long. The 14 day night and day is similar energy storage problem as one has on Earth. But storing heat is easy, and storing electrical energy is harder. But the fact there longer time of getting solar energy and getting higher yearly average, and constant
predictable supply [no clouds] doubles it’s economic value.
But require a semi-hiberation mode for 2 weeks- vacation time for the type of activity which requires a large amounts of energy. Or if had 24 hour day it doesn’t require such a change in human behavior, and it’s simply better.
Now in regards to Earth, the heat problem is solved by having the Ocean covering 70% of the planet- so one has very excessive amount of thermal storage. It’s thermal storage for the world rather the particular needs of humans.
Another thing is what would happen to Earth if it had a 14 days of daylight and 14 days of night. It would still radiate about 240 watts of infrared on average- or it still would reflect about 100 watts per square meter in average.
I should note it doesn’t reflect any sunlight at night, so it’s reflecting about 200 watts during day period and zero at night, and only small amount of the reflect occurs at the surface- and that also helps explains why Earth is worse to harvest solar energy at the surface.
Now Earth is completely different than the Moon in terms of it’s ability to store heat in both it’s oceans and in it’s atmosphere. But it seems what should happen is more violent weather. And not clear to me that clouds could survive the night. What seems likely is that in the morning one has far less clouds. And it also seems likely is that tropics will become close to freezing. I don’t think the ocean would freeze on the surface, but further from ocean in tropical land area it could get nearer to freezing.
But the big uncetainity has to do with predictably violent nature of global weather.
Rather than starting with equator, one start with the poles.
And basically very little would change in regard to poles.
The arctic circle still gets 6 months of daylight and 6 month of night. 14 day/night would add pulses of warmer or colder periods. Longer periods where sun is higher or lower in sky.
In temperate zones, hmm. Hard to know- depends on Tropics.
Now can hurricane form within 2 weeks? Assuming one had warm
water. If there is warm water in morning of 2 week day, then
basically nothing has changed from 24 hour day. Cloud could form in couple hours and one get to point forming hurricanes. But if water is say 15 C, it’s going to take awhile to warm up to the 26 C required for our hurricanes.
How about trade winds. Less wind or more wind?
And Earth is spinning less, so less of spinning effect, less of jet stream. Though it doesn’t seem to affect a gulf stream.
Hmm, difficult. But average temperature should be cooler due to nights are cooler and generally should have less “greenhouse effect”.
If you genuinely want to learn about what really happens on Earth and all planets with atmospheres, then it’s clearly explained at http://climate-change-theory.com.
I am contributing here on the basis of well established meteorological principles whereas you, Doug, are just promulgating an idosyncratic personal conjecture which does not match reality.
No, Stephen. You and Doug are actually two peas in a pod, both contributing nothing but nonsense. Both of you are so far on the Dunning-Kruger scale that you are completely cognitively unable to see your complete lack of understand.
“I would say it would be a major mechanism if our planet was not covered with 70% of surface with ocean”
I agree about the importance of the oceans, hence my old article:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-hot-water-bottle-effect/
However, the oceans still supply conduction and convection to the atmosphere (albeit varying over time) so in the end conduction and convection is THE mechanism for creation of a potential energy loop within an atmosphere.
All the other effects that you refer to just feed into the same process at variable rates.
And you, Stephen, have still not explained how the thermal energy that must be transferred down from the upper troposphere of Venus and into its surface, is transferred from less-hot to hotter regions. I have.
And Stephen (and others) have you ever thought about why there is a maximum temperature in the thin surface layer of the oceans through which most solar radiation is transmitted and thus not absorbed much. It’s colder in the thermocline below and its colder in the troposphere above, so there must be thermal energy transfers away from that hotter surface layer in both directions. But how does the energy get there in the first place?
[Answer here: http://climate-change-theory.com ]
I don’t think greenhouse gases adds 33 K. And/or I don’t think conduction and convection adds 33 K.
And on top of that I am sure one needs to add 33 K to have Earth have average temperature of 15 C. But I would tend to agree that conduction and convection is adding more K than radiate effects of all greenhouse gases.
There some paper somewhere which claims clouds add about 1/2 of the total warming of greenhouse effect. So I guess +16 K.
But I don’t think they meant absolute net gain of + 16 K,
because of the assumption that clouds increase to some of Bond albedo.
Or Earth:
Bond albedo 0.306
Visual geometric albedo 0.367
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Or I assume the cloud paper was starting from baseline that includes deficit of clouds reflecting sunlight.
Of course conduction and convection have similar problem of
being related to increase of Bond albedo.
Or simple way to reduce conduction and convection warming
is by have less atmosphere- and less atmosphere is less Bond albedo.
So as general note, the accounting books of climate science seem to be a total mess. But don’t thing one could make saner accounts which has conduction and convection with + 33 K
Stephen (and others):
Back on the thread topic Why Summer Nighttime Temperatures Don’t Fall Below Freezing …
Suppose we consider a sunny summer day somewhere and the maximum temperature was 34°C but then cooling set in from 3:00pm to 8:00pm and the surface there cooled by 2 degrees per hour for those 5 hours, getting down to 24°C by sunset at 8:00pm. Then thick cloud cover came over with clouds about 3Km up at temperatures about 3°C because the temperature gradient by 8.00pm was, say 7 degrees per kilometer. We will assume the cloud cover remains around for the next five days and nights.
My questions are …
(1) Do your imaginary “parcels” of air pass right through the clouds on their way up or down?
(2) Does the surface keep cooling at 2 degrees per hour all through the night? If not, what now supplies the necessary thermal energy to stop it cooling, that apparently did not stop it cooling in the afternoon?
(3) What happens the next morning, assuming no solar radiation gets through the clouds?
(4) Does the surface temperature rise during the day, assuming there are no winds coming in from distant sunny regions?
(5) What are your “parcels” doing all this time?
(6) What starts the parcels moving up, down or perhaps sideways? (This happens with horizontal sensible heat transfers on Venus, so we find that its poles are as warm as its equator.)
–My questions are …
(1) Do your imaginary “parcels” of air pass right through the clouds on their way up or down?–
It seems thick cloud of water droplet [or anything] would seems to disrupt the “imaginary “parcels”” or heat the clouds
whether going up or down.
–(2) Does the surface keep cooling at 2 degrees per hour all through the night? If not, what now supplies the necessary thermal energy to stop it cooling, that apparently did not stop it cooling in the afternoon?–
Well if cooling 2 degrees per hour at surface it’s cooling 2 degrees per hour at 2000 and/or 5000 meters.
–(3) What happens the next morning, assuming no solar radiation gets through the clouds?–
Clouds are heated by the sunlight. Whether they are water droplets or other particles.
–(4) Does the surface temperature rise during the day, assuming there are no winds coming in from distant sunny regions?–
It can.
–(5) What are your “parcels” doing all this time?–
Well if sun not heating the ground surface, one does not rising air “parcels”. But the top of cloud would act as surface which is warmed, so one has rising “parcels” from the cloud tops. And should tend to make clouds rise.
Doug Cotton,
In answer to you hypothetical here are some empirical information that might help you. I chose Juneau, Alaska because it is listed as the cloudiest place in the US.
Here is a WeatherUnderground page for weather conditions. You can see that the majority of the month is cloudy. You can focus on any individual day by clicking on daily weather.
I am linking to the month of June 2014 you can try other month and years. This should be enough to answer you questions.
When cloudy not much temperature change either in the day or night. Seems some sort of GHE is going on to slow cooling.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/PAJN/2014/8/17/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=Juneau&req_state=AK&req_statename=Alaska&reqdb.zip=99801&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999
I might do more research and see if I can get good patterns developed.
Norman writes: Seems some sort of GHE is going on to slow cooling
Cooling from what temperature? There’s no solar radiation warming the surface in the first place with thick cloud cover. We saw the surface cooling 2 degrees per hour in the afternoon of a hot day. Why doesn’t it continue to cool at that rate or even faster, seeing that the sunshine has been blocked?
Your evidence of “not much temperature change” concisely proves my point and is exactly what I would predict with very small warming during the day (due to heat creep that can pass through clouds) and slight cooling at night back down to the temperature at the base of the troposphere which is supported by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient and resulting heat creep.
Now read “Comment #900” below and no further correspondence will be entered into.
Not to be TOO much of a wise-ass, but “assuming no solar radiation gets through the clouds” means “assuming it remains night for 5 days”.
This is always a challenge when people invent hypothetical situations. Answering this “reasonably” is impossible, because the assumptions are unreasonable. And trying to interpret what might have been meant only leads to more confusion since different people are likely to propose different “reasonable” interpretations of what might have been meant.
It remains night in Antarctica for months – and it cools only 3 degrees.
Feel free to make your submission for the AU$5,000 reward … see this comment.
You may copy your submission (including the study) here for open discussion and exposure of your inevitable errors. None of the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology pertaining to imaginary parcels of molecules will be entered into: only standard physics using standard Kinetic Theory, for example. The only statement of the Second Law accepted will be pertaining to maximum entropy production. The Clausius “hot to cold” corollary will not be accepted if applied to other than a horizontal plane.
Johnkl
I saw a question you had way up the thread. I had forgot to post the link to the boiler radiation book.
Here is the link:
https://books.google.com/books?id=kOEanRv7UjsC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=flue+gas+effect+on+thermal+radiation&source=bl&ots=EcGNIhkLeu&sig=EuOL6qI9lFlBqcBASDg9xeKKOzo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gjQvVcu2JYHzsAXB9YD4BA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=flue%20gas%20effect%20on%20thermal%20radiation&f=false
I you look at page 212 of the book they show a calculation that shows how the absorbitivity of IR active gases lowers the amount of energy that crosses the gases.
Massimo was also interested.
Yes only the radiation that is absorbed by CO2 and H2O is effected the rest goes through. Thanks.
Have a nice day!
So Norman, what do you say happens in the scenario in my comment to Stephen just above when there are thick clouds blocking all solar radiation for days on end?
Thanks Norman!
I’ll review it when I have more of an opportunity.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
As you must know the calculation rests on two assumptions.
1- Homogeneity of flue gas (largely possible if not probable and can be greatly controlled).
2- Constant temperature in combustion chamber (highly doubtful and since they admit to having no clue as to what the temperature there was we can place this in the wild speculation category).
Nevertheless, the cooler flue gas and other information seems informative and explains what you referred to. Thanks again.
Have a great day!
Hi Norman,
thank you very much for the link.
For what I know in that situation the air drain the heat away because of the continuous flux induced by the fan and the flame induced convection, in fact in the last page (213) is clearly stated that the gas flow temperature is reduced indeed, this despite it “captured” same flame photons.
I’m not sure what it was your point about this link, compared to the atmospheric issue it should be a very different setup in my opinion.
Have a great weekend.
Massimo
Thanks, Dr. Spencer.
Your little model is a slayer of slayers.
No members of the Slayer group have been participating have they?
As far as I can see we all agree that CO2 has a thermal effect all else being equal so we have been discussing how all else is not equal.
So a slayer is someone who think greenhouse gases have no effect on warming.
But I think if remembering right, that Doug thinks greenhouse gases cool- or maybe just water vapor which cools or something.
So is that slayer +1 or is there another division label?
But some of faithful hold that greenhouse gases cool atmosphere and this is what creates the lapse rate.
Other believers concede that without the 1 atm of N2 and O2 that greenhouse gases would not warm [or not warm nearly as much].
Then I suppose one could divide people in terms of consequences of doubling CO2. Though one needs to check if this is say 280 ppm times 2 or 400 ppm x 2.
Personally i don’t think we going to reach 560 ppm or 800 ppm at time soon.
Or Elon Musk will be living on Mars long before either.
Please do feel free to make your submission for the AU$5,000 reward … see this comment.
You may copy your submission (including the study) here for open discussion and exposure of your inevitable errors. None of the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology pertaining to imaginary parcels of molecules will be entered into: only standard physics using standard Kinetic Theory, for example. The only statement of the Second Law accepted will be pertaining to maximum entropy production. The Clausius “hot to cold” corollary will not be accepted if applied to other than a horizontal plane.
Doug Cotton,
In response to your question: “(1) Do your imaginary “parcels” of air pass right through the clouds on their way up or down.”
The air parcels are not imaginary. They are the clouds. That is what a fair weather cumulus cloud is. It is a parcel of moist air that rose to the condensation level (by ground heating of the moist air above it until it becomes positvely bouyant).
Question for you. You see clouds in Australia correct (maybe you live in the desert)? Why do you think air parcels are imaginary when you can see the physical manifestation of this rising air in the formation of certain cloud types?
“It is a parcel of moist air that rose to the condensation level (by ground heating of the moist air above it until it becomes positvely bouyant).”
A minor quibble but water vapour being lighter than air it needs no ground heating to become positively buoyant.
Hi Norman,
Maybe he doesn’t like the term “parcels.” It does sound more like a discussion about shopping or package delivery rather than climate. If you used the term “mass of air” or “volume of air” maybe he’d be more receptive. As it stands he might just seek rising columns of hot air topped with parcel wrapped and bow-tied clouds with ribbons as evidence of your claim. Don’t fret if you receive a bill from UPS Air Travel!
Have a great day!
JohnKl
Great humor! Maybe it is a semantic issue but meteorologists use this term and it helps them predict the severity of weather systems.
How high will the mass of air (parcel) be able to rise based upon the environmental lapse rate. Your terms might work but they are not distinct for size. When a meteorologist uses the term parcel I think it is about a normal cloud size volume of air. They already use air mass to describe huge air conditions like polar air mass.
I think they like to use parcel because it has a sense of meaning to them on how much air volume they are talking about.
Link to air mass article for interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass
Have a nice day!
There is number of reasons why it’s called parcel.
Or parcel theory.
I could not find good explanation with a quick search.
But:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/upperair/parcels.htm
Is somewhat useful.
“In meteorology, we often treat ‘pockets of air’ in a similar way to ballooning. We call these pockets of air “parcels”. A parcel is a bubble of air of no definite size that we generally assume it retains its shape and general characteristics as it rises or sinks in the atmosphere.”
Not a good definition- but the part of “of no definite size”
gives a clue. Or it’s not about a specific volume of air. Or if was about specific volume of air, one need a definite size for to begin to be useful for meteorology.
I would explain it as kinetic energy. With understanding gas is “all about” kinetic energy.
Well said, Norman
I considered making the same p[oint but Doug has made me lose the will to counter all his misinformation.
Why does he think it gets bumpy during flight, even in clear air?
I’ve provided lots of meteorology links and you found a good one but our opponents here just won’t read them because the information is unpalatable.
I’ve made lots of assertions from meteorological knowledge but they just ignore them when they should have made honest. logical attempts to counter them.
I’ve had some fun refining my terms of expression in this thread but it has now outlived its usefulness for me.
So, in the “no greenhouse effect” graph the starting temperature is 80 just like the “with greenhouse effect” graph? What are the odds?
100% 🙂
That is how the experiment was set up.
No. You misunderstood my comment. That’s my bad.
I was probably a bit of a smart alec there. But the whole point of the top post is that — given some reasonable estimate of the conditions at the start of the night, what would the conditions be in the morning. As such, it makes sense to have the same starting conditions.
And what would they be three days and nights later if there were extensive thick cloud cover the whole time? Try extrapolating Roy’s magical plot – the less steep one of course. Without heat creep (which goes right through clouds) there would be no level temperatures as Norman linked us to in his support of what I am saying. /sarc
Doug ….
1) If thick, unbroken clouds DID persist for several days, the temperatures WOULD drop overall.
2) Even with thick clouds clouds, some sunlight gets through. A brief google check suggests this is a few 10’s of W/m^2 during the day. There would be no convection. There would be little or no evaporation (very high humidity). There will be little radiation losses (low clouds, warm GHG’s near the ground). I this case, even 20-30 W/m^2 of incoming solar radiation would be larger than the outgoing energies, ie the ground would indeed warm during the day.
So your scenario is really NOT all that outlandish!
[Of course, there are lots of details
*what sort of weather conditions would lead to days of continuous clouds
*how think are the clouds
*what fronts are moving through
But as a first approximation using basic physics, cloud cover does NOT require “heat creep” to maintain reasonable surface temperatures]
So, an elaborate experiment and graphs to demonstrate green house effect slowed cooling at night, but just a quick 24/7/365 to tell us this is happening in the daytime as well.
got it.
better one. Still no bump.
http://www.molalla.net/members/leeper/atomsph2.jpg
AGW theory is flawed and it has something to do with the positive feedback it assumes between water vapor and CO2 not being correct,and the interactions water vapor has with various atmospheric gasses (ozone comes to mind) and atmospheric processes (interception of emissions of OLR)and water vapor concentration changes at various altitudes in the atmosphere which will produce the ultimate temperature profile of the atmosphere and the ultimate GHG effect.
The dynamics of evaporation( water vapor concentrations in the lower atmosphere) and precipitation events (influencing water vapor concentrations in higher levels of the atmosphere) apparently are more positively correlated with water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere then CO2 concentrations resulting in AGW theory to have flawed assumptions and conclusions.
It is in this area where AGW theory is off ,somewhere in this area and this is where the focus should be, rather then saying there is flat out no GHG effect.
As they say the devil is in the details which I do not know but I think this is the general area that needs to be focused on.
AGW theory is “off” because it ignores the effect of the Second Law regarding entropy and the resulting “heat creep” about which you can read in this comment and my 2013 paper (linked here) which proves why it happens using the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
But where’s the “proof”, i.e. calculations? Words are not physics…
Comment #900 – in reply to any not read above:
When you take the time to really study and understand the 21st Century Physics which I have reviewed and explained in my two papers (linked at the foot of this page) then, and only then, will you have a clear understanding of the physics which determines planetary temperatures and can be used to explain all the associated energy transfers. This is 21st Century science you will not have learnt elsewhere.
You will learn from my 2012 paper just precisely how and why every independent one-way pencil of radiation can only transfer thermal (kinetic) energy by converting it to electro-magnetic energy in the source, and then depositing some of it initially in targets which are effectively cooler, meaning that they emit less flux than the attenuated flux from the source. The process has to do with resonance in which some of the incident energy merely temporarily raises an electron by one or more quantum levels and it then immediately re-emits an identical photon without the electron energy being converted to kinetic (thermal) energy.
In the second (2013) paper you will learn a lot about the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the processes whereby entropy is maximized by the dissipation of unbalanced energy potentials. That is what happens when newly absorbed thermal energy drives convective heat transfers in all accessible directions away from the location where it was absorbed, whether that be a planet’s surface (driving convection upwards) or a region in the upper troposphere that absorbs incident insolation (such as happens with Venus) and then drives convection in all directions, some of which goes towards the surface. You can’t prove this process to be wrong, because to do so you would have to prove the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong.
Footnote:
Roy (and others) please also read this new comment above. There are links in other comments to the paper “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” by a professor of Mathematics, and to the website http://entropylaw.com which all should read, especially the second linked page about the Second Law.
Doug Cotton gets the thread sewn up again.
And this is why the science is sewn up …
“The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy)” tells us that “whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law.” [source]
Notice those words …
“ALL REAL WORLD CHANGE … “
That’s why you can’t keep on ignoring it – as all of you do.
There are only fully dissipated energy potentials in a troposphere when the sum of mean molecular micro gravitational PE + micro kinetic energy is homogeneous. Otherwise you have unbalanced energy potentials.
(1) If you then increase the mean KE at the bottom (eg solar heated Earth’s surface warms air) you get unbalanced energy potentials driving net kinetic energy upwards via molecular collisions.
(1) If instead there is an increase in the KE at the top (eg incident solar radiation warms air) you get unbalanced energy potentials driving net kinetic energy downwards via molecular collisions.
It’s not hard to understand, especially when you understand the heat creep diagrams at http://climate-change-theory.com
–(1) If you then increase the mean KE at the bottom (eg solar heated Earth’s surface warms air) you get unbalanced energy potentials driving net kinetic energy upwards via molecular collisions.–
Agreed
–(1) If instead there is an increase in the KE at the top (eg incident solar radiation warms air) you get unbalanced energy potentials driving net kinetic energy downwards via molecular collisions. —
Agreed.
And this is mostly true within the troposphere.
And/or troposphere has most of atmospheric mass and most of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere.
Doug,
How refreshing at last to have from you a (relatively) short, succinct, and clearly worded statement of your position.
I recommend that you stick to it steadfastly rather than fighting a losing battle on the issue of whether or not a cooler atmosphere interposed between a rocky planet and space will or will not in principle cause the steady-state temperature of the surface to be higher. Physics without any doubt says it will be higher and you really shouldn’t give succour to the would-be ‘slayers’ any more.
Instead you should accept that any effect that does occur (due to the atmosphere being a warmer sink than outer space for radiation coming from the surface) is overwhelmed by the much stronger controlling driver proposed in your isentropic theory.
You will then bring the debate onto much firmer ground.
David, you say (to Doug):
“I recommend that you stick to it steadfastly rather than fighting a losing battle on the issue of whether or not a cooler atmosphere interposed between a rocky planet and space will or will not in principle cause the steady-state temperature of the surface to be higher. Physics without any doubt says it will be higher and you really shouldn’t give succour to the would-be ‘slayers’ any more.”
Yes, this is quite interesting. Not that I care much anymore about the ‘Slayers’ (like Postma) and their position on this per se, but you are right, what they seem to be saying in essence is indeed that the presence of an atmosphere on top of a solar-heated planetary surface can’t and doesn’t do ANYTHING AT ALL in the way of raising the steady-state temperature of that surface beyond what a pure solar equilibrium could manage. The atmosphere, to them, can not IN ANY WAY be seen as an ‘insulating layer’!
So I think we can safely distinguish between ourselves and the Slayers in the following way:
1)
The Slayers do not believe that the presence of a cooler atmosphere on top of a warmer, solar-heated planetary surface will be able to raise the steady-state temperature of that surface one bit beyond the pure input from the Sun. Because that would apparently be a cooler ‘thing’ heating a warmer ‘thing’. In direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This is of course utter BS and betrays a deep misunderstanding of basic physical processes. An atmosphere WILL force the steady-state temperature of a solar-heated surface UP. And this does NOT in any way violate any laws of thermodynamics. The atmosphere simply acts as an INSULATING LAYER on the surface.
2)
The Slayers do not believe that a ‘radiative greenhouse effect’ (rGHE) is possible even in principle. Once again because of their belief that this would violate the 2nd Law.
An rGHE is most certainly possible in principle, and it would work very nicely and positively (one could always discuss its effectiveness) in a confined space, like inside a closed glass box in a laboratory.
– – –
My only fundamental disagreement with the atmospheric rGHE proponents (like Shore, Folkerts, Brown, Spencer et al.) is in the extrapolation of the clean (one-variable, ‘all else being equal’) theory behind this controlled environment version of the rGHE to the open Earth system.
(I also have a rather long-standing quarrel with them (and now, it would seem, with you, David) when it comes to the ‘bidirectional flow’ (“back radiation”) explanation of Earth’s (very real) elevated mean global surface temperature. It actually turns out to be a question of fundamental importance, because it goes to the heart of how the mainstream likes to justify their reality claim of the atmospheric rGHE. However, in the end it’s incorporated into the bigger issue pointed out in the above paragraph. And we always end up going in circles, so focusing on that bigger issue is clearly likely to be a more fruitful endeavour.)
A few quick responses.
1) You use as an authoritative source an obscure internet site. Not a good sign. Can you find a more legitimate source that defines the 2nd Law this way?
2) A gas column with a temperature gradient has energy that can be “dissipated”. In particular, the gas column has its center of mass at some (relatively high) location. The center of mass can be lowered (energy dissipated) by cooling the bottom (making the bottom denser) and warming the top(making it less dense).
3) This is just as legitimate of interpretation of the word as your interpretation. Unless you can *mathematically* define “unbalanced potential” and “thermodynamics force” and “entropy” AND THEN DERIVE how your temperature gradient maximizes entropy, it will continue to be easy for naysayers to say you are simply misinterpreting a misinterpretation of the correct 2nd Law.
PS That last comment was directed at Doug, in case it was not clear.
PPS The website he links to specifically gives an example of a fluid moving to lower elevation as a “nonequilibrium distribution” with a potential in need of minimization.
Kristian says:
“This is of course utter BS and betrays a deep misunderstanding of basic physical processes. An atmosphere WILL force the steady-state temperature of a solar-heated surface UP. And this does NOT in any way violate any laws of thermodynamics. The atmosphere simply acts as an INSULATING LAYER on the surface.”
Congratulations, Kristian! You’re almost there. Now the last step is simply to ask, “What sort of insulation can this be?” It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by conduction because there is no significant heat transfer by conduction with the vacuum of space…The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere. It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by convection because there is no significant heat transfer by convection with the vacuum of space…The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere.
The only significant form of heat transfer between the Earth system and the rest of the world is via the heat transfer mechanism of radiation, ergo that must be “insulating layer” is insulating against heat transfer by radiation. We have a snappy name for this. We call it the “radiative greenhouse effect”.
“An rGHE is most certainly possible in principle, and it would work very nicely and positively (one could always discuss its effectiveness) in a confined space, like inside a closed glass box in a laboratory.
My only fundamental disagreement with the atmospheric rGHE proponents (like Shore, Folkerts, Brown, Spencer et al.) is in the extrapolation of the clean (one-variable, ‘all else being equal’) theory behind this controlled environment version of the rGHE to the open Earth system.”
Actually, you have it exactly backwards. The rGHE does not happen to any significant degree on laboratory length scales (unless you have a really tall box). And, you have above, in fact, just understood that it can happen is on the Earth scale. And, furthermore, the overwhelming empirical evidence shows that it DOES because the Earth’s surface temperature is indeed elevated…and its spectrum of radiation as seen from space just happens to correspond with what radiative transfer calculations show it ought to be! Maybe after all these years, Kristian is ready to embrace basic physics (i.e., join the list of people he mentioned, which coincidently coincides closely with those who actually are well-trained in physics) and accept the rGHE?
Joel Shore says, April 18, 2015 at 12:18 PM:
“Congratulations, Kristian! You’re almost there.”
Don’t worry, I’ve been there all along. And need go no further 🙂
Yes, Kristian, I understand that the last step is the hardest because it involves accepting physics that goes against your very-strongly held ideological belief system. A lot of people have trouble abandoning superstition or ideology for science.
Joel Shore says, April 18, 2015 at 12:18 PM
“Now the last step is simply to ask, “What sort of insulation can this be?” It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by conduction because there is no significant heat transfer by conduction with the vacuum of space … The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere. It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by convection because there is no significant heat transfer by convection with the vacuum of space … The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere.”
See, this is what I’m talking about.
The atmosphere insulates the SURFACE, not the ToA. The surface sheds its heat primarily into the atmosphere, not to space. So the insulation needs, at some given temperature, to slow the heat loss from the surface into the atmosphere – not from the ToA to space – in order to force its steady-state temperature to rise.
What determines the surface rate of heat loss into the atmosphere? The effectiveness of convection (or, rather, tropospheric circulation). Which is constrained by the mass of the atmosphere.
The mass gives the atmosphere a heat capacity, the ability to warm (and to resist warming and cooling) … beyond the bottomless heat sink of space. The distinct temperature gradient established up through the tropospheric column, away from the solar-heated surface, is ultimately the consequence of this ability.
The mass also provides (coupled with gravity) the atmosphere with a weight and a certain ‘sluggishness’, a resistance to turbulent flow. Compare Mars and Venus. The light atmosphere of the former is so responsive and turbulent that its constant erratic fluctuations makes it hard to even settle on an average state. The heavy atmosphere of the latter, on the other hand, is almost completely unresponsive and non-turbulent (until you get very high up above the surface), the thick ‘air’ along the surface hardly moving at all, and only in a sludgy, near-perfect laminar flow. The Earth’s atmosphere sits somewhere in between these two extremes.
The weight of the atmosphere on the surface – expressed by surface air pressure – limits evaporative heat loss rates at a given temperature from the ocean covering 71% of the globe. Evaporation is one of the main drivers of convection (atmospheric circulation) on Earth and its most important mechanism for surface heat loss.
“The only significant form of heat transfer between the Earth system and the rest of the [universe] is via the heat transfer mechanism of radiation, ergo that must be “insulating layer” is insulating against heat transfer by radiation.”
Not at all. You’ve got it turned exactly on its head. Radiation is what keeps the Earth system from overheating; it keeps it stable, in a state of dynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, by letting the atmosphere (and hence, the Earth as a whole) cool to space. The atmosphere doesn’t insulate itself from radiative heat loss. The atmosphere continuously transforms (through its IR-active constituents) all the energy it absorbs from the surface and the Sun (via conduction, evaporation/condensation and radiation) into IR and releases it to space, back out of the Earth system. There is no heat ‘held back’ or ‘trapped’ anywhere. Thanks to the IR-active substances in our atmosphere.
– – –
“The rGHE does not happen to any significant degree on laboratory length scales (unless you have a really tall box). And, you have above, in fact, just understood that it can happen is on the Earth scale.”
Joel, an rGHE could only become realised in the real, open surface/atmosphere system if there were a rigid, immovable lid blocking any thermal expansion at the top of the troposphere (the tropopause). That’s why you could potentially see the effect (minor indeed) in the lab, but not at all out in nature. (All else simply isn’t equal anymore.)
This is because the only way to reduce the total heat loss from the solar-heated surface of our planet, lying underneath a massive atmosphere, with which it is directly convectively coupled, is for the temperature gradient up through the tropospheric column to flatten. You can eventually accomplish this if you refuse the troposphere to expand. If you have no means to do so, convection always wins. Until the atmosphere itself is gone, blown off into space.
IR-active constituents in our atmosphere (like CO2 and H2O) help to heat the lowermost troposphere diabatically (through absorption from surface) while at same time serving to cool diabatically the troposphere higher up the column (through emissions to space), thus on average working tirelessy towards steepening the tropospheric lapse rate, promoting stable convective cooling of the surface.
Introduce more of these constituents into the atmosphere and convection automatically and instantly neutralises (negates) any theoretical (‘All else being equal’) lab temperature effect on the surface.
The Earth system is a finely tuned machinery in this regard.
“And, furthermore, the overwhelming empirical evidence shows that it DOES because the Earth’s surface temperature is indeed elevated … and its spectrum of radiation as seen from space just happens to correspond with what radiative transfer calculations show it ought to be!”
There is exactly zero real-world empirical evidence of an ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect’ making the surface warmer than if this effect weren’t there. It’s ALL theory, hypothetical effects based on mere blackboard scribblings and speculations of the type “What if all else were held unchanged? THEN maybe this could happen!”
You have to make up your minds, Joel. Is the Earth’s IR spectrum as ‘seen’ from space an EMISSION or an ABSORPTION spectrum?
Is it 1) simply the ‘background’ 288K surface blackbody spectrum ‘eaten into’ by the atmosphere on its way out, so that the atmosphere itself never actually emits anything to space – ALL surface MINUS atmosphere?
Or is it 2) the spectrum actually emitted to space by the Earth system as a whole, with partial contributions from all layers, from the surface and up through the atmosphere all the way to the ToA, making up a final, total flux, most of it, then, actually originating from the atmosphere rather than the surface, from layers of progressively lower temps than this?
What we know – ALL we know – is that this final, total Earth IR flux to space moving out through the ToA, is ~240 W/m2 on average, exactly balancing the evened-out, net incoming flux from the Sun. The Q_out equals the Q_in because … that’s what it must do, in the steady state.
The radiative balance at the ToA doesn’t tell us ANYTHING about the steady state temperature at the planetary surface.
–The weight of the atmosphere on the surface – expressed by surface air pressure – limits evaporative heat loss rates at a given temperature from the ocean covering 71% of the globe. Evaporation is one of the main drivers of convection (atmospheric circulation) on Earth and its most important mechanism for surface heat loss.–
Just add 2 cents. It’s partial pressure of water vapor which controls evaporation. More gravity is more pressure, and more partial pressure.
Kristian,
Your comments bring joy to my ears on this beautiful Spring Saturday morning in Oxfordshire, England. You and I have been sparring (productively) for at least a couple of years as we both went up the learning curve. Often our differences have been because of linguistic misinterpretations.
I worked hard last year (on and off) trying to understand the Slayers. I communicated with many people privately on all sides of the debate including Postma, key PSI members, Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts and many, many others. I formed the opinion that almost all were thoroughly decent people, united in confronting global warming alarmism.
Let us hope that Doug responds positively too and that we can then all move on in a spirit of cooperation to confront the enemy out front, the global warming alarmists, without having to be concerned about the irritant behind: the pernicious Slayer concept.
AGW theory is flawed and that is the reason why all the predictions this theory has put forth about atmospheric processes have not come to be or will they ever.
The theory has calculated the relationship between CO2 and water vapor wrong and this in essence destroys the theory.
Water vapor having a much stronger positive feedback or tie in with sea surface temperature in the lower levels of the atmosphere, while also having a much stronger relationship with precipitation processes in the upper atmosphere then it does with CO2 ,and observational data keeps suggesting this is indeed the case.
In addition the ozone concentration and the influence it exerts in all of this, has a negative feedback association with water vapor and this probably plays some kind of a role in the scheme of things.
This is why AGW theory is failing and what makes this even more revealing is the natural items that effect the climate has yet to really lock into there cold mode in any significant set way but this should be changing in the very near future.
Once solar activity approaches my low average solar parameters, and the AO/PDO lock more consistently into there cold phase, and ENSO starts featuring more La Nina’s ,AGW theory should become obsolete by any objective manner. This should all take place long before this current decade ends.
I already think enough data/evidence is in presently to make this theory obsolete but apparently many are not yet ready to concede to this fact.
Doug and Stephen ,I appreciate the efforts you are making in the fight against AGW but I think it is the wrong fight. The data and the case Dr. Spencer, has made that a greenhouse gas effect does exist resonates with me.It just is not as powerful as some believe it is due to the lack of a water vapor /CO2 strong positive feedback. In addition the evidence is out there that the two main greenhouse gases those being CO2 and water vapor are a result of the climate rather then the other way around. That is what the data is showing.
Given that the GHG effect is going to follow the climate and not govern it, as we proceed forward into this decade.
Salvatore,
You seem to think that the “water vapor feedback” is some sort of specific-to-CO2 thing. In fact, the water vapor feedback is a feedback expected for warming due to any cause and, in fact, it is well-verified the the correlation between warming and water vapor does exist especially for the fluctuations in global temperature due to ENSO and the like.
“Once solar activity approaches my low average solar parameters, and the AO/PDO lock more consistently into there cold phase, and ENSO starts featuring more La Nina’s ,AGW theory should become obsolete by any objective manner. This should all take place long before this current decade ends.”
And, if instead, we see that the overrated and exaggerated “hiatus” is just a temporary fluctuation and the basic warming trend we’ve seen since the 1970s continues, then I assume you will then admit you were wrong?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
Joel that argument will not work because AGW theory specifically said the increase in water vapor would be due to the increase in CO2 which would result in a positive feedback between the two of them.
Then for verification that this line of reasoning was correct AGW theory specifically said an extensive lower troposphere tropical hot spot would be evident.
Guess what it has NOT happened.
As I said, the logic is CO2 -> warming -> more water vapor. A similar logic holds for ANY other source of warming.
The “hot spot” is not a very direct test of the water vapor feedback and, as I explained, while there is certainly disagreement between model and empirical data on the “hot spot” in response to multidecadal warming, there are serious artifacts in the data that make conclusions difficult. What can be concluded with confidence is that the hot spot is there for temperature fluctuations (e.g., due to ENSO) and that fact severely constrains explanations for the discrepancy between model and data.
“What can be concluded with confidence is that the hot spot is there for temperature fluctuations (e.g., due to ENSO) and that fact severely constrains explanations for the discrepancy between model and data.”
Joel where is it? Point it out.
Joel I thought ENSO was natural variability. Are you now trying to say the hot spot is in response to natural variability?
The bottom line is all of the atmospheric processes this theory has called for have yet to see the light of day. It is therefore very unlikely (which the data has been showing) that the trends in global temperatures this theory calls for will ever materialize.
And, of course, I should add that your link is just to another blog where pseudoscientist Ken Gregory, who runs the astroturf outfit Friends of Science, and has zero credibility in the field, has posted his garbage. You already pointed out his garbage here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188612
Again, the difference is that I post papers in top-tier peer-reviewed journals by well-respected scientists who have clearly carefully evaluated the data. You post links to blog posts by people with no scientific credibility who grab random data from different places, with no effort to ascertain its accuracy, as long as it supports the ideological viewpoints of themselves and those that are funding their astroturf organization.
Do you understand this important distinction?
Again, the difference is that I post papers in top-tier peer-reviewed journals by well-respected scientists who have clearly carefully evaluated the data. You post links to blog posts by people with no scientific credibility who grab random data from different places, with no effort to ascertain its accuracy, as long as it supports the ideological viewpoints of themselves and those that are funding their astroturf organization.
Do you understand this important distinction?
Joel, it you who do not understand. The top peer reviewed papers are in a word worthless agenda driven BS, who ignore the data to make it fit in with the way they want it to be.
That is all AGW theory is a worthless agenda driven theory that has no data to predict anything that is has said.
And, if instead, we see that the overrated and exaggerated “hiatus” is just a temporary fluctuation and the basic warming trend we’ve seen since the 1970s continues, then I assume you will then admit you were wrong?
If my low average solar parameters are reached and the global temperature trend does not start to show a decline after that takes place I will admit to being wrong.
Joel Shore said:
“Now the last step is simply to ask, “What sort of insulation can this be?” It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by conduction because there is no significant heat transfer by conduction with the vacuum of space…The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere. It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by convection because there is no significant heat transfer by convection with the vacuum of space…The best insulation”
It can be and is insulation by conduction and convection because the surface and atmosphere constantly ahare energy in convective overturning and that energy gets there as a result of atmospheric mass absorbing kinetic energy and converting it to potential energy in uplift and back to kinetic energy in descent.
That adds energy to the surface IN ADDITION TO ongoing insolation and so the surface temperature must be more than S-B purely as a consequence of the presence of atmospheric mass.
Of that 288K of kinetic energy at the surface conduction and convection takes up 33K worth and continually recycles it between surface and atmosphere so that only 255K worth escapes to space.
The surface can remain at 288K and radiate at 288K but as one moves up along the lapse rate slope the available kinetic energy is steadily being reduced via conductive absorption by atmospheric mass.
Throughout the vertical column it is KINETIC ENERGY that is being absorbed by conduction / convection and NOT RADIATION though of course GHGs short circuit the situation but in doing so they simply reapportion radiative losses to space between atmosphere and surface as I explained above
It is the absorption of kinetic energy rather than of radiation that reduces temperature with height so that radiatiative intensity must also decline accordingly as one goes up and of course we see that it does.
By the time one reaches the top of the atmosphere conduction and convection have removed all kinetic energy in excess of 255K worth which is then radiated to space.
Note that the surface is higher than 255K and top of atmosphere is much less than 255K but the conductive / convective process ensures that there is only enough kinetic energy in atmosphere and surface combined to emit 255K to space.
Equilibrium as regards the amount of conduction and convection always develops when radiative energy in from space equals radiative energy out to space.
The mistake that has been made is assuming that conduction and convection take kinetic energy only from the surface so that in theory the surface temperature ‘should’ have stayed at 255K as per S-B.
The critical point then is that at the surface where 288K is found there is zero absorption by conduction and convection. At the surface conduction and convection have not yet begun to have any effect.
It is only as one moves upward and potential energy is created at the expense of kinetic energy that the cooling effect of conduction and convection starts to be observed and that process is what forms the lapse rate temperature gradient.
It is conduction and convection that does the absorbing of kinetic energy such that both the temperature and the radiation flux decline as one goes upward.
Conduction and convection always apply an equal and opposite thermal effect to that of radiative gases by swapping KE and PE as necessary to match radiation in with radiation out.
— Stephen Wilde says:
April 18, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Joel Shore said:
“Now the last step is simply to ask, “What sort of insulation can this be?” It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by conduction because there is no significant heat transfer by conduction with the vacuum of space…The best insulation for that is to have no atmosphere. It can’t be insulation against heat transfer by convection because there is no significant heat transfer by convection with the vacuum of space…The best insulation”
It can be and is insulation by conduction and convection because the surface and atmosphere constantly ahare energy in convective overturning and that energy gets there as a result of atmospheric mass absorbing kinetic energy and converting it to potential energy in uplift and back to kinetic energy in descent.
That adds energy to the surface IN ADDITION TO ongoing insolation and so the surface temperature must be more than S-B purely as a consequence of the presence of atmospheric mass.–
Agree with above.
–Of that 288K of kinetic energy at the surface conduction and convection takes up 33K worth and continually recycles it between surface and atmosphere so that only 255K worth escapes to space.–
Now, you say you are not slayer [I care not if someone calls me a slayer- it’s almost an encouraging thing to say to me- or at least someone partially gets what I mean].
But since you say convection [not a radiant process of greenhouse gases] is warming 33 K.
And the believer/supporters of Greenhouse Effect theory say all warming is due to radiant process involving greenhouse gas and the total warming is 33 K.
It could reasonably appear that you are saying no warming is from radiant processes involving greenhouse gases.
So I was wondering if you could clarify this?
Radiant gases have a warming effect all else being equal.
All else is not equal to the extent that convective and conductive changes apply an equal and opposite thermal effect.
Ths Slayers are wrong to deny the existence of ANY greenhouse effect just because the net effect of radiative gases is zero.
The greenhouse effect is real but it is mass induced.
well, I am still not getting it.
Let me throw out a few things and see what you think.
Someone [don’t have reference, sorry- but I have run across more than one person who has suggested something like this] claims the warming effects of greenhouse gases are largely/mostly within say 100 feet of the surface.
But one person such person would fit loosely in category of slayer but “slayer” is new term and not self identified as one, but saying greenhouse gases have little effect.
Though also apparent believers in greenhouse effect also discuss low elevation of effects of greenhouse gases in terms of having significant effect.
So I would say that quite different than the “radiant activity” mostly occurring 5 to 9 km above the surface which often discussed by greenhouse effect believers.
Second thing is in regard to Mars, I would allow for to less cooling due to the thin CO2 atmosphere.
Or I would mostly regard Mars as vacuum and has no or insignificant effect of convection.
Now there is 25 trillion tons of CO2 on this smaller planet,
and about 3 trillion tons on Earth. But atmosphere of Mars is similar to 100,000 ft on Earth. Or 1/100th the pressure
and 1/60th the density of Earth atmosphere.
So I would say Mars thermally at night is similar to Moon, but cools a bit slower.
But for Mars in terms of “greenhouse effects” there said to be around 5 to 10 C of warming. Of that I would say maybe 1 or 2 C or is convective related. Maybe 2 to 5 C is evaporation/latent heat- mostly CO2 but also water vapor- poles mostly but also global. And about 5 C due to radiant effects.
[Plus dust in atmosphere is significant warming effect and the amount of dust varies a lot.]
The large effect of warming due to radiant effects of greenhouses gases, is related to large amounts of CO2 per square meter [somewhere around 30 times more CO2 than Earth and the 210 ppm of water vapor]. Plus it’s very cold on Mars- and think CO2 and H20 are more effective in regards to warming lower temperatures. But as I said Mars would mostly similar to being on Moon- though water ice cools to around -150 C on Moon and with Mars it’s more like around 10 C [so huge difference in that regard].
“The critical point then is that at the surface where 288K is found there is zero absorption by conduction and convection. At the surface conduction and convection have not yet begun to have any effect.”
So, the surface has traveled backward in time through a wormhole to a point where convection and conduction have not yet done there magic. Honestly, Stephen, do you have any sort of filter on this stuff?
“It is conduction and convection that does the absorbing of kinetic energy such that both the temperature and the radiation flux decline as one goes upward.”
And where in my many physics textbooks will I find this description of how radiation flux magically declines without said radiation being absorbed or reflected by elements of the medium in which it is traveling?
As I told you, kinetic energy is absorbed via conduction from surface to air molecules which leads to convection which creates potential energy that does not radiate.
The temperature drops and radiation declines.
The process follows the lapse rate slope upward.
Radiation is a CONSEQUENCE of temperature so as the temperature declines so does the radiation emitted.
How do you propose that convection could cause any cooling BEFORE any uplift has occurred ?
At the surface there has been no uplift and thus no cooling by convection at that point.
Atb the surface (before convection) the temperature of the atmospheric molecules in contact with the ground are the same as the ground (288K).
No lifting ,no cooling.
Lifting causes cooling and so both temperature and radiation decline.
It is kinetic energy that is absorbed and not radiation.
“As I told you, kinetic energy is absorbed via conduction from surface to air molecules which leads to convection which creates potential energy that does not radiate.
The temperature drops and radiation declines.”
Makes no sense. The surface temperature does not drop to 255 K. It remains 288 K and surface radiates as an object at 288 K.
“How do you propose that convection could cause any cooling BEFORE any uplift has occurred ?
At the surface there has been no uplift and thus no cooling by convection at that point.”
Man…You are one confused puppy! This is a steady-state problem. Convection is always occurring. And radiation is always occurring…and the surface is radiating as a body at 288 K, just as the laws of physics say it must.
Dear Joel,
The surface is both conducting 33K to ascent and receiving 33k from descent.
That is in addition to continuing insolation at 255K.
The surface has to be at 288k to both support 255K to space by radiation AND provide 33K to convective overturning by conduction and convection.
The surface may be radiating at 288K but only 255k gets out to space so the other 33K has to be going somewhere.
The atmosphere needs 33K of energy to maintain convective overturning so where do you think it is coming from?
You are the one who has a problem 🙂
The truth is that a surface at 288K radiates at 288K of course but as conduction and convection kick in at a point just off the surface then the temperature starts to decline and so does radiation.
The problem you seem to have is in thinking that a surface at a temperature of 288K necessarily transmits thermal energy of 288K by radiation across a distance however much mass is in its way.
In a vacuum it does but if mass is in the way that mass absorbs kinetic energy by conduction so the full 288K radiation does NOT reach a distant target. It gets reduced in transit and it is correct that after a delay (if you are dealing with solds or liquids)then that 288K can be attained at the target distance because the energy content of the solid or liquid has increased to allow the full 288K to be transmitted.
That does not apply to gases that are constantly moving up and down in convective overturning.
In that case you need a reserve of kinetic energy at the surface to sustain convective overturning and that kinetic energy is permanently diverted from the radiative process because it becomes potential energy which does not radiate.
For a gaseous atmosphere such as that of Earth a 288K surface may radiate at 288K but aborption of kinetic energy (not radiation) to the value of 33K is diverted to convective overturning and only 255K of radiation escapes to space.
Convecting gases have an entirely different effect on a radiating source as compared to conducting solids and liquids.
AGW theory is mistakenly treating the convecting gases of the atmosphere as if they were conducting solids or liquids.
It is the ability of gases to convect and convert KE to PE and back again which makes all the difference.
Faced with the mass of convecting gases a radiating surface at 288K CANNOT transmit 288K to a remote target.
Nor can it do so after a period of delay as it could with solids or liquids.
It has to divide its kinetic energy between the energy required to support convective overturning (33K) and the energy required to reach the remote target(255K to space).
The S-B equation was designed for an object in a vacuum. When one introduces the mass of a convecting atmosphere the rules change.
In that situation a surface radiating at 288K simply cannot get 288k of energy through to a remote target due to the mass of the gases in its path diverting kinetic energy to conduction and convection and in the process storing it in a reservoir of PE.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Stephen 1:32pm: “The S-B equation was designed for an object in a vacuum.”
You are confused & wrong here Stephen, S-B was developed by test at various temperatures on earth from measurements at 1 atm. and precision instruments at room temperature in the lab. By many experimenters. In the 1890’s, early 1900s. S-B has been well vetted since then, has stood the test of time.
Joel Shore,
The trouble with the way you (and Roy Spencer and Tim Folkert and…) see things is that IR upflow and downflow are in fact not independent. The notion of backradiation is unnecessary and misleading. You can not pour the downflow in inputs and the upflow in outputs. This distinction is important because the response to a thermal imbalance is made according to the ratio of outflows.
For you, the ratio is 20% convection and 80% IR when in reality it is 60% for convection and 40% for IR.
For you, the addition of CO2 does not change the outflow ratio when in fact it is modified in favor of convection (only the radiative cooling is reduced).
The consequence of a change in the ratio of flow is an alteration of the gradient whereas the concept of CO2 forcing is entirely based on the fixity of this gradient.
Therefore, the numerical modeling is wrong as it admit that the radiative structure of the atmosphere has no impact on the gradient.
–For you, the ratio is 20% convection and 80% IR when in reality it is 60% for convection and 40% for IR.–
That sounds like that is roughly in ballpark.
But I did not know Joel, Roy, and/or Tim thought convection was 20%.
I generally think of convection being a significant amount.
Plus think convection is more significant than IR.
But also think of ocean as warming effect which doesn’t easily fit into category of convection or IR.
Or if it’s “all about something”, it’s all about the ocean.
Which I find very obvious, and fail to grasp how people can know that 70% of the surface is ocean, and one can ignore the ocean.
Also Ocean acts more like an actual greenhouse than the atmosphere. So if count ocean as IR, then I would IR is greater effect if one is also including clouds. Yhough I am uncertain about clouds as far putting them mostly in IR or convection bin.
gbaikie,
It’s a global balance based on figures from Trenberth.
ok, so Link here-
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/energybudgets.html
Trenberth’s numbers [2009]:
80 W/m^2 evaporation, 17 W/m^2 thermals, and 40 W/m^2 passes of surface IR passes thru atmosphere to Space.
So global average of 40 watts going directly into space
+ 80 + 17 watts suppose to go into atmosphere, according to
Trenberth
Totals 137 watts.
Which starts 161 watts of sunlight absorbed by surface.
[and not mentioned at all, that most of the absorbed solar energy goes into ocean and takes weeks [or centuries] for that heat to radiate to space- or convect or evaporate]
And then the back radiation stuff of 356 up and 333 down
with difference of 23 watts.
gbaikie,
Better here :
http://oi57.tinypic.com/23k21ax.jpg
phi 1:52pm: Better? No, not in reality. If your link were good thermodynamic law science, our eyes could not detect clouds and the sky would be black during the day with more than one star visible. This is not what we experience, clouds & atmosphere do radiate, are visible by sending photons at all frequencies absorbed by our limited range eyes. Annualized global median around 333 worth from March 2000 to May 2004.
–phi 1:52pm: Better? No, not in reality. If your link were good thermodynamic law science, our eyes could not detect clouds and the sky would be black during the day with more than one star visible. This is not what we experience, clouds & atmosphere do radiate, are visible by sending photons at all frequencies absorbed by our limited range eyes. Annualized global median around 333 worth from March 2000 to May 2004.–
Nope. Those who believe in back radiation, don’t think this light is visible to humans eyes.
Most of the sun’s light is not visible to human eyes. And sunlight is incredibility bright in term of the light human eyes see and the human eye adjusts to light levels.
“In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
So say at north pole, the most amount sunlight could be about 500 watt [in total] or about 200 watts of visible
and this can blindly bright.**
Or the outlaw light bulb emitting about 8% visible light- so 100 watt light bulb, 8 watts of visible light.
The blue sky is scattered visible blue light, not IR.
And on chart one has 23 watts of sunlight reflect- this is the light one is seeing. Or unless you looking at the sun
the 161 watts of absorbed sunlight is not what you see. Or eyes see reflected light.
** Or without going to north pole, sunlight anywhere at around 5 pm or 8 am.
– phi says:
April 19, 2015 at 1:52 PM
gbaikie,
Better here :
http://oi57.tinypic.com/23k21ax.jpg –
I am sure how accurate either are, but removing back radiation
should make it clearer to some.
For me the biggest distortion, is the averaging.
And there many aspects of this.
One can say and is said that average spot in the universe is
dark and empty.
In terms of climate, average earth is tropics and open ocean.
So maybe that is what chart is showing- and if it was it would nice to label that way, or show a chart for tropical
ocean and have another for say Europe.
Another part of averaging is only small area of earth is in sunlight which warming the surface.
So you have the big difference of night and day.
So during the night the sunlight is not being absorbed by the surface, or twice as much is being absorbed during the day time. And this also true upward “thermals” and evaporation.
So additional “improvement” of tropical or Europe, could be night and day.
Additional not all day is the same. For instance one could a day part in which 1/2 the sunlight is absorbed. And that would couple hours either side of noon. Or when say 80% of sunlight is absorbed- which is somewhere around 3 hours either side of noon.
And three hours either side of noon, is not 1/2 of the day time area or 1/4 quarter of the world.
Say the equinox [sun directly over the equator].
And an hour is 15 degree longitude [times 24 is 360 degrees] or cut an orange in 4 pieces.
So with 40,000 km circumference earth, at it’s widest at equator it’s 10,000 km. And from the equator to pole it’s 10,000 km, but from pole to pole 20,000 km. So where most intense sunlight is halfway to the poles from the equator
[5000 km]. And in the disk of 5000 km one would have the time where most to surface is absorbing sunlight.
Or Earth total area is 511 million square km, and a 5000 radius disk is 78.5 million square km. 511 divided by 78.5
is 6.5. So less than 1/6th the area of Earth.
So within the disk the sun is about 45 degree or higher the horizon. Center of disk at equator sun’s at 90 degree, and decreases 45 degrees to 45 degree away from zenith.
And as Earth rotate, create a zone circling the world which
gets the most intense sunlight.
So at any one point in time about 1/6 of the Earth is getting the most amount of sunlight per square meter. Or 5/6th of the world is not getting the most amount sunlight.
Then has the seasons, with sun over 23 degrees north and south to give northern Hemisphere it’s summer and winter, but tropical zone regardless of season remains within the zone where one gets the most intense sunlight.
So just day time and night one simply has twice as much sunlight actually being adsorb [when it is able to absorb any amount of sunlight and then one zones which absorb more than this. Or roughly tropics in mid day is absorb around 5 times more than is indicated, and correspondingly the thermals and evaporation also is increased.
Or as is well known the tropical region warms the rest of the rest of the world. And rest of the world is not warmed much by direct sunlight, rather heat is transported via the ocean currents as gulf stream.
So chart obscure the obvious.
“For you, the ratio is 20% convection and 80% IR when in reality it is 60% for convection and 40% for IR.”
Which ratio? Where? When? Who made the claim?
We could start with Trenberth’s numbers, which should be pretty decent. For transfer from the surface to the atmosphere those numbers are 80 W/m^2 evaporation; 23 W/m^2 radiation; and 17 W/m^2 for convection. So looking just at convection & radiation (although I don’t know why anyone would want to do that), the ratio is 23/40 = 58% IR and 42% convection. Of course, that leaves off he biggest transfer mechanism.
If you want to estimate how energy is carried upward within the atmosphere … well I don’t know any numbers for that. And the number will change as you go through the atmosphere.
Tim Folkerts,
“Which ratio? Where? When? Who made the claim?”
Surface cooling flow shares. Whenever someone talks about GHG forcing, he implicitly admits these proportions (20 + 80).
GHG forcing is made up of back radiation considered as inputs.
And outputs according to Trenberth 2009 :
– Convection 97/493 approx. 20%
– IR 396/493 approx. 80%.
But the notion of forcing is not compatible with thermodynamics. You can not separate upstream and downstream IR fluxes, you can not include them in diferent thermodynamic categories. The actual proportions of flow cooling the surface are the following:
– Convection 98/161 approx. 60%
– IR 63/161 approx. 40%.
phi: The “gradient”, i.e., the lapse rate is in most places limited by the adiabatic lapse rate. So, to a first approximation, it is not going to change.
To a better approximation, it does decrease slightly because the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is a decreasing function of increasing surface temperature. This is the so-called lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback included in all of the climate models. Although there is some uncertainty in the value of this feedback, it turns out that much of the same physics controls both it and the water vapor feedback and so models with larger (positive) water vapor feedbacks tend to have larger (negative) lapse rate feedbacks and the sum of the two feedbacks is much more tightly constrained.
Joel Shore,
“The “gradient”, i.e., the lapse rate is in most places limited by the adiabatic lapse rate. So, to a first approximation, it is not going to change.”
1. It’s the mean global gradient that matters and it is not directly constrained by the adiabatic lapse rate.
2. The effect of GHG is precisely to make the atmosphere a non-adiabatic medium.
3. The negative feedback of water vapor is a different issue.
phi:
(1) If the average lapse rate gets steeper as a result of the increased greenhouse gases, then that means that the surface would warm faster than the constant-lapse-rate assumption predicts.
(2) At the time scales relevant for the convection, the adiabatic condition holds to a very good approximation.
(3) So, in order to get the result that your ideological fervor demands, you would have to say that the lapse rate gets less steep. Why is it going to do that, other than for the reason that I explained regarding the saturated adiabatic lapse rate?
Joel Shore,
1. Why steeper ? The characteristical gradient of convection is smaller than that of radiation and the effect of an add of CO2 is to increase the share of convection.
2. As it is the global average gradient that matters, this approximation is unacceptable to quantify the effect of adding greenhouse gases.
3. See 1. Simply beg that climatology meets the scientific knowledge is evidence of ideological fervor?
“It is conduction and convection that does the absorbing of kinetic energy such that both the temperature and the radiation flux decline as one goes upward.”
Which is why DENSITY is so important because it is mass density that determines what proportion of the available kinetic energy gets absorbed.
That is demonstrated by the observation that the lapse rate slope generally follows the rate of decline in density with height.
Density is determined solely by atmospheric mass and the strength of the gravitational field with the sun supplying the linetic energy.
Thus there are only three factors that determine surface temperature and the quantity of radiative gases is not one of them.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/no-underlying-global-temperature-increase-for-20-years/
More data to make my case.
I suggest that Roy and others now turn their attention to the dilemma of the Antarctic night now starting. The question is posed here and cannot be answered if you ignore heat creep.
Nature mag:
“The more widespread warming in continental West Antarctica (Ellsworth Land and Marie Byrd Land) occurs primarily in austral winter and spring, and remains unexplained. Here we use observations of Antarctic surface temperature and global sea surface temperature, and atmospheric circulation data to show that recent warming in continental West Antarctica is linked to sea surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific.
….atmospheric Rossby wave response that influences atmospheric circulation over the Amundsen Sea, causing increased advection of warm air to the Antarctic continent. ”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n6/full/ngeo1129.html
Advection, definition:
noun
1.
Meteorology. the horizontal transport of atmospheric properties (distinguished from convection ).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advection
This has been a long and meandering thread. But one last point to make for those who are saying GHE is wrong because it warms the planet. If you notice Roy’s models. GHE still leads to cooling, it is not warming the surface. This simple model does show that sideline thought is not what anyone has been saying.
The surface still cools with GHG present. Just not as fast. The Earth is not a closed system like a rock with a blanket. It is receiving and emitting energy on a continuous basis.
The surface still cools with GHG present. Just not as fast.”
Well said Norman.
Now all you have to is to replace the word “GHG” with the word “atmosphere”. (get rid of the this word “greenhouse” entirely out of your mind) and you are now a true Slayer.
Congratulations Norman. (genuine, no sarc.)
Agree to disagree. Come up with your own hypothesis. But please if you disagree with the GHE understand correctly what is says and what it is not saying.
Doug Cotton – Genius
A play in 9 paragraph.
Doug Cotton: The green house effect does not exist I tell you! All the world’s scientists are wrong! They are morons! Everyone of them is deluded! But I, Doug Cotton, reviled and laughed at throughout the world, I, Cotton, have discovered the TRUTH!
Gulliable Nitwit Who Thinks He Can Talk Sense With Cotton: But if the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist how do you explain X?
DG: Ah, yes! That is why MY THEORY is so vastly superior it explains this perfectly. [Blah Blah blah]. See how brilliant it is? One day I’ll get around to doing the maths…
GNWTHCTSWC: OK, but then how does your theory explain Y?
DG: Ah, yes! Thanks you for paying attention to me! All my friends and family hate me because they think I am an obsessive simpleton. But it is all of them, and my neighbours, who are all simpletons I tell you…! Well, this special extension to my theory explains Y. You see … [blah blah blah]. See how brilliant my special extension is?!!
GNWTHCTSWC: OK, but how does your theory explain Z?
DG: Ah, Yes! This is where I am even more clever than I thought I was if that’s possible! There is another special extension to my theory that also explains Z! No one can see the truth but me! [Blah blah blah]
GNWTHCTSWC: I don’t get it. You started by claiming that the green house gas theory doesn’t exist. But then you explained X, Y and Z, everything that the greenhouse gas theory does (just vastly more complex and convoluted now than the original theory). How can you claim it doesn’t exist while explaining everything that it does?
DG: Because I am the world’s greatest genius! But wait, I have a million more things to type. Don’t worry, I have nothing else to do with my time! Nobody wants to talk to me! So let me explain this further…
I throw down the gauntlet to you Will Nit to be the first to publish a correct refutation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the corollary of such which I have explained, supported by extensive evidence. Yes Maxwell was wrong in his “explanation” of atmospheric physics – I will stick by that statement, because Loschmidt was right.
I quote from the Amazon website …
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
13 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Valid physics well supported by empirical evidence. Excellent and ground-breaking.
By Dr Alex Hamilton on May 1, 2014
Format: Paperback
The fallacies in the greenhouse conjecture are exposed rigorously and backed up by a comprehensive study (in the Appendix) which compares rainfall and temperature data for locations on three continents. The study concludes convincingly that the wetter regions do indeed have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. This supports the hypothesis in the book which shows that so-called “greenhouse gases” (mostly water vapor and a little carbon dioxide) do in fact reduce the lapse rate and thus lower the “supported” temperature at the surface. In other words, water vapor cools and so does carbon dioxide, the latter by only a minuscule amount.
The book discusses how and why surface cooling slows down almost to a halt in the early pre-dawn hours as the supported temperature is approached. This slowing down process is well known, but the concept of the supporting temperature (due to a temperature gradient autonomously induced by gravity) was not understood, even though this “gravito-thermal” effect was originally proposed in the nineteenth century. Modern day physics can now be used to prove the Loschmidt effect is indeed a reality, as this book shows.
As a physicist, I can honestly say that the physics is indeed mainstream and valid in all respects. It discusses the maximum entropy conditions that evolve as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is approached, and then goes on to develop a real break-through hypothesis of “heat creep” which, when we consider what happens on Earth and other planets with atmospheres, we see must be the process which explains how the necessary energy gets into the surface of Venus to raise its temperature during its sunlit period. Indeed all planetary temperature data, even that below any surface, can be explained by the hypothesis in this book, which is indeed a totally new paradigm that completely demolishes the old greenhouse conjecture that was based on mistaken understanding of the laws of physics.
I would expect “warmists” and “lukes” alike to attack the reviews of this book, but the astute reader will realise that is just their normal mode of approach to all such matters. To them science matters not – just their vocation or other pecuniary interests in maintaining the status quo. They would do well to consider the final comment in Chapter 1: “One wonders how many lives may have been saved had such funds been devoted instead to humanitarian aid.”
It is fascinating to me that the sum total of this “Dr. Alex Hamilton”‘s activity on Amazon.com consists of writing this one review. One wonders where this supposed physicist works. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this, Doug.
There are two actual independent reviews that well-express what any actual scientists seem to think of this work. For example, one says:
“If you are looking for an example of how confusion can be expressed in hand waving and scientific jargon and sold through a ‘self-publisher’, this book is for you.”
Norman,
On April 18, 2015 at 9:55 PM, you say: If you notice Roy’s models. GHE still leads to cooling, it is not warming the surface…
Whatever are you on about?
You admit that GHGs interposed between the surface and space slow down the rate at which the surface is cooling at night, compared with no GHGs. So surely you can see that this will increase the surface’s day & night mean temperature over what it would have been without the GHGs?
As you say, the earth is not a closed system and continually receives and emits energy. Observation tells us that the mean surface temperature over many diurnal cycles is a steady-state ~288K. On your own analysis, the mean surface temperature would be lower than that in the absence of the GHG effect.
There is really no doubt that the presence of water vapour (and water droplets in clouds) causes the mean surface temperature to be at a higher steady-state level than without. To claim that it has NO effect at all is slayer territory and has been thoroughly debunked by mainstream radiative physics.
The real question is whether the GHG effect is sufficient on its own to account for the whole of the difference between the observed 288K mean surface temperature, and the ~208K that it would have if, like the Moon, it were a rocky planetary body without any atmosphere or water.
The slowing of cooling is totally irrelevant, because the Sun cannot warm the surface to the observed mean temperature in the first place.
In any event, only a third of the cooling (the radiative component) can be slowed by radiation.
The rest of the cooling merely accelerates and wipes out the effect of IR-active gases.
Neither rate of cooling (radiative or non-radiative) sets the minimum supported temperature. Explain why Antarctica only cools by 3 degrees in about 4 months of its dark winter.
Doug,
You say: The slowing of cooling is totally irrelevant,…
Maybe to you and your thesis, yes. But not to the conversation I was having with Norman which was about a thermodynamic principle within Roy’s highly constrained scenario.
You say: In any event, only a third of the cooling (the radiative component) can be slowed by radiation. The rest of the cooling merely accelerates and wipes out the effect of IR-active gases.
I agree, except I would say “offsets” rather than “wipes out” because there is a dynamic balance between the two energy flows.
You say: Neither rate of cooling (radiative or non-radiative) sets the minimum supported temperature.
Well we weren’t discussing the issue of the minimum supported temperature.
You say: Explain why Antarctica only cools by 3 degrees in about 4 months of its dark winter.
Because it is almost as cold as the atmosphere above. For example, if they were both at the same temperature the surface wouldn’t cool at all.
David Cosserat says, April 19, 2015 at 2:07 AM:
“You admit that GHGs interposed between the surface and space slow down the rate at which the surface is cooling at night, compared with no GHGs. So surely you can see that this will increase the surface’s day & night mean temperature over what it would have been without the GHGs?
(…)
There is really no doubt that the presence of water vapour (and water droplets in clouds) causes the mean surface temperature to be at a higher steady-state level than without. To claim that it has NO effect at all is slayer territory and has been thoroughly debunked by mainstream radiative physics.”
It seems you’re mixing a couple of things up here, David.
One is not entering ‘slayer territory’ simply from pointing out that the NET surface temperature effect of having H2O in our atmosphere is not necessarily a positive one. In fact, empirically, having lots of H2O in the atmospheric column would tend to make the surface underneath cooler on average, not warmer. It would strongly even out the surface temperature differences between day and night, yes, as compared with a surface under a dry, clear atmosphere. But this does not necessarily translate into a higher mean annual temp. In fact, on Earth, the opposite appears to be true.
The fact is, atmospheric H2O could cut down the day/night amplitudes all across the globe until they were no more, completely evened out, and this effect alone could still not raise the surface mean temp above 255K. The 255K temp is the BB target, the upper target. The max.
A blackbody surface with an average heat input/output of 240 W/m2 could only reach a corresponding average temperature of 255K if it experienced absolutely no temperature swings, neither in space nor in time. All variations away from the full isothermal state would lead to a LOWER average steady-state temperature, courtesy of the T^4 relationship of BB radiative output.
Case in point: The Moon. On a global average, its surface heat input/output (all radiative) is ~295 W/m2 (almost 80% more intense that the equivalent heats (not all radiative) to/from Earth’s surface). Ideally, this balance would lead to an average global lunar surface temp of ~269K. But thanks to its huge temporal and spatial swings in temperatures, the average can remain far below this and still put out the necessary radiative heat to space.
The actual mean global temp of the Moon is estimated to be 195-200K (90K below Earth’s).
“Case in point: The Moon. On a global average, its surface heat input/output (all radiative) is ~295 W/m2 (almost 80% more intense that the equivalent heats (not all radiative) to/from Earth’s surface). Ideally, this balance would lead to an average global lunar surface temp of ~269K. But thanks to its huge temporal and spatial swings in temperatures, the average can remain far below this and still put out the necessary radiative heat to space.”
This is easily understood using correct physics. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation puts a constraint on the average value of T^4, not the average value of T itself. By Holder’s Inequality, the fourth root of the average of T^4 is greater than or equal to the average of T itself, with equality occurring when the temperature is uniform over the surface.
Hence, the temperature computed using S-B is an UPPER BOUND on the surface temperature that could occur in the absence of a greenhouse effect (at least if one can assume the surface behaves as a blackbody, which is generally close to being true). If the temperature is strongly non-uniform over the surface (as it is on the moon) then the average temperature can be considerably lower than the temperature computed using the S-B equation.
Kristian,
You say: One is not entering ‘slayer territory’ simply from pointing out that the NET surface temperature effect of having H2O in our atmosphere is not necessarily a positive one.
No, agreed. But you still have to justify such an assertion.
You say: In fact, empirically, having lots of H2O in the atmospheric column would tend to make the surface underneath cooler on average, not warmer.
You need to justify that assertion with empirical findings.
You say: Having lots of H2O in the atmospheric column… would strongly even out the surface temperature differences between day and night, yes, as compared with a surface under a dry, clear atmosphere. But this does not necessarily translate into a higher mean annual temp. In fact, on Earth, the opposite appears to be true.
Well the atmosphere is a very complex system compared with Roy’s simple model, which I assume was designed only as a vehicle for slaying slayers.
My suspicion is that radiative ‘shielding’ effects are very often offset by other stronger processes. Doug’s thesis is in principle very attractive – that the effects on surface temperature of all the other atmospheric variables are more-or-less neutralised by the ‘isentropic imperative’ of the atmospheric column which forces the tropospheric temperature profile that we experience.
We should all hope he is proved right because we could then stop pontificating on the intricacies of the atmosphere – a subject that nobody seems to understand at all well!!
Finally, on the Moon…
Based on empirical data from the Diviner Orbiter, the Moon’s mean surface temperature is 195K. Some research carried out recently indicates that if its speed of rotation (with respect to the Sun) were 24 hours, like the Earth’s, the mean surface temperature would increase by about 13K to 208K. So we can deduce that a rocky waterless Earth would likewise have a mean surface temperature of around 208K.
The climate alarmists would have us believe that the whole of the 80K difference between 208Kt and the observed 288K mean surface temperature of the Earth is due to the radiative shielding effect of atmospheric GHGs.
I think they are going to have a tough time proving that.
“The climate alarmists would have us believe that the whole of the 80K difference between 208Kt and the observed 288K mean surface temperature of the Earth is due to the radiative shielding effect of atmospheric GHGs.”
Nope…This is wrong. As I explained above, the number computed using Stefan-Boltzmann is an upper bound on the temperature in the absence of the radiative greenhouse effect because it is calculating the fourth root of the average of T^4, which is different than the average value of T. As long as the surface temperature variation is not too large, the difference between the fourth root of the average of T^4 and the average value of T will be pretty small, but once that surface temperature variation gets large, the difference can be pretty substantial.
To put it another way, there are many different distributions of temperature that all produce the same amount of emitted radiation (e.g., 240 W/m^2); however, all of these many possibilities have an average surface temperature of 255 K or less. Any one of these distribution is allowable from the point of view of radiative balance; which one actually occurs depends on other factors, such as heat capacities, rotation rates, and so forth.
“the number computed using Stefan-Boltzmann is an upper bound on the temperature in the absence of the radiative greenhouse effect ”
NO, no, no.
The S-B Number is a MINIMUM predicated on instant removal of incoming insolation by outgoing radiation.
If conduction and convection reduce the rate of removal of kinetic energy from the surface (as they must, being slower than radiation) then surface temperature must become higher than S-B.
Sheesh.
Stephen,
First of all, Stephen, unless you live in a world where heat flows from colder to hotter, conduction and convection will not reduce the rate of heat flow from the surface to the atmosphere; they will increase it. You know, the Second Law and all that.
Second of all, not to sound like a broken record, but since you keep repeating nonsense, you need to have it repeated to you again and again: You can’t solve the radiative imbalance that exists at the top-of-the-atmosphere by positing ways that the surface is warmed by the atmosphere. You have to explain how the 390 W/m^2 that the surface is emitting magically becomes 240 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.
The only known way this can happen that obeys physical laws is by the atmosphere absorbing or reflecting some of that radiation…and, there is in fact overwhelming empirical evidence that this is exactly what does happen, in line with radiative transfer theory and real physics, you know the kind that involves math and equations, and not just putting sciencey-sounding words together in various combinations.
Joel Shore writes garbage physics as usual:
He says: “conduction and convection will not reduce the rate of heat flow from the surface to the atmosphere”
Absolute nonsense. The rate of conduction across the surface/atmosphere boundary depends on the temperature difference. If back radiation slows radiative surface cooling (which is all it can do) then the temperature gap widens and conduction accelerates to compensate.
–Second of all, not to sound like a broken record, but since you keep repeating nonsense, you need to have it repeated to you again and again: You can’t solve the radiative imbalance that exists at the top-of-the-atmosphere by positing ways that the surface is warmed by the atmosphere. You have to explain how the 390 W/m^2 that the surface is emitting magically becomes 240 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere.–
It seems if had 390 W/m^2 infrared light at top of atmosphere shining on Earth that less than 390 W/m^2 would reach the surface.
Or one can use any kind light you want and it should reduce by time it reaches the surface.
Or with 1360 watts of sunlight at top of atmosphere with only 1000 watts reaching the surface.
Also your 390 W/m^2 seems to be based average global air surface temperature of 15 C rather than the ground temperature. And I require a reference of Earth’s global ground being measured.
And as recall the top skin temperature of the ocean is quite bit cooler. Do need a reference for that?
–One is not entering ‘slayer territory’ simply from pointing out that the NET surface temperature effect of having H2O in our atmosphere is not necessarily a positive one. In fact, empirically, having lots of H2O in the atmospheric column would tend to make the surface underneath cooler on average, not warmer.–
But one can’t have lot’s of H20 in atmosphere if cooler.
So tropics is 40% of total surface area of Earth. Tropics has
most amount of H20 in atmosphere.
One reason tropics has most amount of water in it’s atmosphere
is due to it not cooling much at night. Or say tropics is 28 C
it doesn’t cool below 20 C. If cooled to say 5 C the atmosphere can not hold much H2O at this temperature, nor it gain back much the next day if got warmer.
So tropics has a lot of H20 in it’s atmosphere because the air is warm and the air stays warm.
So tropics has about 4% water vapor, and rest of world has 1% or less, and this is the case because rest world varies more in temperature and it’s colder on average.
Or increase H20 in atmosphere is the result of higher average temperatures.
This points out why global water vapor can not increase.
Or one needs larger areas of world which are like tropical
conditions.
So call me when Oregon is more tropical. And even if Oregon never had cold or freezing condition, it still would not be much of increase in global water vapor. And of course Oregonians might like the opportunity to grow oranges and have milder “tropical island” type weather.
Cloud cover at night keeping you warmer is fooling you David. How do you like my comment about Fred Singer here..;)http://www.principia-scientific.org/fred-singer-about-nay-sayers-like-me.html
No disrespect for Fred Singer and his lifes work intended.
If you are reading this Fred..sorry.
How about making your links easier for us .. use HTML where you remove the square brackets here …
[]here[].
So we get .. Fred Singer here.
Sorry – it eliminated all the link in that square bracket attempt.
You need …
less-than-sign a href= (then your URL in quotes “”) greater-than-sign (then your link word) less-than-sign /a greater than sign
By the way, winter seems to be coming early to Sydney with a maximum of 15°C forecast for tomorrow.
It’s not surprising because the 60 year cycle is about half way through the 30 year downside while the long-term (~1000 year) one is still rising, but not beyond just after the middle of this century.
So expect slight cooling till about 2028, then about 30 years with about 0.3 to 0.6 degrees of warming, followed by long-term cooling for nearly 500 years.
Comment #1000
My hypothesis is developed directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When you prove that law wrong you can start proving my hypothesis wrong.
Bye
Douglas Cotton, B.Sc )physics), B.A.(econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
(Sydney & Macquarie Universities 1963 to 1972)
Winner of physics scholarship from Sydney University, author of widely used mathematics tutoring software and a book and paper on planetary physics and the Second Law, part-time educator in physics and mathematics, now private unfunded researcher in planetary physics.
Doug Cotton,
On your Antarctic point you need to consider Antarctica is not a closed or isolated system.
First you must understand process. When there is no energy at the surface of Antarctica in the polar winter what is happening to the air? It is cooling. What happens to air as it cools? The molecules move closer together and the air gets denser and heavier. What happens with a pool of very heavy and dense gas? It moves outward and is replaced by warmer air from other regions balancing out the temperature. I pointed this out with a link to weather in Antarctica.
I can see this happening in the Arctic. I monitor the daily temps in North America and North Asia using this link.
http://wx.hamweather.com/maps/currents/temperature/nam.html
The Arctic air will get very cold and then will move far down south cooling either the Western Hemisphere (US) or the Eastern Hemisphere (Europe, Russia). After a severe outbreak of cold the temperatures in the Arctic are now not so cold but then will build up to very cold again and the process continues all winter long.
You need to learn about weather and how it works before using things you do not understand to prove a hypothesis. Lack of cooling in Antarctica has a much simpler and explanation than “heat creep” as the cause.
Summary:
The Antarctic winter cooling of only three degrees in four months proves that Roy’s contention in the top post regarding the effect of radiation from IR-gases on that component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation is totally irrelevant and by no means the primary cause of surface temperatures being what they are.
One moment Norman and Tim are on about expanding air that rises and cools, and yet now we get Norman (without any understanding of planetary physics) saying “What happens to air as it cools? The molecules move closer together and the air gets denser.”
What physics gives us via the Kinetic Theory of Gases (which Einstein used and I used in the development of my hypothesis) is the Ideal Gas Law …
Pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Physics tells us nothing more, and nothing less.
In any event, what Norman is describing is a combination of heat creep and wind.
You can experience heat creep in your garage at home. Carry out this experiment, Norman, in which heat creep can go in any direction and even follow a complex path like horizontal, then downwards and back under your car. That’s because molecules move in random directions in the collision process.
Heat creep is about temperature movement brought about by molecules passing on kinetic energy in collisions. The warmer temperature “front” moves out in all 3D directions (over the sloping thermal plane that represents thermodynamic equilibrium) well ahead of any detectable net movement of molecules. Yes, heat creep is a very slow process that can move in any accessible direction, but it has had the life of the planet to achieve the temperatures in the atmosphere, crust, mantle and core.
Now please read this comment and respond only on that newer thread.
Doug Cotton,
If a large mass of air in Antarctic winter was confined in a dome that was totally transparent to IR, how cold would this air get? The problem is you do not seem to understand that the atmosphere is an open system where massive air systems move about with one purpose. To equalize inequality of the system. If one part is cold warm air moves toward the cold and cold moves toward the warm. You can’t work out a hypothesis basing it on an open system like this to form an absolute conclusion.
Yes well those large moving masses of air don’t establish the “lapse rate” because they are winds driven by forces external to the ideal isolated system. Uranus has little of that because it has no surface at the base of its nominal troposphere.
And there’s none of that in Earth’s crust or mantle I would suggest, but heat creep happens everywhere.
Now discuss the trapezium issue.
— Norman says:
April 19, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Doug Cotton,
If a large mass of air in Antarctic winter was confined in a dome that was totally transparent to IR, how cold would this air get?–
Cheaper and simpler to put a wall around the Antarctic. Neither is easy.
Foundation: Steel pipe, 1 km tall, 100 meters diameter, wall thickness 1 cm. Foundation top will at sea level. So it’s something like 1/4 the depth of ocean. And it will float the walls. Wall will tapered from 100 meter to 1 meter, and gaps
created by taper will be filled 1 mm thick clear Mylar.
And we just going to say 50 km and ignore effect of the low density air above this. 50 km air density is 0.01027 kg per cubic meter when air temperature is 15 C at sea level, though air temperature outside wall could exceed 15 C, and thereby have higher density at 50 Km. Hmm.
Make it 60 km: 0.003097 kg per cubic meter.
Helium density is 0.1785 kg/m3 at sea level. And have slightly pressurize: .18 kg per cubic meter. And segmented
every 1000 meters. And tubes wall will mostly float so don’t crush from their weight.
So the walls are transparent- though it doesn’t much much.
Now cold water will flow out of wall bottom of wall, but warm water can’t replace it, this flow will be inhibited.
And I assume inside the wall will become much colder, air will sink and to added to from air above 60 km. But air inside will become heavier and break the wall. So only solution I see is make wall much stronger. But anyhow we going to allowing more air inside the wall. Not sure how much. See how cold it gets.
First thing, if wall remains intact, is it stops wind from circling Antarctic. And air and water immediately outside the wall will become warmer. And means there will slight water level difference- depending upon how warm water gets.
Or warmer lighter water needs to be higher to balance the weight different of same level of water. So more structural wall strength needed. Though other factor is inside water will freeze and frozen water has less density. Though more important it’s expansion must be allowed for with wall expansion as nothing is strong enough against the pressure it would exert- so wall management of ice expansion problem would be nightmare.
Another aspect is one would get less moisture added into the Antarctic zone. Once sea is frozen the air should become more drier than it is currently [which was already pretty dry].
So average temperature of Antarctic is about -50 C and that temperature is related to high elevation of the continent:
“Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth: average elevation is 8,200ft (2500m). The elevation at the South Pole is 9,300ft (2835m).”- google, and http://www.adventure-network.com/antarctic-environment
Or very roughly at sea level it about 20 K warmer. And we put wall on nice circle- antarctic circle.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html
That wouldn’t work, so make 60 degree latitude. And currently mostly open water in summer and mostly against or into frozen ice in winter. So think the wall will make it permanently frozen all year long. And since wall insulating
evenally inside wall will have ice about thick as steel pipes are deep. A real nightmare ice expansion. It might not thaw in summer, but it’s going to get warmer, and in winter get colder, and so breaking things. So 1000 meter frozen ice expands by 10%, so become 1100 meters [dwarfing any warmer water expansion I was worried about].
So another thing is it’s going have denser air and be colder so one gets into “problem” of CO2 freezing out. So perhaps winter freezing CO2, and summer evaporating it.
anyways roughly speaking, and not trying count the warming from freezing out CO2, one gets 6 months of darkness, and don’t why it will get as cold as 2 weeks of lunar night, which -150 C. And in comparison Mars polar winter.
“The North and South Poles on Mars are a lot like the polar regions on Earth. They are the coldest places on the planet. The temperatures in the winter can drop to -150° C (about -238° F). ”
http://www.windows2universe.org/mars/places/mars_polar_regions.html
Mars has more CO2, lacking enough CO2, could get colder
than Mars pole or Lunar night.
And density of air at -150 C. Somewhere around 2.8 kg per cubic meters. More twice sea level 1.2 kg per cubic meter.
Assuming wall holds, in summer and air got warmer it would flow over the walls.
Stephen: Go to this comment.
Firstly, Norman I most certainly don’t expect or require or need to consider the Antarctic as a closed system. The closest thing to a closed system is the whole Solar System. There is a huge difference between a closed system and an isolated system in physics anyway. What they teach you in the weather world is quite likely different from real physics.
You can’t disprove what is in my hypothesis with a hand-waving comment that there are no isolated systems. The AGW crowd draw those energy diagrams with the obvious assumption that they are considering an “ideal atmosphere” that is isolated. One can make an assumed column as large as you like and the approximation to an isolated system (in calm conditions) gets better and better. In any event, all we need to know is what direction things will move in order to increase entropy. So, if there are external forces or even new sources of thermal energy, we just take those into account when working out what will happen as maximum entropy is approached.
And now I see it was you who did indeed say what Stephen also said about air molecules cuddling up together to keep warm – oops, I mean get warmer. That is an absolute load of rubbish Norman, taught to you both no doubt via some standard weather world textbook. For molecules to gain more kinetic energy something has to give them the extra energy. It won’t happen adiabatically in a horizontal plane, but it can come from their own gravitational potential energy if they move downwards, and that is what is happening when the direction of “heat creep” (which is heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer, but not including forced convection like wind) has a downward component.
Say it a hundred times, Norman …
High pressure does not of itself act to maintain high temperatures. It is a result of high temperature and density (both caused by gradients induced by gravity) and pressure is not a cause of either.
Doug said:
“but it can come from their own gravitational potential energy if they move downwards, and that is what is happening when the direction of “heat creep” (which is heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer, but not including forced convection like wind) has a downward component.”
Doug,
You just need a small adjustment to your thinking to come into line with established meteorology.
If the average surface pressure is 1000mb then 50% 0f the atmosphere is at higher pressure than that in high pressure cells and 50% is at lower pressure than that in low pressure cells.
Winds constantly circle around between high and low cells such that wherever the surface pressure is less than 1000mb there is an upward component and wherever the pressure is more than 1000mb there is a downward component.
Thus at any given moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is falling.
You do not need heat creep in that situation.
That simple upward and downward convection is all you need for adiabatic cooling on ascent through half the atmosphere and adiabatic warming on descent through half the atmosphere.
I guess that if you review your works and just substitute that large scale global atmospheric convective overturning for your proposed heat creep then you will find that you have simply duplicated standard meteorolgy.
I’m not the slightest bit interested in coming into line with “standard meteorology” for it is such that needs to come into line with standard physics and, in particular, to comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and be able to be explained with The Kinetic Theory of Gases as used by Einstein and many others, including myself.
How many times do I have to tell you that winds do not form the temperature gradient: they tend to destroy it. There are no such significant winds in the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus.
It is totally incorrect to say “at any moment half the atmosphere is rising and half is falling.” For a start, winds don’t “fall” downwards due to gravity – they are forced downwards (usually at an angle) by pressure differences. Besides that, they cycle air in huge cells (like Hadley Cells) that mostly rise or go downwards around latitudes 0°, 30°, 60°and 90° and so there’s a lot of Earth’s surface not within range of such upward or downward components of the cells. And, in any event, those winds will not cool or warm by as much as the ambient air (in calm conditions) varies in temperature.
Furthermore Stephen, there needs to be an actual downward transfer of thermal energy from the upper cooler regions in planetary tropospheres, especially those like Venus and Uranus where hardly any solar radiation, if any, reaches the base of their tropospheres. If this did not happen, then Antarctica would cool much more in the months of darkness than the mere three degrees from -56°C to -59°C now wouldn’t it? Why does it only cool three degrees in four months?
Because your conjecture, Stephen, does not explain the necessary heat transfers from cooler to warmer regions, and because there are no winds of significance on some planets, and because any such winds don’t assist the formation of the temperature gradient anyway, your conjecture is false, Stephen.
Now, for the last time, study Kinetic Theory and the comment I have just written about the application of such physics.
Just to be clear, Stephen, a heat transfer means that some thermal (kinetic) energy that has been added in one location is then dissipated at that location (making that location cooler) and some or all of the original added thermal energy appears in another location where it raises the temperature there. That does not happen with radiation from a cooler source to a warmer target, but I have proven how and why it does happen by way of non-radiative processes.
So the adiabatic process that merely forms (and maintains) a temperature gradient will not provide an indefinite heat flow unless such a flow happens autonomously when new thermal energy is added somewhere within the (assumed) isolated system. This had nothing to do with wind: just the absorption of new thermal energy that originated from the Sun of course.
Jumbled incoherent nonsense.
I tried to help you.
And now, Norman, you can read an example proving my point in this comment to which I have also referred Stephen.
I don’t know how many times I need to tell you both that expanding air does not necessarily cool just because it expands, and nor does contracting air necessarily get warmer. The above linked example illustrates this.
Once again, all you get in this regard from real physics is the Ideal Gas Law which tells us …
PRESSURE is PROPORTIONAL to the PRODUCT of TEMPERATURE and DENSITY. Physics tells you nothing more in this regard.
It’s easy to understand using Kinetic Theory, because pressure is just caused by molecules striking and bouncing off a wall. Hence it depends on their mean kinetic energy (which is temperature) and the number of them in each unit of space, that being the density.
You will get all your answers right, and understand what is happening, if you think at the molecular level using Kinetic Theory.
All your talk about expanding parcels of air just boils down to molecules colliding with others. If the molecules have risen they will have lost some kinetic energy and, as is likely, if they now have (on average) the same KE as the molecules they are about to collide with at a higher level then there will be (on average) a sharing of equal KE leaving them both still with equal KE. So temperature does not change as a result of molecules “pushing” others outwards, because they can’t do that on average if they only have the same energy as the ones they are about to strike.
The rising molecules lost their kinetic energy for one reason only, namely that they rose against the force of gravity and gained equivalent gravitational potential energy, and so a temperature gradient evolves by this process and is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
“The rising molecules lost their kinetic energy for one reason only, namely that they rose against the force of gravity and gained equivalent gravitational potential energy, and so a temperature gradient evolves by this process and is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium”
Absolutely right.
At any one moment 50% of the atmosphere really does have a rising component to its movement and 50% has a falling component to its movement.
Most KE is at the surface and most PE at the top.
No need for heat creep or diffusion. Just adiabatic warming on descent causing PE to become KE and adiabatic cooling on ascent causing KE to become PE.
Congratulations, you are describing standard meteorological principles.
I bet Joel will support AGW theory even when the temperature trend turns down.
I have never met any one so oblivious to the data, which has shown AGW theory to be wrong on every single prediction.
I am going to send over the greenhouse gas score card to show how wrong this theory is.
“I bet Joel will support AGW theory even when the temperature trend turns down”
This will be the real test…the moment of truth.
When the satellite data shows cooling, then how will they respond?
I am fairly certain that the people who control the surface station data will never allow it to show cooling, no matter what. We will see ever more manipulation and tomfoolery instead.
With any luck, these people will all be discredited slink off before they ever admit anything, anyway.
— Menicholas says:
April 19, 2015 at 3:43 PM
“I bet Joel will support AGW theory even when the temperature trend turns down”
This will be the real test…the moment of truth.
When the satellite data shows cooling, then how will they respond?
I am fairly certain that the people who control the surface station data will never allow it to show cooling, no matter what. We will see ever more manipulation and tomfoolery instead.
With any luck, these people will all be discredited slink off before they ever admit anything, anyway.–
Global temperature is not going to change quickly- whether warmer or cooler. It could get momentarily cooler from say volcanic eruption- and this is most likely excuse- blame it on the volcano. Otherwise the 18 year pause will more or less continue for at least a decade. We will have the same kind of up and down that we have for last 18 years.
The pause should have disproven the AGW case, but the problem has always been the lack of science, and the lack of science will continue.
And don’t have much faith in predicting the sun, 10 year into the future. Rather it seems like better than 50% that
we could see lower solar activity in the future- but not something I hope for.
It’s a weird sort of “pause” that results in essentially the same trend for 1975-present as for 1975-1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend (In this case, the trend is actually a little larger for 1975-present as for 1975-1997, although that detail is sensitive to exactly when you cut things off around 1997.)
There is no evidence that we have fallen off the basic trendline that we have been on. People are reading way to much into a set that consists of a trend with a large amount of natural variability on top of it.
— Joel Shore says:
April 19, 2015 at 7:06 PM
It’s a weird sort of “pause” that results in essentially the same trend for 1975-present as for 1975-1997: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend (In this case, the trend is actually a little larger for 1975-present as for 1975-1997, although that detail is sensitive to exactly when you cut things off around 1997.)–
Well if start it from 1910:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend
You see a trend similar from 1910 to about 1940, then a pause
or slight decline to 1970 [marking period of Ice Age media scare] and then the trend you find interest.
And considering that ocean are rising which largely reflect increasing ocean temperature for well over a century, I expect this this long term trend to continue as we leaving a period of the Little Ice Age, where sea levels lowered and worldwide glaciers were advancing. And 1850 is the time period where worldwide glaciers ceased to advance and began to retreat and seem to be continuing to retreat. Though large amount of glacial mass added during the Little Ice Age has melt, many people have predicted most of the added glacial will have will melted in a few decades.
generally as long as sea level rising and we not adding glacier [like almost did in 70’s] I expect the long term
trend to continue.
Currently I see no indication that a long trend warming or cooler has begun, and I suspect it might be noticed say 5 years after actually begun, and once it’s noticeable, decades before any significant happens- like glacier starting to advance or sea level lower, Co2 levels lower, or whatever. Though there no reason to suppose a significant increase in warming. Or it’s possible the pause is near ending and we could get a upward rise similar to what we have had in the past- but not like and not significant in terms of warming- I would say it’s significant for AGW believers, it will make them less miserable, but in terms of consequences, and anything to do actually validation of their theory. Or that theory is already disproved, so it would only help in terms merely add to the delusion or propaganda efforts.
Or for the world such warming it would good news, more food production, and cheaper food prices. And having lower food prices is very important for at least 3 billion people. Though mot very important to wealthy Americans or the rich in general.
As far cooling, I don’t that can determine for about 5 years, and expect it’s about as much as ’70’s and the warming should resume. Or by end of 21 century I expect .5 to 1 C in warming, and a clear indication that we probably are not going to return to a cooler period. Or if we have a couple decades of lower solar activity, which I doubt will cause much cooling, that will “prove” that on can expect a long period of warming which could last centuries.
And maybe in century or so, we will have some understanding of what causes cool periods like the Little Ice Age.
So for example some kind of long term oceanic cycle, is volcanic or certain type of volcanic activity, or is it solar related, or some other factor, or all the above.
–There is no evidence that we have fallen off the basic trendline that we have been on. People are reading way to much into a set that consists of a trend with a large amount of natural variability on top of it.–
As said I agree the trend should continue, I differing in I think “natural variability” is more significant than apparently you do. And “natural variability” may not be
earth related- or planet Earth is part of this solar system and galaxy.
Yes, well Joel, take a look at this nice linear trend since the year 1796. I’m having trouble spotting any hockey stick: just long-term warming on the upward side of the natural cycle that has periodicity of about 1,000 years, probably regulated as explained here.
And, just to anticipate the inevitable claims that I am cherrypicking the data set, here are the same results for GISS, BEST, UAH, and RSS:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1975/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/plot/best/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/best/from:1975/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1970/plot/uah/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1975/trend
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1970/plot/rss/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:1975/trend
I admit that 1997 is a bit of a cherrypick, but it YOUR cherrypick, i.e., it is the date you guys pick with your “18 year pause” claim.
No I’m sure you’re not cherry-picking, Joel, just not looking at a long enough period of hundreds of years wherein the natural ~1,000 year and (superimposed) 60 year cycles become apparent. See this comment just above.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Here it is all of the blunders AGW theory has made. More have come since.
Just to take the first point on the right-wingers scorecard on AGW theory: They claim the models predict “1.1 to 3.3 C warming if all greenhouse gases are included (IPCC 2001)”
This claim ignores the distinction between equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response. It also includes all of the warming effects but leaves out all of the cooling effects (e.g., aerosols).
This is why this sort of ideological crap has zero credibility with scientists and why ideologues like yourself prefer it to actual science.
Joel you are in denial. The feedbacks and therefore the atmospheric processes your absurd theory has called for all are no where to be found. If a theory can not forecast atmospheric processes correctly it can not forecast the climate.
That is the data from the score card. Deal with it.
The main cooling effect comes from the most prolific greenhouse gas water vapor. There’s still that $5,000 reward on offer to the first in the world to prove the physics and the study to be substantially wrong. So far (in two years) no one has even written a blog comment that has proved the physics wrong, let alone produced a study showing water vapor warms to the extent of at least 15 degrees for each 1%.
What do you say is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor Joel Shore?
Joel, that is the data that you and you so called experts ignore.
Salvatore,
You can find the same games you play here played by those who don’t believe in evolution. That is why we have scientists evaluate the data rather than right-wing websites and think-tanks, who lie, cherry-pick, and misinterpret the data. As much as you may want those of your political persuasion to be the arbiters of science, they are not…and for good reason. It was Abraham Lincoln who established the National Academy of Sciences to give the government scientific advice because he had enough foresight to recognize that science should not be a political football in the hands of ideologues like yourself.
You’ll continue to believe that AGW is disproven. And, the respected scientific authorities (IPCC, National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all the G8+5 countries, the AAAS, AGU, APS, AMS, …) who are way more qualified than you and your ideological breathren will continue to reach very different conclusions.
Salvatore is completely apolitical as far as I can tell.
You, on the other hand …..
Thanks Stephen. Joel is not in the world of reality. Denial on all fronts.
Sure…Just like I would be completely apolitical if I told you that power lines cause cancer by citing all sorts of left-wing sites that claimed to provide such evidence and ignored the actual studies in the peer-reviewed literature, the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth?
People who get their “science” from ideological screeds rather than actual scientific publications are rarely apolitical.
Just because someone think they get cancer from power lines
doesn’t make them a Lefty. Probably Lefties are involved with the scam or just criminals in general. And general it seems criminals only sprout lefty victimhood because it’s in interest for people to have sympathy for them. In fact I tend classify victimhood as more a general disease which seems unfortunately becoming more “mainstream”.
I am very bored with this stupidity.
Oh, btw, as for victimhood:
“The psychology of victims and the dynamics of victimhood have been largely ignored by scholars and clinicians. While in past years the tendency has been to blame victims, more recently the tide has turned. It is now politically incorrect to explore the role of victims in violent systems, as exploring the psychology of victims has become synonymous with blaming the victim. While shying away from blame, this article will explore the familial and cultural origins of victimhood, victims’ characteristics, their relationships with the perpetrators, and offer a victim typology. As we move from blame to a more complex understanding of violent systems, the perpetuation of these systems in our culture, and the role victims play in these systems, we provide ourselves with better tools to predict and prevent further victimization. ”
http://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html
At first glance this doesn’t seem rightwing or leftwing
but no doubt, it’s political in nature. [I know nothing about it- just first item in google search.]
No Joel:
It’s not “just like” the power lines. Medical issues like that have no “laws” like the laws of physics to set the ground rules. The AGW conjecture, which starts out by assuming that the troposphere would be isothermal without GH gases is, in that assumption, totally ignoring the conditions for maximum entropy which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will be approached as unbalanced energy potentials dissipate. You only get unbalanced energy potentials when mean molecular (PE+KE) is homogeneous, and thus the state of thermodynamic equilibrium exhibits a temperature gradient. This fact does away with any requirement for any alternative “explanation” (like back radiation supposedly helping the Sun) which, as a consequence, must be invalid.
For details see http://climate-change-theory.com
What you call respected scientific authorities to me are climatic morons. They have no concept about what makes the climate operate and that evidence is brought out fully in their acceptance of their stupid moronic AGW theory.
Is that clear enough?
Yes, it is very clear. And, I am willing to guarantee you that as long as you maintain that attitude, you should have a great time talking to yourselves (i.e., your ideological fellow-travelers)…because you are not going to contribute signficantly to the real scientific discussions that are being listened to by scientists and policymakers (other than the rabidly-ideological policymakers who are in your camp).
So have a go at refuting the new 21st Century Paradigm in Climate Science, Joel. I throw down the gauntlet to you. Take me on! There are links in other comments.
Joel you have to understand there are two points of view and thus far the data is not supporting the point of view you subscribe to.
It’s not a matter of believing someone else. I have proven that AGW is false, Joel, and no one has correctly refuted my proof.
See http://climate-change-theory.com and the linked paper.
Doug,
It has been completely refuted by both myself and others. However, unfortunately, it will never be refuted in your own mind because the same personality traits that caused you to come up with this nutty “theory” in the first place also prevent you from seeing the obvious huge holes in it.
To all who think greenhouse gases (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) have a warming effect:
I will only from this point on discuss your response to this comment. You may consider it off topic on that thread, but this thread is all over the place now and it’s easy to miss replies to earlier comments.
Massimo PORZIO
I am not sure if you will check up on this thread anymore. If you do I was continuing to research your question about the ability of satellites to properly account for all outgoing longwave radiation from Earth TOA. I believe this one will have the FOV that you have asked for.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20NISTAR%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf
I think it would be a difficult argument to state GHE does not exist if the radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface does not equal what is at the TOA. This argument is the most convincing of some form of GHE.
All other hypothesis suggested and pushed on this long thread would not be able to explain this observation. The IR emitted from Earth’s surface is real energy that is leaving the planet surface. If it does not leave at the TOA with the same flux as at the surface it would logically mean that this energy has been redirected to another location. If the surface is indeed warmer than what it would be in a vacuum (no atmosphere) for the radiation received, that why would not it follow that the portion of radiation not making it out of the TOA is actually being returned to the surface?
Norman, you say:
“I think it would be a difficult argument to state GHE does not exist if the radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface does not equal what is at the TOA. This argument is the most convincing of some form of GHE.
All other hypothesis suggested and pushed on this long thread would not be able to explain this observation. The IR emitted from Earth’s surface is real energy that is leaving the planet surface.”
That’s the thing, Norman. It is NOT an observation. The ~390 W/m2 UWLWIR value given in the Earth energy budget diagrams is purely a mathematical construct. It is not a real flux of energy. And definitely not one comparable to the ToA 240 W/m2 radiative HEAT flux. This is where the great (intended) confusion originates …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188924
Yes Norman, radiative flux (of electro-magnetic energy) is not equivalent to the actual transfer of thermal energy. You could have learnt that from my 2012 paper.
And my hypothesis does enable explanation of all actual transfers of thermal energy.
By the way, study this original NASA net energy budget and tell me why they withdrew it because of an obvious problem. What is that obvious problem Norman? (This will test if you’ve read both my papers, or if you actually think about real physics.)
Kristian 11:10pm: The 390 is a real photonic energy flux not just purely a math construct as astronauts can see Earth surface emission from orbit very well. You can even see the surface & clouds standing on the ground! Your eyes absorb radiation even that emitted from a cooler source – e.g. a cloud – as we can see (detect) cooler objects than our eyes.
Surface instruments precisely measure the daytime photonic intensity your eyes detect (& more) with weather & time variations around ~390. Norman’s link writes can even do this from space: “Nevertheless, we can accurately measure radiances over a critical angle range important for understanding Earth’s total radiant flux….uneven distribution of land, ocean and ice…radiant energy emitted and reflected by Earth…NISTAR measures the absolute irradiance integrated over the entire sunlit face of Earth in four broadband channels …1% absolute accuracy.” Beginning in June from L1.
http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/
Yes 390W/m^2 is indeed a flux of electro-magnetic energy, most of which is “recycling” electro-magnetic energy that was just received in radiation from the atmosphere. Now go to my comment to Roy just below (7:12am) about the actual flow of thermal energy being only half the non-radiative flow and there being no overall slowing of surface cooling.
Doug 7:42am: Your 7:12am linked NASA diagram was developed for grades 6-8 some 13 years ago or so. Click on the wiki chart find:
http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/lesson-plans/global-energy-budget
There are more precise earth energy budgets in more recent higher level papers with much discussion beyond your grade 6-8 pre-req.s by numerous authors. Your comments on basic science of earth energy budgets et. al. were thoroughly discredited by numerous more correct commenters in this earlier thread for which you had no convincing defense:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2015-0-30-deg-c/
Until you have corrected your website and papers in the basic science, there is little reason to further discuss the higher level top post earth and atm. science with you.
Hi Norman,
yes, I still reading here, even if this weekend I was absent because I returned to the lake with some friend, the weather was not that nice like last weekend this time, but we got a very good lunch based on food coming from the lake fishery, so we enjoyed (I ate a little too much indeed, even if I’m noway fat, I should put me on a diet for few days).
Thank you very much for the link. It seems that someone finally gets (partially) the point and at least sent a radiometer to try to read the real in/out fluxes at TOA.
I see that they launched it this year on February 11.
IMHO there is just one issue with it, which is anyways one good step beyond in the direction of getting the true real in/out fluxes at TOA, the only problem I still see is that the measuring instrument looks only at the Earth’s noon, so it tell nothing about the real total outgoing radiation, but it could be effective in measuring the total incoming radiation.
Moreover, I would prefer it was a spectrometer instead, just to see how it looks the 666cm-1 bite there.
Have a great day, and thank you again.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO
Here is another link. They are comparing the data from satellites with different FOV. One has a FOV of 92 km diameter and the other one was 13.5 km FOV. They only found a difference in temperature of 0.02 K uncertainty between the two.
http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/sure/comments_2010/lwypap.pdf
The current data collection of outgoing longwave Infrared may be valid as is since a change in FOV had very little effect on the measurement.
Hope you find these of interest.
You, Norman, still have not answered correctly the question about why Antarctica does not cool by more than 3 degrees all through the darkness of its winter. Even Lindzen confirms that horizontal convective heat transfer (convection) supplies thermal energy to the Poles, just as I have been saying – heat creep goes in all directions. See this comment.
Nor have you responded to the trapezium question which I’ve explained quite adequately.
Hi Norman,
“They only found a difference in temperature of 0.02 K uncertainty between the two.”
Yes, but I have no wonder about it, because
the two FOV are not so broad, and the AIRS as a swath width
of only 1650 km due to the ± 49.5 degrees scanning angle.
The spectra along those angles should not be very different from nadir one.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/mission_and_instrument/instrument/specs
The AIRS flying on Aqua FOV angle is:
arctan(13.7km/2/705km)= ± 0.548 degrees
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=1970-025A-03
The IRIS flown on Nimbus 4 FOV max angle is:
arctan(95km/2/1100km)= ± 2.47 degrees
Have a great day.
Massimo
Roy
This NASA Energy Budget is reasonably correct regarding net transfers of thermal energy. It shows that radiative energy transfers from the surface to the atmosphere are 15%, but note that this is only half the non-radiative transfers of 7% thermals and 23% latent heat.
Your top post is only discussing what happens to that 15% and it omits saying that the 30% actually accelerates to compensate for (and thus nullify) the effect of greenhouse gases in slowing radiative cooling.
Here is what gets me very upset with Joel, and others like him. It is not because they are of the opinion that AGW theory is correct. What gets me upset is the fact that if data does not agree with this theory and or there is an alternative scientific viewpoint of the validity of this theory or what may cause the climate to change they say those conclusions that are derived in that manner, are either from second class scientific citizens or are politically motivated. Joel has tried to make it appear as though we are incompetent to question the so called SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITIES he subscribes to as if that is the only valid opinion out there. That is what gets me upset.
In addition any data( which is just about all the data) that does not conform to this theory is wrong.
Instead of questioning the theory, the data is not only questioned but plain old wrong. That is not how the scientific process is suppose to work. That is a backwards approach.
If the data had been different both in the historical climatic sense and presently which showed AGW theory might be valid I would be on board.
AGW theory on the face of it makes sense I do admit that, but when one gets into the details and the predictions this theory has made ,and then evaluates past historical climatic changes and present day climatic atmospheric processes as called for by this theory , the theory does not hold up.
It is that simple and this is why a greenhouse score card is possible showing all the short comings of this theory.
The two cornerstones of this theory which is an evolving zonal atmospheric circulation and an extensive lower tropospheric tropical hot spot are not present therefore this theory at the very least has to be seriously questioned.
Salvatore,
Well, it would seem less likely that your motivations were more ideological than scientific if you weren’t linking to lots of strongly ideological websites and blindly accepting their clearly severely flawed analyses while rejecting all of the mainstream science and scientists. There seems to be no source too dubious that you accept uncritically when it comes to evidence that supports what you seem to want to believe. How can you call yourself a “skeptic” when you seem to exercise a total lack curiosity about the data that you show?
The fact is that studies show that when science impinges on strongly-held ideological beliefs, then unless one is an expert in the field, one’s views of the science tend to line up with the ideological beliefs more than anything else. Even for experts in the field, it is hard for them to separate their ideological beliefs from the science, but at least the experts have fewer ways in which they can fool themselves…and the scientific process as a whole tends to weed out the less evidence-based ideas, even if individual scientists sometimes cling to certain opinions.
When or if the data starts supporting this theory ,that will be when I will admit the theory has merit.
So far I see nothing. From the lack of a global temperature rise, to the lower tropospheric hot spot not being present, to the zonal index (ACI)of the atmospheric circulation not becoming more zonal, to extensive Antarctic Sea Ice becoming the rule, to the temperature trends what little there has been being governed by ENSO (a natural process)not CO2 , to stratospheric temperature trends not going the way this theory has predicted in any strong manner, to OLR amounts in question, to a lack of increasing drought, to a lack of an increase in severe weather high temperature extremes, to name the more high visibility ones. All of which do not make a strong case for this theory.
Dr. Spencer , has shown me through data and observation that a greenhouse gas effect does exist. If my motivations were ideological why would I support his point of view?
“Dr. Spencer , has shown me through data and observation that a greenhouse gas effect does exist. If my motivations were ideological why would I support his point of view?”
Why do some creationists accept that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years old? The fact that when the evidence is so incredibly, ridulously overwhelming then you can accept something that goes against your ideology does not mean that you are being completely objective; it just means there is SOME limit on the extent to which your ideology interferes with your objectivity.
Earlier in this thread you said: “The increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 150 years being mostly due to natural emissions.” That’s only a little less silly than denying the greenhouse effect altogether.
Also, I think that an argument can be made that people denying the greenhouse effect do more harm than good to the AGW skeptic cause because they make skeptics seem like deniers of basic physics. I assume that this is at least part of the motivation as to why Dr. Spencer has tried to convince them of their mistakes and it is amazing to me that they still cling to their beliefs even in this case.
[By the way, I am not completely convinced that these naysayers hurt the skeptic cause. For one thing, they allow Dr. Spencer and you and others to claim to be occupying a middle ground and people often find that sort of argument appealing: “Well, he doesn’t believe in either of the extremes. So he must be objective.” Also, I tend to think of the skeptic sites on the web as kind of having a spectrum, which may allow people who are skeptical to choose where they want to be. So, if you don’t have any ability to work through the math and physics, you might be attracted by the sites like PSI or Postma that deny the greenhouse effect altogether. If you know just enough math and physics to realize that’s wrong but not much more than that, you may be attracted to Tallbloke’s site. If you are actually reasonably well-versed in math and physics but just don’t want to accept the weight of the evidence that disagrees with your ideological convictions, you may be attracted to this site or Anthony Watts’s site…And, so on. This way, you have products that appeal to a whole spectrum of customers!]
Joel Shore states:
“Why do some creationists accept that the Earth is much older than 10,000 years old? The fact that when the evidence is so incredibly, ridulously overwhelming then you can accept something that goes against your ideology does not mean that you are being completely objective; it just means there is SOME limit on the extent to which your ideology interferes with your objectivity.”
Fascinating, if so much evidence exists why haven’t you provided any! Btw, by evidence I mean OBSERVATIONS and EMPIRICAL DATA free of ASSUMPTIONS. All geo-chronometers I’m aware of contain many assumptions. Of course, if you do have facts and not simply HYPOTHESIS, THEORY AND OR RHETORIC we’d all love to examine them. Of course, waiting for you to provide such may prove as exciting as waiting for the South polar glacier to thaw. Which should happen any time now if you, Al Gore and other carbon paranoids prove correct!
Have a great day!
P.S. – What does “ridulously” mean? You probably meant to write ridiculously, as in it appears ridiculously obvious that Joel Shore hasn’t any clue as to the age of the planet unless he merely parrot’s some other academic’s claim. Of course, one might ask why one academic’s speculative fantasy might be worth more than another’s?
JohnKl: I’m not going to debate about Young Earth creationism on this thread. I will just say that if you are sympathetic to that, it explains a lot!
Joel here is a question you need to answer?
If AGW theory is so correct why is it there are so many skeptic web-sites out there and for so long?
The answer is because the theory is not working. No one is going to waste there time trying to disprove a theory if it has been proven or even giving indications of working. As of today if anything the data is going against what this theory is calling for.
If this theory should be proven or the data starts to support this theory, then you would find that the skeptic web-sites would no longer be present.
“If AGW theory is so correct why is it there are so many skeptic web-sites out there and for so long?”
You really need to ask this question in THIS thread? This thread shows us what ridiculous lengths people will go to to deny science that disagrees with strongly-held ideological beliefs. If so many people can believe things that fly in the face of basic physics, what hope is there of convincing people on issues that actually require them to weigh evidence, some of it that is even conflicting?!?!
Hint: If you can ask the same question where you substitute “AGW” with “evolution” and it still makes sense, the answer to the question becomes more obvious.
Joel, the math and physics will be of little use if the data does not verify, which is what is happening. Show me the data, until then you really have nothing but speculation.
You can use as much physics and math as you want but you need results to further your objective which is that AGW theory is correct. Good Luck ,you will need it.
Well stated Salvatore DelPrete!
Have a great day!
Hi Joel Shore,
You state to me:
“JohnKl: I’m not going to debate about Young Earth creationism on this thread. I will just say that if you are sympathetic to that, it explains a lot!”
Does the term cognitive dissonance have any meaning to you? You assume an infantile stance of not debating “creationism on this thread” when you brought the subject up to begin with!
Before ranting about science while avoiding the laws of nature you might try beginning with the basic laws of reason such as non-contradiction.
You tell Salvatore:
“Hint: If you can ask the same question where you substitute “AGW” with “evolution” and it still makes sense, the answer to the question becomes more obvious.”
Hmmh! Last I checked “Origin of the Species” and Darwin’s theory proved to be just that a THEORY, also known as CONJECTURE. Kind of like CAGW. In fact, a heavily modified one and often contradictory one including Darwinism, Goldschmidt’s hopeful monster theory, the Neo Darwinian Synthesis (Ernst & Mayer), Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould), the latest symbiotic rage from Margulis and so many others. Of course so much of this conflicts with the FACTS and LAWS of nature including Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis: All life comes from pre-existing life and replicates after it’s own kind.
Frankly, if you can’t handle the basic facts and observations of SCIENCE (i.e. the FACTS and LAWS of nature not SPECULATION) that explains even more!
Have a great day!
JohnKl,
I brought up evolution and creationism because I thought that was something that we can all agree on…and hence can put Salvatore’s hypothesis (that if the science is fine, there won’t be serious debate about it) to the test. Someone who does not accept the overwhelming scientific understanding of evolution (or even an Earth older than 10,000 years old, for heaven’s sake!) is so far lost to science, that frankly there is no hope in convincing you of anything.
You can carry on in your ignorance of modern science as far as I am concerned because there is nothing that we can do to rescue you from this self-imposed ignorance.
Hi Joel Shore,
Your last post proved that you sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance and have difficulty holding a coherent point of view. This time you state:
“I brought up evolution and creationism because I thought that was something that we can all agree on…and hence can put Salvatore’s hypothesis (that if the science is fine, there won’t be serious debate about it) to the test. ”
This point of view self refutes in that many scientists don’t accept Darwinism as historically defined including many evolutionists. In fact, I’ve already listed several. Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Michael Denton and many other modern scientists could be mentioned. Simply stating a vague bromide like “evolution” proves nothing. I accept evolution on a micro-scale and on a macro-scale but not by random chance. Btw, neither does Lynn Margulis who I mentioned earlier. Your arrogant presumption about others comes not from a desire for agreement, indeed one should seek clarity before agreement, but apparently simply to conflate a bigoted stereo-type of “creationists” with another bigoted stereo type of “climate denier” and thus to make obscure not clear. In fact, your entire presentation appears dishonest.
You go on to state:
“Someone who does not accept the overwhelming scientific understanding of evolution (or even an Earth older than 10,000 years old, for heaven’s sake!) is so far lost to science, that frankly there is no hope in convincing you of anything.”
Specifically, what overwhelming evidence for what event do you refer to? You’ve provided absolutely no evidence for anything thus far or even a precise claim of what you mean by evolution. The neo-Darwinian synthesis has many doubters now. I’m quite aware of evolutionary scientific claims. A mind is only so good as the precision of it’s concepts, and your mind appears sharp as a brick. As to the age of the Earth I claim to have no knowledge of a precise physically accurate geo-chronometer (i.e. a replicable process by which one can without assumptions determine the age of the planet). In the past I asked you for one and you appear to have failed in that task as well.
You go on:
“You can carry on in your ignorance of modern science as far as I am concerned because there is nothing that we can do to rescue you from this self-imposed ignorance.”
I’ve provided evidence for my claims. You provided nothing but ignorant stereotypes. Perhaps I should be concerned you’ll forever refuse to face facts seemingly unendingly convinced that bromides pass for knowledge.
Have a great day!
Joel there are three different arguments which you keep confusing, which do not relate to one another, at least not the way you think.
Argument number one is there or is there not a GHG effect?
Argument number two is the GHG effect a symptom or a governor of the climate?
Argument number three do the atmospheric processes called for by AGW theory and the data as a result of an increasing GHG effect DUE TO to CO2 concentration increases support the conclusions of this theory?
Argument number one – yes there is a GHG effect.
Argument number two- data up thru today and certainly past data suggest the GHG effect is a symptom of the climate and not the governor. If not the historical climatic record first of all would not show temperature leading CO2 and would show a very strong relationship between CO2 concentrations and the resultant climate.
Argument number three- as of today NOT one of the atmospheric processes as called for by AGW theory has seen the light of day.
Doug, I will say I don’t agree with you but I think it is great you are persistent in sticking to your beliefs.
PHYSICS which is your approach is not my strong point. That is for sure.
Maybe you will be correct. The same for Stephen and others.
Right now I am with Dr. Spencer has far the as GHG effect but against AGW theory 100%.
I don’t see why persistence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that one’s idea are not well-founded is such a virtue. No, there is no chance at all that Doug or Steven is correct. Their ideas are based on misunderstandings of basic and extremely well-verified physical laws.
And, in fact, this is distinct from the kind of things you are arguing for, i.e., AGW not being a big deal, e.g., the climate sensitivity being low. This claim seems to privilege certain dubious evidence while ignoring much more substantial evidence going the other way, but one cannot say for absolute certainty that the climate sensitivity cannot be low…And there are legitimate scientific disagreements about how strongly to weight various pieces of evidence (although I have to say that I can see no scientific justification whatsoever for your extreme weighting of the evidence).
That is not in fact true of Doug and Stephen’s non-sensical claims; Unless you deny basic laws of physics, Stephen and Doug’s claims cannot possibly be correct, and indeed, those with significant training in physics who have discussed this here and elsewhere on the web seem to be unanimous in this view, even while disagreeing significantly on what the weight of the evidence says about the seriousness of AGW in general.
And there are legitimate scientific disagreements about how strongly to weight various pieces of evidence (although I have to say that I can see no scientific justification whatsoever for your extreme weighting of the evidence.
Joel, did you look at the data that I just sent over from the patriot post ,did you look at the greenhouse score card, have you looked at the historical climatic record and the relationship of CO2 to temperatures and the climatic swings in the past that are much greater then today?
If you did then you should understand why this theory is not correct. I did not say the greenhouse gas theory is not correct. I said AGW theory which relies upon the greenhouse gas effect is not correct. Why ,because the data keeps showing it to be incorrect from many sources. I am not making this up.
I further have said I agree with Dr. Spencer’s take on how the greenhouse gas effect operates.
as far -correction
It seems CO2 does very little to moderate temperature.
The greenhouse effect is the effect of the atmosphere in reducing the longwave cooling to space rising the surface temperature from 255 K to 288 K (15 C).
To increase the surface temperature from 255 k to 288 k would require 152.7 W/m2
P=(5.76×10^-8)(288^4)) – (P=(5.76×10^-8)(255^4) = 152.7 W/m2.
It would take 5.53 W/m2 to raise the Earth’s surface temperature from 288 K to 289 K.
(P=(5.76×10^-8)(289^4) 5.36 W/m2) – (P=(5.76×10^-8)(288^4)) = 5.53W/m2
Radiative forcing from CO2 is 1.884 W/m2 and only 40% of that is anthropogenic.
Radiative forcing from CH4 is 0.509 W/m2.
Radiative forcing from CH4 is 0.167 W/m2.
Total Radiative forcing from all non-condensing GHGs 2.916 W/m2 barely enough energy to raise the temperature 0.5 C
“It would take 5.53 W/m2 to raise the Earth’s surface temperature from 288 K to 289 K.
(P=(5.76×10^-8)(289^4) 5.36 W/m2) – (P=(5.76×10^-8)(288^4)) = 5.53W/m2 ”
This is not the correct calculation to do. Radiative forcing is calculated with respect to the top-of-the-atmosphere energy budget, not the surface energy budget, so the correct temperature is that associated with the intensity of radiation leaving the atmosphere (240 W/m^2), i.e., 255 K.
“Radiative forcing from CO2 is 1.884 W/m2 and only 40% of that is anthropogenic.”
You got this number from where? My guess is that the number you are using is in fact the radiative forcing due to the increase in CO2 levels from pre-industrial times (~280 ppm) to present (~400 ppm).
“Total Radiative forcing from all non-condensing GHGs 2.916 W/m2 barely enough energy to raise the temperature 0.5 C”
In addition to the errors above, you have done the calculation in the absence of feedbacks. If there are feedbacks, e.g., if the warming causes some land ice to melt and hence reduces the albedo a bit, or warming causes more water vapor to evaporate and thus increases the radiative forcing due to water vapor, then the result you get would be increased. The warming can also cause changes in cloudiness (condensed water vapor) that effect both albedo and the greenhouse effect; this is where the greatest uncertainty lies, but the best estimates are that the feedback due to clouds is somewhere between about neutral and positive (i.e., further magnifying the warming).
I’m calculating how much energy a 1 sq meter object radiates at a given temperature. My numbers are only off by a few W/m2 from NASA’s ERBE.
If radiative forcing from CO2 isn’t 1.884 W/m2 then what is it?
Feedbacks?
Increased precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation, latent heat flux equivalent to – 76.2 W/m2 (42 times stronger than CO2 forcing).
Cloud feedback is negative 18 w/m2 (ten times stronger than CO2 forcing)
Clouds reduce the absorbed solar radiation by 48 W m−2(Cs = −48Wm−2) while enhancing the greenhouse effect by 30Wm−2 (Cl = 30Wm−2), and therefore clouds cool the global surface–atmosphere system by 18Wm−2(C = −18Wm−2) on average.
NASA Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Yes, the issue boils down to what the net radiative effect of clouds will be on incremental warming. The net radiative effect of clouds is cool by nearly 20 W/m^2 on global average, which is a huge amount given clouds are much more opaque to upwelling IR from the surface and lower atmosphere than the clear sky is (i.e. GHGs themselves).
This plot here shows why the net radiative effect of clouds will not be to warm on incremental warming:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ca.png
Note the inflection point around 0C, which roughly corresponds to where the surface is or is not snow and/or ice covered. Above about 0C, clouds are more reflective than the surface and the average net effect of clouds is to cool, i.e. more solar energy is reflected than is delayed beneath the clouds, where as below about 0C, the reflectivity of the surface is about the same as the reflectivity of the clouds and the average net effect of clouds is to warm, i.e. more solar energy is delayed beneath than is reflected away in total.
The vast majority of solar energy arrives on the area of the Earth that is not snow and/or ice covered; thus the net radiative effect of clouds is very strong cooling or about 20 W/m^2 net cooling on global average. In a warmer world, if anything, there would be a little less snow and ice covered surface. The exact opposite of what would be needed for the net effect of clouds acting to further warm instead of remaining to cool (i.e. resisting warming) on incremental global warming.
RW: There are various problems with your interpretation and conclusions.
First, you are assuming that the causal relationship is how clouds affect the surface temperature but there can be a causal relationship both ways, i.e., how surface temperature affects the cloudiness.
Second, you are assuming that warming leads to more cloudiness. However, this is not obvious since water vapor is expected to increase but so does temperature and hence the amount of water vapor for saturation; in fact, in the global average, relative humidity is expected to stay roughly constant or maybe even drop slightly. And, if we interpret the plot you show to be causal in the direction of temperature affects clouds, then it seems to imply higher temperature means less cloudiness.
Third, the reality is more complex. Clouds cannot be characterized by one value. The question becomes what happens to amount of high clouds, what happens to the amount of low clouds, and in fact how does the structure (e.g., opacity) of the clouds change.
Joel,
I’m not inferring cause and effect in either direction. But that the plot simply establishes that above about 0C, the more cloud covered surface there is — the cooler it tends to be on monthly average, and below about 0C, the more cloud covered surface there is — the warmer it tends to be on monthly average (at least where water vapor is not saturated around 300K); and that this is independent of why average cloud coverage is what it is in a particular location. That is, the data in the plot does not establish a physical reason why average cloud coverage is what it is in a particular grid area, latitude or hemisphere. In both hemispheres, the average cloud coverage is highest in the higher latitudes. The reason why the plot is so significant is that the data points are composed of the total cloud amounts independent of the combination of cloud types that make up the amounts.
*For the satellite data plot, each small orange dot represents a monthly average for one grid area in a 2.5 degree slice of latitude. The green and blue dots are the 25 year averages for each 2.5 degree slice of latitude (1983-2008). From right to left, it goes from the tropics to the poles. That data is from the ISCCP.
Joel,
” The question becomes what happens to amount of high clouds, what happens to the amount of low clouds, and in fact how does the structure (e.g., opacity) of the clouds change.”
We don’t need to know any of this, as it’s just chaos and noise. All that matters for climate change is how the average response of clouds and water vapor will change. The above plot this plot provide the average net dynamics of clouds and water vapor (albeit separated by hemisphere), and which is what is applicable for how the average dynamics would change in response to climate change.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_wc.png
At approximately the same point that the clouds start to increase again (above 0C) in the prior above plot is also where increased water concentration in the above plot no longer results in a further rise in temperature. The fundamental physical mechanism(s) behind this is beyond a certain temperature there is so much water being evaporated, removing so much heat from the surface (as the latent heat of evaporation), providing so much ‘fuel’ (i.e. water) for cloud formation, that the combination of cloud caused (from solar reflection) and evaporative caused cooling overwhelms any increase in atmospheric IR opacity from increased water vapor.
Thus, the net negative feedback of clouds and water vapor is strongest in the tropics and gets progressively weaker as you head out of the tropics toward the poles (and even becomes net positive once the surface becomes snow and/or ice covered). However, such areas are receiving so little Sun, it’s of little consequence that the net radiative effect of clouds is to warm in these areas. The dominant feedback effect on the planet is the tropics and sub-tropics where the overwhelming majority of solar energy arrives.
Joel,
These plots here are what establish causation for temperature changes to cloud changes (again 25 year averages from the same data set):
http://www.palisad.com/co2/plots/wbg/nh/gain.png
http://www.palisad.com/co2/plots/wbg/sh/gain.png
Note how as the incoming solar energy increases, the cloud coverage increases, and as the incoming solar energy decreases, the cloud coverage decreases. Note how in both hemispheres the average surface temperature stays well above 0C. This suggests the fundamental mechanism that maintains the energy balance appears to be that, on global average, increasing cloud coverage causing cooling (more solar energy is reflected than is delayed) and decreasing cloud coverage causes warming (more solar energy is absorbed than exits to space). Or that in the aggregate, when clouds are increasing, the surface is too warm and trying to cool, and when clouds are decreasing, the surface is too cool and trying to warm. That is, these counter balancing mechanisms dynamically maintain the energy balance.
The author is using dimensionless gain to quantify sensitivity to changing radiative forcing. In standard systems analysis, the gain being out of phase with the input energy source (in this case post albedo solar power) is the signature of a system that is controlled by net negative feedback. That is, the gain decreasing as the input power source increases (and vice versa).
Joel,
“Second, you are assuming that warming leads to more cloudiness.”
Yes, because the data clearly shows this. Not to mention that evaporated water is the ultimate source of water that makes clouds. The key issue is will the incremental reflection of solar energy by the increased clouds be greater than the incremental IR opacity of the increased clouds. That data clearly shows incremental reflection is the dominant effect on the planet; moreover, if anything in a warming world there would be a little less snow and ice covered surface, so if anything the net cooling effect of clouds on global average will increase in a warmer world.
BTW, the physics behind all this are ultimately very simple in the aggregate long term, which is all that matters for climate change.
Clouds are generally more opaque to upwelling IR from the surface and lower atmosphere than the clear sky is. Ice and snow are roughly as reflective to solar energy as the clouds are; thus the net effect of clouds is warm in these areas because about the same amount of solar energy is reflected whether there are clouds or no clouds. When the surface is snow and ice free, the clouds are by and large more reflective than the surface; thus the net effect of clouds is the cool when the surface is snow and ice free, which is most of the planet and where most of the energy from the Sun arrives.
I know you don’t want to accept this, but the data doesn’t lie, nor does the physics.
RW: I still disagree with you on the cloud forcing, but let’s leave that aside to consider your claim:
“The author is using dimensionless gain to quantify sensitivity to changing radiative forcing. In standard systems analysis, the gain being out of phase with the input energy source (in this case post albedo solar power) is the signature of a system that is controlled by net negative feedback. That is, the gain decreasing as the input power source increases (and vice versa).”
Just to be perfectly clear, are you making the claim that this plot demonstrates the net feedbacks are negative in the sense that you are claiming that this reflects on the debate in climate science about whether the feedbacks amplify or reduce the temperature response calculated in the what is sometimes called the “no feedback case” of ~1.2 K per CO2 doubling. I.e., are you trying to claim that this data shows the feedbacks are net negative in that sense…Or not?
Yes. As I said before, the fundamental question regarding the net feedback is whether or not incremental reflection from clouds will exceed incremental IR opacity from clouds. That data clearly shows that incremental reflection being greater is the dominant effect for planet. Moreover, where IR opacity of clouds exceeds incremental reflection, i.e. over snow and ice covered surface, is in areas receiving way less incident solar energy and have only very small effect on the whole. Moreover still, if anything, in a warming world there would be a little less snow and ice covered surface — the exact opposite of what’s needed for clouds acting to further warm on incremental warming.
That is, unless you believe that clouds will somehow decrease with warming, but that’s spectacularly physically illogical since evaporation — the fuel for cloud cover — increases with warming. Moreover, the data clearly indicates that increased temperatures result in increased cloud coverage as expected.
The analysis of the data I presented shows that the net negative feedback of clouds and water vapor is strongest in the tropics and then gets progressively weaker as you head out of the tropics toward the poles (and even becomes net positive once the surface becomes snow and/or ice covered). This validates the results of Lindzen and Choi, as well as their justification in extrapolating from the tropics to the poles, where they get a fairly strong net negative feedback in the tropics which is then weakened when ‘shared’ with the whole globe. Lindzen even acknowledges there may be other non-negative feedbacks operating outside the tropics, but that the tropics are the dominant feedback effect on the planet since that is where most of the solar energy arrives.
You can read more in these links here:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens/index.html
Note the author specializes in analyzing feedback in complex systems.
Sorry for the typos and grammatical mistakes, as there is no way to correct them here.
Also, note the author is following the protocol established and used in standard system analysis. I’ve noticed that no one from the atmospheric sciences has any ability to understand that kind of analysis. The employed techniques are those one would use to reverse engineer an unknown but measurable system.
In standard systems analysis, sensitivity to some forcing or stimuli is quantified as dimensionless power densities ratios of output power to input power. In the case of the climate system, the output power is the radiant power emitted from the surface and the input power is the post albedo solar power entering the system.
Note the referenced 1.1K of so-called ‘no-feedback’ is based on the 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface at the TOA, where 3.7*(385/239)= 6.0 and +6.0 W/m^2 from a baseline of 287K equals about +1.1K.
Or the global average 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface and the TOA (i.e. 385/239 = 1.61) is the so-called ‘zero-feedback’ gain, where +1K = +5.3 W/m^2 of net gain from a baseline of 287K and 5.3/1.6 = 3.3; and 3.3 W/m^2 is the ‘zero-feedback’ flux change at the TOA for +1K.
When the net feedback is negative in response to a forcing, the incremental gain is less than the absolute gain of about 1.6, and when the net feedback is positive, the incremental gain is greater than the absolute gain of about 1.6.
RW: See my comments here (e.g., http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189586 ). You are basically just flying by the seat of your pants, making all sorts of unproven assumptions that would be proven wrong if you actually tried to test your diagnostic techniques, e.g., on a climate model.
This is sort of anti-skepticism, believing any argument that tells you what you want to believe, no matter how tenuous, and not making any attempt whatsoever to verify whether it diagnoses what you think it diagnoses.
Joel,
The methods used to derive what I have laid out are the same methods used in the private sector where accuracy and precision are paramount importance. They have been established long before climate science was invented. Moreover, the methods are specifically designed to eliminate any and all heuristics as to what may or may not be happening, which is largely what the climate models are based upon for water vapor and clouds (where it is openly acknowledged there is great uncertainty as to their combined effect).
The aggregate long term data, which is all that matter for climate change, clearly shows that the net feedback acting on the system as a whole is net negative currently and — if anything — will get more net negative as the climate warms.
Read the links I provided. If you can’t understand the analysis, then inquire with the author, as I’m sure he’d be more than willing to systematically provide you with anything you want to see regarding his work.
— JDAM says:
April 20, 2015 at 9:38 AM
It seems CO2 does very little to moderate temperature.
The greenhouse effect is the effect of the atmosphere in reducing the longwave cooling to space rising the surface temperature from 255 K to 288 K (15 C).
To increase the surface temperature from 255 k to 288 k would require 152.7 W/m2
P=(5.76×10^-8)(288^4)) – (P=(5.76×10^-8)(255^4) = 152.7 W/m2.–
To raise the average temperature you don’t need to raise the average temperature.
Instead one can raise what otherwise would be the coldest temperature.
So if half the moon is say 100 K if the 100 K is warmed to 160 K, then that would increases the average by 30 K.
It requires 37 watts at 160 K and 5.67 watts at 100 K
requiring addition of 32 watts to raise moon’s average temperature by 30 K.
You’re not going to change the Earth’s average temperature by warming a small region.
You would have to raise the minimum temperature globally.
You’re not going to change the Earth’s average temperature by warming a small region.
You would have to raise the minimum temperature globally.
Earth has it is currently is not evenly warm nor evenly heated.
40% of Earth is the tropics, the tropics receives most of energy of the sun and has the highest average temperature.
So Earth’s greenhouse effect uniformly warms the entire, but despite this there differences in how warm is.
So tropics has average temperature of about 30 C, and entire country of Russia and Canada has average temperature of about 0 C. And US is about 12 C, and so on. And without the greenhouse effect as evenly heating the world, the tropics would still be about 30 C and Russia would be less than -10 C. Or take all regions at 45 latitude or more poleward in north and southern hemisphere, receive a lot heat from the tropics. Or if they were dependent only upon the direct heating of the sun there average temperature would much cooler. But their average temperature is not as significant as how cold they would get in night and winter.
Or these region do get a lot energy from the Sun during their summer- they are almost like the tropics in summer, but when they heated the most from the tropics in the winter.
So there is fairly large difference with the tropical heat added to these regions, but without tropical heat they would become extremely cold in the winter. And their fall and spring would much colder at night.
So what greenhouse effect is mostly is warming up the coldest regions of the world by very significant amount, the cost of the tropics warming the rest of the world is in terms of it’s average temperature not a large reduction or if walled off the tropics so heat can leave it, the increase in average temperature would be around 5 C cooler.
–or if walled off the tropics so heat can leave it, the increase in average temperature would be around 5 C cooler.–
I want to make this clearer. Tropics has never, nor will ever get a average average of say 40 C. The ocean would simply cool
too much from evaporation. Even if sunlight was twice as strong 2600 watts it may be warm the ocean much over 40 C in daylight and cool at night.
So earth in the past may have had average temperature of around 30 C, but the tropic would not have had average temperature of 40 C, ever.
And the coolest the tropics has ever been is 20 C. So in recent glacial period with average earth average temperature
of about 5 C, the tropics have would be about 25 C. And may been times when earth was say -10 to -20 C but if the were tropical oceans they would not be cooler than 20 C.
Now, people believe that Earth had snowball period in which entire planet was frozen including the tropics. I think that not correct. But others think a snowball earth is the entire planet frozen except the tropics- and I think that maybe possible, and that situation the tropics could be a cold as 15 C average temperature.
“If radiative forcing from CO2 isn’t 1.884 W/m2 then what is it?”
The IPCC lists the radiative forcing due to increased CO2 since 1750 to be 1.68 W/m^2 as of 2011. However, as I noted, this entire forcing is anthropogenic, i.e., we are responsible for all, or essentially all, of that change.
“Increased precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation, latent heat flux equivalent to – 76.2 W/m2 (42 times stronger than CO2 forcing).”
(1) That’s just the total transfer of energy between the surface and the upper atmosphere. It is not a forcing of feedback, which would be a change in the value.
(2) Even then, that would not be applicable because we are interested in top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) forcings. Exchanges between surface and atmosphere don’t change the balance between the TOA balance (i.e., the balance between Earth + atmosphere and the rest of the universe). [They may indirectly have an effect on the TOA balance by influencing the temperature structure of the atmosphere, but they do not directly affect it.]
“Cloud feedback is negative 18 w/m2 (ten times stronger than CO2 forcing).”
Nope…What you wrote down is the net radiative effect of clouds. That is not the same as the feedback. A feedback is the CHANGE in (TOA) radiative balance as a result of something else changing.
So, the question is, for example, for each one degree rise in temperature due to an increase in CO2, what happens to cloudiness and what is the radiative effect of this change? Will we get more or less high clouds (which tend to have a stronger greenhouse effect than albedo effect)? Will we get more or less low clouds (which tend to have a stronger albedo effect than greenhouse effect)? How will cloud structure and opacity change?
For AGW theory to be correct not only does the temperature trend have to be correct(up) but the atmospheric processes it has called for have to take place.
That is all that is needed. Obviously thus far it has not happened, now going on some 35 years which is why this theory is in doubt.
For my theory to be correct not only does the temperature trend have to be correct (down) but the low average value solar parameters I think drive the climate have to be approached or met, for a sufficient duration of time (six months or greater) following 10 years of sub- solar activity in general,(2005-2015)which has been met.
Thus what the future data shows in contrast to the two theories should prove which one is correct and which one is incorrect.
It is a wait and see situation for now because neither side is going to give in to the other side as this message board demonstrates.
As far as Stephen and Doug , I can’t reconcile day to day weather changes or account for many atmospheric observations and processes if a greenhouse gas effect did not exist.
That is however different then embracing AGW theory.
Time should tell.
I want to be correct but I would rather be wrong then not know.
–That is all that is needed. Obviously thus far it has not happened, now going on some 35 years which is why this theory is in doubt.–
That’s a kind thing to say.
–For my theory to be correct not only does the temperature trend have to be correct (down) but the low average value solar parameters I think drive the climate have to be approached or met, for a sufficient duration of time (six months or greater) following 10 years of sub- solar activity in general,(2005-2015)which has been met.–
Solar sunspot should go lower over next year, but take until 2020 to reach lowest levels. So when could theory be disproven?
Joel Shore:
Since TSI is virtually constant, meaningful changes in TOA radiative balance can occur only if the outgoing radiation changes. Such change in system output is not “feedback” in any rigorous sense of the term. On the contrary, from an energy conversation standpoint, the climate is a feed-through system. What you describe is more aptly termed an induced change in response characteristics. I.e., the system is adaptive instead of invariant.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138
The data, that is what it is like it or no Joel.
The data, that is what it is, like it or not Joel.
My keyboard is skipping thus the corrections.
Joel until you can present the data that shows AGW theory is correct all other efforts are just talk and in vain.
So far your side as yet to show any data which supports your theory. Nothing.
In response to all:
Please read my final comment Everything you need to know about convection but were afraid to ask.
Kristian,
Way up there somewhere in a post to me to stated: “That’s the thing, Norman. It is NOT an observation. The ~390 W/m2 UWLWIR value given in the Earth energy budget diagrams is purely a mathematical construct. It is not a real flux of energy. And definitely not one comparable to the ToA 240 W/m2 radiative HEAT flux. This is where the great (intended) confusion originates …”
Kristian,
Way up there somewhere in a post to me to stated: “That’s the thing, Norman. It is NOT an observation. The ~390 W/m2 UWLWIR value given in the Earth energy budget diagrams is purely a mathematical construct. It is not a real flux of energy. And definitely not one comparable to the ToA 240 W/m2 radiative HEAT flux. This is where the great (intended) confusion originates …”
Kristian,
I must have submitted the comment before I was complete. I did some digging on your point. With Earth’s atmosphere there are windows for IR that are not absorbed by CO2 or H2O and satellites can view the direct energy coming from the surface in those bands. From the energy of those bands they can use Plank’s curve to determine the area under the curve of the entire IR spectrum (A lot of the Earth’s surface acts close to a blackbody).
https://books.google.com/books?id=iGrHsr2U8p0C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=measured+Ir+emitted+from+Earth%27s+surface&source=bl&ots=NC5RFsPRz-&sig=qOgnYq7ZspZ274ilgz_5rR2V09g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2LQ1VZj8KI6yogSJ-IGIAw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=measured%20Ir%20emitted%20from%20Earth's%20surface&f=false
The book link explains this point about the windows to observe directly the surface emission.
Here is a link to some common emissivity of common materials. Water is close to 1 soil not so much.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
Anyway it does seem you can get empirical information about the IR emitted by the Earth’s surface vs the TOA IR emission.
Ah, but you see, Norman, they do not at all observe 390 W/m2 from the surface. They observe what comes out through the atmospheric window. That’s about 20-40 W/m2 (global average). What the satellites can deduce is a peak wavelength from this outgoing radiation, and it is this that corresponds to a mean sfc temp of 288K.
Earth’s total/final IR flux to space (the 240 W/m2 one) is a composite EMISSION flux accruing up through the atmospheric column, from sfc to ToA, with by far most of it (85-90%) being emitted by and from the atmosphere rather than the surface. ALL layers contribute some.
Kristian,
If you have a well developed formula which is based upon direct observation (like the Plank law and Steffan-Bolzmann) or gravity laws you can then use them to calculate accurately what is going on and be very close to a real amount. This is the purpose of finding equations with relationships among the variables.
Without having a direct measurement of the gravity of the large planets they were able to send space probes to these planets and get wonderful photos. Engineers use established physics to then design and build many items. With electronics they do not need to directly measure currents of every component they design (they can’t really since they have not even built the items yet, they are basing the design on established formulas that were developed by scientists doing experiments with the various variables to come up with relationships that become useful.
I hope I am making sense of the point.
Kristian,
I think you also made a point somewhere above that I was reading about the moon overall temperature. It receive nearly identical flux as Earth from the Sun (being nearly the same distance). You pointed out that actually more energy is absorbed by the moon than Earth because of a lower albedo. You then point out that the average surface temp of the moon is much lower than the Earth’s. Without an atmosphere the Earth would be much colder (established in your post). So the atmosphere is making the Earth warmer (on average) than the Moon (the moon becomes hotter than the Earth during day but much colder at night). Overall all the processes of the Earth (wind, convection, conduction) are not adding or subtracting any energy from the total Earth system. They only act to move the energy around working to minimize temperature imbalances but they do not add or remove energy from the system. The overall average temperature won’t be changed by any of these processes (including Doug’s hypothetical “heat creep”), only local and regional temperatures will be changed. The only thing that can change the overall average temperature is Radiation In – Radiation Out. More out the Earth system cools, more in than out the system warms. Your point about the moon does seem to strongly support the atmosphere is preventing radiation from leaving at the same rate as the moon’s radiation leaves its overall system.
“The whole Earth+atmosphere comes into radiative balance with the Sun at a temperature which is about 18 degrees below the freezing point of water. This is an average temperature and is typical of temperatures found about 4Km to 5Km above the surface.”
[<a href="http://climate-change-theory.com"]
Norman says, April 21, 2015 at 4:53 AM:
“Without an atmosphere the Earth would be much colder (established in your post). So the atmosphere is making the Earth warmer (on average) than the Moon (the moon becomes hotter than the Earth during day but much colder at night).”
Certainly. This is an observed fact.
“Overall all the processes of the Earth (wind, convection, conduction) are not adding or subtracting any energy from the total Earth system. They only act to move the energy around working to minimize temperature imbalances but they do not add or remove energy from the system. The overall average temperature won’t be changed by any of these processes (including Doug’s hypothetical “heat creep”), only local and regional temperatures will be changed. The only thing that can change the overall average temperature is Radiation In – Radiation Out. More out the Earth system cools, more in than out the system warms.”
On Earth, there is no way you can look at a radiative budget alone and determine surface temps. Not regionally. And not globally. Such a simplistic, one-variable approach will get you nowhere. Still, the builders of the modern climate paradigm have basically put all their eggs in this particular basket.
The rGHE hypothesis seeks to derive directly the temperature of the surface purely from an atmospheric radiative balance (the lapse rate down functioning only as its extended arm).
The total energy content (the ‘internal energy’) of a thermodynamic system – like the Earth system – is certainly determined by the balance between its total energy input and output, in the context of the Earth system, simply the balance struck between SW in and LW out through the ToA. Energy content being an extensive property.
However, the specific temperature (an intensive property) of different subsystems inside a vastly heterogeneous overall system like Earth can by no means be derived from this same balance (or – in the special case of the AGW hypothesis (really just an rGHE spin-off product) – imbalance). This is where the rGHE hypothesis goes wrong.
Internal temperatures would be set rather by differing subsystem ‘heat capacities’ and the intricate dynamics of the ‘internal movement’ of energy between its initial absorption by and final emission from the system as a whole. The internal movement of energy between subsystems, regions and altitude levels inside the total Earth system is governed almost exclusively by the process of convection/advection – mass transfer, oceanic and atmospheric circulation. The mass of the atmosphere limits (constrains) the effectiveness of these processes at particular temperatures. And thus ‘force’ steady-state temps.
Radiative balance at the ToA simply isn’t it. The effectiveness of internal transport of energy is. The ToA radiative balance is simply the ‘end result’ of the internal processes having finally organised themselves towards their steady state, considering solar input, differing subsystem heat capacities and atmospheric mass … AND IR opacity.
“Your point about the moon does seem to strongly support the atmosphere is preventing radiation from leaving at the same rate as the moon’s radiation leaves its overall system.”
No, my point about the Moon strongly supports the idea that an atmosphere thermally insulates a solar-heated planetary surface, forcing its steady-state temperature to be considerably higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. This is quite obviously so, and the reason why the ‘Slayers’ are wrong.
But this is a matter of the planet’s atmospheric mass, not the thermal radiation of the planet itself.
Of course “heat creep” increases a planet’s surface temperature. It supplies the necessary energy to raise the Venus surface temperature about 5 degrees during its daytime. What else could?
Radiative balance at TOA has been in the tight range of ±0.6% (that is, about ±2 W/m^2) for decades.
Norman says, April 21, 2015 at 4:45 AM:
“If you have a well developed formula which is based upon direct observation (like the Plank law and Steffan-Bolzmann) (…) you can then use them to calculate accurately what is going on and be very close to a real amount. This is the purpose of finding equations with relationships among the variables.”
I know very well on what empirical basis these laws were established, Norman, and it was NOT from direct observations of separate, opposing ‘bidirectional flows’ of radiation within a radiant heat transfer. Even if such were to exist, it would be a physical impossibility to detect them independently of one other. No, the laws were originally developed specifically from direct observations of the radiant HEAT (what is called – and simply assumed to be – the ‘net’ of two opposing radiances) emitted from (very) hot objects, that is, objects which are so much hotter than their surroundings that the surroundings can practically be ignored.
The idea of a bidirectional flow in a radiant heat transfer is a completely hypothetical concept, Norman. It is a descriptive MODEL of reality. The observed reality is without exception a UNIdirectional transfer, from hot to cold – the radiant heat.
What Stefan and Boltzmann discovered was that if you know the temperatures of the opposing objects in such a heat transfer, then you could also calculate this unidirectional transfer of energy:
P/A or Q = s(Th^4 – Tc^4)
But one must always bear in mind that P/A (Q) and Th and Tc are the only directly physically measurable quantities here. Two opposing ‘fluxes’ making up a ‘net’ flux between them can only ever be estimated, derived mathematically from these. Never actually directly and separately measured.
(This is how a pyrgeometer operates, for instance.)
We thus ASSUME their existence. Through our mentally constructed model. It’s been like that from Day 1. We don’t and can’t KNOW they’re there, freely working as distinct, macroscopic fluxes (transfers) of energy, moving in opposite directions within the very same space. The only thing we know is the ‘net’ of these two mathematically deduced ‘counter-radiances’ – the HEAT.
Josef Stefan himself, who originally found and established the T^4 relationship of radiant heat output in the end of the 1870s, not just admitted, but stressed this point:
“The absolute amount of energy radiated by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of the body’s emitted radiation over that simultaneously absorbed by it, the latter dependent on the energy radiated to it from its surroundings. If you, however, have the relationship between temperature and heat radiation established in a formula, you can use this to derive a value for the absolute amount of the body’s emitted energy. But such an absolute amount is only hypothetical in nature.“ (My translation; Stefan uses ‘heat’ where I use ‘energy’.)
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf
(p.411, first paragraph)
And,
“After distilling the data from all of the sources, [Stefan] concluded that for a body at 373 K and another at 273 K, the radiative power was 697.8 W/m2, although he was not terribly confident in the result. He noted that this analysis had a “hypothetical nature and reasoned support for [it] was impossible, so long as measurements are not made of radiation to surroundings at absolute zero, or at least a very low temperature” (translation from Dougal). Although Stefan himself never computed a value for the proportionality between the radiative power and the differences in the temperature to the fourth power, based on his deduced heat flux between the two bodies mentioned above, it can easily be determined to be 5.056 x 10^8 W/m2 K^4.”
(Crepeau 2007; “Josef Stefan: His life and legacy in the thermal sciences.”)
People today tend to ‘forget’ about this, the fact that what is said to be the ‘net’ of the two alleged counter-flows – the ‘heat’ – is the only transfer of energy actually being observed.
The two ‘counter-flows’ inside a single heat transfer process are mere conceptual entities, fundamentally hypothetical (mathematical) in nature. It is a formalism. Based on the “theory of exchanges”, an idea proposed by Pierre Prevost back in the 18th century, when the ‘caloric theory’ was still firmly in fashion.
– – –
The mean global surface of the Earth is NOT emitting a radiative ‘flux’ of 398 W/m2, Norman. That’s just a calculated number based on a particular mental model of radiant heat transfer. No, the mean global surface of the Earth is emitting ~53 W/m2 of observed radiant heat. And that’s it. That’s where we need to start our analysis. We need to start with the energy flows actually OBSERVED (that is, the ‘heat fluxes’) and see if they add up. Temperatures come later …
The surface of the Earth would emit a radiant heat flux of 398 W/m2 in the steady state if it were a blackbody abutting space directly, with a heat INPUT of 398 W/m2 and a corresponding radiative equilibrium temperature of 289K.
However, this is NOT the real-world situation at all. It is nothing but a fictional scenario.
Don’t confuse your mental model with reality, your (presupposed) hypothetical premise with empirical observation. It will end up fooling you into thinking you ‘discover’ things you don’t. By circular argument:
If you start out by ASSUMING the surface of the Earth emits a lot more energy that what eventually escapes to space through the ToA, then OF COURSE you will think there’s a huge ‘atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect’ swallowing (‘trapping’) 40% of the outgoing energy on its way out, forcing the steady-state surface temp way up as a consequence.
Problem is, this ‘discovery’ does NOT come to you from empirical observation, but directly from your initial premise itself.
Kristian 3:14am: You again show confusion in your comment using the term “heat” which doesn’t exist in nature observed separate from energy. There is no such thing as heat flux, only energy flux exists. Your Stefan translation is not literal. You can of course draw any conclusion you want using a term that doesn’t exist in nature.
Stefan was correct in the practical world where there are two real streams of non-interacting photons observed in nature – those emitted & reflected and those absorbed by an opaque body – the net of these two real streams being the actual energy flow (your 53). Experimental proof two streams are not just hypothetical: Our eyes detect emission & reflection from cooler objects and opposing photons do not annihilate each other.
”The surface of the Earth would emit a radiant heat flux of 398 W/m2 in the steady state if it were a blackbody abutting space directly.”
Not according to the original experiments for the Planck curve which were conducted IN the atm. at room temperature at 1 atm. They show Earth emits real photon stream 398 +/-5 per Stephens 2012 with atm. in place. If you had the theory right, the original equipment would not have detected a radiative intensity with the emitting cavity held below room temperature – however room temperature instrumentation did detect such an intensity if you read the original papers.
Here’s one p. 339, the BB radiation intensity (eqn. 1) was detected from room temperature instrumentation out of a cavity beginning “at the temperature of solid carbon dioxide and end at about 600C.” See Fig. 1 page 340 for the experimental configuration. Google the 1901 paper title, see 4th link. I know, I know “heat” is in the title, just substitute “energy” to avoid confusion*.
’On the Heat Radiation of Long Wave-Length Emitted by Black Bodies at Different Temperatures’, Rubens, H. & Kurlbaum, F., Astrophysical Journal, vol. 14, p.335 12/1901
*To avoid your demonstrated confusion Max Planck wrote in 1912: “The term “heat radiation,” then, will be applied to all physical phenomena of the same nature as light rays. Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray.”
and there is no restriction to a vacuum in:
“A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B0 at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B0 is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B0 a stronger emitter than A.”
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40030
Ball4 says, April 22, 2015 at 1:00 PM:
“There is no such thing as heat flux, only energy flux exists. Your Stefan translation is not literal. You can of course draw any conclusion you want using a term that doesn’t exist in nature.”
Hello again, Ball4 🙂
I must say I’m a bit disappointed now. I thought you of all people would be happy when reading my translation of Stefan’s words from 1879.
After all, it is Stefan who uses the term ‘heat’ (‘Wärme’) and I who replace it with ‘energy’. Didn’t you get that? Feel free to do the translation yourself …
“Planck noted three requirements upon a black body: the body must (i) allow radiation to enter but not reflect; (ii) possess a minimum thickness adequate to absorb the incident radiation and prevent its re-emission; (iii) satisfy severe limitations upon scattering to prevent radiation from entering and bouncing back out.
“This approach is a simplification that ignores details of the mechanisms behind heat redistribution (which may include changing composition, phase transitions or restructuring of the body) that occur within the body while it cools, and assumes that at each moment in time the body is characterized by a single temperature. It also ignores other possible complications, such as changes in the emissivity with temperature,[52][53] and the role of other accompanying forms of energy emission”
[source]
An ideal blackbody model absorbs all sunlight and conducts the heat uniformity across the entire sphere. And at Earth
distance from the sun it would uniformly radiate 340 watts
[1360 divided by 4]
But suppose one had ideal blackbody which only uniformly heated only on side facing the sun. Did not conduct heat to night side of sphere.
So that would be 1360 divided by 2, which is 680 watts,
and night side would 2 K [some number close to zero watts per square meter].
So blackbody radiating 340 watts is about 278 K
having an uniform temperature of about 5 C
And 680 watts is about 331 K [57 C]
with night side of around 2 K.
Having average temperature of about 167 K [-106 K]
With average watts radiated of 340 watts
The ideal black body that doesn’t conduct it’s heat to it’s night side is sort of similar the Moon.
The moon also does not conduct it’s heat to the night side. But also the moon doesn’t uniformity conduct heat on the day side.
Though the moon does conduct heat to night side in sense it conduct heat downward during time it’s in daylight, and when rotates into night this store heat is slowly radiated.
Joel,
You say (April 20, 2015 at 10:12 AM): …Doug’s claims cannot possibly be correct, and indeed, those with significant training in physics who have discussed this here and elsewhere on the web seem to be unanimous in this view, even while disagreeing significantly on what the weight of the evidence says about the seriousness of AGW in general.
ARGUMENTS FROM AUTHORITY DON’T WORK
Mmmm…I don’t think you or anybody else is going to ‘turn the tide’ in Doug’s mind by calling in aid all those people out there with ‘significant training in physics’. It is exactly the same situation as I encountered with the Slayers last year. They were impervious to such responses because they simply didn’t believe the established authorities.
Ironically it was you, Joel, who put me right on the Slayer thesis by explaining the mathematics of radiative flow through nested bodies (which is actually simple when understood properly). This helped me to suspect that the Slayers were wrong. But I didn’t just stop there because I needed to prove to myself that the theory itself was correct. So I followed up by constructing a laboratory experiment. This finally did convince me they were wrong, quite independently from any ‘arguments from authority’.
So thanks, Joel. Your perseverance in ‘speaking the math’ paid off. You and I had a good scientific discourse with a definitive outcome.
DOUG COTTON’S THEORY NEEDS PROPER CHALLENGE
Doug has a theory which he passionately believes in. So let’s challenge his physics head on and see where we get. Let’s talk the science, rather than making ‘ad hominem’ sneers at him, as many here and elsewhere have done. I know Doug’s form of interlocution is…er…um…disconcerting and (at least for me) often very confusing. So let scientists and engineers just constructively challenge one another, and debate the physics behind his proposition.
Here’s the challenge…
Doug’s central thesis is that in an atmospheric column subject to gravitation, absorbing a constant flow of radiative energy from a constant power source (the Sun), and radiating a balancing flow of energy to a constant temperature sink (space), the temperature distribution in that atmospheric column continually adjusts itself automatically to achieve a state of maximum entropy, with the temperature profile that is observed, irrespective of increases in the concentration of absorptive liquids or gases in its atmosphere.
How does ‘standard physics’ refute that thesis?
If you and others can succeed in refuting it, all of the other side arguments will be irrelevant. But if you and others cannot achieve that, we will be in the same position as we were with the Slayers: getting nowhere fast.
In this context, any suggestions you have for empirical experiments that could be carried out to back up you theoretical arguments would also be extremely helpful in resolving the issue one way or the other for once and for all. 🙂
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-188478
David,
I’ve interacting with Doug enough to know that noting is going to “turn the tide” in his mind, which is why I have generally refrained from responding to him in this thread. Doug is utterly impervious to any science, fact, or logic.
But, if you want me to explain to you and others why Doug’s “theory” makes no sense, this is the answer in a nutshell:
(1) There are papers that have been written, references of which we have given to Doug previously, that use statistical mechanical arguments to rigorously show that the equilibrium state of a system in a gravitational field is zero. Unless he can directly refute these, his claims are dead in the water.
(2) His claim of heat creep doesn’t even address the problem. All that the heat creep does is redistribute energy within the Earth + atmosphere system. However, the fundamental problem is not with energy balance between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere, it is between the Earth + atmosphere and the rest of the universe, what in technical jargon is called the “top-of-the-atmosphere” energy balance. I don’t care if the atmosphere is providing the Earth with 10^10 W/m^2; that still doesn’t answer the question of how the Earth + atmosphere system could emit 390 W/m^2 to space when it is only receiving 240 W/m^2 from the sun. The only thing that can allow the Earth’s surface to be maintain a temperature where it emits 390 W/m^2 is to have the atmosphere prevent some of that radiation from escaping, which means the atmosphere must absorb (or reflect) this radiation. Doug’s answer reminds me of a TV show (“Police Squad”) where in one episode a boxer has been knocked silly and the ref asks him “How many fingers am I holding up?” and the boxer says “Thursday”.
So, in conclusion, Doug has showed us that he can violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and still not explain the elevated surface temperature! I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t really impress me that much.
“…that use statistical mechanical arguments to rigorously show that the equilibrium state of a system in a gravitational field is zero”
Sorry, that should be zero gradient, i.e., isothermal.
The references that I mentioned that discuss the equilibrium state of an ideal gas in a gravitational field from the point of view of statistical physics are:
* C. A. Coombes & H. Laue, A paradox concerning the temperature distribution of a gas in a gravitational field, American Journal of Physics, Vol 53, pp. 272-273 (1985).
* S. Velasco, F. L. Roman, & J. A. White, On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of a gas in a gravitational field, European Journal of Physics, Vol 17, pp. 43-44 (1996).
Joel 3:38pm: The 1996 paper you cite derives non-isothermal equilibrium conditions (& not isothermal zero gradient as you write) – from eqn. 8 which shows at equilibrium a decrease in column T with height z in a finite system and verbatim concludes “for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.”
Their result is consistent with Poisson eqn. for isolated column ideal gas non-isothermal T(p) gradient in gravity field at equilibrium.
Don’t be silly, Ball4. They concluded that for a system in the thermodynamic limit (Number of molecules -> infinity), the temperature and kinetic energy are independent of height. If you want to quibble, thermodynamics itself doesn’t hold if you are not in the thermodynamic limit!
If you are not in the thermodynamic limit, there is a correction, but for the sort of sizes we are talking about, that correction is miniscule. The correction factor is given by the equation (1-m*g*z/E) where E is the TOTAL ENERGY. Taking a total energy on the order of 3*k_B*T, m to be the molecular mass of nitrogen (N_2), and z to be 20 km, you get this correction mg*z/E is ~1/N. If you use N for the whole atmosphere (N = 10^44), you get a correction of one part in 10^44; even if you assume the correct N to use is just a small parcel of air (say 10^23 molecules) because the atmosphere can only mix over a certain distance, you will get a miniscule correction.
So, you’ll have a gradient of somewhere between about 10^-20 and 10^-45 deg C over a distance of 20 km. The actual observed lapse rate is 6.5 deg C per km. That doesn’t explain a very big part of the lapse rate…and even to get that, we had to go beyond thermodynamics. Within thermodynamics, the temperature gradient in equilibrium is precisely 0.
Sorry…That formula for total energy should be Taking a total energy on the order of 3*N*k_B*T.
Joel Shore:
THERMODYNAMICS ALSO DOESN’T HOLD if you ignore the Second Law, which they did and that is why they are WRONG. I don’t care who they are, or what their “authority” – they are wrong.
When entropy is maximized unbalanced energy potentials are minimized. Hence there is a homogeneous mean sum of micro (KE + gravitational PE) per molecule at all heights. Hence there is a stable temperature gradient. Fullstop.
Thus the greenhouse radiative forcing conhjecture is FALSE. Fullstop.
How about you get a qualified physicist (with no interest in maintaining the hoax) to pinpoint any error in the development of my hypothesis and he will be half way towards the $5,000 reward I’ve offered. To get the award he them needs to do a study with similar methodology showing water vapor warms (not cools) be at least 15 degrees per 1% as implied by the IPCC.
Make your submission to the email address at http://climate-change-theory.com
Doug:
The Second Law is an emergent result from statistical physics. So, it makes no sense to say they ignored it.
All these papers seems to be saying, with a greater or lesser degree of clarity, that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal and that the state with a lapse rate is what you get with certain restrictions that prevent it from reaching the true equilibrium state.
I think that Verkley & Gerkema (2004) say it most clearly:
“We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day.
Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy. In this sense, these processes lower the maximum value that the entropy is allowed to attain. It thus seems natural that one should represent them by posing certain additional constraints in the maximization problem…”
The only quibble I have with what they say is that I think it is probably more sensible to emphasize that the actual atmosphere is kept far from thermodynamics equilibrium because it is heated strongly from below and cooled from above. And, the only heat transfer process that is fast enough to have a hope in principle of driving it close to equilibrium, convective mixing, can’t do so in practice because of the fact that the atmosphere is only unstable to convection when the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate. Hence, convection can drive the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate but no further.
These papers tend to make the whole thing sound more mysterious than this…and I am not sure if that is because it IS more complex and mysterious than what I am saying or if they are just making it unnecessarily complicated.
But, anyway, the important point is that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal, just as Coombes & Laue said, and as a straightforward and unbiased reading of Velasco et al. reiterated (in the process of detailing how this comes about in the finite-particle case, as well as in the thermodynamic limit).
Joel 7:39pm: “All these papers seems to be saying, with a greater or lesser degree of clarity, that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal..”
As I wrote 11:47am, only for a mid-air idealized column where the internal energy changes are equal and opposite sign to the work “performed” by the system, the classic Gibbs solution (w/gravity or not) holds (2004 paper 2a), T(p) is isothermal at max. entropy thermo. equilibrium.
However, this is not the initial condition in C&L 1985 (who got it wrong concluding isothermal), Velasco 1995, 1996 (who got it right in writing non-isothermal explicitly), Bohren 1984 sec. 4.4 non-isothermal, 2004 (2b) non-isothermal and 2008 (non-isothermal conditions of “dynamical dissipative processes dominating in the lower atmosphere ‘feel’ the presence of gravity”) papers where the conditions of an idealized rigid enclosure allows no external work done on the surroundings. In that case, under that condition, as clearly shown in each of these papers, T(p) becomes non-isothermal at max. entropy thermo. equilibrium. As Akmaev writes in Conclusions, this is a conditional extremal which “has been a source of confusion”.
I agree with Akmaev 2008 on that last point since the various blog threads demonstrate MUCH confusion.
Again, there are at least two conditions –
Isothermal conditions: (2004 2a) Gibbs classic solution external work “performed” allowed: Isothermal T(p) at thermo. equilibrium
Non-Isothermal conditions: (Velasco 1995, 1996 conditions, Bohren 1998 sec. 4.4 & 2004 (2b) conditions) no external work allowed: Non-isothermal T(p) at thermo. equilibrium.
The 2014 paper: will be interesting to see what their “transitory” between these two conditions means.
Sorry, I messed up where I posted the comment above that you responded to, so I subsequently reposted it in the appropriate place. I have responded to your latest comment here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-191192
Joel 1:28pm: I read your 1:26pm comment. You remain confused as concluded by your own ref. paper, Akmaev 2008. The extremal solutions are conditional, there is one for rigid container condition (2004 2b eqn. 18) and another one for conditions of a mid-air column allowed to “perform” work (2004 2a T(p) = constant, classic Gibbs).
The C&L 1984, Velasco 1995, 1996 papers are for rigid container condition, no external work allowed, see their introduction. I do not see how I can be any more clear about this. RIGID! The Velasco container is simply not a classic mid-air column allowed to “perform” external work (if it were C&L 1984 would have been right!).
Thus the 2004 paper 2(b) condition for no external work applies, T(p) given by eqn. 18 (and not 2a) as rigorously shown by Bohren, Verkley & Akmaev to be non-isothermal. You continue to write I do not use Velasco exact words, here once AGAIN verbatim for rigid container: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.” and Akmaev rigid container: “maximum-entropy solution under this condition is the dry-adiabatic profile.” Bohren p. 168 for rigid container condition: “Only in the absence of gravity would the dry adiabatic lapse rate be zero and the equilibrium temperature profile be isothermal.”
In rigid container condition there is overwhelming column thermo. equilibrium T(p) non-isothermal agreement: Velasco 1996, Bohren 1998, Verkley 2004 2b and Akmaev 2008 conclusion 1st paragraph – the last two of which are YOUR ref.s.
I quoted their exact words, no interpretation. The concluding paragraph of Velasco 1996 is meant to mean C&L were wrong to call the rigid container isothermal at equilibrium – this does require interpretation and close reading. In no way does that concluding 1996 paragraph change the Velasco concluding statement: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.” a conclusion meaning C&L were wrong to conclude rigid container isothermal in 1984. Confirmed by 1998, 2004 and 2008 papers – the last 2 of which are yours!
A wise commenter once wrote: “This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,..”
–The C&L 1984, Velasco 1995, 1996 papers are for rigid container condition, no external work allowed, see their introduction. I do not see how I can be any more clear about this. RIGID!–
So a small enough pressure vessel in a gravity field will have constant pressure and density and uniform temperature.
And a pretty large pressure vessel will work- or it’s not small enough if larger than say 100 meters in height.
Ball4: I think you are unfortunately still being hampered by trying to read into the papers what you want them to say rather than what they actually say. You seem intent on making the distinction be whether or not the box is rigid (hence no work) or not rigid. However, if you actually read the papers this is not the relevant distinction.
For example, in the 2004 paper, they say that the second constraint can either be a rigid box and hence no work (constant energy) or allowing work to be done (constant enthalpy: “As we will show below, the same requirement is
found if one relaxes 2 by allowing neighboring layers to do work on the layer under consideration; constraint
2 is then to be replaced by 2′, a constant enthalpy. As
a result, here too the outcome is that of an isothermal
profile.” (pp. 931-932)
To get the adiabatic lapse rate, you have to impose a different constraint, like “the integrated potential temperature will be constant”. This does not have any justification in terms of finding a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is why it finds a nonequilibrium state.
“The C&L 1984, Velasco 1995, 1996 papers are for rigid container condition, no external work allowed, see their introduction. I do not see how I can be any more clear about this. RIGID!”
I agree…And, in this case both C&L and Velasco find an isothermal profile.
“I quoted their exact words, no interpretation. The concluding paragraph of Velasco 1996 is meant to mean C&L were wrong to call the rigid container isothermal at equilibrium – this does require interpretation and close reading.”
No…It requires reading what they say to be the complete opposite of what they actually say.
“In no way does that concluding 1996 paragraph change the Velasco concluding statement: ‘i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.’ a conclusion meaning C&L were wrong to conclude rigid container isothermal in 1984.”
Here is what the Velasco et al. paper actually says:
(A) Coombes & Laue are right that the equilibrium state is isothermal. However, the reasoning is more complicated than what Coombes and Laue presented.
(B) In the thermodynamic limit (i.e., an infinite system), the temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy, which is independent of height and hence you get an isothermal result.
(C) In the finite case, the temperature is no longer just proportional to the average kinetic energy. Furthermore, the average kinetic energy has a term that depends on height (although this term gets very small as one goes to large N); However, the temperature (no longer being directly proportional to the average kinetic energy) is still independent of height.
Note that this correct interpretation of Velasco et al. agrees with their statement “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.” However, unlike your interpretation, it does not require ignoring the rest of their paper and interpretating equations in bizarre ways [such as assuming N=1 in Eqn (8) even though they subsequently talk of taking N to infinity].
“…as rigorously shown by Bohren, Verkley & Akmaev to be non-isothermal.”
Nope. Verkley and Akmaev don’t say this. Furthermore, the Verkley (2004) paper also explains what Bohren did incorrectly: “Bohren and Albrecht arrive at their constraint 3 by starting with a constraint similar to 2′, and then modify it in an approximate way, which in fact amounts to replacing 2′ by 3. This way of obtaining 3 can be criticized on the grounds that, had no approximation been made, one would have found an isothermal instead of an isentropic profile, which in itself shows that the approximation is problematic. A different way of justifying constraint 3 was suggested by Ball (1956), who argued that the integrated potential temperature will be constant when convective mixing dominates molecular diffusion.” (p. 932)
Just to remind you, the cataloging of constrains in the Verkley paper is:
2: Constant energy (& constant volume)…i.e., no work. This can also be thought of as the vertically-integrated absolute temperature being constant.
2′: constant enthalpy (case where work is allowed).
3: Vertically-integrated POTENTIAL temperature is constant.
There is no justification for 3 in terms of thermodynamic equilibrium, which is why replacing 2 or 2′ by this constraint does not give the equilibrium (isothermal) temperature distribution.
Joel 10:12am: “Here is what the Velasco et al. paper actually says:..Note that this correct interpretation of Velasco et al.”
Joel – You offer nothing new. The Velasco paper does not actually write A), B) or C). It is searchable: “no matches found” for all 3.
You are correct, these A, B, C are interpretations where in contrast I have quoted all the author’s exact words and pertinent eqn.s directly from the Velasco 1995, 1996, Bohren 1998 and your own linked Verkley 2004 and Akmaev 2008 publications without resorting to any interpretation whatsoever. Search them and you will find exact matches IN CONTEXT. You are free to have your own isothermal interpretation but your interpretation is different than the exact non-isothermal words used by all these published authors & non-isothermal eqn.s shown by these authors. In summary again:
A wise commenter once wrote: “This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,..”
“..such as assuming N=1..
No assuming Joel, I actually read the 1995 paper Roman, Velasco p. 84: “m is the mass of a particle” as is used in Velasco 1996 eqn. 8.
——
11:31am: A refreshing exact quote from Joel, found on searching the 2004 paper. However, here you clip an exact quote from the author’s discussion of the classical mid-air column Fig. 1 isothermal solution in a review of the classic literature.
See the following next two sentences Joel: “It is the purpose of this article to suggest a way of incorporating 3 in the maximization problem without sacrificing the constraint 2′, which after all stems from the first law of thermodynamics. We will, in other words, pose 3 as an additional constraint to 1 and 2′.This brings us outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, and hence one can expect that the temperature profile will no longer be isothermal; we will derive below what profile forms the outcome.”
This becomes their 2b, non-isothermal thermo. equilibrium eqn. (18) (confirming Bohren 1998 sec. 4.4, which Akmaev also confirms & I wrote out for you) when no external work is performed by a rigid enclosed column.
“3: Vertically-integrated POTENTIAL temperature is constant.”
Yep, non-isothermal. Just as Bohren 1998 found, a non-isothermal T(p) solution (his eqn. 4.149 p. 166) when no external work is performed by the rigid enclosed column.
The ideal soln.s evidence for non-isothermal is overwhelming Joel despite your own singleton interpretation of isothermal – not found in searching any of the papers – for a rigid enclosed column – only the classical mid-air column. Except C&L 1984 which is proven wrong by Velasco eqn. 8, Verkley 2b, Bohren sec. 4.4 & Akmaev conclusion in the author’s original words I exactly, verbatim clipped for you – without interpretation.
A wise commenter once wrote: “This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,..”
You want exact quotes…Here are exact quotes:
“In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of a finite system and an infinite system. In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement (2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a) is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and Laue).” (Velasco et al.)
“We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day.” (Verkley & Gerkema)
When I have more time later, I will explain why your supposed exact quotes are either red herrings (i.e., they don’t contradict what I am saying) or are taken out of context.
Joel 5:54am: “I will explain why your supposed exact quotes..”
Supposed? I clipped exact quotes so anyone interested can find the exact context of the author by searching & finding the match.
Your (or any) explanation will similarly need to consist of the author’s exact words and formulas. There is the established classic Gibbs isothermal T(p) = constant solution for a mid-air column (2004 Verkley 2a eqn. 12 Fig. 1) as being discussed in your second exact paragraph and all 4 paper author’s development of the modern rigorous solution for the rigid enclosed column T(p) (Verkely 2b eqn. 18) becoming non-isothermal at thermo. equilibrium. Akmaev 2008 “Conclusions” explains the 2 conditional extremal problems ARE a source of confusion.
Your other exact quote is Velasco removing the paradox from C&L 1984 paper which Velasco 1995,1996 show incorrectly concluded isothermal for the rigid container extremal conditions.
A wise commenter once wrote: “This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,..”
Let’s look at your exact quotes:
“i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.” This is a red herring. I agree that Velasco et al. find that for a finite system, the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height. However: (i) This decrease becomes very small as N gets large and goes to zero in the thermodynamic limit. (ii) One of the main points of their paper is that the average molecular kinetic energy is not strictly proportional to temperature except in the thermodynamic limit; and, as their Eqn (10) shows, temperature does not vary with height even in the finite case.
“maximum-entropy solution under this condition is the dry-adiabatic profile.” This quote from Akmaev is taken out of context. Your claim is that this quote applies for a rigid container in thermodynamic equilibrium. However, what Akmaev says in full context is “Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere. On the other hand, dynamical dissipative processes dominating in the lower atmosphere ‘feel’ the presence of gravity, and may produce entropy subject to other conditions, such as conservation of the column potential enthalpy. The maximum-entropy solution under this condition is the dry-adiabatic profile.” The condition of conservation of column potential enthalpy does not correspond to a valid constraint for thermodynamic equilibrium; rather it is a constraint that might be reasonable to impose in order to find the actual temperature profile in the far-from-equilibrium condition that the atmosphere finds itself in. [Note that it is “potential enthalpy”, not enthalpy itself.]
“Only in the absence of gravity would the dry adiabatic lapse rate be zero and the equilibrium temperature profile be isothermal.” This quote from Bohren and Albrecht is an accurate representation of what they claim to be true. However, as Verkley & Gerkema (2004) discuss, they are simply incorrect because they make an approximation in their derivation that amounts to changing their constraint from one that produces a result for thermodynamic equilibrium to one that doesn’t. They explain: “Bohren and Albrecht arrive at their constraint 3by starting with a constraint similar to 2′, and then modify it in an approximate way, which in fact amounts to replacing 2′ by 3. This way of obtaining 3 can be criticized on the grounds that, had no approximation been made, one would have found an isothermal instead of an isentropic profile, which in itself shows that the approximation is problematic.” And, then, in the conclusions of their paper, just to try to prevent any misinterpretation of anything in their paper, they make themselves crystal-clear with this statement: “We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day.”
Hence, none of your quotes actually support your thesis (well, accept for the one from Bohren and Albrecht, who simply made a mistake).
Ball4 says:
“Akmaev 2008 ‘Conclusions’ explains the 2 conditional extremal problems ARE a source of confusion.”
Yes…There are (at least) two conditional extremal problems, depending on how you count. However, the point is that the ones that impose constraints that yield thermodynamic equilibrium (either constant internal energy or constant enthalpy) lead to an isothermal distribution. The ones that impose constraints that do not yield thermodynamic equilibrium (like constant potential temperature) yield different distributions (like adiabatic lapse rate).
“Your other exact quote is Velasco removing the paradox from C&L 1984 paper which Velasco 1995,1996 show incorrectly concluded isothermal for the rigid container extremal conditions.”
Anyone who can read can see that this is not what Velasco et al. actually say. Rather, they say that C&L were CORRECT in their conclusions but their reasoning to that conclusion only holds in the thermodynamic limit, with more complicated reasoning required to show the isothermal result for the finite system. This is why they say “In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about
why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes
and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of
a finite system and an infinite system. In the former
case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in
statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement
(2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a)
is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and
Laue).”
““m is the mass of a particle” as is used in Velasco 1996 eqn. 8.”
This quote of yours is too priceless not to comment on too. I would call this a red-herring, but that doesn’t quite do it justice. The fact that m is the mass of one particle while E is the energy of a system of N particles is in fact that reason why the term mgh/E becomes very small as N gets large.
Joel 8:57am: You continue circle back but I will play along out of interest to re-read the papers deeper. Thanks for the direct quotes, makes it easier. You continue Akmaev’s expressed confusion over the two conditions (2a and 2b) with different extremals.
“However: (i) This decrease becomes very small as N gets large and goes to zero in the thermodynamic limit.”
Once again, Joel, you do not use the authors words or equations as they wrote them. This is nowhere to be matched.
Velasco 1995 shows explicitly this is not correct Joel, as N increases from 3 to 6, the microcanonical solution converges quickly to canon: “We can see that the microcanonical distribution approaches the barometric distribution (60) very quickly as N increases…We can see that the microcanonical distribution approaches the Maxwell distribution (61) very quickly as N increases (3to6).” p. 90.
Then they very explicitly write as I already few times pointed out to you and you don’t “get” because you don’t factor 1996 eqn. 8 correctly to the right second term by missing the E in the numerator: “the presence of a gravitational field shifts the maximum of the microcanonical velocity distribution toward the low velocity region; i.e. the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas.”
——
“ii) One of the main points of their paper is that the average molecular kinetic energy is not strictly proportional to temperature except in the thermodynamic limit; and, as their Eqn (10) shows, temperature does not vary with height even in the finite case.”
Again you miss eqn. 10 is at ONE z height & that is why it is independent of height, exact words: “..by substituting (10) into (8) and taking the thermodynamic limit one easily obtains the result (4), i.e. the temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy at any height z in the thermodynamic limit.” (4) is the usual, common math definition of temperature.
“This quote from Akmaev is taken out of context.”
It is a short clip so you (or any interested reader) can FIND the much longer context to actually read.
In your longer clip just now, Akmaev discusses Verkley 2a as “Gibbs’s isothermal” which is ideal extremal for the 2a mid-air column conditions. Then after “On the other hand” Akmaev discusses Verkley 2b, the other conditional extremal resulting in non-isothermal for ideal rigid column conditions (no external work). This is clearly evident upon reading the bulk of the Akmaev Conclusion 1st paragraph and in the related formulas in the body of the paper.
——
“We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting…will result in an isothermal profile”
Here Verkley confirms their 2a is classical solution eqn. (12) and, continuing, why Bohren’s 1998 modern solution (2b) resulting non-isothermal eqn. 18 is different extremal condition.
Verkley 2004 quote of yours: “..which in itself shows that the approximation is problematic.”
Akmaev 2008 paper removes the problematic approximation in Bohren 1998 with more precise math (invoking Chebyshev inequality formulation) and in Conclusions then agrees with both Verkely 2a and 2b=Bohren 1998.
——
9:33am: Priceless.
Joel – Consider as N goes up 3,4,5,6 etc. think about what happens to single particle m. Let me know.
mgh does not “get small”; small results are, as I already pointed out, only in your confused factoring of Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 where you completely miss the E in the numerator. There is no mgh/E unit-less term in the full eqn.
Now I predict more circling back. Try move ahead instead Joel. Read the papers deeper. Find something new and interesting.
“Velasco 1995 shows explicitly this is not correct Joel, as N increases from 3 to 6, the microcanonical solution converges quickly to canon”
I am not sure what you think this proves. They don’t define “very quickly” and if you look at the case of N = 6, it is not THAT close. It looks roughly compatible with a 1/N convergence that I am talking about.
“Again you miss eqn. 10 is at ONE z height & that is why it is independent of height, exact words”
There is no support for the claim that this equation is at one height…and since they have already defined their rigid box of volume V containing a number of particles N and having a total energy E, what can it possibly mean that they are showing the result at one height? Which height is it? Are we supposed to guess? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and it is the sort of thing that shows that you are making unfalsifiable religious-like arguments to maintain your position. You are not reasoning from evidence to conclusion but conclusion to evidence.
“It is a short clip so you (or any interested reader) can FIND the much longer context to actually read.”
The point is that I gave the longer clip that actually showed how it agrees with my claims and disagrees with yours: “Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere. On the other hand, dynamical dissipative processes dominating in the lower atmosphere ‘feel’ the presence of gravity, and may produce entropy subject to other conditions, such as conservation of the column potential enthalpy. The maximum-entropy solution under this condition is the dry-adiabatic profile.”
“In your longer clip just now, Akmaev discusses Verkley 2a as ‘Gibbs’s isothermal’ which is ideal extremal for the 2a mid-air column conditions. Then after ‘On the other hand’ Akmaev discusses Verkley 2b, the other conditional extremal resulting in non-isothermal for ideal rigid column conditions (no external work). This is clearly evident upon reading the bulk of the Akmaev Conclusion 1st paragraph and in the related formulas in the body of the paper.”
Nope…Verkley distinguish three constraints: 2) constant energy, 2′) constant enthalpy, and 3) constant potential temperature (which can also be called constant potential enthalpy). 2) and 2′) are the ones the give you thermodynamic equilibrium and they both yield an isothermal result. Constraint 3) does not produce thermodynamic equilibrium and it is the one that gives a non-isothermal distribution.
“Akmaev 2008 paper removes the problematic approximation in Bohren 1998 with more precise math (invoking Chebyshev inequality formulation) and in Conclusions then agrees with both Verkely 2a and 2b=Bohren 1998.”
Yes, they fix Bohren’s mistake in the math that led him to conclude that the equilibrium profile is not isothermal but only by showing that you can derive Bohren’s result only by starting from a completely different constraint than he claimed to start from – constant potential temperature – that does not yield the equilibrium solution.
“mgh does not ‘get small’; small results are, as I already pointed out, only in your confused factoring of Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 where you completely miss the E in the numerator. There is no mgh/E unit-less term in the full eqn.”
Apparently simple math is confusing to you. I did not say that mgh gets small, I said that mgh/E gets small compared to 1 (because the term we are talking about is (1 – mgh/E) If you want to multiply through by the E then we would have (E – mgh) and the statement would be that as N gets large with E/N remaining constant (so we maintain the same average temperature) then E gets much larger than mgh. You seem to want to somehow want to multiply selectively only the 2nd term by E; that is not a legal mathematical operation.
Look, at this point, I think we should probably quit. It should be abundantly clear to anyone capable of following this discussion who has basic reading comprehension skills that you are not making coherent arguments and that the papers in no way support what you claim they do. And, people who are not capable of following it will believe whatever they want to believe, a fact that this thread is dedicated to.
Joel 6:34am: You do get a little deeper into the papers here, a bit more interesting. Less circling back.
“They don’t define “very quickly”..”
Math can do that for you if you need it, the paper chooses to “in an illustrative way” show the convergence “is very quickly as N increases” in the graphic Figures. N is the number of particles of mass m in the given E V N ensemble, quote Velasco 1995: “In the microcanonical ensemble the macrostate of the system is defined by a constant energy (E), a fixed number of particles ( N ) and a fixed volume (V).”
“There is no support for the claim that this equation is at one height..”
Place a mercury thermometer bulb in a column of air, such as earth’s atmosphere in the troposphere at any height z. Read the temperature. 1996 Eqn. 10 math shows the air temperature reading at the height z of that bulb. Airplanes do this routinely.
“..what can it possibly mean that they are showing the result at one height?”
They want to tie in a physical interpretation to their work. They use 1996 eqn. 10 – the math temperature that a mercury bulb thermometer would read at one height z (1995 eqn. 41) – so that they can show in 1995 paper “leads to the following expressions for the single-particle distributions of an ideal gas in a gravitational field within the canonical ensemble framework” supporting their solution ending up in 1996 eqn. 8 (mgz term).
“Which height is it?”
Any height z from base of column to top of column where the mercury bulb is placed to read the temperature. Say 1998 Bohren’s 1atm. base up to ~200mb top. Verkley 2004 standard atm. top is “264.36 hPa”.
“Are we supposed to guess?”
Nope, eqn. 10 shows Joel how to get the mercury bulb reading to instrument accuracy at any given height z, no guessing required.
“you are making unfalsifiable religious-like arguments”
I quote the author’s exact words verbatim and eqn.s exactly by eqn. number, Joel, so you (or others interested) can find them in context for an accurate read, unlike your previous A, B, C personal interpretation of other’s words.
“The point is that I gave the longer clip that actually showed how it agrees with my claims and disagrees with yours..”
You have confused “isothermal” for all column conditions yet Akmaev points out your confusion arises from different (“on the other hand”) extremal ideal solutions existing given different conditions. I make no claims other than the author’s words & eqn.s I find and quote from their papers. If I make (made) an inaccurate clip, let me know where.
“Constraint 3) does not produce thermodynamic equilibrium and it is the one that gives a non-isothermal distribution.”
Your Verkley 2004 paper purpose is “to suggest a way of incorporating 3 in the maximization problem” and Verkley 2004 section 2b proceeds to derive how constraint 3 does produce thermo. equilibrium. The result is their eqn. (18), same as Bohren’s 4.149. As Bohren 1998 p. 167 writes: “Thus the extremum is a maximum. Of all linear potential temperature profiles, a constant potential temperature maximizes the entropy of an isolated layer of the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium”. Later, p. 170, more generally Bohren removes the linear restriction “we give a more general proof without the restriction of a linear profile”.
“..they fix Bohren’s mistake in the math..”
Where exactly Joel? Please clip the author’s (Akmaev) words and/or eqn.s so I can find this by search function, I must have missed it. Actually your own ref. Akmaev 2008 extends the work of Bohren 1998 AND that of your own ref. Verkley 2004. Akmaev 2008 seeks to explain your confusion in Conclusions.
“You seem to want to somehow want to multiply selectively only the 2nd term by E..”
I multiply both terms by E as Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 shows. The resulting mgz (the PE) term for a single particle mass m shows PE increases with height z, gravity and N (number of particles of mass m). The second term does not “get small” as you wrote since you failed to properly multiply thru by E.
“..you are not making coherent arguments..the papers in no way support what you claim they do.”
I use only the author’s words and eqn.s. thus I make no claim beyond the author’s exact words & eqn.s, fault me if I do. This debate deepens my appreciation of all the authors work – a result that matters to me but doesn’t matter at all to “people who are not capable of following it”.
Sorry…I have been very busy this week to reply. I’ll try to just address the most blatantly-incorrect statements in your last post.
“Place a mercury thermometer bulb in a column of air, such as earth’s atmosphere in the troposphere at any height z. Read the temperature. 1996 Eqn. 10 math shows the air temperature reading at the height z of that bulb. Airplanes do this routinely.”
You are completely missing the point about the temperature. You have one box with N particles, a total energy of E, and a volume of V. Equation (10) gives an expression for temperature that just involves N, V, and the constant f. So, how can you get a temperature that varies with height?
Tell me explicitly how to compute your temperature that varies with height using this equation. I can understand why you are desperately avoiding answering this question because it is in fact impossible to do so.
“I quote the author’s exact words verbatim and eqn.s exactly by eqn. number, Joel, so you (or others interested) can find them in context for an accurate read, unlike your previous A, B, C personal interpretation of other’s words.”
First of all, that is not true. You add other commentary to the quotes or take the quotes out of context and claim it says something that it does not. So, for example, you quote a passage (from Verkley 2004) that talks about the temperature distribution you get when you assume a constant POTENTIAL temperature, that the authors make clear is not an assumption that leads to equilibrium, and then you claim with no justification whatsoever that this is the result they get for equilibrium with a rigid box.
As another example, you quote Velasco et al.’s statement about temperature being proportional to kinetic energy and leave out the two times in that very sentence that qualify that this is true just in the thermodynamic limit.
“Your Verkley 2004 paper purpose is ‘to suggest a way of incorporating 3 in the maximization problem’ and Verkley 2004 section 2b proceeds to derive how constraint 3 does produce thermo. equilibrium.”
Nope…They make no claim that constraint 3 yield thermodynamic equilibrium and, just in case there is any remaining confusion on this point, they emphasize this in their conclusions: “We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day. Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic
equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy.
In this sense, these processes lower the maximum
value that the entropy is allowed to attain. It thus seems
natural that one should represent them by posing certain
additional constraints in the maximization problem…”.
It is hard to know how they possibly could have been clearer about this. To summarize, the correct constraints for equilibrium yield an isothermal solution, but the atmosphere is prevented from getting close to equilibrium and so you can impose further constraints to get a solution, like the adiabatic lapse rate solution, that represent the maximal entropy you can obtain subject to these additional constraints that keep you from equilibrium.
“Where exactly Joel? Please clip the author’s (Akmaev) words and/or eqn.s so I can find this by search function, I must have missed it.”
Here is where they explain the situation in Verkley (2004): “Bohren and Albrecht arrive at their constraint 3
by starting with a constraint similar to 2′, and then
modify it in an approximate way, which in fact amounts
to replacing 2′ by 3. This way of obtaining 3 can be
criticized on the grounds that, had no approximation
been made, one would have found an isothermal instead
of an isentropic profile, which in itself shows that the
approximation is problematic.” So, their point is that if you follow Bohren & Albrecht’s logic but don’t make their approximation of (temp / potential temp) being constant, then you get an isothermal result. It is only if you use Constraint 3 (a constant potential temperature) in place of one of the correct thermodynamic constraints 2 or 2′ that you get the adiabatic lapse rate profile.
“I multiply both terms by E as Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 shows.”
That doesn’t prevent the first term from being much larger than the second. If you multiply (1 – 0.000001) by 1000000, the first term is still much bigger than the 2nd. Furthermore, you really should note that the term out in front of the (1 – mgh/E) term does not get large as N goes to infinity with E/N constant, but rather it approaches a constant of order E/N (as it must).
“I use only the author’s words and eqn.s. thus I make no claim beyond the author’s exact words & eqn.s, fault me if I do.”
Nope…You don’t and I have. You badly misinterpret what the authors say and then you selectively ignore the mountain of evidence that shows your interpretation is wrong.
Joel 3:19pm: Did you even read the answers I gave 9:22am or were you too busy? You do not display comprehension.
“So, how can you get a temperature that varies with height?”
You move the thermometer placed showing T from eqn. (10) to a different z where the new average molecular kinetic energy is now given by 1996 eqn.8. If higher z, then Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 shows the average molecular kinetic energy in the non-zero gravity field column is lower. In Velasco own 1995 words: “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas.” For lower z, the opposite is true.
“Tell me explicitly how to compute your temperature that varies with height using this equation.”
I just did. Again: Place your thermometer at z for say 900mb, find average molecular kinetic energy at that z from eqn. 8, then use eqn. 10 to compute that T. Move the thermometer up to say 800mb, compute the lower average molecular kinetic energy again from eqn. 8 at z’ for 800mb. Eqn. 10 then uses that input to compute the new lower T’. In Velasco own 1995 words: “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas” as you move up the column (increase z) by their eqn. 8.
“First of all, that is not true.”
Where have I not quoted an author exactly so you cannot find the complete context? Like my HS English teacher always taught, be specific Joel. You do not quote the authors, you interpret them to suit your own view without justification.
“the authors make clear is not an assumption that leads to equilibrium”
Where exactly is this made clear? Eqn. number? As I already quoted at 9:22am the opposite is true as they derive constraint 3 does produce equilibrium in 2b & is the stated purpose of their paper. This is just your own interpretation Joel, quote an exact passage & eqn. like I do so that I can find the author’s words you seem to think are to the contrary.
“As another example, you quote Velasco et al.’s statement about temperature being proportional to kinetic energy and leave out the two times in that very sentence that qualify that this is true just in the thermodynamic limit.”
Proportional to average kinetic energy Joel. Inspect my post at 2:31pm – the clip I used DID include the two times they mention thermodynamic limit. The 1995 paper uses graphs to “illustrate” convergence to canon up thru N=6 which I have already discussed and you apparently haven’t read and comprehended. Causes you double back again.
“Nope…They make no claim that constraint 3 yield thermodynamic equilibrium..”
Here “they” is Verkley 2004 part 2b. Thermo. equilibrium is reached when the ideal entropy eqn. stops increasing, is maximized i.e. in their words “maximize S for fixed M and L”. This math process is summarized in their claim of eqn.s (15), (16), (17) with their claim of same result Eqn. (18) “reproduced” Bohren Eqn. 4.149 at thermo. equilibrium max. entropy.
”It is hard to know how they possibly could have been clearer about this.”
I agree. The passage you clip from the conclusions is as they state the “classical setting” which is their solution in 2a eqn. (12) for a midair column. This is VERY clear Joel as eqn. 12 is isothermal, constant T( p).
”To summarize, the correct constraints for equilibrium yield an isothermal solution”
I agree for the classic midair column conditions shown and discussed in their 2a and eqn. (12).
”So, their point is that if you follow Bohren & Albrecht’s logic but don’t make their approximation of (temp / potential temp) being constant, then you get an isothermal result.”
Yes but only for the mid-air column being allowed to do work eqn. 12. Again they write for this column: “This means that changes in the internal, kinetic plus potential energy are equal and of opposite sign to the work performed by the system.”
This is not the condition for Bohren p. 164 when “the layer is isolated from its surroundings” & Verkley 2b: “the one proposed by Bohren and Albrecht (1998)” do not make that same assumption (as noted by Akmaev “on the other hand”) and arrive at Eqn. (18) Verkley non-isothermal by inspection same as Bohren 4.149.
”That doesn’t prevent the first term from being much larger than the second.”
g is constant, so at z=0 the second term (the PE) IS 0.0 & yes, the 1st term is larger. As z increases above the ground, the 2nd term PE increases and results in avg. KE decreasing as shown by their eqn. 8. Thus Velasco states: “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas” as z increases.
Your concluding paragraph is nonsense Joel. Show me the mountain of evidence. There are 4 papers here agreeing with Velasco eqn. 8, Verkley (18) and Bohren 4.149. All non-isothermal columns at thermo. equilibrium under conditions when “the layer is isolated from its surroundings”. Quote the authors & eqn.s exactly as I have done.
— Ball4 says:
May 14, 2015 at 7:11 PM
Joel 3:19pm: Did you even read the answers I gave 9:22am or were you too busy? You do not display comprehension.
“So, how can you get a temperature that varies with height?”
You move the thermometer placed showing T from eqn. (10) to a different z where the new average molecular kinetic energy is now given by 1996 eqn.8. If higher z, then Velasco 1996 eqn. 8 shows the average molecular kinetic energy in the non-zero gravity field column is lower. In Velasco own 1995 words: “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas.” For lower z, the opposite is true.—
Just to make sure I am following, The gravitational field reduces the gas density.
Whether gas molecule go at faster average velocity or slightly slower velocity. Isn’t the major aspect.
And due to sorting one can have molecules going faster [stratosphere or higher]. Or said differently slower molecules tend to drop and faster molecules tend to end up at elevation.
But there is also another process of kinetic energy becoming PE [so molecules go slower].
But I assume we talking about most of Atmosphere or the troposphere, and that is largely about difference in density of air [but you also have “to some small degree” have these other elements being involved in the troposphere -but there are comparatively minor factors. Or troposphere temperature is controlled by condensation gases [H2O] and density of air- and density of air in related gravity and surface air temperature and the humidity of air [how much condensation.
is occurring].
–You are completely missing the point about the temperature. You have one box with N particles, a total energy of E, and a volume of V. Equation (10) gives an expression for temperature that just involves N, V, and the constant f. So, how can you get a temperature that varies with height? —
A box is a container.
When the “container” is gravity it’s different.
So box has walls and walls will control the temperature of a gas.
Walls control air temperature, with Earth atmosphere “the wall” is the ground/surface. [Though one also has cloud droplets being fuzzy walls].
Joel says:
“You are completely missing the point about the temperature. You have one box with N particles, a total energy of E, and a volume of V. Equation (10) gives an expression for temperature that just involves N, V, and the constant f. So, how can you get a temperature that varies with height?
Tell me explicitly how to compute your temperature that varies with height using this equation. I can understand why you are desperately avoiding answering this question because it is in fact impossible to do so.”
Not impossible Joel, in fact you are close to the answer with equation (10) by honestly answering this yourself Joel. Ball4 pretty much summed it up. The N, V, and the constant f are directly proportional to the keinetic energy density… that is temperature.
Take a unit cube in a gravitational field, Now look, very critically, at the the top half of the volume compared to the bottom ½ cubic meter of volume. There will always be less ‘N’ particles in the top half than in the bottom half, do you not agree? Simple physics. This has to be so, since it requires greater pressure in the bottom half to support the top half of the mass. Integrate that very tiny differential within any one cubic meter of gases upward for the entire atmosphere and walla, that is your natural lapse rate. Try it if your psyche can stand to be corrected. This leaves greater kinetic energy density in the bottom half than in the top even though the mean molecular velocities are identical and well mixed. In this case of equation (10) potential energy is irrelevant and why it does not enter into that equation.
“Place your thermometer at z for say 900mb, find average molecular kinetic energy at that z from eqn. 8, then use eqn. 10 to compute that T. Move the thermometer up to say 800mb, compute the lower average molecular kinetic energy again from eqn. 8 at z’ for 800mb. Eqn. 10 then uses that input to compute the new lower T’.”
Eqn (10) doesn’t involve the average molecular kinetic energy. It involves E, N, and f. Hence, a different kinetic energy doesn’t allow you to produce a different temperature.
You have to explain how E, N, or f change with height in order to explain how the temperature can be different at different heights. Of course, E, N, and f can’t change because f is a constant and E and N are the energy and number of particles in your whole box that extends over a range of heights. [If you want to try to claim there are different boxes at different heights, then you have to show where in the text this is explained and how the boxes interact with each other…and why Equation (8) includes h explicitly but how in (10) we are supposed to believe that it depends implicitly on h through N and E.]
“Where exactly is this made clear?”
I am not sure why you want to see the quote again and again: “We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day. Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy. In this sense, these processes lower the maximum value that the entropy is allowed to attain. It thus seems natural that one should represent them by posing certain additional constraints in the maximization problem…” Why is this statement so hard for you to comprehend?
“Proportional to average kinetic energy Joel. Inspect my post at 2:31pm – the clip I used DID include the two times they mention thermodynamic limit. The 1995 paper uses graphs to “illustrate” convergence to canon up thru N=6 which I have already discussed and you apparently haven’t read and comprehended.”
All because it gets close to the thermodynamic result pretty quickly as N increases does not mean you can simply ignore the fact that the exact proportional relationship only occurs in the thermodynamic limit. My whole point has been that the correction in Eqn. (8) is extremely small for any reasonable value of N. So, yes, temperature and average kinetic energy are almost proportional for any reasonable N exactly because for any reasonable N, the correction in Eqn (8) is ridiculously small. This is why Velasco et al.’s whole point is a rather small technical correction to Coombes and Laue and that they still agree with most of Coombes and Laue, as they make clear when they say: “In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about
why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes
and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of
a finite system and an infinite system. In the former
case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in
statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement
(2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a)
is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and
Laue).”
“Thermo. equilibrium is reached when the ideal entropy eqn. stops increasing, is maximized i.e. in their words ‘maximize S for fixed M and L’. This math process is summarized in their claim of eqn.s (15), (16), (17) with their claim of same result Eqn. (18) ‘reproduced’ Bohren Eqn. 4.149 at thermo. equilibrium max. entropy.”
Nope…You only get thermodynamic equilibrium when you maximize the entropy IF your constraints allow you to reach the equilibrium state. As Verkley & Gerkema clearly explain, Constraint (3) does not allow that: “Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy. In this sense, these processes lower the maximum value that the entropy is allowed to attain. It thus seems natural that one should represent them by posing certain additional constraints in the maximization problem,
considering that constraints 1 and 29 will continue to
be valid. This is the key idea of this article.”
wayne says: “Take a unit cube in a gravitational field, Now look, very critically, at the the top half of the volume compared to the bottom ½ cubic meter of volume. There will always be less ‘N’ particles in the top half than in the bottom half, do you not agree? Simple physics. This has to be so, since it requires greater pressure in the bottom half to support the top half of the mass.”
Why is this relevant? We have one box that has a certain N and E and the result is a value for the temperature. The volume does not even appear in Eqn (10).
It is not even clear what you are talking about when you are talking about kinetic energy density. Is it kinetic energy per unit volume or kinetic energy per particle? If it is kinetic energy per unit volume, I agree that decreases as you go up in the box (because the number density decreases). However, as I noted, it is ONE box and volume doesn’t even appear in Eq. (10). The fact that this quantity decreases as you go up in the atmosphere says nothing about the temperature. (The kinetic energy density in the thermosphere is low, but that doesn’t mean the temperatures are.)
If you are talking about kinetic energy per particle, then I don’t see any justification for claiming that it decreases as you go up in the box (modulo the very small effect that Velasco et al. find for a finite-size system) and saying this is so just amounts to assuming your conclusion.
This thread provides a lot of examples of “motivated reasoning”, i.e., sloppy, irrational reasoning that is used when you are reasoning from conclusions to evidence rather than evidence to conclusions.
Joel 9:24am: “Eqn (10) doesn’t involve the average molecular kinetic energy. It involves E, N, and f. Hence, a different kinetic energy doesn’t allow you to produce a different temperature.”
Again, you interpret with words to suit your views & do not use the author’s exact words & eqn.s for their views. Walk you thru it yet again:
See the 1996 eqn (4) where average molecular kinetic energy(z) = f*kB*T/2 ? This same term is in eqn. (10) see it: 1=f*kB*T/2 + kB*T*N/E so eqn. (10) becomes 1=average molecular kinetic energy(z) + kB*T*N/E.
So Eqn. 10 DOES involve the average molecular kinetic energy – as a function of z. You should be able to see this, but walking you thru it is apparently needed. E,N,f are given constants in “a vessel” & do not change with height, just the T does, which goes as average molecular kinetic energy(z). Do I need make THIS more clear?
If so, the author’s do try & even write it out for you: “..by substituting (10) into (8) and taking the thermodynamic limit one easily obtains the result (4) i.e. the temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy at any height z in the thermodynamic limit.”
——
“If you want to try to claim there are different boxes at different heights..”
Velasco 1995,6 make no such claim of different boxes, they use “inside a vessel”, “N identical structureless particles contained into a vertical vessel of linear dimensions La:(a = 1,. . . ,f)”
“Why is this statement so hard for you to comprehend?”
It is easy to comprehend & I agree with it as I wrote 7:11pm.
The statement you clip over & over states for “the pure classical setting”, the solution for when the mid-air column: “means that changes in the internal, kinetic plus potential energy are equal and of opposite sign to the work performed by the system” is isothermal T(p) = constant Tr eqn. (12) in 2a. This mid-air column solution is plotted as the straight vertical line in Verkley 2004 Fig. 2.
This statement you clip over & over is not the solution Velasco is discussing “inside a vessel” or Bohren sec. 4.4 is discussing “the layer is isolated from its surroundings” or Verkley 2b is discussing: “the one proposed by Bohren and Albrecht (1998)” or the one Akmaev is discussing: “..in an isolated layer.” For those discussions, the solution at thermo. equilibrium is Velasco eqn. 8 non-isothermal, Bohren 4.149 non-isothermal, Verkely 2004 eqn. (18) non-isothermal, Akmaev eqn. (4) non-isothermal for the “maximation of S” (entropy) at thermo. equilibrium in “an isolated layer.”
——
“All because it gets close to the thermodynamic result pretty quickly as N increases does not mean you can simply ignore the fact that the exact proportional relationship only occurs in the thermodynamic limit.”
I don’t ignore this, these are your words interpreting the papers projecting your own view & not using each of the paper’s words.
“My whole point has been that the correction in Eqn. (8) is extremely small for any reasonable value of N.”
Which is wrong. Again, the second term of Velasco eqn. 8 (the PE) starts at 0.0 for z=0 and INCREASES as z increases meaning the PE goes up with z and the average molecular kinetic energy then goes down with increasing z, given E. Again, in the author’s 1995 words: “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas” as you move up the column (increase z) by their eqn. 8 & converges to canon with increasing N as illustrated. You must be busy, don’t read and comprehend. Slow down, comprehend.
”Nope…You only get thermodynamic equilibrium when you maximize the entropy IF your constraints allow you to reach the equilibrium state.”
Again your words vs. the author’s stated point, the key new idea, the purpose of Verkley 2004 is in their more complete wording prior 2., my bold: “It is the purpose of this article to suggest a way of incorporating 3 in the maximization problem without sacrificing the constraint 2’, which after all stems from the first law of thermodynamics. We will, in other words, pose 3 as an additional constraint to 1 and 2’. This brings us outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, and hence one can expect that the temperature profile will no longer be isothermal; we will derive below what profile forms the outcome.”
They proceed to summarize in 2b thermo. equilibrium in (15), (16), (17) with their derived profile (18) non-isothermal. This agrees (“reproduced”) with Bohren 4.149 and Akmaev (4) all of which are ideally non-isothermal for “an isolated layer” at max. entropy point (isentropic) thermo. equilibrium.
Ball4,
Your posts have really become self-parody. It is hard for me to even know if you seriously believe what you are writing or whether you are just trying to see how ridiculous you can make your arguments and still provoke a response (i.e., a response from me and nods of agreement from the Peanut Gallery of wayne et al.)
“See the 1996 eqn (4) where average molecular kinetic energy(z) = f*kB*T/2 ? ”
Equation (4) is the conclusion that you get to if Equation (2) and (3), i.e., assumptions (i) and (ii) are correct. The whole point of their paper is that these are not correct. Hence their statement: “The above properties imply, therefore, that assumptions (i) and (ii) are not applicable in the microcanonical analysis of a finite system.”
“So Eqn. 10 DOES involve the average molecular kinetic energy – as a function of z. You should be able to see this, but walking you thru it is apparently needed. E,N,f are given constants in ‘a vessel’ & do not change with height, just the T does, which goes as average molecular kinetic energy(z). Do I need make THIS more clear?”
So, Eqn. 10 has a right side that is all constants (i.e., is independent of height) and a left side that depends on height. Yeah…You’ve made it abundantly clear that you do not feel constrained by basic mathematics!!!
It is really silly to take this nonsense further at this point. It is interesting that in this whole discussion you have never produced even one tiny smidgeon of evidence, one tiny iota, that the interpretation of the Velasco et al. paper that I have explained to you is incorrect.
The only arguments you have attempted to make against that interpretation rely on red herrings and straw men.
And, then you have argued for your own interpretation which is correct if you can’t do simple mathematics [to see the size of the height-dependent term in Eq. (8)], if you believe that one side of an equation can depend on height and the other side not in Eq. (10), and if you ignore the author’s own concluding paragraph to their paper.
Let me repeat, for the benefit of those still reading, the correct interpretation that you have been utterly unable to find even a smidgeon of evidence against:
Here is what the Velasco et al. paper actually says:
(A) Coombes & Laue are right that the equilibrium state is isothermal. However, the reasoning is more complicated than what Coombes and Laue presented.
(B) In the thermodynamic limit (i.e., an infinite system), the temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy, which is independent of height and hence you get an isothermal result.
(C) In the finite case, the temperature is no longer just proportional to the average kinetic energy. Furthermore, the average kinetic energy has a term that depends on height (although this term gets very small as one goes to large N); However, the temperature (no longer being directly proportional to the average kinetic energy) is still independent of height.
So far, your only argument against this is that my summary above does not consist of direct quotes from their paper (of which I have given you many) but simply a summary of what they say in my own words. That is indeed correct. However, if it were an inaccurate summary, you would presumably be able to find evidence in what they do say that contradicts it. The fact that you can’t speaks volumes.
Joel 2:24pm: Once again uses his own words in A, B, C to arrive at his personal view, preconceived notions in face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Velasco eqn. (10) is for each z height i.e. in author’s words “at any height z” which is why it has the constants as I already noted. Eqn. 8 shows the variation of T with z.
”..if it were an inaccurate summary, you would presumably be able to find evidence in what they do say that contradicts it. The fact that you can’t speaks volumes.”
Joel’s summary is indeed inaccurate. I can & did “find”evidence & Joel is too busy to comprehend the authors. Here is the evidence, again, for “a vessel”, “an isolated column”, slow down, comprehend them Joel or offer cogent argument against the results of the mountain of authors work by using their own equations directly not your own imprecise words:
Velasco 1995 “..the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas.” as later shown in 1996 eqn. 8 with increasing z.
Again, Velasco 1996: Eqn. 8 non-isothermal
Bohren 1998 eqn. 4.149 non-isothermal
Verkley 2004 2b eqn. (18) non-isothermal
Akmaev 2008 eqn. (4) non-isothermal
——
Coombs & Laue 1984: “Adiabatically enclosed..(Isothermal) is indeed right.” Velasco 1996: “Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) (isothermal) is the correct one.” Velasco then proceeds derive non-isothermal for “a vessel” thereby prove isothermal conclusion of C&L is wrong & why, being the whole point of Velasco 1996 eqn. 8: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.”
As wayne noted 11:57pm: “Not impossible Joel, in fact you are close to the answer with equation (10) by honestly answering this yourself Joel.” Honestly answer it Joel & based on each of the authors eqn.s I’ve listed for you, not based on inaccurate prose.
The more modern authors are right, Joel is smart but shows no progress here, so eventually, when Joel isn’t too busy, his comprehension can improve with further study of the authors equations.
Joel 11:34am – “Don’t be silly”
Check out closely the paper’s non-silly eqn. 8 Joel as you write, find T a deceasing function of increasing z. I quoted verbatim exactly what the paper concludes. You are using the avg. environment not an isolated ideal column actually making my point. As you imply, your “miniscule” correction is indeed small but ideally & meaningfully non-constant T.
“Within thermodynamics, the temperature gradient in equilibrium is precisely 0.”
Not for ideally & theoretically isolated column. If you need more rigorous mathematical treatment from an entropy maximization view in the macro thermodynamic limit please see Bohren 1998 text sec. 4.4 “Atmospheric Applications of the Second Law” especially starting p. 164 and general case p. 169. Shows non-isothermal T at thermo. equilibrium just like Poisson long ago developed for T(p) in an isolated ideal gas column not allowed to do external work.
Run the simple Poisson numbers starting with an ideal isolated column base at 288K 1 atm. up to say 200mb, find a small correction of just a few degrees C at the top. Column T is not constant at thermo. equilibrium in Poisson’s T( p). As Dr. Bohren later implies, intuition developed from experiencing conduction in solids is very hard to overcome in a gas.
Ball4,
I will try to get hold of Bohren’s book to see what it says, but if it says what you are saying it says, then it seems to directly conflict with those papers. Those papers clearly show no temperature gradient in the thermodynamic limit.
At any rate, none of this has any bearing on the correctness of Doug’s claims.
Joel 2:45pm: Right, nothing to do with Doug, the physics eqn.s for gas enthalpy and entropy are far above Doug’s level of accomplishment; especially beyond Doug is the calculus to work with them.
I do not see any conflicts with the 1996 paper since Dr. Bohren reaches the same conclusion I quoted from the 1996 paper that you cite, though much more rigorously including density, p,V in enthalpy for the macro column layer.
The microcanonical ensemble method used in 1996 paper means E can be exactly specified. If you look at eqn. 8 it is in the form KE = TE – PE. For a 1 meter^2 column of avg. mid-tropic latitude earth standard air, TE is about 2 * 10^9 joules. This is a big number sure, but so is each of the 3 numbers. Note your point ~1/N is actually ~N/N when eqn. 8 is multiplied out. E is both in numerator and denominator in the 2nd term.
Ball4: I see where your confusion is. mgh is the potential energy of a ***SINGLE*** molecule and E is the total energy of the system. E is proportional to N. mgh is not. That is why the average kinetic energy becomes independent of height in the limit that N goes to infinity.
[If you doubt m is the mass of a single molecule, you can go back to their 1995 paper, since they don’t seem to explicitly define it in this paper. However, it is also obvious from their parenthetical note below Eqn (3), i.e., that mgh and k_B*T are of the same order if you are to get a reasonable variation of number density of the gas with height.]
And, note, that in the end (concluding paragraph), the authors arguing that (2) [that the temperature decreases with height] is wrong in BOTH the finite and infinite cases. It is wrong in the infinite case because (2a) is wrong and it is wrong in the finite case because (2b) is wrong, i.e., in the finite case there is a small correction to the temperature being exactly proportional to the average kinetic energy.
Joel 8:11am – No confusion. I did go back to the 1995 paper to find their defn. of m. However, as I wrote above 9:32am from eqn. 8 which shows at equilibrium a decrease in column T with height z in a finite system and the paper verbatim concludes “for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height” which is in agreement with the more rigorous macro density, P, T gas enthalpy & entropy derivation in Dr. Bohren’s 1998 text in the cite I gave.
What the paper says about someone else earlier getting wrong or right is irrelevant. The paper explicitly writes out their 1996 conclusion. Do you still disagree with their explicit conclusion?
ftp://ftp.cima.fcen.uba.ar/pub/celeste/file1_Bh_Al.pdf
Ball4,
But…That is a 1/N correction where N is the number of molecules, which means it is ridiculously small for anything but the most miniscule box; that is why I am confused what Bohren is getting at. Is he really interested in that?
Furthermore, as they explain, even though the kinetic energy decreases with height, the temperature does not because there is also a miniscule 1/N correction to the proportionality of temperature to kinetic energy in an ideal gas. Hence their concluding paragraph that I discussed.
Joel 6:35pm – See the last sentence I wrote at 3:15pm. The second term in 1996 paper eqn. 8 does not go as ~1/N, it goes as ~N/N. Total energy E cancels out of the 2nd term. The correction from constant T with increasing z found by Poisson eqn. and in 1996 paper is rigorously proven in Dr. Bohren text as several degrees C (ground level to ~200mb) which is far from negligible.
The 1996 concluding paragraph does not modify eqn. 8 nor the paper’s conclusion I quoted verbatim.
Ball4,
I don’t know why you are being so stubborn about this. It is okay to be wrong sometimes. Everybody makes mistakes. The statement that you quote from the paper does not support your conclusion and other statements refute it. That statement has the qualification “finite” and talks about average kinetic energy, not temperature.
If you actually read the rest of the paper (here for those who don’t have access to the journal: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/s-velasco.pdf ), including the conclusion, you would understand that they support the conclusion that the statement “the temperature decreases with the height” is ***INCORRECT***. Their only point is that it is incorrect for two different reasons depending on whether you look at a infinite or finite system: For an infinite system, it is incorrect because average kinetic energy does not in fact decrease with height; for a finite system, it is incorrect because temperature is not directly proportional to average kinetic energy, but rather there is a 1/N correction.
Furthermore, the 2nd factor in Eqn. 8 is (1-mgh/E). mgh is not of order N because m is the mass of a single molecule. E is of order N. Hence this term goes like (1-A/N) where A is a factor proportional to h that is of order 1. So, in Eqn (8), you have the result that the average kinetic energy is equal to a factor that has no dependence on h multiplied by a factor of the form (1 – A/N) where A is proportional to h. This is why “for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height” but the dependence on height gets very small as N gets larger and larger.
Now, I truly don’t know how this relates to what you claim is in Bohren’s textbook because I don’t have access to that book. So, it is not clear to me whether there is truly a conflict between what Bohren claims and what this paper shows or whether you have misinterpreted what Bohren’s claim is, just as you seem to be misinterpreting this paper.
Just to clarify what Bohren is talking about, how does what he gets for the temperature change with height compare to what you get when you are no longer restricting oneself to equilibrium and are instead talking about the dry adiabatic lapse rate?
Joel 9:10am: “That statement has the qualification “finite””
A m^2 column of standard air from ground level up to about 200mb is finite. 2*10^9 joules TE.
“talks about average kinetic energy, not temperature.”
They define temperature as the avg. KE as usual. Avg. KE dexreases with z as shown in their eqn. 8, so T(p) is not constant with increasing z.
“the conclusion that the statement “the temperature decreases with the height” is ***INCORRECT***.”
Where? Joel, the paper explicity concludes – as Dr. Bohren confirms – when you get to his derivation T(p) is not constant at equilibrium, as I have written out for you already many times,“for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height”.
“Furthermore, the 2nd factor in Eqn. 8 is (1-mgh/E). mgh is not of order N”
The second factor is E * mgh/E so E concels out. The eqn. is of the form PE = TE – KE
“the dependence on height gets very small as N gets larger and larger.”
No, N has canceled out of eqn. 8. It is for one m as you wrote.
Joel – I am not misinterpreting, I am quoting the paper exactly, verbatim. No interpretation at all, just read the paper exactly as written.
——
9:19am: Dr. Bohren derives the DALR also, it is an introductory text. He discusses at length the use of DALR is a good approximation. The ideal T(p) from Poisson is a better approximation.
“A m^2 column of standard air from ground level up to about 200mb is finite. 2*10^9 joules TE.”
It is close enough to the thermodynamic limit that, for all practical purposes (any real measurement), you could not distinguish it from infinite.
“They define temperature as the avg. KE as usual. Avg. KE dexreases with z as shown in their eqn. 8, so T(p) is not constant with increasing z.”
The last paragraph says: “In the former case [finite system], statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in
statement (2b) is wrong.” Statement (2b) is “Temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy.” How much clearer do they have to make it?
“Where? Joel, the paper explicitly concludes – as Dr. Bohren confirms – ”
Read their conclusion. And, look back at the introductory paragraph for what it refers to.
“The second factor is E * mgh/E so E concels out. The eqn. is of the form PE = TE – KE”
Where is the first E you are multiplying by? The first factor in that equation contains E in the numerator but N in the denominator and since E ~ N, it is of order 1. Then the term (1 – mgh/E) contains two terms; the first “1” is of order 1. The second mgh/E is of order 1/N. And, no, the equation is not of the form you state because mgh is the PE of a single molecule and E is the energy of the entire system.
“Joel – I am not misinterpreting, I am quoting the paper exactly, verbatim. No interpretation at all, just read the paper exactly as written.”
The only thing that you have quoted verbatim is a sentence that we don’t disagree on. Yes, in a ***FINITE*** system the average kinetic energy decreases with height; however, as Eqn (8) shows, the correction is of order 1/N and hence is extremely small for any reasonable-sized system.
Furthermore, one of the main points of their paper is that temperature is proportional to average kinetic energy only in the thermodynamic limit (i.e., an infinite system). For any finite system, there is a correction to that, which is why they say in their concluding paragraph that Statement (2b) [‘Temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy’] is wrong in the case of a finite system.
—
As for Bohren, I will have try to get hold of the book, but if you are describing it accurately, then Bohren has made a serious error. It is not hard to come up with a “false proof” of the adiabatic lapse rate that seems to suggest it is an equilibrium state if one is not careful. (By careful, I mean that one has to not neglect the buoyant force and has to be careful to distinguish between specific heats at constant pressure and volume. I was confused on these points for a while when I first tried to derive the dry adiabatic lapse rate myself.
Joel 12:51pm: “you could not distinguish it from infinite.”
A system total E of 2*10^9 joules is easily calculable and definitely distinguishable from infinity.
“Read their conclusion. And, look back at the introductory paragraph for what it refers to.”
Their conclusion is once AGAIN eqn. 8 and they even put their conclusion into words for the math challenged & resistant “for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height”.
In the 1st paragraph, they are writing Coombes & Laue were wrong to conclude answer (1) the temperature is the same throughout because the system is in equilibrium – though whether C&L were wrong or not is irrelevant to their derivation of eqn. 8 being that their 1996 paper conclusion is: temperature is non-constant with increasing z in the finite column. Meaning eqn. 8 in no way depends on C&L work.
“Where is the first E you are multiplying by?”
Right after the numerator first little f for system dof.
“E is the energy of the entire system.”
Yes and as you wrote eqn. 8 the m is the mass of one molecule which for eqn. 8 IS the total system. This molecule reduces in avg. kinetic energy as it increases z.
“Yes, in a ***FINITE*** system the average kinetic energy decreases with height; however, as Eqn (8) shows, the correction is of order 1/N and hence is extremely small for any reasonable-sized system.”
Ok, we now agree the finite column is non-isothermal in z at equilibrium – the only difference is the amount. Dr. Bohren shows the amount is a few degrees from 1atm. up to ~200mb. Running the actual equilibrium decrease in T(p) with z number is very easy Joel, you should give it a try. The decrease will be far from negligible, far above “extremely small”.
In eqn. 8 with DOF = 1, find N=1 for one m and eqn. 8 says avg. KE(z) = (E/1)*(1-mgz/E) = E – mgz or KE = TE – PE. This is pretty simple Joel.
“Statement (2b) [‘Temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy’] is wrong in the case of a finite system.”
This is YOUR interpretation, not that of Velasco et. al. who conclude eqn. 8: “for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height”.
——
“As for Bohren, I will have try to get hold of the book, but if you are describing it accurately, then Bohren has made a serious error.”
Please do so Joel, in Bohren’s words “if we restrict our attention to layers several hundred mb thick, we make no serious error” p.166 – or find a serious error in the rigorous math if you can & let the field know. Two subsequent papers of which I am aware confirm Velasco & Dr. Bohren’s equilibrium ideal column non-isothermal results and extend them.
Fun discussion Joel, reinforces the basic physics for me at least.
“A system total E of 2*10^9 joules is easily calculable and definitely distinguishable from infinity.”
So, what do you get?
“Their conclusion is once AGAIN eqn. 8”
I meant their conclusion at the end of the paper. You can’t just selectively read one sentence out of the paper and ignore the rest. We don’t disagree on what that one sentence says (although we do disagree on the magnitude of the effect, which the sentence itself doesn’t address one way or the other).
“In the 1st paragraph, they are writing Coombes & Laue were wrong to conclude answer (1) the temperature is the same throughout because the system is in equilibrium”
Nope…They never say that. Note even close In fact, in the concluding paragraph, they say, “In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of a finite system and an infinite system. In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement (2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a) is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and Laue).” In other words, they agree with Coombes and Laue that (2) is wrong [and hence (1) is right] but for somewhat more complicated reasons than Coombes and Laue gave.
“Right after the numerator first little f for system dof.”
But that first term is also divided by N. Both E and N are of order N, or at least that is the case of most interest (see #9). [Since they are in the microcanonical ensemble, they can specify them independently, but if they let E and N not be proportional then the average energy, and hence the temperature, either goes to zero or infinity in the thermodynamic limit.]
“Yes and as you wrote eqn. 8 the m is the mass of one molecule which for eqn. 8 IS the total system.”
The entire system consists of one molecule?!?! Are you serious? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why even have N in there if it is 1? It seems like you are getting desperate to keep your interpretation no matter what the evidence against it.
“Ok, we now agree the finite column is non-isothermal in z at equilibrium – the only difference is the amount.”
Nope…You keep missing a key point of their paper: Saying that the average kinetic energy has a small variation in height is not the same thing as saying the temperature does. That is one of the main points of their paper, i.e., that statement (2b) [Temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy] does not technically hold for a finite system because there is a correction (although it is very small when N is any reasonable size).
“Dr. Bohren shows the amount is a few degrees from 1atm. up to ~200mb. Running the actual equilibrium decrease in T(p) with z number is very easy Joel, you should give it a try. The decrease will be far from negligible, far above “extremely small”.”
You keep referring to T(p) without defining it. Can you define with an equation what T(p) is equal to?
“In eqn. 8 with DOF = 1, find N=1 for one m and eqn. 8 says avg. KE(z) = (E/1)*(1-mgz/E) = E – mgz or KE = TE – PE. This is pretty simple Joel.”
Yes…but a box containing exactly 1 molecule is a ridiculously-small system that has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
“This is YOUR interpretation, not that of Velasco et. al.”
No…The exact quote from the last paragraph of their paper is “In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong” [where I have inserted in brackets what Statement (2b) is, also an exact quote, as found in the beginning of their paper].
Honestly, read their paper…Their whole paper, or at least the introduction and the conclusions. Their paper consists of more than one sentence and one equation!
Joel 1:34pm: Nice way to run around in circles.
“We don’t disagree..define with an equation what T(p) is equal to?”
Ok then you now agree the ideal column becomes non-isothermal at equilibrium. This is what counts. Dr. Bohren’s 1998 piece will rigorously show you why the standard initial conditions in the ideal column become non-isothermal T(p) = non-constant at thermo. equilibrium.
For an ideal gas, the ideal Poisson eqn. shows non-isothermal magnitude of T(p) = To * (p(z)/po)^R/Cp, Bohren eqn. 4.149, p. 166. To, po (e.g. 288K, 1atm.) being the known conditions at z=0. Didn’t think I needed to write out the age old standard eqn. for you. All else is fun wordsmithing.
“In other words, they agree with Coombes and Laue that (2) is wrong [and hence (1) is right] but for somewhat more complicated reasons than Coombes and Laue gave.”
No, geez Joel, 1) is shown wrong by Velasco 1996 eqn. 8, Bohren 1998 cite I gave and at least 2 subsequent confirming papers. You seem to now agree above 1) T(p) = constant is wrong as does Velasco 1996 then circle back, backsliding. 2) is right, the T(p) decreases with height at equilibrium with the gas column not allowed to do work on surroundings.
Velasco 1996 removes the paradox from C&L 1985. Velasco et. al. 1996 does not change their paper’s conclusion eqn. 8 in the last paragraph Joel, eqn. 8 is still their result. Here they are trying to resolve the C&L paradox for them in their own unfortunate words used in 1985 paper. It will take many more posts to correctly parse this in support of eqn. 8, just slow down and do so on your own. It is possible to work thru correctly in support of their eqn. 8. Took me some time, and headaches to remove the double “wrongs”. Do that. Think the translation is maybe at fault.
You are correct in writing to read the paper, read the introduction, this is why m appears in eqn. 8 as a single particle mass:
“…we have derived, by using the microcanonical (EVN) ensemble, the single-particle distribution density functions for an ideal gas in a gravitational field.”
“Ok then you now agree the ideal column becomes non-isothermal at equilibrium. This is what counts. Dr. Bohren’s 1998 piece will rigorously show you why the standard initial conditions in the ideal column become non-isothermal T(p) = non-constant at thermo. equilibrium.”
You have edited my words in a way that makes it appear that I agree with something that I don’t. I have stated very clearly what that article says: They say that the average kinetic energy has a small variation in height that goes to zero as the number of particles goes to infinity. Saying that the average kinetic energy has a small variation in height is not the same thing as saying the temperature does. That is one of the main points of their paper, i.e., that statement (2b) [Temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy] does not technically hold for a finite system because there is a correction (although it is very small when N is any reasonable size).
Furthermore, that very tiny variation in average kinetic energy is nothing like the equation you write, which is basically the equation for the adiabatic lapse rate (but written in terms of pressure, not height)…and is NOT an expression of equilibrium behavior. [Instead, it is the expression of a limit beyond which the atmosphere becomes unstable to convection.]
“No, geez Joel, 1) is shown wrong by Velasco 1996 eqn. 8, Bohren 1998 cite I gave and at least 2 subsequent confirming papers. You seem to now agree above 1) T(p) = constant is wrong as does Velasco 1996 then circle back, backsliding. 2) is right, the T(p) decreases with height at equilibrium with the gas column not allowed to do work on surroundings.”
This is utter nonsense. You are contradicting Velasco et al.’s direct statements regarding statements (1) and (2): “In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of a finite system and an infinite system. In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement (2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a) is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and Laue).” Furthermore, you are claiming that Eq (8) shows that the temperature varies with height when it doesn’t even contain the temperature. It contains the average kinetic energy and the major new point made by Velasco et al. is that the temperature is only directly proportional to average kinetic energy in the thermodynamic limit (i.e., an infinite system).
“Velasco 1996 removes the paradox from C&L 1985. Velasco et. al. 1996 does not change their paper’s conclusion eqn. 8 in the last paragraph Joel, eqn. 8 is still their result.”
Your argument boils down to the fact that because you can misinterpret Equation 8 to say something that it doesn’t, you are then justified in adopting that interpretation and ignoring everything else in that paper that shows the interpretation to be absolutely incorrect.
I will finish by simply reposting the link to Velasco et al., so that everyone can see how you blatantly misinterpret it: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/s-velasco.pdf
This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and unfortunately you are providing just another example in clearly and directly claiming that Velasco et al. say something completely different than what they actually say.
Until I can get hold of Bohren’s book (if I can), I won’t have any way of knowing if you have reported what he says accurately, but given how utterly you misinterpret Velasco et al., I no longer have much faith that you have done any better job interpreting Bohren.
Joel 5:45pm: “..the equation you write…is NOT an expression of equilibrium behavior..”
You give no formal basis for this assertion Joel; you haven’t yet read (afaik) the formal proof in Dr. Bohren 1998 text that the Poisson equation I wrote for T(p) IS the expression of thermo. equilibrium in the isolated ideal finite column (e.g. surface up to ~200mb) doing no external work.
“You are contradicting Velasco et al.’s direct statements regarding statements (1) and (2):”
No sir, the last paragraph agrees with their eqn. 8 interpretation once you parse it correctly, you are confused by the double (or more) negatives and the over seas use of “former” and “latter”, one has to go back to the 1985 paper and carefully work thru the translation to find agreement with their eqn. 8 interpretation. It is a real headache.
Furthermore, there is no equation in the 1996 paper showing T(p) = constant in the finite column or if I missed it, please point it out. The last paragraph is not intended to change the meaning of their entire 1996 letter!
“Your argument boils down to the fact that because you can misinterpret Equation 8 to say something that it doesn’t.”
Joel, I am not interpreting eqn. 8 at all, I am relying on the paper itself for eqn. 8 interpretation in English, even with added emphasis in the original italics verbatim: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.”
“This thread is a testimony of how people will persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary,”
Agreed. But the overwhelming evidence in existing literature is for non-isothermal T at equilibrium. On my side of the debate I have Velasco et. al.’s own interpretation of eqn. 8, Bohren 1998 cite, and at least two subsequent confirming papers by other authors T(p) = non-constant at thermo. equilibrium. If all of those confirmed T(p) = constant at thermo. equilibrium in the ideal finite m^2 column, this thread would not exist. On your side so far, you have but a last obtuse paragraph that you interpret changing eqn. 8 to something the paper itself does not mean IMO. This is not overwhelming.
A good college library will have a copy of Dr. Bohren’s 1998 text, it is still in print. It is a good read actually. It will build your faith. Your intuition developed from conduction in solids will be improved reading a thorough, rigorous formal proof for a gas.
Fun debate, but IMO it can’t make progress until you critically read Dr. Bohren cite and then research the follow-up existing literature on your own. I may catch you somewhere down the road after you invest the time, if you retain the interest.
“You have edited my words in a way that makes it appear that I agree with something that I don’t. I have stated very clearly what that article says: They say that the average kinetic energy has a small variation in height that goes to zero as the number of particles goes to infinity. Saying that the average kinetic energy has a small variation in height is not the same thing as saying the temperature does. ”
Well it is saying that density is the major factor.
So small change in kinetic velocity [I assume we talking about troposphere, as there would more variation in the average velocity as one goes above troposphere [I assume that is somewhat related to the reverse of lapse]. But I would guess it’s related to sorting- only the faster survives and/or faster velocity goes significantly further distance before collision [related to lower density or air].
“No sir, the last paragraph agrees with their eqn. 8 interpretation once you parse it correctly, you are confused by the double (or more) negatives and the over seas use of ‘former’ and ‘latter’, one has to go back to the 1985 paper and carefully work thru the translation to find agreement with their eqn. 8 interpretation. It is a real headache.”
There is nothing confusing about their wording; it is very clear. And, “former” and “latter” clearly refer to finite and infinite, respectively. I see nothing confusing about it.
“Joel, I am not interpreting eqn. 8 at all, I am relying on the paper itself for eqn. 8 interpretation in English, even with added emphasis in the original italics verbatim: ‘i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.'”
No…From this statement, you can’t make the jump to what you have made. First, that statement does not say anything about the ***magnitude*** of the effect. Second, they do not say anything there about temperature, only average kinetic energy (and the two are only strictly proportional in the thermodynamic limit).
“Agreed. But the overwhelming evidence in existing literature is for non-isothermal T at equilibrium. On my side of the debate I have Velasco et. al.’s own interpretation of eqn. 8”
Nope…That does not support your interpretation. And, it certainly does not support an effect that is significant for any reasonable-sized system.
In fact, I just noticed that Velasco et al. actually define the temperature in Eq. (10) and it doesn’t have any height-dependence. [I hadn’t noticed until now that this definition is not just in the thermodynamic limit but is also for finite N.] If you compare Eq. (8) and (10), you can see that (f/2)*k_B*t = in the thermodynamic limit, as one would expect. However, for finite N, (f/2)*k_B*T = f*E/[(f+2)*N]. Hence, comparing the two, you see that the two differences between (f/2)*k_B*t and for finite N: has an extra “-2” in the denominator and an extra factor of (1 – mgh/E). These corrections are both of order 1/N (which is what I had noted long ago, even before I realized that they wrote down their expression for temperature for all N).
So, Equation (10) is even more direct evidence that you are wrong to say that they find T to vary with height; The equation explicitly shows a T independent of height!
“Bohren 1998 cite, and at least two subsequent confirming papers by other authors T(p) = non-constant at thermo. equilibrium.”
I have not seen Bohren yet and hence cannot comment…and I don’t know who these other authors are who you refer to.
“On your side so far, you have but a last obtuse paragraph that you interpret changing eqn. 8 to something the paper itself does not mean IMO. This is not overwhelming.”
It is not obtuse. It is very clear if you follow the logic of their reasoning and interpret Eqn (8) correctly. And, unlike your interpretation, it also aligns with Eqn (10).
“A good college library will have a copy of Dr. Bohren’s 1998 text, it is still in print. It is a good read actually. It will build your faith. Your intuition developed from conduction in solids will be improved reading a thorough, rigorous formal proof for a gas.”
I look forward to getting a hold of it. Unfortunately, neither of the major universities where I live have a copy of it in their libraries.
Sorry, HTML garbled my attempt to write the average kinetic energy with angular brackets in the last post. I need to rewrite a few of my sentences as follows, this time using K_ave for average kinetic energy:
If you compare Eq. (8) and (10), you can see that (f/2)*k_B*T = K_ave in the thermodynamic limit, as one would expect. However, for finite N, (f/2)*k_B*T = f*E/[(f+2)*N]. Hence, comparing the two, you see that there are two differences between (f/2)*k_B*T and K_ave for finite N: K_ave has an extra “-2″ in the denominator and an extra factor of (1 – mgh/E).
ftp://ftp.cima.fcen.uba.ar/pub/celeste/file1_Bh_Al.pdf
“I look forward to getting a hold of it. Unfortunately, neither of the major universities where I live have a copy of it in their libraries.”
I wonder why the above link isn’t it.
Joel 3:03pm: “In fact, I just noticed that Velasco et al. actually define the temperature in Eq. (10) and it doesn’t have any height-dependence.”
Correct Joel. For eqn. 10, T is that “in the microcanonical ensemble” (as the paper states) a distribution density which exists at a certain z. Thus at that z the T IS constant for the microcanonical ensemble. Here there is a single particle distribution density function, not a column of particles. At different z (with non-zero g) the microcanonical ensemble T is different per eqn. 8. For the microcanonical ensemble distribution difference from canonical Maxwellian T, I urge you to read their 1995 paper* cited: “in the microcanonical ensemble this distribution has a form that differs from the Maxwell one.”
Thus your other comments about eqn. 10 are moot, the column Maxwellian T (“temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy”) is non-isothermal at equilibrium over all z as shown in eqn. 8 and as the paper states: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.”
Your major (or minor) university library will have a program of free inter-library book loans, the ref. desk will be happy to find the author/title & handle such an assignment; it is what they live for. I also urge you to do your own research on the follow-up papers. If I define the authors, per your temperament here, I will be simply guilty of cherry picking. Maybe you find one I haven’t yet read critically.
*“it certainly does not support an effect that is significant for any reasonable-sized system.”
The 1995 paper shows the microcanonical energy distribution converges to canonical Maxwellian very quickly as N goes from 2 to 6, so your reference to reasonable sized systems at N=infinity is also moot.
You will also find they compare their work to g=0: “In order to illustrate the influence of the gravitational field…(it) shifts the maximum of the microcanonical velocity distribution toward the low velocity region; i.e. the presence of a gravitational field cools the gas.”
I wish you some good, interesting reading. As I wrote, no progress can be made until you accomplish that endeavor – IF your interest holds.
Joel 3:03pm: “There is nothing confusing about their wording; it is very clear. And, “former” and “latter” clearly refer to finite and infinite, respectively. I see nothing confusing about it.”
Nothing confusing? Hardly. To be clear, the authors should have used the original terms with no double negatives. The paper was written in Spain where the language convention for former and latter is opposite English. Once you get the translation correctly worked thru the double negatives (or communicate with the authors directly) that 2nd to last 1996 paragraph meaning is the same as the authors interpret eqn. 8. And eqn. 10. And, the whole of the 1995, 1996 papers.
“The demonstrative pronoun éste/a can be used for “latter” and ése/a or aquél/la for “former” (Note that in English the order is usually “the former … the latter”, whereas in Spanish it is usually the other way around: ésta… ésa…).”
http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/PRONOUN1.HTM
Well, Ball4, it is amusing to watch you jump through hoops to maintain your ridiculous interpretation of the paper in the light of the mountains of evidence that contradict it.
Now that I have pointed out Eq. (10) directly contradicts your assertion, you have decided that they magically meant Equation (10) to apply only at one height. Why do you think this when there system of N particles has never been only at one height before, like in Equation (8)? Because that is the only way your incorrect interpretation could possibly survive. (By the way, you keep harping on the term “single particle distribution density function” but you are actually misinterpreting its meaning: It does not mean that they are only considering a single particle in their system, which is why their formulas still have N in them; it simply means that there is no correlation between particles in an ideal gas so the distribution function, which in the most general case would be a function of all N particles, factors into a product of N single-particle distribution functions.)
You’ve also resorted to quoting out of context. You quote them as saying “temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy” but the full context is “Then, by substituting (10) into (8) and taking the thermodynamic limit one easily obtains the result (4), i.e. the temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy at any height z in the thermodynamic limit.” They’ve put “thermodynamic limit” into that sentence twice just to make it impossible for someone to misinterpret it as applying in the case when N is finite and yet that was not enough to prevent you from misinterpreting it!
Finally, you have your theory of “double negatives” and latter and former meaning different things in different languages to explain why their concluding paragraph completely blows your interpretation out of the water. However, there is no simple way to change those sentences to read what you want them to say; “latter” and “former” just changes the finite and infinite cases to something that doesn’t make sense in the light of the rest of the paper and still doesn’t get you what you want.
Here is their concluding paragraph in its entirety: “In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about
why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes
and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of
a finite system and an infinite system. In the former
case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in
statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement
(2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a)
is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes and
Laue).” Please show me how through the magic of the Ball4 re-translator, this paragraph comes out to mean what you want it to mean.
Just to summarize for any readers following what the Velasco paper actually says:
(a) Coombes and Laue are right that temperature is independent of height in a gravitational field in equilibrium.
(b) However, Coombes and Laue’s reasoning was not completely correct…as some of their assumptions apply only to the infinite case (thermodynamic limit). In that case, temperature and average kinetic energy are directly proportional, as Coombes and Laue assumed, and are both independent of height.
(c) In the finite case, temperature is still independent of height, but temperature and average kinetic energy are no longer directly proportional. (They differ from proportionality by terms that are of order 1/N.) In this case, average kinetic energy has a term that does depend on height, although this term is of order 1/N and hence rapidly goes to zero as you increase the system size.
Joel 7:49am: Again, you make no progress Joel, your arguments are static, and won’t go dynamic unless and until you have critically read the follow-up rigorous treatments.
”Why do you think this when there system of N particles has never been only at one height before, like in Equation (8)?”
Eqn. 10 as the paper states & I already wrote for you is for the microcanonical ensemble distribution density of 1 particle which can only occupy 1 z. Therefore has only 1 constant T eqn. 10 at that z while eqn. 8 is for a finite column of 1 to many N particles throughout the z range having equilibrium non-constant T. Converges fast to Maxwellian canon at about and above 6N.
”Because that is the only way your incorrect interpretation could possibly survive.”
The non-isothermal ideal T(p) has survived since Poisson in 1890s Joel, reinforced in Velasco eqn. 8 & their interpretation & concluding paragraph (consult the authors!), in Bohren 1998 sec. 4.4, and at least two thoroughly rigorous follow-up papers. Your isothermal interpretation exists only in your misinterpretation of the 2nd to last paragraph 1996 paper, not published anywhere since Poisson afaik. This is rather isolated I would say.
Interpreting former and latter in the Spanish use and eliminating the double negatives shows agreement with their eqn. 8 Joel, they do not change anything after eqn. 8. Try it. Write it out. It’s a headache. The authors are to blame for the aspirin bill, they could have done a better job of communicating despite translation issues & thereby not confusing you. They used similar language to C&L in an attempt to trace the lingo. Didn’t help obviously.
”In this case, average kinetic energy has a term that does depend on height, although this term is of order 1/N”
The second term of eqn. 8 goes as N/N Joel (since E/E cancels out) as I already showed and the 1996 (and 1995!) paper explicitly interprets at thermo. equilibrium finite isolated column is non-isothermal with z, a conclusion rigorously shown now in modern times by at least 3 other independent authors, for at least a total of 4. Their 1995 paper shows the same non-isothermal conclusion from microcanonical stat.s needing 6 N to converge to canonical Maxwellian energy. The equilibrium T difference at the tall column top and bottom will be non-constant by a few degrees.
The only way to progress Joel is obtain & critically read other works, I had to do so.
NB: My quotes are clipped to show the nearby or online full context rather than repeating the whole paper or comment. Use my clip only to properly find the context.
Ball4:
“Eqn. 10 as the paper states & I already wrote for you is for the microcanonical ensemble distribution density of 1 particle which can only occupy 1 z.”
You continue to misinterpret what a one-particle distribution function means, despite my attempt to explain it.
“Interpreting former and latter in the Spanish use and eliminating the double negatives shows agreement with their eqn. 8 Joel, they do not change anything after eqn. 8. Try it. Write it out. It’s a headache. The authors are to blame for the aspirin bill, they could have done a better job of communicating despite translation issues & thereby not confusing you. They used similar language to C&L in an attempt to trace the lingo. Didn’t help obviously.”
I already understand what that paragraph means and summarized it in my last post, where I quoted that paragraph verbatim and suggested you show me how you would alter the wording to make it agree with what you think they were saying. It is not up to me to try to figure out how to make it say what you think they are saying, because to me they are very clearly NOT saying what you think they are saying.
“The second term of eqn. 8 goes as N/N Joel (since E/E cancels out)”
Look, this isn’t rocket science; it’s simple algebra. Their second factor is (1 – mgh/E). Since m is the mass of a single particle and E is the energy of a system of N particles, the first term “1” is of order 1 and the second term “mgh/E” is of order 1/N.
Saying you take an “E” from the first factor and multiply it in is just fooling yourself: Anything multiplying this (1 – mgh/E) multiplies both the 1 and the mgh/E and hence does not change the ratio of those two terms to each other. [Looking at the full first factor shows that it is also of order 1.]
“NB: My quotes are clipped to show the nearby or online full context rather than repeating the whole paper or comment. Use my clip only to properly find the context.”
Well, that is all fine and dandy…but then why quote something that is completely irrelevant as if it is relevant? You quoted something that, in the full context, said that the temperature and average kinetic energy are proportional to each other in the thermodynamic limit. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether they are strictly proportional for a finite system. They are not, as can easily be seen by just doing the math of comparing Eqn (8) and Eqn (10) [and not making any unjustified assumptions about Eqn (10) only holding on alternate Tuesdays after 5pm].
“The non-isothermal ideal T(p) has survived since Poisson in 1890s”
I don’t think so…Not in equilibrium. If you are calculating the dry adiabatic lapse rate, which the atmosphere is driven to in dry regions because if its being strongly heated from below and cooled from above, then yes, that is the formula to use. But, such an atmosphere is not in equilibrium. Perhaps some presentations are a little unclear on this distinction between equilibrium behavior and the behavior that we actually see in our atmosphere, which is not even close to being in equilibrium. But, a good presentation should make it clear that the atmosphere is driven to this distribution by the very unequal heating, along with the fact that lapse rates above the adiabatic lapse rate are unstable to convection, which is very effective at driving the lapse rate back down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
Joel 2:08pm: Your repeated static arguments do not make them correct. You make no effort at progress as I pointed out.
The 1996 last concluding paragraph repeats the 1996 non-isothermal interpretation for eqn. 8 using C&L obtuse wordsmanship as there is no change between eqn. 8 and the conclusion. The concluding paragraph is equivalent to: “i.e., for a finite adiabatically enclosed ideal gas in a gravitational field the average molecular kinetic energy decreases with height.” Thus (1) is shown incorrect and the 1985 C&L paradox in (2) is removed by the 1996 stat.s paper.
“Look, this isn’t rocket science; it’s simple algebra. Their second factor is (1 – mgh/E).”
Nope. Simple algebra shows for eqn. 8 with 1dof, 1 N: avg. KE(z) = (E/1) * (1 – mgz/E) = E – mgz
which is for a volume element at a given particle height z of fixed, known ensemble E V N “the average molecular kinetic energy (1) by using the microcanonical distributions.” Since as the paper corroborates “temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy” (4), T varies with z. The microcanonical ensemble converges to Maxwell canon quickly & reasonably around N=6 and up (1995 paper).
“Well, that is all fine and dandy…but then why quote something that is completely irrelevant as if it is relevant?”
So the reader and/or respondent can easily (i.e. finely and dandily) find the whole context. You use this method also! Works.
“The non-isothermal ideal T(p) has survived since Poisson in 1890s” I don’t think so…Not in equilibrium.”
Think? At least 4 total & independent authors rigorously know at thermo. equilibrium Poisson T(p) is non-isothermal idealized soln. Whereas you interpret the 1st (Velasco 1995, 1996) differently than the author’s explicit statements, don’t show the simple algebra correctly and haven’t yet critically read the other 3 authors. Poisson figured it out in the 1890s. The Poisson formula is ideal thermo. equilibrium T(p) non-isothermal; the constant T, DALR and avg. ELR are not in thermo. equilibrium only useful approximations to real steady state as nature is not ideal.
You are certainly giving a good example of how tortured reasoning becomes when you reason for conclusions back to evidence rather than from evidence to conclusions.
You just gotta marvel at the Ball4 re-translator that takes the paragraph:
“In conclusion, in our opinion a full explanation about why answer (2) to the paradox formulated by Coombes and Laue is wrong must discern between the cases of a finite system and an infinite system. In the former case, statement (2) is wrong because the assumption in statement (2b) is wrong. In the latter case, statement (2) is wrong because the conclusion in statement (2a) is wrong (as it has been established by Coombes andLaue).”
And turns it into
“Thus (1) is shown incorrect and the 1985 C&L paradox in (2) is removed by the 1996 stat.s paper.”
I mean, is it worth even arguing against such nonsense?
Oh, but then you have the interpretation of Eqn (8), which works perfectly as long as you assume that N=1 (until they later talk of taking it to infinity).
And, then you are so desperate that you can’t resist the blatant deception of quoting out of context: “Since as the paper corroborates ‘temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy’ (4), T varies with z.” This kind of high-school debating tactic may work well in some places but won’t make you much friends amongst scientists who actually don’t appreciate such outright deception.
Ball4-
I will say one thing, because, unlike you, I actually go from evidence to conclusions rather than conclusions to evidence, and hence actually read what people write rather than blatantly misinterpreting what they write to mean what I want it to mean: I got Bohren & Albrecht’s book today on inter-library loan and I agree, that he does, with rather tortured logic, seem to endorse the idea that the equilibrium state is the one with a lapse rate.
His arguments, however, border on the bizarre (e.g., claiming that the existence of convection can somehow change the state of thermal equilibrium) and have been critiqued by more recent works that seem to agree that the isothermal state is the thermodynamic equilibrium state:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377026514000529
http://www.nioz.nl/files/upload/users/258010/2004-JAS.pdf
As those papers discuss, however, the whole debate does turn on some pretty subtle issues. For example, the last one I reference summarizes it this way:
“We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day.
Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes
like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere
from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy.”
I think another confusion for Bohren and others has been the sloppy way that the term “equilibrium” has come to be used. For example, the term “radiative equilibrium” or “radiative-convective equilibrium” is used when it would probably be more appropriate to use “steady-state” in place of equilibrium; those refer to situations where one is certainly not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Or, another way I suppose, is to allow for such a broader use of the term “equilibrium” but then reserve the term “thermodynamic equilibrium” to refer to the stricter use of the word “equilibrium”.
Joel 9:18pm: Ok, thanks for the links, I may not have time to critically look through them until next week.
Dr. Bohren also discusses the use & misuse of the term equilibrium, ref. the index, esp. page 23 “strict”. Do you have a page number & paragraph for his statement you find bizarre?
Also, it is possible to get the ideal column isothermal at thermo. equilibrium in math if it is allowed to do work on the column above and below e.g. a midair column – the classical solution – when the changes in internal energy (PE+KE) are equal and of opposite sign to the work performed by the system.
“Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes
like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere
from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy.”
I would add [perhaps it’s very obvious]. But convective mixing seems to me quite different than convective.
Or convective mixing [or thermals] is a part of entire convection of the atmosphere. And that Earth does have convection mixing which prevents a thermodynamic equilibrium.
So wind, up drafts, down drafts or any movement of air would fit as convective mixing. But convection is not limited to transfer of kinetic energy via mixing of air. Rather such large movements of air is caused by convection.
“Do you have a page number & paragraph for his statement you find bizarre?”
The discussion on pp. 167 (starting around the middle of the page) and on to p. 168 when he explains that it is convection that changes the equilibrium state.
For a column in thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no macroscopic net flows of energy, so why would it matter if such net flows that don’t occur would be due to convection or conduction? He’s confusing “thermodynamic equilibrium” with the other use I was talking about for “equilibrium”, which is really a steady-state in a system that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium (in the troposphere’s case because it is being heated strongly from below and cooled from above).
Note that if he was just trying to describe why the strongly-forced troposphere we have is often near the adiabatic lapse rate, then he would be correct: If the dominate mode of heat transfer were one that could drive the system all the way to an isothermal state, rather than one that can only drive it as far as the adiabatic lapse rate, then we would have a more isothermal atmosphere. But, this has nothing to do with what the thermodynamic equilibrium state of the system is.
The paragraph that begins “To show how dry convection produces a dry adiabatic lapse rate…” is also confused. He starts by proposing an atmosphere that has a lapse rate LESS than the adiabatic lapse rate and then explains about parcels that move up and down and how their mixing with the surroundings would destabilize a layer. His argument doesn’t really work for an atmosphere in the stable regime but really just right on the stability boundary (i.e., with a lapse rate EQUAL to the adiabatic lapse rate) and then his explanation just explains why anything that tries to drive the lapse rate beyond the adiabatic lapse rate sparks convection that forces the lapse rate back to the adiabatic lapse rate. I.e., this just shows how the adiabatic lapse rate is a stability boundary (a point that he correctly made when he derived the adiabatic lapse rate in Section 3.4).
Joel 8:52am: In sec. 3.4, Dr. Bohren derives the usual DALR g/Cp.
In the p. 167 paragraph beginning “To show how dry convection produces a dry adiabatic lapse rate…” Dr. Bohren is talking about the dry adiabatic lapse rate being the ideal LR for a column which IS in thermodynamic equilibrium, T(p) = To(p(z)/po)^R/cp which is the subject at hand, the one he just worked with. No time right now, but consider that as helpful to reduce confusion.
Unfortunately the words (DALR) Dr. Bohren chooses have two meanings in math, so one has to parse which one he means in context (g/Cp non thermo. equilibrium or ideal T(p) thermo. equilibrium & a third natural ELR). There is another section where he discusses the g/Cp and ideal being close to natural ELR off by 10-20% each for hydrostatic which I don’t have time to research now.
Joel 9:18pm: Your first link (Akmaev 2008) doesn’t ref. or discuss C&L or Velasco so is not pertinent to this sub-thread i.e. no further conclusion can be drawn regarding Velasco 1996 from your link(s).
However, Akmaev 2008 does discuss Bohren 1998 and is in general agreement with his section 4.4 and extends Dr. Bohren’s work. See the agreement noted 1st paragraph after 5. Conclusions. Here, Akmaev concludes when the classical isothermal soln. is applicable (as I noted external work needed) and the condition for which the maximum-entropy solution is ideal “dry-adiabatic profile” in the lower atm. which Dr. Bohren specified (1atm. to ~200mb or 80% of earth atm.) where “we make no serious errors” p. 166.
Your second link is a newer work from Nov. 2014, I will have to see if I can get a copy from the local college library. The abstract suggests some sort of “transitory” state between classic Gibbs and isentropic ideal LR (Poisson). Should be interesting to read, my first question is does the “transition” merely add in (transition to) the external work needed of the classic mid-air column Gibbs isotherm?
Your third link is an earlier work referenced by Akmaev 2008 with no disagreement by Akmaev that I can spot at 1st read. This 2004 work (which does not ref. or discuss C&L or Velasco either) shows the classic Gibbs solution (2a) midair column allowed to “perform” external work along with the 2( b) Bohren 1998 isentropic Poisson (eqn. 18) profile solution (column allowed “perform” no external work) as Akmaev 2008 summarily discusses in the 1st paragraph after his 5. Conclusions.
All these papers seems to be saying, with a greater or lesser degree of clarity, that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal and that the state with a lapse rate is what you get with certain restrictions that prevent it from reaching the true equilibrium state.
I think that Verkley & Gerkema (2004) say it most clearly:
“We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting—that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2′) a constant enthalpy H—will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This is the established classical result, despite all the confusion that existed already a century ago and that persists to the present day.
Of course, the actual atmosphere is subject to processes like convective mixing. They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy. In this sense, these processes lower the maximum value that the entropy is allowed to attain. It thus seems natural that one should represent them by posing certain additional constraints in the maximization problem…”
The only quibble I have with what they say is that I think it is probably more sensible to emphasize that the actual atmosphere is kept far from thermodynamics equilibrium because it is heated strongly from below and cooled from above. And, the only heat transfer process that is fast enough to have a hope in principle of driving it close to equilibrium, convective mixing, can’t do so in practice because of the fact that the atmosphere is only unstable to convection when the lapse rate exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate. Hence, convection can drive the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate but no further.
These papers tend to make the whole thing sound more mysterious than this…and I am not sure if that is because it IS more complex and mysterious than what I am saying or if they are just making it unnecessarily complicated.
But, anyway, the important point is that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal, just as Coombes & Laue said, and as a straightforward and unbiased reading of Velasco et al. reiterated (in the process of detailing how this comes about in the finite-particle case, as well as in the thermodynamic limit).
Ball4, could I be allowed to inject a little further insight to you from an astrophysics side in your task (I always find it hopeless) of correcting Joel Shores of his wishful interpretation of Bohren, Albrecht, Verkley, etc? You really only need to look into polytropes and the polytropic process. Wikipedia has good general summary (search polytrope). Pay particular attention to the cases of n=1.5 (followed by gas giants and rocky planets) and the case of n=∞ where the individual particles are not allowed any interaction as collisions and only in this case does isothermal in a gravitational field appear. Notice Joel pushing that ‘RIGID’ line as if there is no interaction between the vertical neighboring levels? On studying the atmospheres of the bodies of which I could obtain the data from probes (and ours from radiosonde and satellites) I found that same factor 1.5 or 3/2 before I understood what the polypropic process was pointing out. This causes the actual heat capacity within an atmosphere to be right at 1.5 times what you might measure in a lab container. Just thought you might look into that aspect. You are right, it is not isothermal in a gravitational field with collisions occuring between the particles.
It is the n+1 in the exponent that causes the rate of change between the pressure and the density so a change in temperature with height always occurs… because of the +1 in the exponent that is. (T proportional to P/ρ but you know that) Hope that might help.
You might try following the discussion more closely, in which case you will see how Ball4 only arrives at his conclusions by ignoring the statements the authors make that clearly show that they are saying things diametrically opposed to what he is claiming. And, then he makes elementary errors in misinterpreting equations, ignoring inconvenient modifiers (like when Velasco et al. say that something holds only in the thermodynamic limit), and so forth.
The blatant misinterpretations of these papers is, frankly, embarrassing.
I should add that, in contrast to my picture of the adiabatic lapse rate as a purely one-sided stability limit, Nick Stokes has an interesting view that there is a “heat pump effect” that actually tends to move heat down and maintain the adiabatic lapse rate. I am not sure if I quite buy his picture or not, but it at least seems plausible:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-if-there-were-no-greenhouse-effect.html
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/greenhouse-effect-and-adiabatic-lapse.html
Ball4 says (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-191129)
“Again, there are at least two conditions –
Isothermal conditions: (2004 2a) Gibbs classic solution external work ‘performed’ allowed: Isothermal T(p) at thermo. equilibrium
Non-Isothermal conditions: (Velasco 1995, 1996 conditions, Bohren 1998 sec. 4.4 & 2004 (2b) conditions) no external work allowed: Non-isothermal T(p) at thermo. equilibrium.”
I’m not sure where you are getting these interpretations…and of course, you are hampered by the fact that you are reading Velasco et al. to say the opposite of what they actually say. I am not sure why you are so insistent in coming up with such outlandish interpretation of their equations (N is 1 in an equation even when they subsequently take it to infinity…) and then ignoring completely their actual words.
Coombes and Laue, Velasco, and Verkley & Gerkema all quite clearly say that the thermodynamic equilibrium state is isothermal…END OF STORY.
Bohren & Albrecht apply an additional constraint that prevents them from finding the true equilibrium state, although it may be a reasonable constraint to find the actual state that the atmosphere will get to under the highly-nonequilibrium conditions in which it finds itself.
Ball4: Just to add to what I say, Verkley & Gerkema (2004) say that the isothermal solution applies whether the constraint is constant energy or constant enthalpy…and hence is not dependent on this distinction you seem to be wanting to make between external work being allowed or not.
In reply to your interpretation of Verkley et al., you seem to be under the delusion that their statement “This brings us outside the domain of classical thermodynamics, and hence one can expect that the temperature profile will no longer be isothermal” supports your point of view when in fact it contradicts it.
If you are going “outside the domain of classical thermodynamics”, you are not deriving a result that holds in thermodynamic equilibrium! Thermodynamic equilibrium is something that is inside the domain of classical thermodynamics.
–If you are going “outside the domain of classical thermodynamics”, you are not deriving a result that holds in thermodynamic equilibrium! Thermodynamic equilibrium is something that is inside the domain of classical thermodynamics.–
Does classical thermodynamics include gravity?
Joel 2:29pm: Hard to keep track of your jumping around. No delusion, this is your own silly interpretation using your own inaccurate words. Try to say that same thing with eqn.s, you won’t be able.
The authors use the term “classical thermodynamics” for their solution in 2a eqn. (12) isothermal, the mid-air column condition as in their review discussion of the much earlier work. They then extend that classic solution – within thermodynamics – to “an isolated layer” condition resulting in 2b eqn. (18) non-isothermal.
“Doug’s central thesis is that in an atmospheric column subject to gravitation, absorbing a constant flow of radiative energy from a constant power source (the Sun), and radiating a balancing flow of energy to a constant temperature sink (space), the temperature distribution in that atmospheric column continually adjusts itself automatically to achieve a state of maximum entropy, with the temperature profile that is observed, irrespective of increases in the concentration of absorptive liquids or gases in its atmosphere.”
Just one final note: I don’t think that is a very accurate statement of Doug’s thesis at all. As you describe it, you are talking about a non-equilibrium system that is presumably heated mainly from the bottom and cooled from the top. In fact, in such a non-equilibrium system, there is general scientific agreement that there will be a temperature gradient because of the way it is being heated in a non-uniform manner and because the atmosphere is only unstable to convection for lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate.
So, yes, such a lapse rate is set up. However, that is, once again, not sufficient to say what the surface temperature will be. In fact, in the absence of an radiative absorption in the atmosphere, the surface temperature would be determined by radiative balance, i.e., the 4th root of the average of T^4 would be 255 K (assuming that the Earth system still absorbed 240 W/m^2 and making the emissivity exactly 1 for simplicity). In the presence of radiative absorption. The surface temperature would be determined by the fact that the effective radiating level would have its 4th root of the average of T^4 be 255 K and then you would get the temperature at the surface by extrapolating down using the lapse rate.
Furthermore, the direction of heat flow in such a system would be from the warmer surface to the colder atmosphere, as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates.
What Doug is claiming is that the EQUILIBRIUM STATE of the atmosphere is to be not be isothermal and hence that heat flows down from the atmosphere to the surface in order to establish the lapse rate seen. That is a very different claim…and it is wrong because it violates the 2nd Law, which contrary to Doug’s claim, continues to be that the atmosphere is thermodynamically driven toward an isothermal state even with a gravitational field.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
Because one can account for the given GHG effect does not equate to knowing what will be the future GHG effect or how it may or may not impact the climate.
Joel , what you need to do to validate your position is come up with a climate forecast for the next 20 years based on your math, physics, and data and then we will see how correct or not you are.
So why don’t you come up with a climate forecast?
Why don’t you predict according to your math and physics when the lower tropospheric hot spot will become apparent?
As for myself I have made my climate prediction forecast which is the atmospheric circulation will trend toward a more meridional atmospheric circulation pattern and the global temperature trend between now and the end of the decade will be down perhaps as much as -.5c in response to very quiet solar conditions.
I have stated my low average value solar parameters which I think are needed to accomplish this.
“From 2003 the effect of El Niño had passed and a slightly declining trend has been observed. This is the net effect of the 60-year cycle starting to decline whilst the 934 year cycle is still rising. … (This statement was archived 22 August 2011.)”
Salvatore,
I’m not in the business of making climate forecasts. Unlike you, I accept the fact that I know less than people with much more expertise and who have created much more sophisticated models to do this. I don’t entertain fantasies that I am somehow wiser than the world’s top climate scientists.
There seem to be enough people who fancy themselves as super-Einsteins around in the AGW skeptic community without my pretending to be one. (By super-Einstein, I mean someone who seems to implicitly believe himself to be much smarter than Einstein since Einstein actually studied the fields, even obtaining a PhD, before writing his papers. But, apparently, some AGW skeptics like yourself, Doug Cotton, Stephen Wilde, … are so incredibly smart that they can do this without even learning the basics of the relevant fields.)
The problem is the people who you consider are the world’s top scientist have no clue when it comes to the reality of the climatic system of the earth, and how it works. Their views are going to be obsolete and will be replaced by new innovative fresh alternative ideas and view points. This will take climate science to a new level and bring back some respect to this subject. I have zero respect for many mainstream climate scientist, who have proven to me to be ignorant when it comes to the climate.
Joel, you are only as good as your climate prediction and the reasons for that prediction. So far you have not made one and so far the people you admire have been dead wrong.
Here is my prediction before this decade is out AGW theory will be obsolete.
Joel ,I will leave you with this which is data trumps theory.
You can have the most sophisticated theory but if it does not hold up against the data it is essentially useless.
My approach to solving the climate puzzle is through the use of present and past data.
We shall see who has the better approach.
“16.1 Irreversible Heating
“Radiative heating of a blackbody is an irreversible process, because the heating results from dissipation with coherent high frequency energy above cut-off being transformed into internal heat energy.
“We assume that the dissipation is only active above cut-off, while the radition is active over the whole spectrum. Below cut-off radiation is a reversible process since the same spectrum is emitted as absorbed. Formally, the radiation term is dissipative and thus would be expected to transform the spectrum, and the fact that it does not is a remarkable effect to the resonance.
“16.3 Stefan-Boltzmann Law as 2nd Law
“Similarly, the new derivation of Planck’s and Stefan-Boltzmann’s laws of this book proves a 2nd law for radiative transfer between two blackbodies without any reference to entropy, which can be expressed as follows
Q12 = σ(T1^4 – T2^4) if T1 > T2
where T1 is the temperature of the blackbody 1 and T2 that of blackbody 2, assuming that T1 > T2, and Q12 > 0 is transfer of heat energy from 1 to 2.
“The transfer of energy is thus from hot to cold.
“The equality (16.1) is often written in the form
Q12 = σT1^4 – σT2^4
“without specifying that T1 > T2 and is then interpreted as expressing transfer of heat energy of size σT1^4 from 1 to 2 and a transfer of σT2^4 in the opposite direction from 2 to 1. But this interpretation lacks physical rationale and results from a purely formal algebraic operation of splitting the one term in (16.1) into the difference of two terms in (16.2). This is the origin of the ”backradiation” underlying climate alarmism which thus lacks physical reality.“
[source”.
–Salvatore,
I’m not in the business of making climate forecasts. Unlike you, I accept the fact that I know less than people with much more expertise and who have created much more sophisticated models to do this. I don’t entertain fantasies that I am somehow wiser than the world’s top climate scientists.–
Which one to you believe in the most?
“In 1981 NASA’s Dr James Hansen made a huge mistake: he assumed that the Earth’s surface acts like what physics calls a “blackbody.” But a blackbody has to be surrounded by space, or totally insulated so that it cannot lose “heat” (which should be called thermal energy) by conduction or other means to its surrounds. The whole Earth plus atmosphere system does indeed act like a blackbody when viewed from outer space where all that can be detected is its electromagnetic (EM) radiation. But the surface is continually transferring heat to the atmosphere by conduction and other non-radiative processes. Besides, the surface layer of the oceans (say 1cm thin) is nearly transparent.
“Consider “backradiation” created by the silver reflective lining on the inside of a vacuum flask filled with coffee at, say, 97 deg.C. The reflected radiation will not raise that 97 degree temperature at all. Radiation which is received from a source which is cooler is rejected by being re-emitted with exactly the same frequency and energy that it had before it arrived. Only radiation from a warmer source can lead to warming of a cooler body. Imagine two metal plates at different temperatures placed close to each other in a vacuum. They will each tend towards a temperature which is between the initial two temperatures. At no stage will the cooler one cause the warmer one to get hotter still. A mirror held above the ground at night will send back to the surface more than twice as much backradiation as all greenhouse gases combined. According to those energy diagrams there is about a quarter as much radiation coming out of the surface, even at night, as there is coming into the surface from the Sun when it is directly overhead. So will it make the surface warmer if reflected back? Why would it when that coffee was not warmed by the “mirrors” on the inside of the flask?”
[source]
“But what has baffled climatologists such as Dr James Hansen is the fact that the average (mean) surface temperature is of course warmer than that and may be around 14 to 15 degrees above freezing point, that being about 33 degrees warmer than the effective radiating temperature.
“You might well think that the Sun can warm the surface to the observed temperatures with its direct radiation. However, when we consider the whole globe and the average intensity of the Sun’s radiation, the amount of cloud cover and the incident radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, the laws of physics tell us that the remaining solar radiation just simply is not enough.
But to maintain a certain temperature there must be an input of thermal energy (usually called “heat”) which balances the natural heat losses. James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface. But radiation mostly transfers thermal energy out of the warmer surface, not into it. The actual process involves energy being transferred during molecular collisions, as with conduction.
“The process is vitally important in atmospheric physics and most people (including climatologists) do not really understand what happens and why.
“This is where the laws of physics come into it, and we need to understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics controls all such heat transfers. That law tells us that, if there are unbalanced energy potentials in an isolated system, then there will be a propensity for those to vanish as the system approaches what is called “maximum entropy” and this is because that is the only way the system can go, always increasing entropy, assuming no new energy is added.
“However, a component of the energy in these “energy potentials” is gravitational potential energy, which is not affecting the temperature, because only the energy of motion (kinetic energy) does that.
“Now, as molecules move between collisions there will be an interchange of this potential energy and the kinetic energy, just as happens when you drop a stone to the ground and the initial potential energy is partly converted to kinetic energy.
“But temperature is a measure of the mean molecular kinetic energy, and so the temperature is affected in such a way that, when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained, we actually have a vertical temperature gradient which is cooler at the top.
“It is important to understand that this happens because the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remains constant, just as it does when you drop that stone. So molecules at the top (with more potential energy) have less kinetic energy.
“Now the critical issue is what happens when the state of thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed by, for example, the absorption of new thermal energy at higher altitudes only.
“What we find is that the new energy then spreads out in all directions away from the source of that energy. This is because there will be a propensity to reach a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium which will have a temperature profile with the same gradient but at a higher overall level.
“And that is how the required extra thermal energy (which James Hansen was looking for) gets into a planet’s surface.
“But the temperature gradient is reduced in magnitude by radiating molecules such as in the so-called “greenhouse gases” like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. This is because inter-molecular radiation has a temperature leveling effect which works against the gravitationally induced gradient.
“We find that in moist regions the gradient is reduced by about a third, and so the whole plot of temperature against altitude rotates downwards at the surface end. Hence these greenhouse gases lead to lower supported surface temperatures and not warmer ones.”
[source]
Just for fun, let’s outsource the debunking of Doug. In each case below, I have taken a quote from Doug’s screed above and given it a number. All you have to do is identify the major fallacy in physical reasoning associated with the statement that you choose to debunk:
(1) “But a blackbody has to be surrounded by space, or totally insulated so that it cannot lose “heat” (which should be called thermal energy) by conduction or other means to its surrounds.”
(2) “Besides, the surface layer of the oceans (say 1cm thin) is nearly transparent.”
(3) “Consider “backradiation” created by the silver reflective lining on the inside of a vacuum flask filled with coffee at, say, 97 deg.C. The reflected radiation will not raise that 97 degree temperature at all.”
(4) “Radiation which is received from a source which is cooler is rejected by being re-emitted with exactly the same frequency and energy that it had before it arrived.”
(5) “Imagine two metal plates at different temperatures placed close to each other in a vacuum. They will each tend towards a temperature which is between the initial two temperatures. At no stage will the cooler one cause the warmer one to get hotter still.”
(6) “You might well think that the Sun can warm the surface to the observed temperatures with its direct radiation. However, when we consider the whole globe and the average intensity of the Sun’s radiation, the amount of cloud cover and the incident radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, the laws of physics tell us that the remaining solar radiation just simply is not enough.”
(7) “James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface.”
(8) “Now, as molecules move between collisions there will be an interchange of this potential energy and the kinetic energy, just as happens when you drop a stone to the ground and the initial potential energy is partly converted to kinetic energy…It is important to understand that this happens because the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remains constant, just as it does when you drop that stone.”
(9) “And that is how the required extra thermal energy (which James Hansen was looking for) gets into a planet’s surface.”
I am not claiming I have identified ALL of the errors, or even all of the major ones. However, what I will say is that each one of these statements contains a very major error of fact, physics, or logic. [I say “logic”, for example, because there is no technically incorrect physics in the statement of (3) but there is an incorrect jump in logic in using it to conclude what Doug does.]
Have fun!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189436
” … whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this [Second] law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process.
[source]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189354
“The radiative greenhouse hypothesis implicitly assumes that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapor does most of the extra warming of the surface which we have shown must happen somehow because the Solar radiation cannot do it all.
“But in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” (see link at the top) I have published a comprehensive study showing that moist regions have lower mean temperatures than drier regions at similar latitudes and altitudes. No similar study that I am aware of shows water vapor warms, especially not by over 25 degrees as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would like you to believe.
“So the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is not based on the laws of physics, because it assumes the Earth’s surface acts like a black body, which it does not, and it assumes that radiation from a colder atmosphere causes the surface temperature to be much hotter than the solar radiation could make it. There is also no evidence that water vapor warms to the extent they claim, and some evidence that it in fact cools, as the laws of physics imply we should expect it to do.”
“But we know the temperatures increase at lower altitudes in a planet’s troposphere, and so the attenuated radiation in the lower regions cannot raise those already warmer temperatures at all, just as it cannot raise the mean surface temperature for Earth.
“Hence we know that there must be additional thermal energy reaching these lower troposphere regions on a planet, as well as any surface. Where can this extra energy come from and how does it get down there when the laws of physics tell us it cannot get there by radiation?
“On Venus, for example, the incident solar radiation is only strong enough to raise the temperatures in regions in the upper troposphere (and above) where temperatures are less than about 100ºC because the maximum intensity is comparable with that for our Moon. But the surface of Venus is hotter than 460ºC and so we must expect a transfer to a much hotter region somehow.
“Fortunately the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes to our rescue, as explained on the Home page. Does a convective heat transfer to a hotter region violate that law? No, not in a vertical plane in a gravitational field, for the reasons explained in detail on the Home page. The corollary that heat always passes from hot to cold only strictly applies in a horizontal plane where gravitational potential energy remains constant. That energy plays a role in determining when entropy reaches a maximum and there are no remaining unbalanced energy potentials. When that occurs we have thermodynamic equilibrium which has both a density gradient and a temperature gradient which is cooler at the top. If the temperature at the top is then increased by absorption of new solar energy, some of that new energy will be transferred downwards to warmer regions in order to maximise entropy and establish a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
“Beneath the surface of a planet or moon similar conductive heat transfers can occur to warmer regions, transferring energy from the Sun even down to the center of the core. For example, the temperature at the core of our Moon is thought to be over 1300ºC. Could it have cooled off in billions of years? When you consider how cold the surface gets on the dark side, the answer is certainly “yes” if there were no solar radiation. Any matter half way between the nearest stars would be close to -273ºC which is about the coldest anything can be.
“The best confirmation for the hypothesis comes from the planet Uranus. There is no convincing evidence of significant net energy loss at the top of its atmosphere, so it is not just “cooling off” or generating energy from mass in its small solid core that is about half the mass of Earth and is at a temperature of about 5,000ºC. The solar radiation is mostly absorbed in a methane layer near the very top of its atmosphere that is thousands of kilometers high. Yet somehow over the life of the planet we know that some of that solar energy must be getting down into the atmosphere and keeping it at existing temperatures at each and every altitude. This could only happen if the hypothesis on the Home page is correct See also the diagram here.
“Yes, it is the Sun which keeps all planets and moons at existing temperatures, even down to the center of their cores.”
[source]
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/winter-returns-rockies-expecting-up-to-5-ft/#comment-189453
“4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
“Ever since the 19th century when Loschmidt suggested that a thermal gradient would evolve in a solid, liquid or gas in a gravitational field the issue has been debated and, more often than not, dismissed. For example, Maxwell at the time just thought it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if there were a warmer region at the base of a column of air.
“We need to look more closely at this law, which was first stated by Clausius back in 1850. His statement read “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.” [9] This statement is indeed correct if the bodies are at the same level or altitude, but we need to consider what happens when a gravitational field is present. If there is in fact a thermal gradient, then we have to explain why the original Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to be violated if isothermal conditions did not develop.
“Elsewhere in Wikipedia we find a newer statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics [10]. It reads “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
“Physicists have realised that kinetic energy (KE) [11] does not tell the full story. As we saw above, molecules have other energy and, in particular, in our isolated cylinder of nitrogen we need to account for gravitational potential energy (PE) [12] which can interchange with KE, just as happens when a pendulum swings back and forth, or a stone is thrown into the air. [13] But why have they not said that energy just needs to be conserved, as is the theme of the First law of Thermodynamics?”
“Entropy [15] has been described as “energy not available to do work” and an increase in entropy is associated with greater disorder. In a horizontal plane, where PE is the same, then, if one region of a solid, liquid or gas is warmer than another, there will be a propensity for molecules with greater KE in the warmer region to share that KE with others that have less KE. This sharing takes place during molecular collisions [16] and there is a propensity for all to end up in “thermodynamic equilibrium” with the same KE. The process is called conduction in a solid (and sometimes also in liquids and gases) though we will use the alternative word “diffusion” [17] strictly in the context of the sharing of KE during collisions involving gas molecules.
“Now the above statement requires “the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system” and it is effectively saying that this state is as far as we can go within the restrictions imposed by our isolated system. For example, if an “isolated system” is a room on the tenth floor, then a ball will only drop as far as the floor in that room. Being on the floor is one of the “states accessible to the system” and, when the ball comes to rest on the floor, it has acquired the greatest entropy available to it within the restrictions of the system. Throw the ball out the window and it enters another system where it will acquire a state of somewhat greater entropy.
“So we have seen that entropy can increase when PE and/or KE decrease. If we have a perfectly insulated cylinder of nitrogen (where we will assume no external energy can be added, and no internal energy removed) then the state of “greatest entropy” is clearly that in which the mean sum of molecular (PE+KE) is the same in all regions within our cylinder. This conclusion is confirmed by considering what would happen if there were a region in which mean molecular (PE+KE) were greater than in another region. If this were the case, then the region with more energy could “do work” as it transferred energy to the other region, rather like water from a dam generating hydroelectricity as it converts its PE to KE whilst flowing down the pipes to the generator. If it can do work, then it is not a state of greatest entropy
“Hence our final equilibrium state in the vertical cylinder of non-radiating nitrogen has the same entropy in all regions, and we call it an isentropic state. But such a state in a gravitational field must then have less KE where it has more PE at the top, and more KE where it has less PE at the bottom. But temperature [18] is a measure of thermal energy [19] and in this Wikipedia item we read:
“‘Microscopically, the thermal energy is the kinetic energy of a system’s constituent particles, which may be atoms, molecules, electrons, or particles in plasmas. It originates from the individually random, or disordered, motion of particles in a large ensemble.’
“In fact, temperature is a measure of just the average (mean) kinetic energy (KE) of all the molecules in any small region, and it does not include gravitational PE or other forms of non-thermal energy.
“But we have just seen that gravity redistributes PE and KE in such a way that there is a KE gradient in a column of gas, with less KE at the top and more at the bottom of the column. Hence, assuming adiabatic [20] conditions with no phase change or chemical reactions, we have seen that the thermodynamic equilibrium [21] state of greatest entropy which evolves does in fact have cooler temperatures at the top and warmer temperatures below. This may be considered a direct corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.“
[Source: paper linked here]
Joel Shore says:
April 21, 2015 at 6:04 PM
Just for fun, let’s outsource the debunking of Doug. In each case below, I have taken a quote from Doug’s screed above and given it a number. All you have to do is identify the major fallacy in physical reasoning associated with the statement that you choose to debunk:
(1) “But a blackbody has to be surrounded by space, or totally insulated so that it cannot lose “heat” (which should be called thermal energy) by conduction or other means to its surrounds.”
(2) “Besides, the surface layer of the oceans (say 1cm thin) is nearly transparent.”
The difference between a glossy black paint and flat black paint, is that glossy black paint has a thin transparent surface.
If want something more similar to a black body, one should use flat black paint rather than glossy black paint.
The ocean is roughly as transparent to sunlight as a glass window of the same mass/thickness. And again, roughly speaking and in terms of equal mass both are similar transparency as air.
Clear atmosphere and clear glass and water will reflect a significant amount of sunlight when the sunlight is perpendicular to it- and can reflect a lot more if at less than a 90 degree angle.
–(3) “Consider “backradiation” created by the silver reflective lining on the inside of a vacuum flask filled with coffee at, say, 97 deg.C. The reflected radiation will not raise that 97 degree temperature at all.”–
“backradiation” is not reflected light. I can’t think of anything very similar backradiation. Dust in the atmosphere for example isn’t a better analog. Oh wait, dust in vacuum would be better analog. Unfortunately or fortunately dust in high atmosphere [and roughly one could call this a vacuum] is suppose to cool earth. But then again, it’s probably warming space. Anyhow, I can’t think of anything more similar than dust in vacuum of space.
And as I do, suppose earth/sun L-1 was filled with dust- would the dust warm satellite adjacent to it?
–(4) “Radiation which is received from a source which is cooler is rejected by being re-emitted with exactly the same frequency and energy that it had before it arrived.”–
A frying pan at 100 C will not be warmed by sunlight.
Or frying pan could be warmed by sunlight to say 60 C, but if you first heat frying pan to 100 C, then sunlight doesn’t make it warmer. Though if heated to 50 C, sunlight might warm it up a bit more than 60 C. Or heating it to 50 C
might way to isolate losses other than radiant losses.
–(5) “Imagine two metal plates at different temperatures placed close to each other in a vacuum. They will each tend towards a temperature which is between the initial two temperatures. At no stage will the cooler one cause the warmer one to get hotter still.”–
If two warm plate are cooling separately. Placing them near each other could only heat the cooler plate.
And it’s assumed they aren’t in sunlight or have some way to heated.
–(7) “James Hansen incorrectly assumed that radiation from the colder atmosphere could transfer the extra thermal energy into the surface.”–
Or assumed the colder atmosphere was warmer than 2 K universe.
Or if universe was 20 K, I would guess that things should cool slower.
My point would be, there are quite a few of ways to cool slower.
–(8) “Now, as molecules move between collisions there will be an interchange of this potential energy and the kinetic energy, just as happens when you drop a stone to the ground and the initial potential energy is partly converted to kinetic energy…It is important to understand that this happens because the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy remains constant, just as it does when you drop that stone.”–
If Mass of atmosphere lowers, PV is converted to KE.
Or if mass of atmosphere rise, KE required to add the PE.
Wiki:
“Fifty percent of the total mass of the atmosphere is located in the lower 5.6 km (18,000 ft) of the troposphere”
If the point in elevation of 50 percent of atmosphere becomes lower than 5.6 km, then PV is converted to KE, if becomes higher than 5.6, KE is converted into PV.
If air density is changing at sea level, say goes from 1.2 to 1.21 kg per meter, then half of mass of atmosphere has lowered. [There other factors, like decrease of water vapor will increase density. But anyhow air density varies each day, and so the height of elevation of 1/2 mass of atmosphere goes up and down.
“2. The Problems with the Greenhouse Conjecture
“The so called Greenhouse Effect is based on the concept that the Sun warms the surface of a planet and then that surface cools at a rate governed by the composition of the atmosphere. The rate of cooling is thought to have something to do with the amount of upwelling radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, and/or the amount of energy which then returns to the surface by way of radiation.
“But, quite apart from radiation, heat is also transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by nonradiative processes. Then nitrogen and oxygen molecules play the main role of insulating the surface, whilst water vapour and carbon dioxide help to radiate energy out of the atmosphere, and thus have an overall cooling effect, as we shall see in later sections.
“It is indeed correct to say that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the component of surface cooling which is itself by radiation. But, at the same time, the presence of all air molecules just above the surface will also have a somewhat greater effect slowing the cooling of the surface. Molecules of a gas move around freely between impacts with others, and energy is transferred into these molecules as they collide with the surface. So ordinary nitrogen and oxygen molecules also have an insulating role, and the closer the temperatures get between the surface and these air molecules, the more they will slow the cooling process. They are the real blanket, for the very reason that they do not radiate much at typical temperatures found in the troposphere. Instead, it is water vapour and other radiating molecules like carbon dioxide which radiate energy out of the
atmosphere and thus act like holes in the blanket, as you may read in an article The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World [3] to which the author contributed.
“Radiation from a cooler region of the atmosphere affects radiative cooling of the surface because it provides electro-magnetic energy for some of the “quota” of radiation which the surface is emitting. But this means that this portion of the radiation is not actually transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Hence the rate of cooling by radiation will indeed be slowed, as is well documented in Physics, but much of the radiation coming from the surface is merely returning electro-magnetic energy which was in the back radiation from the atmosphere.
“Of all the thermal energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, about a third is by way of radiation, as this NASA energy budget diagram [4] shows. There you will see that only 15% of the original incoming Solar energy is transferred by radiation which is absorbed by the atmosphere, whereas twice as much is transferred by non-radiative processes, namely 7% by conduction and 23% by latent heat, which is energy stored in water vapour.
“It will also be noted that 19% of the Sun’s incident radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds, thus warming the atmosphere. This is more than the 15% which is absorbed by the atmosphere from surface radiation, yet some greenhouse proponents say the atmosphere is “transparent” to Solar radiation and “opaque” to IR radiation from the surface.
“Now, calculations using standard physics show that direct Solar radiation, such as that received by Earth’s surface, could not have raised the mean surface temperature by the observed amount. This is even more obvious on the planet Venus, because the surface there receives barely 10% of the Solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. and yet it has been measured at over 450°C. So there appears to be something very wrong in the assumption that the surface of a planet is 33°C warmer purely because the atmosphere slows the rate of cooling. If the Sun cannot raise the surface to a higher temperature first, we have to ask, “cooling from what?”
“As will be explained in later sections, it is the effect of gravity that does the bulk of the warming by spreading energy in the atmosphere and creating a thermal gradient. All this cooling of the surface is merely a marginal process which holds back the small amount of extra energy which is absorbed when the Sun shines, and is then transferred back to the atmosphere. Meanwhile, an underlying stable base thermal profile in the atmosphere ensures that air near the surface cannot cool or warm too much, and nor can the surface.”
[source].
–Instead, it is water vapour and other radiating molecules like carbon dioxide which radiate energy out of the
atmosphere and thus act like holes in the blanket, as you may read in an article The Greenhouse Gas Blanket that Fails to Warm the World–
If CO2 could radiate the kinetic energy from gases, CO2 could cool the atmosphere.
My understanding is CO2 absorbs radiant energy which originates the surface. So CO2 gas can absorb radiant energy from a warmed surface or it absorb radiant energy from other greenhouse gases which are re-radiating radiant energy which originally comes from the Surface.
I would say that if CO2 gases can radiate from kinetic energy of collisions [and any significant amount] Venus becomes hard to understand, and whole idea that greenhouse gases can warm is wrong. And greenhouse gases would be used to cool gases.
So if getting this idea that greenhouse gases take the kinetic energy from gases from some sourece, please cite your source.
If it’s your theory- please quantify it.
For example, how kinetic energy at 10% of CO2 concentration will radiate and cool 1 cubic meter of air at standard atmospheric pressure and density at 15 C.
So using glass which is transparent to wavelength which CO2, have 1 meter cube glass box. Have it filled with air with out CO2. Have it in room temperature of 15 C, have it in dark room. And put in the air filled box .1 Kg of CO2 at 1 atm pressure and 15 C. And how quickly would one expect the air in the box to cool?
Hi Joel,
You say (April 21, 2015 at 1:51 PM): …if you want me to explain to you why Doug’s theory makes no sense, this is the answer in a nutshell:
(1) There are papers than have been written, references of which we have given to Doug previously, that use statistical mechanical arguments to rigorously show that the equilibrium state of a system in a gravitational field is…[zero gradient, i.e., isothermal]. Unless he can directly refute these, his claims are dead in the water….
In my comment earlier (April 21, 2015 at 6:36 AM) that provoked your reply, I specifically suggested that you should stop trying to argue with Doug and instead spent time talking to qualified engineers and physicists like me who are ready to listen and learn. How about teaching us directly rather than just referring us off elsewhere? (But thanks anyway for the references that you posted subsequently.)
As your statement stands I feel it is just a brush-off. So I still await with genuine interest your best overview of the statistical mechanical argument for an isothermal (as opposed to isentropic) atmosphere
Also, as I mentioned before, if you have a proposal for a laboratory experiment that could decide between the two theories that would also be very helpful.
(2) His claim of heat creep doesn’t even address the problem. All that the heat creep does is redistribute energy within the Earth + atmosphere system.
As far as I can see Doug’s ‘heat creep’ concept is just his way of explaining how and why incoming energy into his ‘isentropic atmosphere’ (at any level including from the surface) is automatically re-distributed so as to restore the isentropic equilibrium state, whether or not sufficient (or any) energy reaches the surface of the planet directly from the Sun. So it is a secondary issue to item (1), on which we should all surely concentrate.
I disagree that (2) is a secondary issue. If his supposed theory doesn’t even address the question he claims it addresses, it is dead in the water.
If the Gulf Stream was prevented from flowing would this have effect average global temperature?
For instance one could dam the underwater flow of cold water from the arctic, which could have an effect upon the Gulf Stream. Or there could other mechanical methods to prevent the flow of Gulf Stream.
And if the Gulf stream were stopped, in your opinion would the ceasing of the flow of the Gulf Stream have any effect upon increasing or decreasing global temperatures?
Joel,
Your ‘just for fun’ outsourcing challenge to explain some of Doug’s key assertions is very amusing. Already I see what I would have expected – responses that are less comprehensible than Doug’s originals.
I am now wondering seriously whether you are in league with Dr Spencer, trying to haul this comment trail over the 2000 mark. 🙂
OK David, here’s my contribution to the 2000 goal.
Inland locations are less restrained by the oceans, so the surface air experiences a wider temperature range than it does over the oceans. Land cannot store heat for long, which is why hot days are quickly followed by cold nights in desert regions. For most of the Earth, however, the more dominant ocean temperatures fix the air temperature.
The Oceans function as a Thermal Energy Flywheel
I’m speaking metaphorically, since flywheels like the one pictured above store rotational energy, and thereby maintain a steady rate, resisting episodic fluctuations. It seems that oceans have the same effect on the climate, by storing thermal energy from the sun. That’s where most of the 1.9 days of accumulated solar energy is circulating.
In the real world, radiative heat loss is determined by the temperature differential, fixed at the top of the atmosphere by the vacuum of space, and maintained at the bottom of the atmosphere by the oceans. The surface temperatures are noisy because the water is always in motion, made chaotic by flowing over and around irregular land masses. But the oceans’ bulk keeps the temperature within a remarkably tight range over the millennia.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/the-climate-water-wheel/
CONCLUSION
There may well be things I describe (deduced from a correct understanding of physics) which are not yet in standard physics texts, let alone in the non-standard fictitious fiddled physics which is rampant in meteorology and the infant science of climatology.
I make no excuse for the text books, because others have been writing about some of this at least since early this century. We know the textbooks in meteorology and climatology are slanted towards the fictitious physics, and we know certain people also amend or delete edits in Wikipedia that don’t toe the AGW line. That’s why you read about fictitious “parcels” of air molecules which, in perfectly calm conditions, very obviously do not cling together.
People like Roy, Joel, Tim, Norman and others (whose livelihood possibly depends on the hoax) have been so indoctrinated by the fictitious concepts in climatology that they demonstrate no understanding of even the very basic physics in the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
If you want to understand the thermodynamics I have explained then you MUST first understand …
(1) the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
(2) the process of maximum entropy production
(3) the state of maximum entropy called thermodynamic equilibrium
(4) the logic in the Kinetic Theory of Gases which explains
when entropy is maximized, how energy is transferred and how molecular gravitational PE interchanges with molecular KE.
(5) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains pressure and temperature
(6) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the density gradient and why it is stable
(7) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the temperature gradient and why it is stable
(8) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the pre-requisite for the Clausius “hot to cold” statement, namely that gravitational PE does not change, nor phase changes or chemical or nuclear reactions occur.
Now, I don’t care if you want to define physical terms like “convection” differently from physicists. This is why I coined a special term “heat creep” because I know full well that climatologists think convection is only a type of bulk fluid motion that includes wind. In contrast, in physics it includes diffusion and true natural” convective heat transfers, and convection is a conduction-like process, which I have described on the Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com and in several comments.
Nothing at all in any comment from those who consider what I present to be incorrect – not a single sentence has addressed the actual explanation of the mechanism which brings about “heat creep” as explained in the paper linked from the above website.
I have deliberately answered questions recently entirely with my mouse and clipboard just to show you that at least some of you have not read, studied and inwardly digested what I have already explained or linked you to in some of the 2,000+ comments on these two threads. If you had, then you would have known what my counter arguments were going to be. You should have been anticipating such arguments (from a correct understanding of what I have written in the two peer-reviewed papers) and then been thinking about the issue to see if you really could fault the development of the hypothesis.
References to red-herrings like temperature data that indicates warming are completely irrelevant if your assumptions (based on back radiation helping the Sun to warm the surface and being used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the surface temperature) are wrong in the first place.
The Radiative forcing GH concept should have been thrown out (even before getting to any consideration of temperature data) for one reason, and one reason only, that it ignores entropy considerations and thus ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies to every single independent (one way and irreversible) process within an isolated system or (usually) in a good approximation of such a system, as is a large column of the troposphere in perfectly calm conditions. Whatever the system parameters, the Second Law can be used to tell us the direction future changes will take, and when such changes will grind to a halt.
Everything you want to ask about, or which you think might refute my hypothesis, is already countered in one way or another in my papers, because the physics therein is indeed based on a correct understanding of the laws of physics. If you think otherwise, then it is you who is mistaken, and so you need to study what I have written until you understand why you were mistaken.
You know where to look: http://climate-change-theory.com and the papers are linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page.
CONCLUSION
There may well be things I describe (all being deduced from a correct understanding of physics) which are not yet in standard physics texts, let alone in the non-standard fictitious fiddled physics which is rampant in meteorology and the infant science of climatology.
I make no excuse for the text books, because others have been writing about some of this at least since early this century. We know the textbooks in meteorology and climatology are slanted towards the fictitious physics, and we know certain people also amend or delete edits in Wikipedia that don’t toe the AGW line. That’s why you read about fictitious “parcels” of air molecules which, in perfectly calm conditions, very obviously do not cling together.
People like Roy, Joel, Tim, Norman and others (whose livelihood possibly depends on the hoax) have been so indoctrinated by the fictitious concepts in climatology that they demonstrate no understanding of even the very basic physics in the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
If you want to understand the thermodynamics I have explained then you MUST first understand …
(1) the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
(2) the process of maximum entropy production
(3) the state of maximum entropy called thermodynamic equilibrium
(4) the logic in the Kinetic Theory of Gases which explains
when entropy is maximized, how energy is transferred and how molecular gravitational PE interchanges with molecular KE.
(5) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains pressure and temperature
(6) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the density gradient and why it is stable
(7) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the temperature gradient and why it is stable
(8) the application of Kinetic Theory that explains the pre-requisite for the Clausius “hot to cold” statement, namely that gravitational PE does not change, nor phase changes or chemical or nuclear reactions occur.
Now, I don’t care if you want to define physical terms like “convection” differently from physicists. This is why I coined a special term “heat creep” because I know full well that climatologists think convection is only a type of bulk fluid motion that includes wind. In contrast, in physics it includes diffusion and true “natural” convective heat transfers, and convection is a conduction-like process, which I have described on the Home page at http://climate-change-theory.com and in several comments.
Nothing at all in any comment from those who consider what I present to be incorrect – not a single sentence has addressed the actual explanation of the mechanism which brings about “heat creep” as explained in the paper linked from the above website.
I have deliberately answered questions recently entirely with my mouse and clipboard just to show you that at least some of you have not read, studied and inwardly digested what I have already explained or linked you to in some of the 2,000+ comments on these two threads. If you had, then you would have known what my counter arguments were going to be. You should have been anticipating such arguments (from a correct understanding of what I have written in the two peer-reviewed papers) and then been thinking about the issue to see if you really could fault the development of the hypothesis.
References to red-herrings like temperature data that indicates warming are completely irrelevant if your assumptions (based on back radiation helping the Sun to warm the surface and being used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to explain the surface temperature) are wrong in the first place.
The Radiative forcing GH concept should have been thrown out (even before getting to any consideration of temperature data) for one reason, and one reason only, that it ignores entropy considerations and thus ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which applies to every single independent (one way and irreversible) process within an isolated system or (usually) in a good approximation of such a system, as is a large column of the troposphere in perfectly calm conditions. Whatever the system parameters, the Second Law can be used to tell us the direction future changes will take, and when such changes will grind to a halt.
Everything you want to ask about, or which you think might refute my hypothesis, is already countered in one way or another in my papers, because the physics therein is indeed based on a correct understanding of the laws of physics. If you think otherwise, then it is you who is mistaken, and so you need to study what I have written until you understand why you were mistaken.
You know where to look: http://climate-change-theory.com and the papers are linked at the foot of the “Evidence” page.
Joel’s could better spend his time proving if the greenhouse gas effect is a symptom of the climate or a governor, and supporting those conclusions with data both past and present ,instead of trying to validate if a GHG effect exist or not.
that is Joel. Sorry
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
Joel if you want to convince me you have to debunk this kind of evidence which keeps mounting against AGW theory.
If this were not true this evidence would not be there.
Yup…The fact that libertarian/conservative websites exist disproves global warming, just like the fact that religious conservative websites exist disproves evolution.
I really don’t care at some point about convincing you because your objections are not scientifically-based they are ideologically-based, as is obvious from your statements and links. So, it is a fool’s errand to try to convince you. You mind is made up.
Wrong ,if the data were to support AGW theory I would be a fool to oppose it.
The skeptic web-sites I think show that AGW theory has not been proven rather then it has been disproven. Although the data so far to me says it is wrong but maybe I am jumping the gun.
As I have said many times, if my low solar average parameters come in as expected and the temperatures still trend up or are even steady I will have to rethink everything and will probably have to admit to being wrong.
I think the verdict will be in one way or the other before this decade is out in favor of solar, but nothing is certain.
Joel,
While the so-called basic physics may be right, there is so much conflicting evidence against a large (or even discernible) effect. Here is just a short list:
1. CO2 lags temperature in the ice core paleo data, and the lag is significantly longer when temperatures are falling. This is exactly the opposite of what would be expected if CO2 was any significant driver of the temperature increases from the glacial to interglacial periods.
2. The relationship between water vapor concentration and temperature is the opposite of what one would expect from positive feedback from water vapor. That is, above the current global average temperature, on average as the water vapor concentration increases more and more, the temperature increases less and less, as illustrated here:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sg/wc_st.png
3. The dimensionless power gain ratio of globally averaged surface emitted radiation to post albedo solar incident solar radiation is only about 1.6, where net positive feedback of 300% requires a gain ratio of more than 4.8 (at 287K, the surface radiates about 385 W/m^2 and about 239 W/m^2 enters from the Sun; 385/239 = 1.6, and +3.3C from a baseline of 287K requires +18 W/m^2; 18/3.7 = 4.86). The +3.7 W/m^2 of so-called GHG ‘forcing’ from 2xCO2 is supposed to be equal to the forcing of +3.7 W/m^2 of post albedo solar power entering the system (i.e. an increase from about 239 W/m^2 to 242.7 W/m^2).
4. During much of the last interglacial period, temperatures were 3C higher than they are today with far lower CO2 levels.
5. Dating way back into prehistory 100s of millions of years ago, CO2 concentrations were often several multiples higher than today, yet temperatures never went way up or out of control (i.e. past a tipping point)and ice ages still occurred.
6. The absorption spectrum of CO2 is already mostly saturated, which means it takes a huge amount of added CO2 just to get a slight increase in total net absorption. That is, on the logarithmic scale, it has already reached the point significantly diminished returns.
7. The 3.7 W/m^2 of total net absorption increase per CO2 doubling is only a theoretical measurement taken from ‘nominal’ GHG concentrations. (i.e. it is not the equivalent of a laboratory measurement). This means there is no guarantee that the total absorption will actually increase by 3.7 W/m^2 (or even increase at all).
8. The amount of temperature increase in the last 30 years is inconsistent with net positive feedback acting on the climate, even if the added CO2 is the primary cause of the warming.
9. During the last interglacial period, for over two thousand years it was about 3C (or more) warmer than today, yet Greenland and Antarctica did not melt (if they did we wouldn’t have ice cores dating back to that time).
10. Biology likes warmth and added CO2 drives plant growth which is the primary fuel for the entire biosphere, as well as fuel for agriculture which helps feed the world’s population (far too much of which is still starving).
1. Actually, the CO2 lag is quite small and there is considerable debate over whether there is much lag at all. There is likely a small lag because, unlike the current situation, something had to happen to change the CO2 concentration. That something was triggered by Milankovitch orbital oscillations and resulting advance or decay of ice sheets…and changes in ocean upwelling and so forth. The estimated changes in forcings due to changes in albedo and CO2 and the resulting temperature yields a self-consistent estimate of climate sensitivity of about 0.75 C rise per W/m^2 of forcing; if you assume CO2 contributed nothing, you get a larger estimate for the climate sensitivity and no self-consistency.
2. That graph is simply not able to sustain the conclusion you are trying to derive. You need to ***demonstrate*** that such a graph is incompatible with a positive water vapor feedback. So, for example, if you found the graph looked very different in a climate model, where the water vapor feedback is positive and can be measured, you would have something. But, I doubt it would work out that way. You can’t just come up with some hair-brained technique that you claim can diagnose something and not even be bother to check if it works. You call that skepticism?
3. Another bunch of nonsense. Things are very nonlinear because of the fact that over much of the range from 0 to 240 W/m^2 of input, you won’t get any water vapor feedback because the Earth will be a frozen snowball. Again, you’ve taken a technique that I can guarantee would misdiagnose the climate sensitivity in a climate model and yet you still want to believe, with no evidence whatsoever, that it would do a better job in the more complicated real world. That is the complete opposite of skepticism.
4. No, they were not 3 C higher globally ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian ). And, CO2 levels are not the only thing that controls the temperature. It is just the only thing that is rapidly being changed at the moment. Oh, and by the way, even though temps globally were something like 2 C higher than pre-industrial (1 C higher than now), sea levels were something like 5-8 m higher.
5. It depends what you mean by a tipping point. In fact, climates were a lot hotter and sea levels were a lot higher. And, we don’t have the resolution to confidently say what CO2 levels were during those periods, nor what the other forcings were. You are concluding things from paleoclimate that you could find almost no paleoclimate scientist would agree with.
6. All the logarithmic bit means is that you have to talk in terms of doublings…that is, it is fractional changes that matter…rather than absolute. The forcing is what it is and calculable.
7. If you deny the whole field of radiative transfer (and the technology of remote sensing that is based on it), then you can doubt the 3.7 W/m^2, which is why no serious scientist doubts it (including Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, …) You can’t just selectively doubt radiative transfer calculations when you don’t like them and then turn around and believe the UAH or RSS data sets.
8. No, the last 30 years is in fact completely consistent with a large range of climate sensitivities, centered around the IPCC range, particularly given the uncertainties in the aerosol forcing. Better constraints are provided by paleoclimate or by a combination of different empirical data.
9. Again, you seem to be comparing predictions for global temperatures for the future to temperatures at the poles in the last interglacial. As I noted, despite only modestly warmer conditions (probably only at most about 1 C warmer than where we are now), sea levels were many meters higher. As for the ice cores, nobody is claiming that ALL of Antarctica will melt; if it did, sea levels would rise by 60 m! However, just because the coldest parts (even the majority won’t melt), does not mean that none of it will. For 2 C above pre-industrial, nobody (or few) are saying that ALL of Greenland will melt (an additional 6 or 7 m)….but it seems likely it would for about 3 C or more.
10. We have adapted to the current climate and sea level. And, CO2 only drives plant growth for those plants where it is the limiting factor, which in many cases is weeds more than our most useful plants. Some of the poorest people in the world are in places like Bangladesh, where even a few meters of sea level rise will be catastrophic (unless you want a lot of poor refugees)…and also depend on melt water from land glaciers for their water supply.
You guys are really trying to illustrate why this is called denial of science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Joel you keep making up data to fit the way you want it to be not the way it is.
http://www.randombio.com/co2.pdf
Actually Joel you should read this study.
Joel,
1. The Milankovitch forcings which change the distribution of energy into the higher latitudes are like 30-50 W/m^2 or more. It’s this distribution change of incident solar energy into or out of the higher latitudes that forces and drives the interglacial and glacial periods (not the small change in the global mean or the miniscule ‘forcing’ from increased CO2). Moreover, the fact that the CO2 lag is much longer when temperatures are falling, is the opposite of what one would expect if the CO2 was any significant driver of the changes. That is, if it was a significant driver, it should tend to mostly coincide with the falling temperatures.
2. There is little question that water vapor by itself should act as a positive feedback. The point of the graph behaving the opposite way is because the water vapor feedback cannot be arbitrarily separated from that of the cloud feedback. As illustrated above, incremental reflection of clouds combined with the cooling effect of evaporated surface water is clearly stronger than the increased IR opacity from the increased water vapor at and above the current global average temperature (and is the dominant effect on the planet).
3. Typical response. Of course the system is highly non-linear, yet strangely the IPCC’s metric of sensitivity arbitrarily assumes the response is linear. That aside, the direction of non-linearity is the opposite of what is needed or would be consistent with net positive feedback acting on forcings or imbalances. That is each post albedo solar watt results in less and less warming (or less and less gain):
http://www.palisad.com/co2/why/pi_gs.png
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png
Moreover, the T^4 relationship between temperature and power dictates that each incremental degree of warming requires proportionally more and more power to effect and sustain it. Moreover still, higher temperatures means more evaporation, which means more surface cooling via the latent heat of evaporation and more surface cooling via reflection of solar energy from increased clouds. If anything, the data indicates the non-linearity of the system is overwhelmingly toward the net feedback getting more negative as the climate warms.
4. OK, about 2C higher. I don’t really see the significance of this difference so far as my point.
5. The point is CO2 levels have been exponentially higher and there have been no tipping points or runaway temperature increases, and ice ages have occurred with far higher CO2 levels than now. This is at least very consistent with CO2 only having a relatively small influence on temperature. However, I admit it does not rule out a significant CO2 effect on temperature.
6. The point is we are unlikely to ever quadruple as it just requires too much emitted CO2 to get there, so the radiative effect of accumulated CO2 increases less and less the more we add.
7. I’m not denying the radiative physics. I’m only pointing out that the calculation of 3.6-3.7 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling is only theoretically calculated and is not the equivalent of a laboratory measurement. It’s based on macro averages that are supposed to be equivalent representations of the whole, but the whole atmosphere and the constituents that make it up are highly dynamic. I agree that in theory it should be correct, but only point out that it isn’t as close to definitive as many are led to believe.
8. It’s far more consistent with the net feedback being negative or neutral than positive (let alone 300+% positive).
9. The bottom line is yearly average temperatures below 0C by and large equal permanent ice. For this reason alone no significant part of Greeland and virtually none of Antarctica will melt (probably even with a 3C rise). The temperatures there are too far below freezing for this to ever happen. You’d have to wait a few 10s of millions of years for plate tectonics move Antarctica or Greenland to lower latitudes.
10. By and large, the increased fertilization from CO2 — both for agriculture and the biosphere, is likely to be a significant net benefit (possibly even a huge benefit). It makes for a lusher, greener planet too. The significant sea level rise forecasts (if you want to call them that) have been challenged in the literature. It’s hard to accurately measure sea level change on global average, because the land itself moves up and down due to tectonics.
1. The Milankovitch forcings are almost nil in the global mean. I agree that the change in distribution of the radiation is what triggers ice sheet growth and decay…but that change in ice sheets is then the largest contributor to the global radiative forcing (via change in albedo), with greenhouse gases second, and changes in aerosol loading third.
2. You are reading way, way too much into a graph that does not directly address the question. And, you have proposed a diagnostic technique but haven’t even made the attempt to test it. I think if climate models saw a very different relationship between water vapor and temperature across the globe, it would have been noticed by now. And, if the climate models see something similar, that disproves this as any sort of realistic diagnostic tool.
3. You seriously don’t understand the difference between linearizing about the current state and assuming a linear relationship holds from no solar radiation all the way up to 240 W/m^2 of solar radiation?!?! They are two totally different things. Let me give you a simple example: If I use I = sigma*T^4 and the values of I(0 K) = 0 W/m^2 and T(255 K) = 240 W/m^2 to predict the radiative emission at 288 K by simply putting a straight line through these points, I get 271 W/m^2. If I instead linearize about 255 K and use the slope there to predict the radiative emission at 288 K, I get 364 W/m^2, which is much closer to the correct value of 390 W/m^2.
4. You can go back and read it again.
5. I already commented on this. You haven’t added anything new except an admission that your interpretation of the data (which, as I pointed out, is already problematic) “does not rule out a significant CO2 effect on temperature”.
6. Well, I agree that we are unlikely to go that high in CO2, but that is only because I think that science will prevail and we will eventually put a price on carbon emissions that will cause us to switch away from fossil fuels (or sequester emissions). However, this will be no thanks to people who are trying to prevent any meaningful policy changes from happening. In the absence of policy changes, we have plenty of known fossil fuel reserves (especially coal) to send CO2 levels through the roof, and it gets even worse if you consider additional reserves likely to be discovered in the future or non-traditional sources like tar sands.
7. Like I said, if you don’t believe that calculation is definitive, it is hard to reconcile you believing Spencer and Christy’s data or anything else that relies on radiative transfer calculation in the atmosphere.
8. No…In order to get the net feedback being negative, you’d have to assume that the net aerosol forcing is positive or other highly suspect assumptions.
9. Nonsense. West Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice…and the data so far suggest a rapid doubling time, i.e., acceleration (although the reliable data is still pretty recent).
10. The predicted sea level rises have also been challenged in the literature as being too small. There is little doubt that each degree C of global temperature rise contributes at least a few meters to sea level eventually. The only significant debate is about how rapidly this can occur. Even those predictions of relatively modest sea level rises by 2100 predict sea levels would continue to rise for hundreds of years to millenia.
Joel,
1. The additional GHG ‘forcing’ from the CO2 is miniscule. Maybe a couple watts. It’s completely dwarfed by the large distribution changes, which are what trigger and drive the whole cycles.
2. I’m not. What the graph really shows is that water vapor feedback is intertwined with the cloud feedback and the combined effect of the two results in less and less warming the more and more water there is in the atmosphere (at least above the current global average temperature).
3. No, I fully understand the non-linearity. The point is the non-linearity is in the opposite direction needed for net positive feedback acting on imbalances. Why you don’t see this is because you probably fail to recognize that the way mainstream climate science has framed the feedback question is more akin to the system being a static steady-state system whose behavior upon a change in the energy balance is unknown or a big mystery, rather than the system being a highly dynamic and mostly already physically manifested system. For example, the 20 W/m^2 net cooling effect of clouds is a highly dynamic average — not a static average, though the way the debate is framed it’s more as if it’s a static average. The bottom line is mainstream climate science claims sensitivity far greater than the absolute gain of the system, and this is despite the non-linearity being in the opposite direction and the net feedback acting on the gain being negative. By doing this they are effectively claiming watts of GHG ‘forcing’ have a significantly greater ability to warm the surface than watts already forcing the system from the Sun, which is nonsense.
If you can’t see and/or don’t understand the logic of this, here it is laid out in a series of separate questions:
Do you agree that at the Earth’s current global average temperature of about 287K, the Earth emits about 385 W/m^2 from its surface (assuming an emissivity of 1 or very close to 1)?
Do you agree that the globally averaged solar constant is about 342 W/m^2 and the average albedo is about 0.3, resulting in a net incident solar power of about 239 W/m^2?
Do you agree that the 239 W/m^2 of incident post albedo solar power is forcing the climate system?
Do you agree that the 239 W/m^2 forcing the system from the Sun results in an ‘amplification’ at the surface of a net of about 385 W/m^2 gained at the surface boundary?
Do you agree that this accounts for all the physical processes and feedbacks operating in the system? If not, why haven’t all the physical processes and feedbacks fully manifested themselves after billions of years of forcing from the Sun? Or even after the last few hundreds or thousands of years of forcing from the Sun?
Do you agree that in order to ‘amplify’ +3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ from 2xCO2 into +3.3C at the surface it requires +18 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface boundary (287K = 385 W/m^2; 290.3K or +3.3C = 403 W/m^2 and 403 – 385 = 18)?
Do you agree that watts of GHG ‘forcing’ and watts of solar forcing can only do the same amount of work? That is a watt is a watt, independent of where it last originates from?
Do you agree that 385/239 = 1.6?
Do you agree that 18/3.7 = 4.8?
Do you agree that 4.8 is 3 times greater than 1.6?
If watts are watts, how can watts of GHG ‘forcing’ have a 3x greater ability to warm the surface than watts already forcing the system from the Sun?
The most common objection to this is people like you say, ‘but the system is non-linear’, and indeed it is (highly in fact). Again, the problem is the non-linearity is in the opposite direction needed for net positive feedback to be possible. That is, as the incident post albedo solar power increases, the ratio of the net power gained at the surface to power entering from the Sun decreases. See again these plots here that show the non-linearity of the system:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/why/pi_gs.png
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ga.png
I should repeat that the referenced 1.1K of so-called ‘no-feedback’ is based on the 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface at the TOA, where 3.7*(385/239)= 6.0 and +6.0 W/m^2 from a baseline of 287K equals about +1.1K.
Or the global average 1.6 to 1 power densities ratio between the surface and the TOA (i.e. 385/239 = 1.61) is the claimed ‘zero-feedback’ gain, where +1K = +5.3 W/m^2 of net gain from a baseline of 287K and 5.3/1.6 = 3.3; and 3.3 W/m^2 is the ‘zero-feedback’ flux change at the TOA for +1K.
Another way of looking at this is if you really think that a watt of GHG ‘forcing’ is 3 times more effective at heating the surface than a watt of solar forcing, why doesn’t it take 1162 W/m^2 of net surface gain (over 100C!) to offset the 239 W/m^2 from the Sun? i.e. 239*(18/3.7)= 1162.
The bottom line is it only takes about 1.6 W/m^2 of net gain at the surface to allow 1 W/m^2 to leave at the TOA; with each incremental post albedo watt from the Sun resulting in less and less gain (or a gain incrementally lower and lower than the absolute gain 1.6).
The key point is 25 year average response is already giving a rough measure of the net effect of all feedbacks operating in the system, including especially water vapor and clouds, as the two are by far the most dynamic components of the whole atmosphere (and operate on fairly short time scales, i.e. on the orders of days to weeks — meaning a decades long term average is more than sufficient).
The other funny thing about Point number 2 is that I would bet dollars to donuts that if that plot showed the reverse, i.e., that the curve had upward curvature then you would say with equal conviction, “The relationship between water vapor concentration and temperature is the opposite of what one would expect from positive feedback from water vapor. That is, above the current global average temperature, on temperature increases more and more, the water vapor concentration increases less and less, as illustrated here.”
These sort of hand-waving arguments are very good at becoming “heads, I win; tails, you lose” arguments!
Joel, the data shows no positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor which is at the core of AGW theory.
No lower tropical tropospheric hot spot is present.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/five-reasons-why-water-vapor-feedback-might-not-be-positive/
Joel, this is where this theory will meet it’s demise. It is going to be a negative water vapor /CO2 feedback process rather then a positive one. Hence more OLR to space. CO2 concentration changes within themselves will not matter.
I further think that a positive feedback is going to be found between prolonged minimum solar activity events and water vapor for all levels of the atmosphere.
Certainly in the lowest levels of the atmosphere but perhaps in the upper levels of the atmosphere despite convection considerations which could be thought to be counter intuitive.
Ice Ages characterized by increasing aridity which obviously is tied into lesser amounts of water vapor.
In addition the ozone/water vapor give and take aspect in all of this plays a role in a way which will promote more OLR to escape to space.
I will admit the devil is in the details but it is going to revolve around this issue to one degree to another as it apparently already is as is evidenced by the article Dr. Spencer wrote some 4 years ago.
Feel free to make your submission for the AU$5,000 reward I have offered … see this comment.
You may copy your submission (including the study) here for open discussion and exposure of your inevitable errors. None of the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology pertaining to imaginary parcels of molecules will be entered into: only standard physics using standard Kinetic Theory, for example. The only statement of the Second Law accepted will be pertaining to maximum entropy production. The Clausius “hot to cold” corollary will not be accepted if applied to other than a horizontal plane.
Air composition:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-composition-d_212.html
{with CO2 at 300 ppm}
And so at 400 ppm and dry air density of 1.2 kg per cubic meter. Per cubic mater in kg:
.2784 kg of Oxygen
.9056 kg of Nitrogen
.0007 kg
Or almost 1 gram of CO2
Question I want answered is if adds .0007 kg of CO2 per 1.2 kg of air at different elevation [the CO2 diffuses, but it takes some time to do this, so one add some amount per minute
and maintain a concentration at some level of elevation]
what elevation would greatest warming effect.
So one square km with dry air at 1.2 kg and 1 meter height
One has 1.2 million kg of air and at 400 ppm of CO2 of the 1.2 million kg of air you have 736 kg of CO2.
So if add 736 kg to 0 to 1 meter elevation over an area sq km, how does it warm?
And what is difference if instead one added 736 kg at say 6000 meter elevation. [which btw has air density of about 1/2 of 1 meter elevation, so would be 2 meter thick layer rather 1 meter.
So question is what is the difference in effect of CO2 at different elevation.
I would suppose the the most radiant effect should occur at lower elevation.
Also it seems that since one adding a small quantity it would not make much different to temperature is CO2 was +/-
10 C as compared to ambient air. But it seems that added this amount of any kind gas would some effect because one increasing the density of the gas.
And generally one could expect only very a small effect and therefore very difficult to measure. And related to this is what conditions would have greatest effects and therefore
improving the chance of measuring the effect.
So broadly speaking adding CO2 at cold night time or warm daytime.
Adding in dry conditions or wet conditions?
Cloudy or clear conditions.
So if add 736 kg per square km, one is momentarily increasing CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm.
Or one instead add 3 times as much [2208 kg] and get 1600 ppm. And in terms of an immediate type effect could one expect twice of the effect of 1600 ppm vs 800 pmm?
As compared period of time of irrigation, or light rain
the amount water could exceed a 2 mm depth. 2 mm would 2 kg per square meter and 2 million kg per square km. So that is something which is much more significant quantitatively.
And easily measurable.
Doug said:
“There may well be things I describe (all being deduced from a correct understanding of physics) which are not yet in standard physics texts, let alone in the non-standard fictitious fiddled physics which is rampant in meteorology and the infant science of climatology.”
Therein lies the difference between Doug and me.
All my propositions are based on established physics, the specialised discipline of meteorology and 60 years of observation and study.
Everything I have said here can be found in the text books in one place or another but I do accept that in some source locations the established science is expressed in an unclear and thus potentially misleading manner which has confused some contributors here.
Atmospheric mass causes the rise of surface temperature above S-B,not the radiative capability of GHGs.
In so far as GHGs have a thermal effect that effect is equal and opposite in rising columns of air (half the atmosphere) as compared to falling columns of air (half the atmosphere).
GHGs distort the adiabatic lapse rate in one direction during convective ascent andin the opposite direction during convective descentso that net thermal effect at both the surface and the tropopause is zero.
You heard it here first 🙂
Feel free to make your submission for the AU$5,000 reward … see this comment.
You may copy your submission (including the study) here for open discussion and exposure of your inevitable errors. None of the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology pertaining to imaginary parcels of molecules will be entered into: only standard physics using standard Kinetic Theory, for example. The only statement of the Second Law accepted will be pertaining to maximum entropy production. The Clausius “hot to cold” corollary will not be accepted if applied to other than a horizontal plane.
My description complies with your statement thus:
“When entropy is maximized unbalanced energy potentials are minimized. Hence there is a homogeneous mean sum of micro (KE + gravitational PE) per molecule at all heights. Hence there is a stable temperature gradient. Fullstop.”
You just need to use adiabatic convective overturning instead of heat creep.
In the state of thermodynamic equilibrium thus described (with PE+KE=constant) there can be no adiabatic net motion of molecules or net transfer of energy across any internal boundary, Stephen, because the state represents maximum entropy, and so nothing more happens.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/interesting-correlation-sunspots-vs-specific-humidity/
What I alluded to earlier on my post at 4:00pm Apr. 22
Salvatore Del Prete,
I have been somewhat following your exchanges with Joel Shore.
I do like your approach of looking at the real world evidence as relying on computer models to try and determine climate drivers.
I agree with Joel on some things and with you on others.
I agree with Joel Shore that there is a GHE and it is real. Carbon Dioxide and Water vapor act to redirect IR energy emitted by the surface and do change and effect the path of this energy and in some cases do return some to the surface to slow down cooling and creating a warmer Earth overall. So far the mass of atmosphere theory does not work for me. It could explain surface temperature being warmer than a Black Body would be at this distance from the Sun but it cannot explain what then happens to the extra radiation that is being emitted from the surface. Where does it go, why can’t it be seen?
I do not agree with Joel Shore on the AGW hypothesis. Shore believes in appeal to authority. I do not accept that as a valid argument. The climate debate is not one we should leave to a few experts to decide the course of the human race for the next 100 years based upon what they think is correct or true science (even though it is well known that science funding is difficult and one may have to exaggerate a threat to ensure continued funds from government sources). AGW is not the same as GHE theory (which actually has some empirical measurements to back it up). AGW is a model created reality based upon unproven assumptions about how things should work.
I think Joel is switching between the two to win support from onlookers. There are many on this blog who do not accept the GHE at all and cannot understand how a cold atmosphere can direct IR back to the surface. No amount of explaining will convince them and their minds are shut tight to any empirical information one may present. I accept the GHE as a reality at this time since evidence seems to support it and the theory is reasonable and it does explain what happens to the radiation being emitted by the surface but not seen in space and Roy’s model seems as a reasonable explanation of what we can physically see with our own senses.
I think you are very right to strongly challenge the AGW hypothesis and Joel would be very wrong to think such a huge issue should be left to be decided by a few vested “experts” in the field. (Who knows maybe half of them have huge investments in wind turbines and solar cells and are pushing it for personal gain…kind of like Al Gore who went from a few millions in wealth to multimillions after discovering the money in AGW)
Salvatore maybe you should reconsider your position, I think the money is now on the AGW pasture. I hope you don’t though. I like science as a system of seeking truth about reality and I really hate when it is corrupted. That is my skin in this game. Keep the science honest and truthful and when falsehood rears if wicked head from either side it is time to step in and kick it down!
Maybe a long an pointless post….sorry to waste your time!
— So far the mass of atmosphere theory does not work for me. It could explain surface temperature being warmer than a Black Body would be at this distance from the Sun but it cannot explain what then happens to the extra radiation that is being emitted from the surface. Where does it go, why can’t it be seen? —
I don’t get what you mean. Or I would say the opposite.
Though not sure what you mean exactly by mass of atmosphere theory.
Or if mean why Venus is hot as explained by mass of atmosphere theory.
But on Earth I would say mass of atmosphere theory do not make Earth have higher temperature. [Though nor do greenhouse gases]
Or mass of non greenhouse gas [N2 and O2] makes night and winter warmer, and cools ground/surface when ground is heated by the sun. Also cools surface air temperature or why surface air does not warm as quickly as perhaps otherwise.
And don’t know what “cannot explain what then happens to the extra radiation that is being emitted from the surface”
What extra energy.
Anyhow I would say most energy emitted into space is emitted by surface and some from clouds.
“what then happens to the extra radiation that is being emitted from the surface. Where does it go, why can’t it be seen?”
It fails to escape to space, that much is clear because the surface is at 288K but radiation to space from the top of the atmosphere is 255K
One needs to focus on the surface temperature of 288k representing total KINETIC energy at the surface.
Kinetic energy cannot be in two places at once so it can either be conducted to other molecules or radiated to space, not both simultaneously.
It isn’t being radiated to space so it must be getting conducted to molecules in the atmosphere to support continuing convective overturning.
The decline in temperature with height along the lapse rate slope shows that conduction and convection draw out the kinetic energy at a rate determined by the decline in density with height.
That kinetic energy is drawn out by increasing height so both temperature and radiation fall as one goes up.
Try this description:
The surface is at 288k and radiating at 288K.The molecules immediately above it take say 1K by conduction but because of their height those molecules are also 1K cooler and so radiate at 287k and not 288k
The next layer of molecules take another 1K by conduction but because they are higher again they are another 1k cooler and radiate at 286k
And so on, progressively up through the atmosphere to the boundary with space at – 270 K or whatever with the end result being 255K getting out to space.
You have upward radiation from the surface to space but it is different at every height between surface and space.
So how do you choose which temperature along the lapse rate slope is the effective radiating temperature to space?
If it were at the surface then 288K going straight out to space would leave nothing for conduction and convection so the atmosphere would contract fall to the surface.
If it were at the boundary with space then almost no radiation would get out and the atmosphere would expand until blown away by the solar wind.
The amount of radiation that gets out is limited to the amount coming in at equilibrium.
255K comes in from space so the effective radiating height to space is where the temperature is at 255K so that 255K escapes to space via radiation.
The ‘missing’ 33K being represented by potential energy holding the mass of the atmospheric gases off the surface and being constantly recycled between atmosphere and surface so that it cannot re-join the radiative flow to space.
The point being that if radiation from the surface and atmosphere drops steadily all the way from surface to space then one simply cannot have all the radiation emitted at the surface escaping to space otherwise no atmosphere.
Surface KINETIC energy gets diverted to conduction and convection within the atmosphere and the amount so diverted increases along the lapse rate slope.
Once so diverted it cannot radiate because potential energy is not heat and does not radiate.
The idea of radiation simply being a point to point transfer of heat energy only works if there is no mass between the two points (a vacuum).
Radiation produces no heat unless it interacts with mass so it ‘jumps’ across a vacuum without creating any heat within the space between the two points. That is what the S-B equation is based on. It relies on there being no mass in an atmosphere to interact conductively with the irradiated surface so that all radiation goes straight out again.
Radiation coming in creates kinetic energy by interacting with mass and then that kinetic energy is split between radiation out and conduction within the mass.
If there is a continuum of mass in gaseous form around the emitting object then S-B does not apply and some of the kinetic energy at the source will be diverted from radiation to conduction throughout the mass.
The ability to conduct will be determined by the density of the mass available to absorb kinetic energy by conduction.
If the continuum of mass is of a constant density throughout then eventually all the mass will become as warm as the source and the entire system will radiate at the temperature of the source, say 255K. That is why Roy and others suggest an isothermal atmosphere if GHGs are not present.
However, if the mass is sorted into a density gradient by gravity and if there is uneven surface heating at the base then convection must ensue with or without radiative gases simply because density variations in the horizontal plane will be unavoidable.
If convection begins then kinetic energy at the base becomes converted to potential energy which is not heat and which does not radiate.
That potential energy gets returned to the base on descent and must be added to the continuing insolation from outside.
The base rises to 288K but only 255K radiates out because 33k of the surface kinetic energy is being conducted back to the convective column during the next ascent.
The first convective ascent does not reduce the surface below 255K because the S-B equation fixes 255K as a MINIMUM temperature at that level of insolation.
Instead, conduction and convection take the 33K from energy that would otherwise have escaped to space and then on completion of the first descent the base temperature rises to 288K.
That is compliant with all the physics and meteorology textbooks and with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Only the radiative theory is out of kilter because it does not combine the thermal consequences of radiative and non radiative energy transfers.
Both Doug and Kristian are largely right but each has made a critical error as I have pointed out.
“[Most of the] radiation coming in [to the Earth’s surface from the Sun, but NOT from a colder region in the atmosphere]creates kinetic energy by interacting with mass and then that kinetic energy is split between radiation out and conduction within the mass.”
You need to be more precise Stephen.
Details here …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
Before you say Doug is wrong you need to discuss the development of the physics which Doug presents. You have never even mentioned the words entropy or energy potentials just for starters.
The effective radiating altitude is irrelevant. The pivoting altitude is relevant. See…
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf
“on completion of the first descent the base temperature rises to 288K.”
More climatology fictitious fiddled physics regurgitated by Stephen.
No Stephen, the back radiation cannot be added to the solar radiation and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations. Except in climatology texts, you will find no such garbage in real physics.
Read “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” …
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
Doug said:
“No Stephen, the back radiation cannot be added to the solar radiation and the total used in Stefan Boltzmann calculations”
That is not my contention.
Descending adiabatically warming air over half the globe at any given moment supresses convection from the surface beneath the descending column and thus allows insolation to warm the surface above S-B
That is how a greenhouse works.
So, Stephen, show me your standard physics which says radiation can warm the surface above S-B. Poor Max Planck (Nobel Prize Winner in Physics) must have got it wrong.
There’s a mean of 66W/m^2 of incident solar radiation left entering the surface after the simultaneous losses by evaporative cooling and sensible heat transfer. You have a huge difference which Hansen thought was the 324W/m^2 of back radiation.
You have never explained how, when, where and why your “parcels” of air go downwards sometimes (when?) and upwards from a heated surface on a sunny day.
Radiation from the atmosphere can only slow radiative cooling. The other non-radiative cooling merely accelerates to compensate and wipe out the effect of back radiation. Non radiative cooling cannot be slowed unless the atmosphere actually delivers extra thermal energy to the surface, or at least to the air adjoining the surface. You have to explain how that thermal energy gets from cooler to warmer regions on the way down.
Remember, when (PE+KE) is homogeneous, nothing happens adiabatically. There is no adiabatic transfer of matter or energy across any internal boundary.
Meanwhile read some 21st Century physics in “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” if you can understand such.
I believe in the GHG effect, but not AGW theory. Reason being the data do not support any of the atmospheric predictions this theory has made.
In order for this theory to have merit the lower tropospheric tropical hot spot is going to have to become a reality. Until that happens this theory really has no validity.
Thanks for your opinion.
Believe all you like, Salvo.
Better still, base your belief on valid physics as here:
http://climate-change-theory.com
Norman says:
“I do not agree with Joel Shore on the AGW hypothesis. Shore believes in appeal to authority. I do not accept that as a valid argument. The climate debate is not one we should leave to a few experts to decide the course of the human race for the next 100 years based upon what they think is correct or true science (even though it is well known that science funding is difficult and one may have to exaggerate a threat to ensure continued funds from government sources).”
I am not against people in principle trying to learn things on their own. However, what I find disconcerting is how most people who seem to do this, at least in the AGW realm, vastly overestimate their ability to judge the science relative to the experts. I wonder whether these same people feel that they could study a little bit about medical issues and then go and perform open heart surgery.
The fact is that the scientific world is very specialized today and it requires a lot of study to become well-versed in a field. It would be nice if one can read a few things and then become just as qualified as the experts to make pronouncement on them. However, that is simply not realistic. There is good reason why Abraham Lincoln founded the National Academy of Sciences to provide scientific advice and judgement to the government and the people.
I’ve spent a significant part of my free time over the last 15 years studying climate science, but I am not deluded into believing that my opinion counts for more than the opinion of the scientists working in the field, so I find it puzzling when others do. And, when I actually see the nonsense that they are basing their opinions on, it does little to change my view that most people are fooling themselves, believing that they are objectively looking at the evidence, when in fact they are just basically providing themselves with justification to believe what they want to believe (based on their ideology). [And, indeed there is some documentation in the social sciences for this sort of thing happening on climate change and other scientific issues that impinge on strongly-held ideological beliefs.]
“I think Joel is switching between the two to win support from onlookers.”
Actually, I didn’t get into talking about the broader issue of AGW until Salvatore started making statements that irked me and that I didn’t want to let go unanswered. I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence. (E.g., in this comment: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/#comment-189263 )
The rough analogy I have in my head is that a denier of the greenhouse effect is like a Young Earth creationist while one who accepts the greenhouse effect but denies AGW plays any significant role is more like someone who supports intelligent design. (I’m not the only person who sees the parallels, of course, since the major organization standing up for the teaching of evolution has expanded their purview to include AGW.)
And, I don’t claim that this analogy is perfect: There are quantitatively larger uncertainties in regards to climate sensitivity than in the evolution – intelligent design analogy, so I think there is legitimately more room for a “luke warmer” position than an intelligent design position, but at least it gives one a rough picture of the spectrum that exists.
The fact is that the scientific world is very specialized today and it requires a lot of study to become well-versed in a field. It would be nice if one can read a few things and then become just as qualified as the experts to make pronouncement on them.
Joel, fortunately many do not share your opinion that climatologist of today are well versed in their field. I would say they are an embarrassment to the field.
They have no concept of solar /climate interactions, they have no concept of how the earth’s magnetic field plays into the climate scheme of things, they have no concept of how volcanic activity plays into the climate scheme of things ,they have no concept of the past historical climatic record and how that plays into the climate scheme of things, when it comes to ice ages they have no clue.
In other words they are useless.
Actually, I didn’t get into talking about the broader issue of AGW until Salvatore started making statements that irked me and that I didn’t want to let go unanswered. I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence
Joel says a very selective view of the evidence.
Joel show me the evidencle show me the evidenc
Joel says
I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence.
My reply
Joel here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
What “experts” Joel?
Do you seriously think those who have studied about a year or so of a fictitious-fiddled physics course carefully modified from correct physics so as to support the hoax – taught from one generation of climatologists to the next – brainwashing people like yourself – do you seriously think they understand thermodynamics better than someone like myself and the physicists who agree with me? I can tear Pierrehumbert’s writings to pieces with valid physics.
The effect Dr. Spencer discusses is real based on downloading data from Environment Canada.
The cause is another question, it could be aerosols, clouds, orbital mechanics, water varpour …..
All I know is in dozens of plots of temperature over periods of 70 to 100 years, the general trend is for less cold cold trends and less warm or moderated warming trends compared to the cold trends.
Here is one example but I have dozens:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/08d575pia8wk6h6/Grand%20Forks_BC%20July.tiff?dl=0
According to greenhouse theory without greenhouse gas
earth would be -18 C on average.
But how warm would it be in different parts of the world- tropic, Temperate and polar regions.
So how warm it be in the day time and how warm at night.
If look at the Moon:
http://www.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml
Equator daytime temperature are about 120 C
And at 40 degree latitude they are just above 350 K [77 C].
So if the earth had average temperature of 18 C at 40 degree latitude it would colder the -18 C and at equator warmer than -18 C.
With a spherical body like Earth and Moon, between 24 degrees
North and South of the equator is more than 40% of entire surface area. And between about 38 degree north and south
is about 50% of entire surface area
With earth at -18 C, the half of the world below 38 degree latitudes would have average temperature above -18 C and the two tops of the world above 38 degree would have average temperature below -18 C.
So with moon the average daytime temperature at 38 latitude
is about 80 C.
At 50 degrees: 340 [66 C]
And at 60 degrees it’s about 320 K [46 C] and at 70 degree
it’s about 280 K [7 C] And at 80 degree about 230 K [-43 C].
What latitude is halfway point of half the surface of these
hemispheres.
So total surface are of Moon is 38 million square km.
So the combine surface area of the two is 19 million square km. So each is 9 1/2 million square km. Want part of one hemisphere which has 4.75 million sq km.
So a disk 390 km in radius has area of 4.77 million square km and 385 km radius is 4.65 million.
A degree of latitude is 30.3 km distance, 385 would be about 12.7 degree. 90 – 12.7 is 77.3 degrees latitude.
So from 77 and 1/2 degree latitude to 38 degrees is half surface area, with temperature range of 80 C to almost about -40 C. And the other half has average temperature of less than -43 C.
I would guess the half with 80 C to -40 C has most of area closer to 80 C so average about 40 C.
And average of both about -10 C.
So middle having average temperature of about 100 C, and two poleward halves have average of about -10 C.
So roughly a daytime average temperature of half the sunlit
global is about 50 to 60 C.
Whole point was to get rough idea temperature difference
of earth without greenhouse gases [or btw any kind of warming effect] And so this earth have average temperature of -18 C. And restate the question what would be daytime temperature at equatorial , temperate, and polar region.
Now Moon is colder nearer poles because sun strikes the surface at low angle. And Earth is the same as moon in this
respect, but also has another factor of the sun needing to pass thru more atmosphere when it’s low on the horizon.
So the Earth without any greenhouse effect has much colder
part of the earth which above 38 degree latitude.
So lets try guesses. Say at equator on Earth the temperature is 30 C. And at equinox at 38 degree latitude and at noon in daytime it’s 20 C. And at same time the halves above 38 degree to 90 degree pole is -20 C.
So at equinox with non greenhouse effect earth one has average daytime high of 5 C.
And lets say equinox night low is:
Equator 20 C, 38 degree, 10 C, and two halves above 38 degrees is -30. So that average night time low of -15 C.
So that average global temperature of -10 C.
Now when it’s summer, the half of the half is in summer will get warmer with that half, but due to no greenhouse effect the 6 months of darkness would be exceptionally cold-
colder than -150 C. So seems the cooling of winter substrate more for average temperature than the summer warming of other half would get. So count that factor could bring the average to at or below -18 C.
But anyhow, what do you think, and what would equator daytime temperature be on a world with average temperature of -18 C
Doug, I think you ought to give some of that $5000 reward to gbaikie for trying.
Without greenhouse gas the atmosphere would be completely transparent and have no clouds. Thus all of 340W/m^2 would reach the surface, this having a blackbody temperature of +5°C and not -18°C.
But the real Earth surface only absorbs a mean of 168W/m^2 for which the blackbody temperature is -41°C.
I note also that no one has done a study yet similar to mine but showing water vapor warms instead.
— Doug Cotton says:
April 23, 2015 at 6:22 AM
Without greenhouse gas the atmosphere would be completely transparent and have no clouds. Thus all of 340W/m^2 would reach the surface, this having a blackbody temperature of +5°C and not -18°C. —
Without greenhouses [mainly water gas and water droplets]
The Nitrogen, oxygen, Argon atmosphere would be more transparent, but nothing is completely transparent to the entire Solar spectrum.
I choose -18 C but that is what say it would be according to the greenhouse effect theory.
Most people imagine a -18 C world is a way which is not realistic, and wanted people to actually get some idea of what a world at Earth distance from the Sun would be like if it was -18 C.
I also like to point out that 5 C ideal blackbody world would be a very strange place- and one part of the strangeness is all the surface would constant and uniform temperature of 5.3 C. And there is a huge difference between a uniform temperature and an average temperature of a spherical planet.
Now a 5 C average temperature would closer [or familiar] to -18 C world than compared a 5 C uniform temperature world.
So with 5 C average world, the tropics are still around 30 C, and it’s warmer poleward. And not much difference in energy.
Or a 5 C average world, would emit far less energy than ideal blackbody with uniform temperature of 5 C.
“But the real Earth surface only absorbs a mean of 168W/m^2 for which the blackbody temperature is -41°C”
You mean a uniform temperature of -41°C.
Ok, so for Doug, question is what would world with average
temperature of -41 C at earth distance from the sun, look like in terms of equator day time temperature?
[and you include temperate and polar region also if you like.]
And for anyone else, Earth has had an average temperature of 25 C in the past [long before the time of creation, for you guys the believe the world is 6000 year old] what would the daytime equator temperature be in world which had an average temp of 25 C [at earth distance from the Sun with the sun’s current solar energy output]
Gbaikie’s argument is similar to Postma’s and is refuted here …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/PSI.html
Yes well, Gbaikie and Stephen, now try working out the temperature at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there’s no direct solar radiation reaching down through that 350Km high troposphere, and no surface either.
I can work it out with my hypothesis, as I can for other planets like Earth and Venus, but can you with your assumption that radiation explains all?
http://climate-change-theory.com
Since surface heating is never even there will always be convective overturning.
Once that is in place it no longer matters whether new insolation reaches the ground.
Whatever the height might be to which it penetrates it will stimulate even faster overturning.
The surface will still be warmer than locations higher up.
Yes and that is essentially Venus.
But also believe Venus has a surface in the form of it’s large and dense sulphuric acid clouds.
And unlike water the droplets have high boiling temperature- and not as transparent.
But even water droplets in that huge atmosphere would act a significant “surface”. Or this kind of process occurs on Earth but it’s less significant.
Gbaikie and others:
The Sun’s direct radiation does not cause the Earth’s surface temperature to be what it is. Neither does backradiation.
What does (and does on all planets) is explained here ..
http://climate-change-theory.com
Have you ever seen any reader here come back after studying my hypothesis and then pinpoint any error in what I have written?
— Doug Cotton says:
April 29, 2015 at 7:55 AM
Gbaikie and others:
The Sun’s direct radiation does not cause the Earth’s surface temperature to be what it is. Neither does backradiation.
What does (and does on all planets) is explained here ..
http://climate-change-theory.com
Have you ever seen any reader here come back after studying my hypothesis and then pinpoint any error in what I have written?–
I have looked at it and I told you what I disagree about
and your response was unreasonable.
This latest “The Sun’s direct radiation does not cause the Earth’s surface temperature to be what it is.”
Is good example of your type of responses.
Earth’s surface temperature warms during daylight. This so obvious one does need to say it. But in terms of higher surface temperature these are only caused be direct sunlight.
So the reason the ground can become 70 C [or higher] on Earth is solely due to direct sunlight. Or an air temperature approaching 50 C is only caused by direct sunlight. Or the cause of the highest temperatures which occur on Earth are related to direct sunlight.
So with Mars with the sun warming it’s ground to around 20 C, this warm temperature is from direct sunlight.
What this means is there is no climatic mechanism which can cause Mars surface to have say a surface temperature of 40 C.
Whereas Earth commonly has the ground warm to 40 C or warmer, and Mars can’t because it’s further from the Sun and has less direct sunlight.
And whole point saying the obvious, is that all the discussed warming mechanisms are about reducing the amount of cooling that one gets when there is less sunlight [night or winter].
One can say with extreme confident that England will never get as warm as the Death Valley highest temperature, because
England at higher latitude and this higher latitude never receives as much direct sunlight in the summer that Death Valley can get. One can also say that in winter Death Valley
will never exceed it’s highest recorded temperature- because the sun lower in the sky in the winter, and has less direct sunlight.
No one going to write paper saying summer is warmer than winter because the amount of direct sunlight one gets in the summer. It’s too obvious and should not be required to be said.
But may be required to be said due to the amount of idiocy on display.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/winter-returns-rockies-expecting-up-to-5-ft/#comment-189715
Those who worship back radiation need to read …
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
Doug Cotton,
This may be the dumbest thing to date you have stated. So you think there is a Church of Back Radiation? Stupid pointless comment. Get a grip man!
There is no “33 degrees of warming” anyway, because, without GHG the atmosphere would be transparent without clouds and the surface would receive the full 340W/m^2 for which the black body temperature is 5°C and not -18°C. So next time talk about 9 or 10 degrees of warming, thanks.
Gravity raises the surface temperature far more than that, more so in drier regions where there is less GH gas.
The numbers don’t matter.
The basic physics applies whatever the actual numbers.
Doug said:
“The effective radiating altitude is irrelevant. The pivoting altitude is relevant.”
It is the effective radiating altitude that pivots.
It rises higher in ascending air but sinks lower in descending air.
The truth is that a surface which enables kinetic energy to be recorded at 288K (or whatever) will only radiate at 288K if exposed to a vacuum as per S-B.
If overlain by gases that are moving up and down in convective overturning it will radiate at say 255K and conduct at 33K.
Thermometers measure kinetic energy and NOT radiation.
The increase above S-B is then constantly maintained by adiabatically warming descending air restraining convection below the descending column.
Greenhouses work by restraining convection.
“The truth is that a surface which enables kinetic energy to be recorded at 288K (or whatever) will only radiate at 288K if exposed to a vacuum as per S-B.
If overlain by gases that are moving up and down in convective overturning it will radiate at say 255K and conduct at 33K.”
Complete and utter nonsense. If you can’t understand the laws of physics even when you have had them explained to you many times, there is no hope that you can participate in any meaningful way in the discussions of the basic science.
Stephen Wilde
I think Joel is correct on this point. Radiation, conduction and maybe even convection are all taking place at the same time and are not dependent on each other. Radiation will radiate at the flux based upon the temperature of the surface and the emissisitivity and it won’t matter how much energy is being conducted away. The vibrations of the molecules that generate IR will continue to do so based on the energy contained in the vibrations, when the energy goes down so to the vibrations. Maybe reconsider this point. We can’t be right about all our ideas, when wrong ones come up, adapt and correct and becomes better thinkers. Mistakes are only bad when you do not learn from them!
Norman and Joel,
See my clarification about the definition of ‘surface’.
The solid surface at a distance beneath the radiating surface in the atmosphere is free to radiate at 288K.
It is just that conduction reduces kinetic energy as one goes up so radiation declines as well until one gets to the actual radiating ‘surface’ to space at 255K.
It’s rather like conduction in a solid because gases are made of mass as is a solid.
Some way down in the Earth temperature increases with depth but we don’t claim that those higher temperatures lower down (or in the core)constitute the radiating surface for energy loss to space. We know that the upward radiation from the top will be less than the temperature lower down but no one has a problem with that concept.
Try applying that to the mass of the atmosphere. In just the same way the mass of the gases beneath the effective radiating surface blocks radiative loss and so can be at a higher temperature than S-B.
I should have said this:
“The truth is that a surface which enables kinetic energy to be recorded at 288K (or whatever) will only radiate TO SPACE at 288K if exposed to a vacuum as per S-B.
If overlain by gases that are moving up and down in convective overturning it will radiate TO SPACE at say 255K and conduct WITHIN ITSELF at 33K.”
At any point beneath the effective radiating height to space the gases can be at a higher temperature than S-B and radiate accordingly but the ‘excess’ radiation cannot get past the effective radiating height because of conduction and convection, just as the heat in the Earth’s core cannot get out because of internal conduction and convection.
If there were no internal conduction and convection then the interior would eventtually lose all its heat to the surface and thence to space.
Just as there is an adiabatic convective loop within the Earth beneath the surface there is an adiabatic convective loop within the atmosphere albeit far less powerful.
Both the molten rocks within the Earth and the atmospheric gases are fluids capable of convection so the same rules apply.
In both cases energy is trapped in potential form being recycled in and out of kinetic energy which cannot escape to space.
“The solid surface at a distance beneath the radiating surface in the atmosphere is free to radiate at 288K.
It is just that conduction reduces kinetic energy as one goes up so radiation declines as well until one gets to the actual radiating ‘surface’ to space at 255K.
It’s rather like conduction in a solid because gases are made of mass as is a solid.”
Stephen,
I want to applaud you for saying something that is arguably at least more right than wrong. I don’t know what “conduction reduces kinetic energy as one goes up so radiation declines as well,” but you are at least getting some correct idea of what is going on, i.e., you have the germ of the idea that what is seen from space is not just the surface and that this is due to how the temperature decreases as you go up in the atmosphere.
However, what you seem to be missing is that where in the atmosphere the radiation is successfully escaping to space, and hence what its effective radiating temperature is, depends on the opacity of the atmosphere, i.e., on the concentration of greenhouse gases (and clouds). [This is also, of course, a function of the wavelength of the emission, which is easily seen in the empirical measurements by satellites of the spectrum of that radiation.]
“Try applying that to the mass of the atmosphere. In just the same way the mass of the gases beneath the effective radiating surface blocks radiative loss and so can be at a higher temperature than S-B.”
Mass does not block radiative loss; opacity to radiation does.
Stephen, you are wandering a little closer to reality but in order to abandon nonsense and embrace science, what you first have to abandon is your notion that there is no radiative greenhouse effect or that it somehow doesn’t matter or whatever exactly your thesis is at the moment.
The basic problem that you run into is that your starting proposition is that greenhouse gases don’t matter and then you are desperately trying to come up with ways to make this so. And, since your understanding of physics, especially at the level of mathematical equations, is quite weak, you are able to fool yourself into believing nonsense that allows you to cling to the belief that you want to cling to.
You have a choice: Either you can choose to actually learn the science and see where the science leads or you can continue to try to warp the science to fit your preconceived conclusions and frankly just make yourself look foolish.
“Mass does not block radiative loss; opacity to radiation does.”
Energy absorption reduces temperature and thus radiative loss.
Such absorption can be by conduction and convection which involves mass.
Asserting that mass does not block radiative loss is bizarre.
The question you need to answer is how can energy used in conduction and convection be radiated out to space at one and the same time?
It cannot.
S-B requires energy straight in and straight out, no delay from conduction and convection.
Any delay causes a higher surface temperature than S-B and conduction and convection are slower than radiation.
The S-B temperature is a MINIMUM at a given level of insolation.
Adding an atmosphere capable of conduction and convection slows down radiative loss to space for a higher surface temperature (288K) and the effective radiating height is raised upward to radiate to space from a lower temperature (255K).
“Energy absorption reduces temperature and thus radiative loss.
Such absorption can be by conduction and convection which involves mass.
Asserting that mass does not block radiative loss is bizarre.
The question you need to answer is how can energy used in conduction and convection be radiated out to space at one and the same time?”
Stephen,
We’re going around in circles. I have explained the correct physics many times: An object radiates by virtue of its temperature. PERIOD. FULL STOP.
If the object also loses energy by conduction or convection then it will be at a lower temperature than it would have been otherwise.
The Earth’s surface is at a temperature of 288 K and therefore radiates as a body at 288 K. PERIOD. FULL STOP. The fact that there is also conduction and convection is reflected in the fact that it would be at an even higher temperature were it not for these processes, which reduce the radiative greenhouse effect by about a factor of two from what it would be in the absence of these other cooling processes.
“Adding an atmosphere capable of conduction and convection slows down radiative loss to space for a higher surface temperature (288K) and the effective radiating height is raised upward to radiate to space from a lower temperature (255K).”
No…Adding the capability of conduction and convection is what results in the Earth’s surface temperature being only 288 K and not higher.
The correct physics is not very difficult to understand, which is why it is so puzzling how difficult it is for you to understand.
“If the object also loses energy by conduction or convection then it will be at a lower temperature than it would have been otherwise”
It doesn’t lose energy by conduction or convection.
During the first convective cycle the energy for conduction and convection is taken from outgoing energy whilst the surface stays at 255K. From space the planet appears to be at 222K. The surface cannot drop below 255K whilst energy continues coming in at the same rate because as per S-B 255K is the MINIMUM at our level of insolation.
It is the minimum because nothing other than radiation straight out again can take the energy away faster than it comes in. Conduction and convection certainly cannot. If it isn’t removed faster than it comes in there can be no temperature drop.
After the first convective cycle the surface rises to 288K because the energy being convected is being returned as KE to the surface in descent.
At that point, viewed from space the Earth is at 255K.
Exactly as per observations.
You know that air warms at the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate during descent.
Being adiabatic that warmth is NOT being extracted from the surroundings. It comes from energy transformation from PE to KE within the descending air.
If the energy contained in conduction and convection returns as KE in descent how can you still say that there is any net cooling effect from conduction and convection ?
Earth’s surface loses twice as much thermal energy to the atmosphere by non-radiative processes as it does by radiation. See the NASA figures here where 7%+23%=30% compared with 15% by radiation.
Ooops: NASA figures are here.
“how can you still say that there is any net cooling effect from conduction and convection”
I don’t. It’s NASA, IPCC, K-T energy diagrams that incorrectly show such.
In reality there is net warming by convection and conduction from the atmosphere into the surface. That’s why the 1 meter deep surface layer of the oceans is at a local maximum temperature, with cooler temperatures above and below. You cannot possibly explain this as being due to absorption of radiation because solar radiation mostly passes through it and back radiation does not even penetrate more than a few nanometers.
It’s blatantly damn obvious that there must be net non-radiative heat transfer (“heat creep”) into the Earth’s surface, because all the radiation between the surface and the atmosphere is transferring thermal energy out of the surface and the solar input is only 168W/m^2.
The ‘surface’ in this context being a point off the solid ground in order to take account of atmospheric mass as well as the solid body beneath it.
Don’t forget we have some water on this planet, Stephen. See this comment.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html
Excellent paper agree or not with the conclusions.
There are two main items I want to watch going forward which are the lower tropical tropospheric hot spot formation or lack of it and what the stratospheric temperature trend is in both the upper and lower layers.
According AGW theory the stratosphere should show a cooling trend for all levels due to an increase in CO2, despite other items which can influence stratospheric temperatures such as changes in ozone, water vapor ,volcanic activity to name the three with having the most influence.
Ozone increases having a warming effect on the lower stratosphere and cooling effect on the upper stratosphere.
If lower stratospheric temperatures cool it could be due to less ozone, less water vapor and less volcanic activity, rather then an increase in CO2.
If lower stratospheric temperatures should rise it would suggest that CO2 is not the main determining factor.
I sent it twice Joel to make sure you can see it. I have presented the data(not theory) that does not make the case for AGW theory. Why don’t you present some supportive data refuting the data I have sent.
Not theory Joel, but data.
Joel says
I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence.
My reply
Joel here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
Reply
Salvatore,
There are plenty of sources that you can go for data and real scientific discussion rather than propaganda. You can read the IPCC reports; you can read Scott Mandia’s site, which you linked to above and which I agree is good. You can read the papers that I have linked to that explains why some of the data you cited regarding the water vapor feedback is not reliable, which you simply dismissed by an ad hominem attack on a very good climate scientist (Andrew Dessler): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014192/abstract
I also linked to the papers showing data indicating that the water vapor feedback is working as expected:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5917/1020.short
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11636.short
Joel , I said data not papers not theory.
Those papers present the data…and, they analyze the data. And, they clearly explain the source of the data. That is one reason why peer-reviewed papers are much better than random data taken off highly-partisan websites.
Joel what little data you did show is in direct opposition to the majority of the data.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm
Here is more data in direct opposition to what you presented.
I also linked to the papers showing data indicating that the water vapor feedback is working as expected.
The fact that you could say this tells me you are not in reality when it comes to the short comings of this theory.
Go to this comment Joel Shore because you have a heck of a lot of 21st Century physics to catch up on.
Salvatore,
Now you are mixing in water vapor in the stratosphere, which is a different issue…and, you are looking at short term fluctuations, not long term trends.
It is about the level of saying that the seasonal cycle theory is a hoax because it is much colder in Rochester today (we even had snow this morning) than it was last week (when we were in the 60’s-70’s and even into the 80’s).
Also, for example, I don’t really see the leveling off in ocean heat content: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/tisdale-on-ocean-heat-content-anomalies/
Joel take a look at this. I know if the data does not agree with AGW it is wrong.
If the water vapor /co2 positive feedback where working stratospheric specific humidity trends would not be lower and the lower tropospheric hot spot would be in evidence.
It is not happening.
You are linking to a partisan website’s analysis of the data that is 3-1/2 years out of date. I linked to the current data from that same original source (NOAA NODC), but it has all the data (e.g., you can look at both 0-700 m and 0-2000 m) and it is up-to-date.
“latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.”
Yes well that explains the long-term warming since the Little Ice Age, but likely to end after the next 60 year peak in 2058. As I keep telling you, water vapor cools.
When I refer to climatologist that know nothing I am referring to those who promote AGW without questioning it.
“Blackbody radiation is back at the center of discussion, now as the cornerstone of climate alarmism based on the idea of atmospheric “backradiation” from so-called “greenhouse gases” causing ”global warming”.
“The basic idea is to use a classical deterministic continuum wave mechanics combined with a new feature of finite precision computation, which Nature is supposed to use in analog form and which can be modeled by a computer in digital form. This leads to a form of computational blackbody radiation with close connections to the computational thermodynamics and the 2nd Law of thermodynamics developed in the book Computational Thermodynamics
“Statistical models based on microscopic randomness were introduced in thermodynamics by Boltzmann in order to prove and explain the 2nd Law, which seemed impossible usinng classical deterministic continuum models. Planck used the same ”trick” to avoid the seemingly unavoidable “ultraviolet catastrophe” in classical deterministic continuum wave mechanics of blackbody radiation. However, it is in principle impossible to directly test the validity of a model of microscopic randomness, since that would require in microscopics of microscopics. On the other hand, the effect of finite precision computation (which can be viewed as a testable rudimentary form of statistics) can in be determined which makes model verification possible in principle.
….
“This form has led to a misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT2^4 balanced by a transfer −σT1^4 from B1 to B2, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow.
“Such a misinterpretation was anticipated and countered in Stefan’s original article from 1879:
• The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.
• However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Bolzmann’s Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.
Source: Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation.”
Now, following on from the above information from the good professor, and as I stressed in my 2012 paper, there is only a one-way transfer of thermal energy by radiation from hot to cold. Thus the electro-magnetic energy in back radiation is not converted to thermal (kinetic) energy in the surface and so back radiation has no effect on non-radiative heat losses from the atmosphere to the surface, those losses being twice the losses by radiation as seen here.
Because the non-radiative processes accelerate if the temperature gap widens, they will do so and compensate for slower radiative cooling. This nullifies the effect of back radiation.
So Roy is mistaken in the top post.
Joel , I think the reality is time will tell the story. I think by the end of this decade we will know much more one way or the other.
That means any outcome is possible.
It’s worth repeating: Stefan himself said “but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”
The Hoax Promoters use the Stefan Boltzmann Law and bluff you into thinking that back radiation has a real meaning of thermal energy transfer into the surface that you add to solar radiation in your calculations using the Stefan Boltzmann Law to get the 288K temperature from 390W/m^2, whereas the Sun is only delivering 168W/m^2.
So you use Stefan’s Law but ignore what he said about it being “hypothetical” energy flow. Radiation into a planet’s surface is not the primary determinant of the temperature of that surface: non-radiative processes are, just like your hot bath water keeps the bath walls below the water-line at a similar temperature, so too does the supporting temperature at the base of the troposphere maintain the surface temperature, all due to the gravito-thermal effect and resulting downward heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer.
Doug 5:47pm: Jozef Stefan, an Austrian, Slovenian parents, didn’t publish those English words you put in italics “himself” although he did learn English. You have been misled. Again.
http://www.ijs.si/ijsw
So let’s hear it from the man itself. These are Stefan’s exact words in German, from 1879:
“Die absolute Grösse der von einem Körper ausgestrahlten Wärmemenge kann durch Versuche nicht bestimmt werden. Versuche können nur den Überschuss der von dem Körper ausgestrahlten über die von ihm gleichzeitig absorbirte Wärmemenge geben, welch’ letztere von der ihm aus der Umgebung zugestrahlten Wärme abhängig ist. Hat man jedoch eine Formel für den Zusammenhang zwischen Temperatur und Wärmestrahlung aufgestellt, so lässt sich mit Hilfe derselben auch ein Werth für die absolute Grösse der ausgestrahlten Wärme ableiten, doch hat ein solcher nur eine hypotetische Bedeutung.”
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf
(p.411, top paragraph)
Let’s translate his final sentence in a rather more direct fashion:
“Hat man jedoch eine Formel für den Zusammenhang zwischen Temperatur und Wärmestrahlung aufgestellt, (…)”
“If you have established, however, a formula for the connection between temperature and heat (thermal) emission, …”
“(…) so lässt sich mit Hilfe derselben auch ein Werth für die absolute Grösse der ausgestrahlten Wärme ableiten, (…)”
“… then it is possible, aided by this, to derive a value for the absolute size of the emitted heat (energy), …”
“(…) doch hat ein solcher nur eine hypotetische Bedeutung.”
“… but such a value/formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”
The only point of contention here would be whether the “ein solcher” term relates back to “the value” or “the formula” itself. I favour the former, but it really makes no difference in the end. The gist of Stefan’s words can hardly be misunderstood.
“Hypotetisch” in German is the same word as the English “hypothetical”, Ball4. Or do you dispute this?
*Sigh* … from the man HIMself …
Kristian – You miss my point, the English words are yours, Stefan himself published in another language. Stefan knew English, find something HE published in English on the subject if you want words from Stefan himself.
My response is in my peer-reviewed 2012 paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” linked from http://climate-change-theory.com
See also my email to Prof England below.
(1) Experiments with centrifugal force prove that force fields like gravity create a stable temperature gradient by redistributing molecular kinetic energy.
(2) A correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to explain why this happens.
(3) So the sloping thermal plane becomes like a level playing field (or lake) and this explains what then happens.
Just like new rain water spreading out over a lake restoring mechanical equilibrium, so too does newly absorbed thermal energy from the Sun spread out over the sloping thermal plane restoring thermodynamic equilibrium.
(4) The solar radiation is never sufficient to explain the temperatures at the base of a planet’s troposphere. There’s no such radiation anyway there on Uranus.
(5) Hence it is blatantly obvious that, because radiative processes cannot support the observed temperatures, it must be non-radiative processes that supply the necessary thermal energy to raise the surface temperatures by day, reversing the cooling of the previous night.
PS: Stephen Wilde is wrong because he does not understand thermodynamics and entropy. He talks about fictitious “parcels” of air (which cannot be held together in an adiabatic process) and he seems to think molecules just “fall” under the force of gravity. To what speed would a stone accelerate under gravity in a distance of the mean free path – say 90 nanometers? Now compare that with the speed that molecules travel due to their internal kinetic energy, namely 1700 Kn/hour near the surface, and still 1400 Km/hour in the upper troposphere. That’s why he’s wrong, and he still denies that there is an actual transfer of thermal energy downwards, even though he talks about downward convection. That’s a laugh, because “convection” is just short for “convective heat transfer” bit he denies the latter can go downwards, whereas his convection can.
Fictitious ?
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
Stones do not contract under increasing atmospheric pressure but gases do.
The potential energy in gases includes that related to the distance between molecules and not just the distance between the molecules and the ground.
Stephen 2:17pm – This again shows your lack of training in science. Stones do contract under increasing atm. pressure just as does a gas.
–Stephen 2:17pm – This again shows your lack of training in science. Stones do contract under increasing atm. pressure just as does a gas.–
Not as gases do, but stones do compress with pressure.
But stones tend to stay in one place. Though Water does get transported to higher elevations and lower pressure.
So stones may be under an ocean of 400 atm of pressure or may be at surface at 1 atm. But they remain there and pressure is constant.
Now one could drop a rock down to bottom of a 400 atm pressure ocean and it’s not going to be warmed by much. Whereas if drop a dense gas to 400 atm pressure ocean depth, it would heat up by a very significant amount.
Stephen Wilde,
The more I read of your theory the worse it sounds. I do think Joel Shore is correct in his understanding of physics.
I think you are very wrong in thinking adiabatic lapse rate is caused by Kinetic energy loss as the air mass rises (sounds very much like Doug’s theory which Curt demolished with the centrifuge arguments on a few threads back).
The adiabatic lapse rate is because of work done in expanding a gas into its surroundings or compressing a gas by its surrounding when it sinks.
If riising up in a gravity field actually could cool gas then the astronauts would completely freeze as their spacecraft moved rapidly up the gravity gradient. It sounds like you would think the air would cool moving up in a gravity field as the kinetic energy of the air molecules was converted to potential energy. If you calculate it you would not be able to rise too far before the air liquified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
In 15000 meters (15 km) the speed of the molecules would have decelerated by 540 meter/sec so the gas would be terrifically cold.
“I do think Joel Shore is correct in his understanding of physics.”
Who are you to assess physics, Norman, when you have no qualifications in such? In fact I am the only one out of you, Tim, Joel, Stephen and myself to have such qualifications and, more importantly, knowledge and understanding of 21st Century developments. You really do put yourself upon a pedestal, Norman, and do little but make a fool of yourself.
Curt did not such thing, Norman. The centrifugal force experiments do prove that a force field creates a temperature gradient, as we expect to be the case anyway due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, about which law you have no idea and could not even recite from memory, let alone understand the process of entropy maximization.
You continue to make a fool of yourself Norman, setting yourself up as judge over all of us, despite your lack of a degree in physics, and little more than school-boy “knowledge” of a mere corollary of the Second Law (that only applies in a horizontal plane) and which you were taught in your teens.
Typo: Curt did no such thing (referring to your false claim that “Curt demolished the centrifuge arguments”) such as this one, which I suppose you think is all bluff or something.
You can’t “demolish” something which is derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Norman,
Doug 11:49pm – What has been demolished is Doug’s derivation not 2LOT.
Norman,
When a gas expands into a region of lower pressure it does not do work on the surrounding molecules. The lower pressure means that there is ample space for expansion without surrounding molecules needing to be pushed away.
The lower pressure provides zero resistance to the expansion.
If the expanding gas was pushing molecules away then heat energy would cross the boundary from the parcel to the surrounding molecules but it does not.That would be a diabatic process which does allow heat to cross the boundary.
The work is done in lifting the gas molecules upwards and apart against gravity which seeks to pull the molecules down and closer together.
Your astronaut analogy does not work because astronauts are made of solids and liquids with much stronger intermolecular forces which do not allow significant expansion or contraction when pressure changes.
The rules are quite different for gases and follow the Gas Laws.
The change in temperature as a gas parcel is raised or lowers is solely a consequence of the change in height and thus pressure.
The ‘surroundings’ against which work is done is the external pressure caused by the gravitational field and not external gas molecules themselves.
See here:
http://www.pilotoutlook.com/aviation_weather/stable_and_unstable_air
“Figure 42. Stability related to temperatures aloft and adiabatic cooling. In each situation, the balloon is filled at sea level with air at 31°C, carried manually to 5,000 feet, and released. In each case, air in the balloon expands and cools to 16°C (at the dry adiabatic rate of 3°C per 1,000 feet). But, the temperature of the surrounding air aloft in each situation is different. The balloon on the left will rise. Even though it cooled adiabatically, the balloon remains warmer and lighter than the surrounding cold air; when released, it will continue upward spontaneously.”
The point is that the ballon on the left in the diagram cools at the same rate as the surroundings and so the temperature and density difference with the surroundings is maintained during uplift.IT WILL CONTINUE UPWARD SPONTANEOUSLY.
Th initial rise is caused by heating the air parcel which makes it less dense than surrounding molecules which makes it lighter so it rises spontaneously towards the lower pressure above and it is not a matter of surrounding molecules needing to be pushed out of the way.The reducing pressure with height allows them to move out of the way without providing any resistance against the rising parcel
The spontaneous, continuing rise cools the rising parcel by expansion but does no work on surrounding molecules because expansion into lower pressure requires no such work.
All work done is done inside the rising parcel, pushing the molecules upward and apart against the pressure created by gravity. Internal kinetic energy is transformed to internal potential energy. The total energy of the parcel stays the same (PE+KE) and no heat moves in or out.
Stephen Wilde says, April 24, 2015 at 2:42 AM:
“When a gas expands into a region of lower pressure it does not do work on the surrounding molecules. The lower pressure means that there is ample space for expansion without surrounding molecules needing to be pushed away.
The lower pressure provides zero resistance to the expansion.”
Stephen, please stop. For your own sake, just stop. You seem intent on making an utter fool of yourself. For all the world to see. You simply display stupendous ignorance of basic physical laws here. This is quite frankly one of the silliest comments I’ve seen you make. It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry, so this will have to do once again:
http://blogcdn.uber.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/picard-facepalm7.jpg
Facepalm yourself.
When a parcel moves into a region of lower pressure the work done is by way of expanding into that region of lower pressure.
The lower pressure comes first and the expansion follows. It is not necessary to do work to push other molecules away.
The work done is by way of expanding the parcel from within so that it fills the new, larger space available.
That work converts KE to PE.
Gravity seeks to pull the molecules within the parcel downwards and into a smaller space so work has to be done against that force, not against surrounding molecules.
I have provided plenty of links upthread but you just don’t understand them.
I agree that there are some sites that suggest that work is done against surrounding molecules but that is not accurate.
Any work done against surrounding molecules is diabatic because heat moves across the boundary of the parcel. Saying that the heat moves across the boundary because of work done (and so is not transferred as heat) so that you can somehow get around the adiabatic definition is simply wrong.
I learned all this decades ago and know it to be right.
http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14312/css/14312_45.htm
“Remember, in an adiabatic process an increase in temperature is due only to COMPRESSION when the air sinks or subsides. A decrease in temperature is due only to EXPANSION when air rises, as with convective currents or air going over mountains. There is no addition or subtraction of heat involved. The changes in temperature are due to the conversion of energy from one form to another.”
i.e. from kinetic energy to potential energy and back again
See here:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
“If, on the other hand, we are faced with the situation shown in Fig 3 the consequences of an initial “lift” are quite different. The environmental lapse rate is 10 °C/km – higher than the adiabatic lapse rate – and the parcel continues to rise throughout the entire column. At the tropopause the lapse rate changes and becomes 5 °C/km. The parcel then quickly becomes colder than the environment and stops its ascent.”
I suggest that you click on Fig 3 which shows the rising parcel cooling at the same rate as the surroundings so that the temperature differential is retained and uplift continues all the way to the tropopause.
If the temperature differential is maintained there can be no work done on the surrounding gases and no heat transferred in or out via work done as proposed by Kristian.
That diagram shows a true adiabatic process and Kristian is shown to have been wrong.
All the work done to result in cooling was done in lifting the mass of the air parcel against the force of gravity and throughout the process the parcel gained PE at the expense of KE. That KE is then recovered in a reversal of the process in the subsequent descent.
Just as I have been saying.
I think it can be explained easier.
A parked car with windows shut gets hot during the day, because the closed windows inhibit convective cooling.
And one merely has to leave the windows slightly open [allowing more convection of air] for the parked car not to get so hot. And actual greenhouses also get and remain warmer than the air because they prevent convection loss.
If you had a taller greenhouse the air would not warm up as much, because there is more air to warm up. Once also has more radiant losses with taller structure. But with double pane windows [which also work by reducing convection] and material which reduce radiant losses the losses can be reduce
but it will still be cooler due to more air per square meter area, that needs to be warmer.
But if reduce convection and radiant loss the large amount of air though will warm up as much during the day, will also not cool off as much during the night- because one has more thermal mass of the air. One can also add thermal mass to greenhouse by putting water [water barrels] in the greenhouse.
Now without preventing the convection- an open field- the heated air rises and warms the entire sky.
Now very little of the heated air which rises radiates it’s into space.
The heated air can be cooled and can be warmed by elements in the atmosphere, but these elements do not include greenhouses gases.
And this can be demonstrated to be true.
One can make types of glass which is transparent to long wave radiation. And if made a greenhouse of such glass it would cool much quicker than compared to greenhouse which opaque to such long wave radiation. And if you then increase the amount of greenhouse gases in this greenhouse it would not cool faster.
So if does not happen in such a greenhouse it would also not happen in the atmosphere.
So non greenhouse gas do not warm CO2 gases and cause them the radiate a significant amount of energy because that would cool the non-greenhouse gases.
Though non greenhouse gases can warm cooler liquids or solids. And there are cooler liquids or solids in the atmosphere. Of course when sun is shining these liquids or solids can heated up by the sunlight and they in turn can warm the non-greenhouse gases [and the greenhouse gases].
The temperature of gas in atmosphere is related to how many molecules are in a given volume [and the velocity of the gas molecules- but the velocity of gas molecules within the the troposphere {and most of molecules} remains about the same velocity because the zillions of collisions occurring every fraction of a second averages their velocity]. So velocity of air molecules mostly are averaged, and what mostly determines temperature of atmospheric gas in a column of air is density of the air.
Let me clarify, if the air at surface at sea level is 15 C,
the air density is about 1.2 kg per cubic meter. And in the column of air above it will have an averaged velocity.
But if surface at sea level is colder than 15 C, it have denser air [and have slower velocity and this slower velocity is averaged velocity of air column above it.
–And if made a greenhouse of such glass it would cool much quicker than compared to greenhouse which opaque to such long wave radiation. And if you then increase the amount of greenhouse gases in this greenhouse it would not cool faster.–
Correction: And if made a greenhouse of such glass it would
NOT cool much quicker than compared to greenhouse which is opaque….
Joel Shore,
In your link:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Would they show error bars? Roy Spencer has commented on earlier threads that this large joule amount of ocean energy in reality is only hundreths of a degree change in actual temperature. They are only measuring small portions of the entire ocean at any time with the buoys. I do not think this data is useful enough to form any valid conclusion. It is almost like a made-up data just to save a theory.
You should consider Salvatore’s posts. He is approaching the issue as a scientist. Wanting data. AGW is a model based hypothesis. It might be slightly better than Doug’s hypothesis but it is far from a theory (which needs experimental or empircal proof, models are similar to what Doug does…to prove his points he refers to his own writings…Climate scientist refer to their models as the proof).
I will totally argee with you on matters of textbook established physics but the AGW hypohtesis is not this and Salvatore is very wise to point out the many flaws in the hypothesis.
I think Doug and the climate scientists using models as proof are one and the same.
DOUG DOES NOT USE A MODEL. HE USES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Doug Cotton,
No Doug you use made up data and made up physics when you think you need it. When pointed out how you are wrong you ignore the correct information based upon experimental physics (like expanding air will cool).
You have no degree in physics. I have a REAL degree in Chemistry from a real college which is far more than what you possess. You read a few articles on the Internet and are a super expert that makes up stuff in many of your posts.
NORMAN:.
Quote any law of physics which can be used to prove that in all situations “expanding air cools” Norman. Produce a brief computational example of how the law you quote leads to such a conclusion in all cases. (It is you who is inventing fictitious fiddled physics – or actually just plagiarizing from what the AGW crowd promulgates – which I probably know better than yourself.) Edit Wikipedia according to your new proof and link us all when it sticks.
Now go to this comment all about yourself Norman.
We don’t even have your surname to check your claim, Norman.
You could confirm that my B.Sc. with a physics and mathematics major was attained with full time study from 1963 to 1966 under Prof Harry Messel and his team at Sydney University.
There is very little in Chemistry that relates to the correct physics in my papers.
Does it occur to you Norman that, before you judge us all, it might perhaps be a good idea to get a physics degree and then try to understand the 21st Century physics which is necessary for a correct understanding of planetary physics?
The same goes for Stephen, Tim and Joel.
That’s what I have spent thousands of hours doing: in contrast you haven’t even got off Square One in that you haven’t even read my papers nor http://entropylaw.com (which is not my site by the way) and nor do you have any concept of Kinetic Theory or maximum entropy production as energy potentials dissipate.
This is important physics, Norman, and you need to spend a lot of time studying my papers and papers I’ve mentioned, especially “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” which said (late in 2012) what my March 2012 paper says.
“The same goes for Stephen, Tim and Joel.”
Tim and I have PhD’s in Physics. You supposedly have a B.Sc. although clearly what little you might have learned didn’t stick very well.
Joel that is but one small part of the knowledge one needs to tackle the climate.
You not an astronomer, meteorologist ,climatologist, geologist, etc etc.
People with PhD’s in physics Joel Shore should understand entropy maximization and the content of the paper “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” which I have linked several times.
You should also know that the Second Law applies to every independent process (or a sequence of dependent processes) but not to the end result of several independent processes that might even occur on opposite sides of the globe. For example, water does not flow up one side of a hill and into a lake at the top because it “knows” it will subsequently flow down further on the other side, but your “net” version of the Second Law claims it could because overall “net” entropy would increase.
You should also respect empirical evidence, such as the fact that centrifugal force (like gravity) forms a temperature gradient because such forces accelerate the mass of each individual molecule in every individual passage between collisions. You would, for example, be aware of the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the assumptions that molecular motion can indeed be treated classically and that, “because they have mass, the molecules are affected by gravity.”
In short, Joel Shore, you would not be able to fault the valid physics in my papers linked from http://climate-change-theory.com but, if you think you can, then you need to be very specific and act in a true scientific manner, discussing point-by-point the development of the hypothesis that provides a means of explaining all temperatures and related energy transfers in the tropospheres, crusts and mantles of all planets and satellite moons.
“People with PhD’s in physics Joel Shore should understand entropy maximization and the content of the paper ‘Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation’ which I have linked several times.”
People with PhD’s in physics understand that the macroscopic concept of entropy comes from microscopic concepts in statistical physics and we will take a correct argument in statistical physics over an incorrect one using the macroscopic concepts. Thermodynamics is nothing but magic if you don’t understand how it comes about as the macroscopic limit of a microscopic theory.
“You should also know that the Second Law applies to every independent process (or a sequence of dependent processes) but not to the end result of several independent processes that might even occur on opposite sides of the globe. For example, water does not flow up one side of a hill and into a lake at the top because it ‘knows’ it will subsequently flow down further on the other side, but your “net” version of the Second Law claims it could because overall “net” entropy would increase. ”
What you are missing is the fact that Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation together with the fact that thermal radiation at a given wavelength is a monotonically increasing function of temperature guarantees that in the interaction between two (macroscopic) bodies exchanging energy by radiation, the net flow of energy (“heat”) will be from the hotter to the colder. There is no need to impose additional arbitrary and capricious restrictions and Nature, being much more creative than people like you seem to imagine, doesn’t impose any.
And, by the way, there are plenty of examples of these two-way processes. Let’s not deal with water, where motions of molecules are highly correlated, but stick with gases. Imagine that you have a container of with two compartments containing gas, one at high pressure and one at low pressure. If you now punch a hole in the wall between the high and low pressure container, what happens? We both agree that the pressures will equalize. However, is this because gas molecules only flow in one direction (from the higher pressure to the lower pressure). No! Gas molecules will go in both direction; however, if you consider the number of molecules per second impinging on the hole from each direction, there will be more molecules coming from the high pressure side and going to the low pressure side than the reverse…and hence the macroscopic flow is from the high to low pressure.
As I have pointed out, a similar thing holds for free electrons in a wire. It is not that they are all going from lower potential (higher potential energy) to higher potential (lower potential energy). In fact, in a typical metal with typical currents, the drift velocity, which tells you the average rate of motion in the direction of the potential is about 9 or 10 orders of magnitude smaller than the thermal velocity of the electrons! Hence, the picture is of electrons moving rapidly in all directions (with frequent collisions with the ions), with only a very tiny bias in the direction of higher potential.
In short, Doug, what you call “21st century physics” is more like 19th-century physics…except even that is unfair to the 19th century physicists. It is really misapplying concepts of 19th century physics to things that they don’t apply to (i.e., not distinguishing between the microscopic world and the macroscopic world and the fact that thermodynamics is just the macroscopic limit of a more fundamental microscopic theory).
Salvatore,
I agree. But, then I am not the one who feels that I understand the climate system better than most of the scientists in the field. And, I do seem to have stronger credentials than most of those who do.
Norman,
If you want error-bars, all you need to do is click on the link that goes to the PDF of their peer-reviewed paper: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf I don’t know how you have concluded that the data does not allow for a valid conclusion. Look, all scientific measurements of this type are hard. What Spencer & Christy do is hard…Does that mean you discount it too.
“It is almost like a made-up data just to save a theory.”
I think that statement reveals more about your own biases than the very good work of the dedicated scientists.
Frankly, I think you comparison between AGW and Doug’s nonsense is silly. In fact, AGW is a theory (or a consequence of a broader theory might be a better way to say it) based on well-established science. And, like all theories in modern science, it uses models to help us numerically calculate the results so that they can both be compared to reality and so that they can be used to project what would happen in the future (under various emissions scenarios).
If Salvatore were approaching this as a scientist, he would be studying papers in the peer-reviewed literature, not diatribes by people of dubious credentials on various websites. And, he would be skeptical of everything, not just things that go against what he wants to believe. In fact, he would be more skeptical when presented with data where there is not an extensive discussion, preferably in a peer-reviewed source, that can help him understand the data and possible problems with it. Instead, he seems to be often doing just the opposite, uncritically accepting dubious data posted on partisan blogs (which has been debunked in the peer reviewed literature) and then just denouncing peer-reviewed work, like that by Dessler, with ad hominem attacks on a highly respected scientist.
Joel Shore,
I do respect your knowledge and I generally agree with many of your posts as I can recognize they are based upon solid established physics.
I would agree with you climate models are much superior to Doug’s conjectures, they do utilize complex math formulas in the programs. Something Doug will not or cannot do. He has three papers with one very simple algebra equation and no more. Not much a scientist could do with Doug’s papers, nothing to really calculate in them.
I would disagree with your assertion that AGW is a theory. At this stage it is a hypothesis and its predictions are not coming true as pointed out by Salvatore in his posts.
Here is a link you already know it but you do seem biased the other way so I am refreshing your good science mind.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory
The AGW has unproven and untested assumptions about how Earth’s system will react to increases in Carbon Dioxide and as Roy Spencer has demonstrated, the assumptions are not that good.
CO2 by itself if doubled may raise Earth’s surface temps 1C (per Roy Spencer, have not run through the calculations myself). The extreme degree of warming is based upon feedback mechanisms which are not established science and no experimental verification. It is a hypothesis at best and running models based upon incorrect assumptions does not make a theory.
I do like reading the physics in your posts, great learning tool. I do not have a degree in physics but I am capable of learning.
Doug wants me to join his new physics. Just make up stuff whenever you like, reject all established physics (even that based upon experimental physics) you don’t agree with and repeat your ideas 50000 times.
Then, Norman, see Joel Shore – you are stumped.
And, Norman – you’ll find plenty of “complex mathematics” in the paper Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation. The work of this Professor of Applied Mathematics was the cited foundation for my 2012 paper, so there was no need for me to repeat such computations in that paper. In regard to my second paper (2013) it has all the computations I need to spell out, for the rest are obvious and trivial geometric-type extrapolations of linear functions.
Your judgement, Norman, of things physical by the number of lines of “complex” computations that you pick up with a 30 second scan of a 20 page paper is nothing short of pathetically childish.
There is still a $5,000 reward if you can prove that I “reject all established physics” Norman and if you can produce a study similar to mine, but showing significant warming by water vapor instead of cooling.
Who the hell do you think you are, Norman, to make assessments about what is correct physics, when you have not a single qualification in such?
Tell all silent readers here Norman (and there are many) just what you think happens in a planet’s troposphere pertaining to maximum entropy production. Explain to them clearly how you would ascertain when maximum entropy is attained in an ideal troposphere free of wind and weather, but receiving solar radiation by day.
Doug
I have explained to you what I think happens to planets’s tropospheres many times but you disregard all. Other have also done it many times. That is why the threads reach 1000 posts. Most are from you and other people trying to answer your questions.
1) You reject the concept that expanding air (by doing work on its surroundings) will cause a gas to cool down. Experimentally verified physics that you reject.
2) You can’t accept parcels of air can and do stay together as they rise in the atmosphere (I linked you to a video of nuclear explosions to demonstrate that even super hot air molecules cannot freely move into surrounding air and I have explained this is why your K.E. and P.E. theory is not valid because of this).
3) Curt has explained that no gradient forms in the air within a high speed centrifuge and you reject this. He has worked with them you have not but somehow you know what happens with them. That is not accepting established physics.
You may not reject “all” but you certainly pick and choose which laws of physics you accept and reject based upon your own established belief of how reality works and not on how reality really works.
I see once again you are using Uranus temperature in a post.
You: “So nobody else has yet been able to explain how the required thermal energy gets from the stratosphere of Uranus (where solar radiation is absorbed) down to the base of the planet’s nominal troposphere where such energy supports temperatures that are hotter than Earth’s surface.”
That is why you are not a credible human researcher but a phony peddler of crap spreading the stink on every blog that allows you access!! I have asked you more than once to verify this claim. You have not yet but keep using it. You are a huge phony and that is why I keep responding to your endless number of posts. Anyone who might still read yours will see that you are a dishonest person since once you have been told of incorrect information you still keep using it. If that is the style of 21st Century physics then I will stick to the several centuries of physics that hold to the truth instead of the lies. It might sound harsh but you really are a dishonest person and I explained why I state this.
Not sure you are a person though so I might just be ranting against a mindless computer program bot and that is why you keep repeating things. Program loop.
Prof England from University of NSW, one of those scientists promoting the hoax, appeared on Australian ABC News today (Friday) and I have just sent this email to him …
Dear Prof England
I speak as one who is arguably a world leader in the study of planetary thermodynamics. I have been able to explain temperatures in all planets, both above and below any surface and, more importantly, I have been the first in the world to correctly explain the required energy flows to maintain such temperatures, even down to the core. What James Hansen postulated in utter rubbish based on a school boy understanding of thermodynamics.
You, Sir, with respect, have been sadly misled by climatology “science” which is not in accord with physics and which ignores entropy considerations altogether.
I suggest you read the website http://climate-change-theory.com (now endorsed by our growing group of persons like myself suitably qualified in physics) and my peer-reviewed papers linked therein.
The most prolific greenhouse gas, water vapour, causes the surface to be at lower temperatures, not higher ones. The IPCC wants people to believe that about 1% of water vapour causes most of “33 degrees of warming” so that, rain forests (with 4% water vapour) should be warmed by over 100 degrees. That single fact should give you cause for disbelief of the fictitious fiddled physics taught internally within the infant science of climatology. And, by the way, it is totally incorrect of them to add back radiation flux to solar radiation flux and then use the total in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to get their 288K (15°C) surface temperature.
If you’d like a free copy of my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” just ask.
Douglas Cotton
(phone number supplied)
Joel, this is the data ,this is what it shows, and the evidence for what is shows as most likely being correct when contrasted to AGW theory.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6096/809.summary
This is a quote from the article, NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor.
The quote is radiosonde data shows that upper atmosphere water vapor declines with warming.
Now data from the patriot post article called, Evidence That Demands a Verdict shows quite clearly two items of data of importance one being there has been no warming in the tropical atmosphere at the 12km level or 18 km level and that all the deviations in the upper tropical troposphere atmosphere temperatures are correlated with the temperature in Nino region 3.4.
Data also showing thus far no lower tropospheric hot spot has materialized.
What the data is saying if one tries to incorporate all of this, is first of all it appears that the temperature in the tropical troposphere is correlated to ENSO. When ENSO in in an El Nino phase the temperature in the tropical troposphere increases and vice versa with no long term change in the temperature of the tropical troposphere overall. In addition radiosonde data is indicating that water vapor concentrations are inversely correlated with the temperature of the atmosphere and from the article I posted it said one of the ways in which water vapor may get into the stratosphere outside of the tropics is via convection. Then in addition, with data still showing no tropical tropospheric hot spot here are the objective conclusions that have to be drawn based upon the data.
The conclusions I take away from all of this is first the temperature of the tropical troposphere is controlled by ENSO not CO2 and that the concentrations of water vapor irrespective of if water vapor is or is not inversely correlated to the temperature of the upper atmosphere is going to be tied to ENSO, not CO2.
In addition it looks like sea surface temperatures(PDO) /convection may have much to do with the amounts of water vapor which eventually reach the stratosphere all of which destroy AGW theory which said the amounts of water vapor which will reside in the tropical troposphere will be DIRECTLY tied into the strong positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor which would result in two distinct trends developing in the tropical troposphere which would be a steady increase in water vapor which would be in tandem with a steady increasing temperature trend in the tropical troposphere which would be more pronounced with altitude relative to the lower levels, and that this steady increase in water vapor /temperature trend which would be evolving would cause a tropical tropospheric hot spot to evolve, due to an ever increasing negative lapse rate.
Data however shows no such negative lapse rate trend evolving and no correlation between CO2 and the tropical tropospheric temperature profile, nor no correlation with CO2 and tropical troposphere water vapor profile. Instead data shows the temperature and water vapor characteristics of the tropical troposphere seem to be correlated with ENSO ,and indicate in the case of water vapor (according to radiosonde data) an inverse relationship to temperature all things being equal, but this could be obscured by convection changes in the tropics due to sea surface temperature changes and atmospheric circulation changes all of which AGW theory does not address to any degree whatsoever when it comes to the temperature profile and water vapor profile of the tropical troposphere.
In conclusion not only does the resultant tropical hot spot as called for by AGW theory not appear but data shows in addition the reasons why it does not appear are because it is not CO2 which governs how the tropical tropospheric temperature/water vapor profile may evolve but rather it is ENSO phases and sea surface temperature changes (PDO phases) along with convection changes in the tropics due to atmospheric circulation changes, that govern the tropical troposphere temperature/water vapor profile.
This all showing that the central theme of AGW theory which is a strong positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor resulting in a tropical tropospheric temperature/water vapor profile which would give rise to a tropical hot spot is flawed. Hence the theory is flawed.
There it is Joel, data showing convincingly that AGW theory is garbage.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf
Joel, this article shows how solar variability and ozone are correlated hence the temperature profile of the stratosphere which you and AGW enthusiast ignore because it shows it is not only CO2 that may be the determining factor when it comes to stratospheric temperature trends.
That said a strong case can be made that changes in the temperature profile of the upper and lower stratosphere could be due to certain UV wavelength changes( within the entire spectrum of UV light) due to solar variability which effect ozone creation more then others.
There is also evidence that the ozone distribution and concentration changes influences the entire atmospheric circulation.
In addition it is solar variability (UV and visible light) which will impact sea surface temperatures. In addition Joel, UV light and visible light due to solar variability are anti-correlated with one another. Did you know that Joel?
In addition data shows the lower stratosphere temperature is in phase with solar variability while the upper stratospheric temperature is in anti- phase with solar variability. Did you know that Joel?
In addition water vapor and volcanic activity could have a profound influence on stratospheric temperature trends.
The upshot of all of this is the temperature trend in the stratosphere could just as easily be tied into solar, water vapor and volcanic activity changes/variability as it could to CO2 changes.
Salvatore,
This post is just too rambling and confused to respond to. You say random things that you claim are quotes but are not quotes. Your conclusions regarding the correlation between temperature and water vapor just flatly contradict the actual peer-reviewed papers that I have linked to, which clearly show the relationship…and, in fact, that the relationship looks like the models predict it to be and then that good agreement disappears if one artificially turns off the water vapor feedback (see this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract?sid=8c0c3aea-6dec-4dfa-a907-8278fe76ef20 )
You also seem to want to build in all these magical relationships: Water vapor responds to ENSO, water vapor responds to solar. No…It responds to temperature changes, no matter what the cause. It doesn’t magically just respond to causes of temperature changes that are approved by the conservative/libertarian community and not to causes that are not on the ideologically-approved list like CO2.
This post of mine was really directed more at your previous one than this one, but I guess it can pretty much applyt to both.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/28/new-study-claims-to-confirms-water-vapor-as-global-warming-amplifier-but-other-data-says-no/
The upshot of this article Joel is other data says no to AGW theory.
Salvatore,
You’ve been hoodwinked by a classic Anthony Watts propaganda ploy, whereby he notes that there is a new study that says something he doesn’t like…And, then he throws up a bunch of flak to distract his ever-distractable readership: “Look at this data that seems to say otherwise.” (Never mind that THAT data has been thoroughly debunked already, as I have already noted countless times in this thread.) And, “Airplanes fly at that altitude…So, it must be due to them.” (Never mind that he presents no evidence whatsoever that this could account for the data.)
So, you have one group of people (called “scientists”) who are carefully looking at water vapor and making detailed comparisons to models in order to test the agreement between the feedback in the models and what is observed empirically. And, then you have another group (called “Anthony Watts and Ken Gregory et al.”) who are unashamedly posting data that is known to disagree severely in multiple ways with other data sets, with no comparison to theory whatsoever…and then making hand-waving conjectures about airplanes with absolutely no calculations, modeling, estimates, or anything.
And, which group do you choose to believe?
Go to Joel Shore – you are stumped.
I believe in the data and data clearly shows the temperature of the tropical troposphere is correlated to ESNO (specifically region 3.4) along with the phase of the PDO and not CO2 concentrations.
It is that simple and clear cut. If you do not want to accept the data keep believing in your fantasy of AGW. It is never going to happen.
Joel, let me make my long post clear. The point of the post was the data clearly shows the tropical troposphere temperature is correlated with ENSO and the PDO, not CO2.
Joel, wake up the data shows the temperature change of the tropical troposphere corresponds to El NINO region 3.4, not CO2. Do you understand? Apparently not.
That is why AGW theory is such a shame it ignores any data that does not lend support to the theory. Further, any data that contradicts this theory is considered either wrong, inaccurate or contrived. Only data that supports this inaccurate theory is accurate. It is almost comical and unheard of in the scientific community.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138
Joel , the data clearly shows the relationship of the tropical troposphere temp. and ENSO REGION 3.4, and clearly shows the tropical troposphere temperature has no relationship to CO2 concentrations
Joel I could care less who you consider scientist. That is your subjective view which I do not adhere to.
Joel ask below
And, which group do you choose to believe?
My reply,
My answer is the data, which does not support the group you have wrongly chosen to put your faith in.
“Joel , the data clearly shows the relationship of the tropical troposphere temp. and ENSO REGION 3.4”
So, what’s the point? It is well known that there is a strong correlation between El Nino and surface temperatures and tropospheric temperatures.
But, the long term trends in tropical tropospheric temperatures are more difficult to ascertain. For one thing, it is hard to completely remove the contribution to the satellite measurement from the stratosphere (where there is a much larger downward trend due to increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing stratospheric ozone than the upward trend in the troposphere)…It is hard enough to do this when sampling the lower tropospheric temperatures and even more difficult when sampling the mid or upper tropospheric temperatures.
By the way, do you understand that The Patriot Post is not a peer-reviewed journal?
The point of all of this is AGW theory said by now that a DIRECT clear correlation between CO2 increases and the tropical tropospheric temperature profile /water vapor profile would have taken place by now. Verified by a lower tropical tropospheric hotspot.
That is the heart of this theory which said in no uncertain terms this would be taking place.
Until the data clearly shows a lower tropical TROPOSHERIC hot spot resulting from CO2 concentration increases this theory is wrong. It is not even evolving.
I mean if only a few years have gone by I would say maybe not enough time has elapsed but we are going on decades of time and still what this theory has called for is still not evolving. How much time does it take to say something is not right?
In the meantime it is business as usual in the tropical troposphere which it keeps correlating to ENSO. CO2 concentrations neither here or there in having any temp/ water vapor impacts on the tropical troposphere profile as called for by AGW theory.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/trenberth-2005-iwv-1988-2001-geographical-trends-various-datasets.png
Here is data from 4 different sources all of which do not support AGW theory to one degree or another. How many sources do we need?
Salvatore,
What is that even showing? You have just linked to some data that has no explanation. Why don’t you link to the article that you found it in that discusses it so that we can have a meaningful discussion of what it shows?
Oh…Okay…Now I see why! Because, scienceofdoom doesn’t agree with your interpretation of the data at all: http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/
Here are some of his concluding remarks:
“Radiosonde datasets, despite their problems, have been analyzed. The researchers have found positive water vapor trends for the northern hemisphere with these datasets. As far as I know, no one has used radiosonde datasets to find the opposite.
Radiosonde datasets provide excellent coverage for mid-latitude northern hemisphere land, and, with a few exceptions, poor coverage elsewhere.
Satellites, using IR and microwave, demonstrate increasing water vapor over the oceans for the shorter time periods in which they have been operating.
Reanalysis projects have taken in various data sources and, using models, have produced output values for IWV (total water vapor) with mixed results.
Reanalysis projects all have the benefit of convenience, but none are perfect. The dry mass of the atmosphere, which should be constant within noise errors unless a new theory comes along, demonstrates that NCEP/NCAR is worse than ERA-40.
ERA-40 demonstrates increasing IWV. NCEP/NCAP demonstrates negative IWV.
Some people have taken NCEP/NCAR for a drive around the block and parked it in front of their house and many people have wandered down the street to admire it. But it’s not the data. It’s a model.
…
In the world of historical climate datasets nothing is perfect. It seems pretty clear that integrated water vapor has been increasing over the last 20-30 years. But without satellites, even though we have a long history of radiosonde data, we have quite a limited dataset geographically.
If we can only use radiosonde data perhaps we can just say that water vapor has been increasing over northern hemisphere mid-latitude land for nearly 40 years. If we can use satellite as well, perhaps we can say that water vapor has been increasing everywhere for over 20 years.”
Joel the upshot of that data is that it follows ENSO/PDO phases and NOT CO2 which nullifies AGW theory.
So nobody else has yet been able to explain how the required thermal energy gets from the stratosphere of Uranus (where solar radiation is absorbed) down to the base of the planet’s nominal troposphere where such energy supports temperatures that are hotter than Earth’s surface.
Until you understand the process which occurs in such a “near-ideal” troposphere you will never understand what happens on Earth.
Silent readers can keep ahead of the narcissistic mob here by reading http://climate-change-theory.com and learning what is now known in the 21st century – about which the ring-leaders of the hoax (like Hansen and Pierrehumbert) had no clue.
And of course, neither does Joel Shore or anyone else writing for SkS have any clue either. That will be the day when SkS runs an article explaining temperatures on the planet Uranus.
Joel Shore, you are stumped:
“It is fascinating for me because Joel clearly shows that he is still carrying on the principal error of claiming the second law of thermodynamics is all about NET transfer of energy.When the second law itself states a ONE WAY TRANSFER of energy.” [source]
If you wish to disagree with experts in physics Joel Shore then you need to prove them wrong with very specific refutation of their computations and/or assumptions. You’ll get nowhere by merely citing Pierrehumbert etc al. So start with “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation” by a Professor of Applied Mathematics who has carried out extensive research on this matter.
Doug,
All textbooks in physics agree with my interpretation and disagree with yours.
As for Claes Johnson’s nonsense, that is just silliness. Claes denies a whole branch of physics (statistical physics) because he doesn’t understand it. So, he starts with a totally new postulate: Instead of understanding how irreversible behavior and dissipation arise on macroscopic scales from reversible, non-dissipative behavior on microscopic scales, he simply proposes that there is irreversible behavior and dissipation on microscopic scales. His only “evidence” for this is that when people discretize some differential equations in certain ways, they get some dissipation (artificial viscosity) as a result of this discretization. All the rest of the world knows that this is just an artificial feature that comes into the models as a result of the discretization but Claes believes it is real. (It is somewhat ironic that some AGW skeptics, with their animosity to models, embrace the ultimate example of someone believing their models over reality.)
Anyway, starting with his new postulate, Claes claims to show that he can re-derive the Steffan-Boltzmann Equation for the radiative exchange between two bodies but now with the interpretation that the energy flow is only in one direction, even at a microscopic level.
There are three problems with this:
(1) Nobody, to my knowledge, has even been bothered to verify that he has done this correctly, although it is certainly possible that he has.
(2) Showing that you can re-derive one small piece of physics starting from completely different assumptions is not sufficient to justify these assumptions. The assumptions that he has abandoned and replaced with his own bizarre ones have yielded literally a century’s worth of useful and well-verified results…and until he has shown that he can reproduce them all (which I am very sure he won’t be able to), why should anyone believe his non-sensical starting point over the eminently reasonable and well-justified starting point of statistical mechanics?
(3) Since the greenhouse effect is based on the fact that the net radiative exchange between two bodies depends on the temperature of both and not just the hotter one, the fact that Claes has re-derived this equation means that the greenhouse effect remains intact. He has gotten rid of “back radiation” in this zany new model of his but it doesn’t change the greenhouse effect one iota. He has pretty much admitted this to me when I pressed him on the point. (He retreats to some claim that the fact that the radiative transfer is one smaller value rather than the difference between two bigger values makes it more intuitive that we can’t have much effect on the climate, although this seems less than obvious to me.)
Joel Shore – go back to this comment.
Understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is not just about heat and temperatures.
Back in 2012 Wikipedia explained the Second Law like this …
“An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”
That was good.
But then the AGW crowd with their Joel Shore-type “net” explanations modified it to read now …
“The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the entropies of the participating systems.
It’s still OK but only if you accept that the word “participating” implies dependence between such systems. After all, the above statement refers to “a natural process” (singular) and indeed that is correct. It does not apply only to the end “net” results of several independent processes. Frankly, there is no point in discussing such a set of participating systems, because they make up one overall system in which no particular “system” changes without another dependent system changing. Even the use of the word “system” is however confusing, because the law applies to the process in which entropy is being maximized within an isolated system.
What you need to understand is that the Second Law is describing what happens in nature when there are unbalanced energy potentials. Such unbalanced energy potentials autonomously tend to towards the state of balance. That state of thermodynamic equilibrium has maximum entropy and no remaining unbalanced energy potentials.
There’s more on this at http://entropylaw.com and in the second linked item therein.
Heat creep occurs because unbalanced energy potentials have developed due to newly absorbed solar energy, for example.
Does anyone here think they can challenge what I have explained above?
PS: I have done the equivalent of a PhD specializing in several years of study on the Second Law of Thermodynamics about which, and based on which, I have written two papers linked at http://climate-change-theory.com
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138
Joel , the data clearly shows the relationship of the tropical troposphere temp. and ENSO REGION 3.4, and clearly shows the tropical troposphere temperature has no relationship to CO2 concentrations.
Joel it has nothing to do with CO2 rather with atmospheric /oceanic dynamics.
ABSTRACT Water vapor is the dominant gaseous absorber of infrared radiation in Earth. Since small changes in the dry regions of the subtropical upper troposphere have a large impact in the Earth’s energy budget, it is important to know the distribution of humidity and the processes controlling the distribution over this region. Here the variability of the tropical and subtropical upper tropospheric humidity and its control mechanisms are examined using observations, statistical models, and trajectory-based water vapor simulations. First, we examine the controls on subtropical upper tropospheric humidity (UTH) using measurements from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) satellite instrument together with meteorological analyses. There are significant zonal variations that are related to the regional variability in the processes that determine subtropical UTH. This analysis shows that Rossby wave breaking events that bring high potential vorticity air into the subtropics are the dominant cause in variability of relative humidity (RH) over the eastern Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean. In contrast, over the Indian Ocean and western Pacific, the variability of RH is closely linked to the location and strength of subtropical anticyclones associated with the Madden Julian Oscillation (MJO). We also form a two-parameter statistical model of the distribution of tropical tropospheric RH. This model fits the observed probability density functions (PDFs) of the RH well, which vary between regions and with altitude. The two model parameters concisely characterize the variations in the PDFs and provide information on the processes controlling the RH distributions. The parameters from the model fits to the observations indicate that there is rapid, frequent moistening in the tropical convective region, and that there is slower, more regular moistening in the tropical non-convective region. Finally, the controls on subtropical UTH are quantified using trajectory-based water vapor simulations. Comparisons of these simulations with observations shows good agreement for mean values at different altitudes, but are in less agreement with the RH PDFs, especially in the tropical convective region. Clustering analysis shows that the dominant trajectories patterns differ between convective and non-convective regions. Furthermore, the variability of RH can also be partially explained by the mean RH of the trajectory clusters. Coherent variations of clusters with longitude are also consistent with the transient intraseasonal convection.
Controls on tropical upper tropospheric humidity – ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/253149906_Controls_on_tropical_upper_tropospheric_humidity [accessed Apr 25, 2015].
I don’t see anywhere in that abstract where it makes any claim that tropical upper tropospheric (specific) humidity does not increase as temperature increases due to any particular source, including CO2. Where do you see such a claim?
The point of that article I sent was to convey that CO2 thus far cannot be linked to the tropical tropospheric temp./water vapor profile in contrast to what AGW theory said would be clearly the case by now.
You do seem to spend most of your time attacking a “straw man” argument that CO2 magically controls water vapor in the atmosphere. Nobody is making such a claim.
The correct statement of the water vapor feedback is that anything that causes warming in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in water vapor and hence to a positive feedback whereby more warming occurs. There is nothing magical about water vapor in either direction (i.e., there is no reason why CO2 would cause an increase in water vapor other than through its warming effect and there is no reason why CO2 warming due to CO2 would fail to cause an increase in water vapor when warming due to other causes like El Nino or increased solar insolation, or what have you, does cause such an increase.
— Joel Shore says:
April 25, 2015 at 10:23 AM
You do seem to spend most of your time attacking a “straw man” argument that CO2 magically controls water vapor in the atmosphere. Nobody is making such a claim.
The correct statement of the water vapor feedback is that anything that causes warming in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in water vapor and hence to a positive feedback whereby more warming occurs. —
Actually some AGWers do make the claim. But no honest scientist should- but “global warming” is religion with many self appointed lefty priests claiming they are saving the world.
The only thing which causes water vapor is the sun but when one claims that without greenhouse gases the average temperature would -18 C, then people [silly people] imagine earth as a frozen ball of ice.
But as explained above if Earth had average temperature of -18, the tropics would still be very warm [about the same temperature as current tropics] without greenhouse gases or any other “warming mechanism” [other than the glowing ball called the Sun].
Or as anyone who studied climate should know the tropics heats the rest of the world. Plus currently the vast majority of Earth’s water vapor is in the tropics. So something like 75 to 80% of all water vapor is in region 23 North and South degree latitude.
So there are people [a person who are employed at NASA comes to mind] who imagine that “if there was no CO2, then the world would be -18 C” and imagine that world as a completely frozen world [rather than a world with warm tropic and the rest of world pretty cold]. Also many believe Earth could have been a “Snowball Earth” [which not possible with our sun].
“The only thing which causes water vapor is the sun …”
Hate to counter you but that on its own is not physically correct to me without some more words added gbaikie. From what I have learned evaporation can and does occur at any time the relative humidity right within a millimeter of the interface is lower than 100% and the water is the warmer of the two, whether the sun is shinning or not, but of course the amount of energy influx controls the rate of evaporation whether that is from solar energy or thermal conduction from below. Whether net evaporation or condensation is occurring at that interface is due to the temperature difference of the two mediums. Is that not better?
I guess on some grand scale, like whether there is even a sun at all or not, your statement may be viewed as correct. Is that what you intended?
As for your overall stand on AGW, I agree, nothing but human (misguided scientists) manufactured bullock from misunderstandings and wrong assumptions. Proved it to myself during the last two years by getting knee deep in the polytropic process states of thermo of all atmospheres, not too-simple and hypothetical adiabatic or diabatic states as Stephen continues on off the rails, but due to just a few global parameters… total solar influx (TSI less albedo), opacity per frequency, the shear unit-column mass and the expressed molecular degrees of freedom of the atmosphere mix of components and those explain the temperature profiles found on Earth, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Titan (related to Robinson-Catling’s work), nothing else matters when looking at the averaged sphere’s atmosphere and averaged surface temperature, though and however, redistribution of energy within the sphere system does matter as to where certain average temperatures are found horizontally (land, water, color, obstructions, etc).
Wish I had more wastable time to further engage while countering the hundreds of worse misunderstandings of other commenters above, sorry to pick on yours but yours but it was simply the simplest. 😉
You are welcome to discuss the 21st Century physics at http://climate-change-theory.com where there’s a $5,000 reward on offer as explained in other comments.
Re: “The only thing which causes water vapor is the sun …”
“Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air.
Why can’t the amount of water vapor in the air be greater than 4%? The answer is because temperature sets a limit to how much water vapor can be in the air. Even in tropical air, once the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere approaches 4% it will begin to condense out of the air. The condensing of water vapor prevents the percentage of water vapor in the air from increasing.”
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/
global maps:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV&d2=MODAL2_M_CLD_FR
So 6 cm of water in tropic air, less than 1 cm in the US.
“Tropical climate which is a non-arid climate having an average temperatures above 18ºC. Rainforests, Savanna and Semi-arid are some of the example of tropical climates.
The equatorial belt experiences tropical climate which is usually marked with hot and humid weather conditions. Due to active vertical uplift or convection of air, precipitation is quite frequent in this region which is accompanied with thunderstorms almost every day. Sunshine along with excessive rainfall is the distinct feature of this climate which helps in the growth of luxuriant vegetation.”
http://www.mapsofworld.com/referrals/weather/climate/tropical-climate.html
“Some facts about climate
The sun’s rays hit the equator at a direct angle between 23 ° N and 23 ° S latitude. Radiation that reaches the atmosphere here is at its most intense.
In all other cases, the rays arrive at an angle to the surface and are less intense. The closer a place is to the poles, the smaller the angle and therefore the less intense the radiation.”
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/climate.htm
— Doug Cotton says:
April 26, 2015 at 5:03 AM
I’ve already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics, Joel Shore, as you should have the ability to understand. It’s explained in this comment.–
I am talking about a model before any type of warming or cooling effect [other than the sun].
Or said differently the GHE theory starts with ideal blackbody which has uniform temperature of 5.3 C.
And though I don’t disagree that ideal blackbody would have an uniform temperature of about 5 C at earth distance.
An ideal blackbody with a uniform temperature [of any amount- 5 or -18 or -43 C] is unrealistic or does not conform to reality as we know it. Or any planetary body warmed by sunlight will have significantly warmer equator region. Or Earth starts with an equator at noon temperature somewhere around 30 C. As the Moon starts with equator noon of about 120 C. As Mars starts with equator noon temperature of about 20 C.
Etc.
gbaikie said:
“So there are people [a person who are employed at NASA comes to mind] who imagine that ‘if there was no CO2, then the world would be -18 C’ and imagine that world as a completely frozen world [rather than a world with warm tropic and the rest of world pretty cold]. Also many believe Earth could have been a ‘Snowball Earth’ [which not possible with our sun].”
Sorry, but if it is a competition of your intuition vs. actual calculations done with climate models, I choose the climate models. They may not be perfect, but I am sure they are much better at modeling the atmospheric physics than you can do in your head.
–gbaikie said:
“So there are people [a person who are employed at NASA comes to mind] who imagine that ‘if there was no CO2, then the world would be -18 C’ and imagine that world as a completely frozen world [rather than a world with warm tropic and the rest of world pretty cold]. Also many believe Earth could have been a ‘Snowball Earth’ [which not possible with our sun].”
Sorry, but if it is a competition of your intuition vs. actual calculations done with climate models, I choose the climate models. They may not be perfect, but I am sure they are much better at modeling the atmospheric physics than you can do in your head.–
The person I was referring: “Andrew Lacis and colleagues”.
And here they discuss their model:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html
Quote:
“However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.”
and:
“Our climate modeling simulation should be viewed as an experiment in atmospheric physics, illustrating a cause and effect problem which allowed us to gain a better understanding of the working mechanics of Earth’s greenhouse effect, and enabled us to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature,” Lacis said.
So I given one model as example.
Now, it’s your turn to provide the best models, you are referring which you trust more than what I can do my head.
I am very interested in models which support or refute
Lacis and Schmidt’s model.
I could not quickly find where I read that Lacis claimed that CO2 caused all of greenhouse effect, but 80 percent is close enough, perhaps Schmidt felt he couldn’t support Lacis
100% claim [I am merely guessing [wildly] as I have read Lacis say this, rather give the 80% number]
Oh, upon re-read it, it appears it would be 100% if include CO2 and other greenhouse gases- say like Ozone or methane.
So it’s possible that I read Lacis say something like, CO2 and other non condensing gases, rather than just CO2.
I’ve already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics, Joel Shore, as you should have the ability to understand. It’s explained in this comment.
Some more comments.
In the model I did in my head, CO2 would condense in the very cold winter polar region. Plus in the frigid Mars atmosphere
there is still 210 ppm of water vapor.**
and in each polar Mars winter both CO2 and water vapor freezes out.
This is another argument against snowball earth. If Earth were so cold to have it’s entire tropical ocean frozen, then one would have to have it cold enough at the poles to freeze out the CO2.
**
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html
“Atmospheric composition (by volume):
Major : Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.32% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.7%
Argon (Ar) – 1.6%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.13%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.08%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08
No wrong. AGW THEROY is based on this specific assumption which is there is a POSITIVE feedback between CO2 and water vapor, which would result in a certain lower tropical tropospheric temp./water vapor profile creating a lower tropical tropospheric hot spot.
They said it Joel. Why don’t you tell them to revise their stance? They boxed themselves into this by greedily asserting over and over again a lower tropospheric hot spot will come as a result on CO2 /water vapor feedbacks. They did not mention the other items you mention as possibly coming into play.
They are wrong on that point that simple, that clear cut which makes the whole basis of this theory wrong.
THE ROLE OF WATER VAPOR
Water vapor absorbs and radiates in far more frequencies than CO2. Note also that water vapor varies between about 1% and 4% of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is about 0.04%. As a result, the absorption of incident solar radiation by water vapor far exceeds that by CO2. In more moist regions, this means that the upper troposphere gets warmer due to absorption by water vapor, which totally dominates the warming of CO2 in the upper troposphere, where CO2 also absorbs incident solar radiation for which each photon has about five times the energy of photons from the surface. Warmer water vapor in the lower troposphere also radiates to colder water vapor molecules in the upper troposphere, this cooling the lower troposphere and warming the upper troposphere.
These, then, are the main reasons why the adiabatic wet lapse rate is less steep than the dry one. The release of latent heat is localized and irregular and so it contributes very little towards the leveling of the temperature gradient. Besides, we see such leveling in th carbon dioxide troposphere of Venus – also because of the radiating properties of carbon dioxide.
So, radiating molecules work against the gravitationally induced temperature gradient in a planet’s troposphere, in that they have a temperature leveling effect. They cause the whole temperature profile to rotate about the pivoting altitude (defined in my paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com) and that rotation leads to lower supporting temperatures at the surface. Note also that water vapor causes cloud cover which increases albedo, so there is an additional cooling effect for water vapor as well.
In a region where the pivoting altitude is, say, 4Km we could have scenarios like this …
Fairly Dry region:
Effective radiation temperature using 0.28 albedo: 257K
Temperature gradient 8°/Km implies gain of 32° to 289K
Additional warming effect of Sun during the day +5° = 294K.
Moist region:
Effective radiation temperature using 0.32 albedo: 253K
Temperature gradient 6.5°/Km implies gain of 26° to 279K
Additional warming effect of Sun during the day +5° = 284K.
What the AGW crowd claim about water vapor warming is absolute garbage completely refuted by my study of real world temperature and precipitation records over 30 years from 15 locations on three continents.
— Doug Cotton says:
April 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM
THE ROLE OF WATER VAPOR
Water vapor absorbs and radiates in far more frequencies than CO2. Note also that water vapor varies between about 1% and 4% of the atmosphere, whereas CO2 is about 0.04%. As a result, the absorption of incident solar radiation by water vapor far exceeds that by CO2. In more moist regions, this means that the upper troposphere gets warmer due to absorption by water vapor, which totally dominates the warming of CO2 in the upper troposphere, where CO2 also absorbs incident solar radiation for which each photon has about five times the energy of photons from the surface. Warmer water vapor in the lower troposphere also radiates to colder water vapor molecules in the upper troposphere, this cooling the lower troposphere and warming the upper troposphere.
These, then, are the main reasons why the adiabatic wet lapse rate is less steep than the dry one. —
No one is claiming that CO2 absorbs a significant amount of sunlight- so that is strawman.
Though few mention that water vapor absorbed sunlight in similar manner that CO2 [and H2O] absorbs long wave IR.
So wouldn’t call that point a strawman point.
And adiabatic wet lapse rate is due to fact that H20 condenses. Or if you had temperature where CO2 or any other gases condensed into droplets in the atmosphere [is involved in process of condensing and evaporating] then that gas would also effects the lapse rate.
I have explained in my paper why the release of latent heat is not the main reason for the reduction in the magnitude of the temperature gradient due to water vapor. Of course it’s also not the reason for such reductions by other IR-active gases on other planets, such as CO2 that comprises over 97% of the Venus atmosphere and reduces its temperature gradient in its troposphere.
I’ve also already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics in this comment.
You have misunderstood. That was never the claim. Perhaps you were confused because people have sometimes shortened the discussion to “there is a feedback between CO2 and water vapor”. However, any detailed discussion of the water vapor feedback explains that it arises because warming causes an increase in water vapor (which then causes more warming).
I am sorry if your lack of understanding hamstrung you into believing there was something special about CO2 and water vapo, but don’t now claim that your misunderstanding is what scientists actually said. That is completely ridiculous.
Also, despite what Monckton used to claim (and he is the one who named the hot spot and is responsible for most of the misrepresentation of it), it is not a specific signature of warming due to CO2…Such amplification of the warming as you go up in the tropical troposphere is expected to occur due to warming due to any cause. It is simply a result of the expectation that the saturated (“moist”) adiabatic lapse rate is a decreasing function of surface temperature and in the tropics the lapse rate is generally expected to follow this moist adiabatic lapse rate.
I am not an expert on exactly what its relationship to the water vapor feedback is. Certainly, some of the same physics goes into both. However, Isaac Held has pointed out that the additional positive water vapor feedback due to this amplification of the warming (under the assumption of constant relative humidity) is actually somewhat smaller in magnitude than its contribution to the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback that occurs because if the upper troposphere warms faster than the surface the surface does not have to warm as much to offset the radiative forcing. So, in other words, if you naively “turned off” the hot spot in the models, it would actually tend to increase their climate sensitivity a bit.
Of course, if the hot spot were really missing, it might be a symptom of some other issue, so it is hard to say exactly how that would all play out. But, in the most naive sense, the amplification of warming as you go up in the tropical troposphere overall contributes a small negative feedback.
But Joel, empirical evidence proves that increasing water vapor causes cooling not warming. Where is your study (comparable to mine) which proves the opposite? You’d be half way towards winning the $5,000 if you could produce a study supporting the IPCC claim that water vapor does most of 33 degrees of warming due to the back radiation it sends to the surface.
Keep reading below, Joel.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/02/ipccs-global-warming-hypothesis-fails-ultimate-test-no-tropical-hotspot-after-17-years-of-immense-co.html
Joel they predicted a hot spot what I am sending is the reality. I would call this way off the mark to put it kindly.
I take it even further then what that study does and suggest CO2/WATER VAPOR are a symptom of the climate not governors of the climate and that solar variability is going to be the direction the climate will be driven in going forward.
Solar variability controlling the sea surface temperatures, clouds, geological activity,and the atmospheric circulation all of which control the climate.
CONTROLLER’S OF THE CLIMATE
SOLAR VARIABILITY -primary and secondary effects.
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES -precession, obliquity, eccentricity
EARTH’S GEOMAGNECTIC FIELD STRENGTH
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS
OZONE CONCENTRATIONS- influences atmospheric circulation. This in turn moderates snow cover, clouds, oceanic circulation patterns. As well as water vapor/convection processes.
GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS- influences amounts of low clouds/moderates geological activity.
CHARGED PARTICLES- moderates geological activity.
UV/VISIBLE LIGHT- influences sea surface temperatures.
Excellent…Now another peer-reviewed journal, the Climate Conservative Consumer. And, another example of how the label “skeptic” should really be “fake skeptic”. Let me note a few things a real skeptic would ask about that data:
(1) Where does that data come from? Is there a possibility that the data has problems, like contamination from the stratosphere?
(2) Where does the “prediction” come from? Is it from a climate model? No…I have shown below () a real comparison of a climate model to data. A climate model would in fact capture the ups-and-downs associated with El Nino. They have just created a straw man by pretending that the prediction would just be that the temperature in the upper troposphere goes directly up with CO2 (and they have exaggerated the slope it is expected to have, for good measure…You gotta love it how they scaled the CO2 axis so that a rise from ~370 to 400 ppm corresponds to a temperature rise of almost 2.5 C…That’s one heck of a climate sensitivity!)
Salvatore, these people are liars and you are just lapping up their lies. Where are your critical thinking skills? You seem to just throw them out the window when someone shows you something that agrees with what you want to believe.
Yes, there is some legitimate discrepancy between the data on multidecadal trends in upper tropospheric warming and the models. But, the data vary quite a bit, the models vary quite a bit. And, the data have possible systematic issues too. It is a legitimate thing for scientists to study and try to resolve, but the sort of garbage propaganda that you linked to is not doing that. It is just spreading ideologically-driven nonsense.
Just as a quick calculation, the way they scaled the CO2 axis, you’d get ~22 C of warming for a doubling of CO2 if the trend followed their CO2 curve. Now, even if you account for the fact it would be less at the surface, 10-15 C (probably more like the 15 C in the global average). And, that’s not even an equilibrium climate sensitivity; its a transient climate response…which the IPCC predicts is roughly in the range of 1.0-3.0 C (as I recall; I’m too lazy to look it up now).
Thanks, Salvatore, for providing such a nice example of how people lie to you…and how you unfortunately seem to believe them.
No your side are the liars not my side. That is something you just can’t accept which is fine. Time will prove this to be the case.
As one can see the climate models are increasingly wrong on all the predictions they have made for the climate as each month goes by. If this does not turn around soon this theory will be obsolete.
The bad news is for you that it is going to get worse going forward not better. It is the sun not CO2 that controls the climate.
Salvatore,
I gave you a very specific accounting of the lies and deceptions in that opinion piece that you linked to.
Sorry, Doug, you can’t do a controlled experiment on that. Looking at different places in the world doesn’t cut it because there is all sorts of advection of heat going on on the Earth. Furthermore, you can’t really separate the effects of water vapor and condensed water vapor (clouds). There is general agreement that, in the global average in the current climate, the net radiative effect of clouds is to cool, i.e., their albedo effect is larger than their greenhouse effect.
And, furthermore, focusing on high temperatures and ignoring low temperatures is just a blatant and embarrassingly-silly cherry-pick. Doing so will, of course, overestimate the albedo effect of clouds and underestimate the greenhouse effect of clouds. It is also well-known that the large heat capacity of water (and large latent heat) moderate temperature extremes.
Joel,
“There is general agreement that, in the global average in the current climate, the net radiative effect of clouds is to cool, i.e., their albedo effect is larger than their greenhouse effect.”
Yes, by about 20 W/m^2 which is a huge amount since clouds are significantly more opaque to upwelling IR from the surface and lower atmosphere than the clear sky is. Yet, we are supposed to accept that the net radiative effect of clouds on incremental warming will be to further warm instead of remain to cool.
RW, your statement is based on two implicit assumptions:
(1) Cloudiness will increase in a warmer climate.
(2) It will do so in a relatively uniform way (e.g., high clouds vs low clouds).
Neither of these assumptions is obvious. In regards to the first assumption, when the climate gets warmer, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere but the warmer air can also contain more water vapor before it becomes saturated. In fact, the absolute humidity is expected to increase in such a way that RELATIVE humidity remains nearly constant, or maybe even decreases slightly.
In fact, a well-known AGW-skeptic scientist, Richard Lindzen, based his “iris hypothesis” on a conjecture that would violate both of your implicit assumptions: He proposed that high clouds would decrease in a warmer climate and that, because high clouds have a greater greenhouse effect than albedo effect, this would result in a negative feedback (the greenhouse effect of clouds would be reduced).
Now, Lindzen’s specific hypothesis hasn’t fared very well in most empirical studies, but the point is that both skeptic scientists like Lindzen and mainstream scientists who support the consensus on AGW agree that one can’t use the sort of simplistic reasoning that you are using to figure out the sign of the cloud feedback.
The climate signal of cloud feedback has been clearly shown to be negative overall. Data supports this which you Joel ,do not believe in if it goes against AGW theory.
One of the solar climate connections is based on an increase in clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays which will bring about cooling.
Those if us that believe in solar/climate connections are not going to use clouds as an overall cooling agent for the climate if data did not support this fact.
This is one of the principle solar/climate connections which is receiving much attention. The question with this theory is NOT if clouds have a negative feedback(cooling effect )upon the climate but rather if an increase in galactic cosmic rays cause more low clouds to increase.
“The climate signal of cloud feedback has been clearly shown to be negative overall.
…
The question with this theory is NOT if clouds have a negative feedback(cooling effect )upon the climate…”
You are making the same mistake as RW: You are confusing the overall radiative effect of clouds with the feedback effect of clouds when the temperature warms. The former is known to be negative; the sign of the latter depends on the details of whether clouds increase or decrease in coverage as the climate warms and which kinds of clouds increase or decrease (low or high clouds) and how do the clouds change in opacity or height or what have you.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/10/new-research-finds-cloud-coverage-driving-modern-global-temperatures-not-greenhouse-gases.html
This data shows the cloud coverage global temp connection.
Joel you do not have to comment, I know what you will say.
By the way, since you like graphs so much Salvatore, here is a link to the Soden (2005) paper where you can read it directly in PDF format: http://www.dca.iag.usp.br/www/material/akemi/radiacao-I/Soden_2005_Science.pdf
Figure 1 shows that the climate models actually do a really good job simulating total column-integrated water vapor when forced only with the actual ocean sea surface temperatures. This indicates that the models do really seem to have the correct physics in them for how water vapor content varies with temperature.
Figure 2 looks more specifically at the upper troposphere and, here again, the models do a good job in reproducing the actual variation in water vapor … and then they do a really poor job if you artificially turn off the water vapor feedback in the models (“no moistening”).
One has more confidence in the satellite data for the variations then the overall multidecadal trend (because of the possibility of artifacts that contaminate that trend). But with this proviso, the model does do a quite reasonable job with the trend (particularly if you believe RSS…and I think this was before a revision to UAH that modified the T2 trend somewhat, especially increasing it in the tropics). Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why the models would do such a fine job with the variations on the shorter time scales but fail over the longer time scale, particularly since the processes of interest controlling water vapor content generally occur on time scales of a month or so at the maximum.
I’ve already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics, Joel Shore, as you should have the ability to understand. It was in comments above, but it seemed I had to reiterate it, which I did in this comment.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Joel if that were the case the greenhouse score card would not be in existence , showing every prediction the models have made has been off.
Salvatore,
That “scorecard” is utter garbage. I gave you just one example of its being nonsense.
Look, you could find similar scorecards telling you that evolution is wrong. That is the kind of stunts people pull when the best science disagrees with their strongly held beliefs.
If you say that Joel, you are in effect saying Joe D’ Aleo (creator of the ghg scorecard one of the co founders of the weather channel)and Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Inc. who have 1000 ‘s of clients are incompetent and deceiving.
I do not think so. You need to do some research on those individuals before jumping to your conclusions.
That scorecard, of course, also leaves out the many successful predictions of the models, including the ones shown in Fig. 1 and 2 of Soden et al.’s paper, which are very important for the question of whether the models are getting the water vapor feedback correct: http://www.dca.iag.usp.br/www/material/akemi/radiacao-I/Soden_2005_Science.pdf
The bottom line is AGW theory climate predictions can all be shown to be correlated with natural occurrences as I have shown to you through the Sunspot, AMO/PDO data climate correlation.
CO2 concentrations nether here or there. Until that changes what AGW theory is predicting is not happening.
Al climate variations can be correlated to natural occurrences as I have shown with this data.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.htmlththis data.
Salvatore,
No offense, but this sort of stuff is just epicycles without any serious physical basis. The accumulated sunspot departures from some arbitrary mean makes little sense and would probably lead to unphysical divergences of temperature in both directions if carried back in time.
And, all these correlations with PDO and AMO have to be treated with an abundance of caution because these indices are defined in terms of sea temperatures, so the cause and effect can be backwards. (The try to detrend it…but can only do it in a simple linear way.) And, climate models confirm that once you specify sea surface temperatures, you do indeed pretty much determine the climate because the ocean is where most of the energy goes. (See, for example, Fig 1 of Soden’s paper where he shows how the climate models can reproduce the integrated column water vapor very accurately if you input the sea surface temperatures.) There may be some legitimate effect too (as there is with ENSO) since these modes can move heat around between the ocean and atmosphere, but that is far from certain, and at any rate, can not account for the general long term upward trend over the past century.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
This is the data which shows clearly what has been and what is driving the climate. If ENSO, and VOLCANIC ACTIVITY are thrown into the mix the correlation would approach 100%.
CO2 concentrations having nothing to do with anything.
This correlation should hold up going forward into the future and since it is likely solar activity will be in a prolonged minimum state going forward while the AMO/PDO will be predominately in a a cold phase (despite spikes of warmth as the PDO is currently exhibiting ),and thus likely ENSO in response to a cold PDO will exhibit a trend toward more La Nina type of episodes the global temperature trend is very likely to be lower not higher going forward.
Then when the following secondary climatic effects are added to the mix in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions, those being most likely an increase in volcanic activity, an increase in low cloud coverage, a decrease in sea surface temperatures, and a trend toward an increasing meridional atmospheric circulation pattern(more clouds, snow/ice coverage in response to this circulation pattern) these will all act to increase the albedo of the earth earth which will compound the cooling trend going forward as this decade proceeds.
Milankovitch Cycles being on balance slightly favorable for cooling while the weakening geomagnetic field of the earth will enhance solar effects upon the climate.
By the end of this decade the climate will feature two distinct trends which will be a greater persistence in weather patterns if not out right more extremes and a jig saw temperature trend toward cooler global temperatures.
This is in direct opposition of what AGW theory calls for which is great because this will give a unique opportunity to see which side is correct and which side is incorrect.
Joel save this post , and then you will be able to show if I was wrong or correct and for what reasons which is just as important as getting the climatic forecast correct to begin with.
Joel ,I will say this I like your style, your knowledge is extensive, and you engage everyone in a very professional manner. I like you as a person no doubt. We just disagree but that is okay and we will see (I hope) which side is correct.
As I said I rather be wrong then not know.
Joel, I am using this as an example to show the solar side of things which I doubt you have looked into in any depth.
The difference is I have looked into both solar and AGW theory in depth, which gives me insights as to which one seems more relevant. I have spent much time in looking at AGW theory something I do not believe in(which is hard to do) ,have you done the same for solar?
The following is an analysis done by Bob Weber. Interesting.
Hemispheric power spiked the highest prior to Apr 22 on April 16, at 66 GW, and was still lingering at 33 GW by the 22nd (background is about 10 GW or less). The spike was triggered by a high-density solar wind spike of ~17 on Apr 14. Followed by southern polar coronal hole high-speed solar wind nearly up to 700 km/s that caused a G2-class geomagnetic storm on Apr 16-17. Once again see http://pc-index.org/archive, this time for Apr 14-23, and notice the magnitude of the G2 event as compared to the flare events.
During the G2 event, the AL index, as induced from the magnetosphere ring current, dropped from zero nT to -400nT, and fluctuated between -100 and -400nT between 4/15 and 4/17, while Dst also went negative. Whereas from 4/18 to 4/21, through the flares, AL dropped roughly to -250nT, and Dst took a smaller dive than during the G2 storm.
Since this research was done in a serial fashion as I wrote this, I will now conclude that the G2 storm primed the Earth, charged it up, and the solar flares both augmented and triggered the telluric currents that drove both the Chilean volcano, and the devastating earthquakes.
I have high confidence in this analysis as I’ve already seen so many other such instances before.
There’s your electric weather effects (electric, magnetic, electromagnetic) report for today.
Try doing a statistical analysis on that…
THE SUN”S RADIATION TO THE SURFACE CAN”T DO IT ALL
Let’s look at some of Earth’s maximum temperatures. I have been in Adelaide (South Australia) when the temperature has been over 40°C.
On a clear day, with the Sun directly overhead some place in the tropics the solar radiation is about 520W/m^2 as calculated here. But let’s consider Adelaide which is over 10 degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn, and so the maximum angle of incidence of the Sun around noon just before Christmas Day is just under 80° so we multiply by sin80 to get about 512W/m^2. This gives 35°C which is not unrealistic in summer. (It may get a bit higher due to the absorption by the atmosphere being less than average.) Now in winter around 22 June the angle of incidence would be only about 57° making the midday radiative flux 436W/m^2 giving 23°C which is also realistic.
However, using the same method of calculation for every hour of the day averaged over all locations on Earth we have a mean of only 66W/m^2 of solar radiation because we deduct 102 (for non-radiative losses) from 168W/m^2 absorbed by the surface. The S-B calculations for that give us a very cold -89°C. So something altogether different must be happening in order to explain the observed temperatures, and that “something” is explained at http://climate-change-theory.com
And in case my point is not clear, if you were to add back radiation (as the IPCC does for the averages) then that extra 324W/m^2 would also have to be added to the Adelaide calculations, making the results 75°C in summer and 67°C in winter.
Now, as seen in the Adelaide example above, back radiation is ruled out in that it does not help the Sun to raise the maximum daily temperature. Yes, it slows that portion of surface cooling which is itself by radiation, but it does not slow the overall rate of cooling because the other rates of cooling accelerate to compensate for slower radiative cooling. Hence Roy is wrong.
On Venus the Sun’s direct radiation is only about 10% of that reaching Earth’s surface and so it has no effect on the Venus surface temperature that varies only between 732K and 737K all over the Venus globe.
Each planet, Earth and Venus, has a mean “supporting temperature” at the base of its troposphere due to the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. For the supporting temperature to reduce the whole troposphere would have to cool retaining the same temperature gradient. The Sun’s radiation can add a few degrees to the surface temperature on clear days in non-polar regions on Earth, but not at all on Venus.
I leave you with this Wikipedia quote …
“The second law of thermodynamics states that … over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a horizontal plane, but not in a vertical plane due to the force of gravity. For example, density and pressure do not even out in a vertical plane, and nor does temperature because gravity acts on individual molecules, and this means molecular kinetic energy interchanges with gravitational potential energy in free path motion between collisions.” [source]
I think the answer to all this is that one cannot measure the true surface temperature of a solid surface beneath a convecting medium from radiated energy alone.
From space the Earth appears to be at 255K because it releases energy to space commensurate with that temperature.
However, at the surface, beneath the convecting atmosphere the temperature is 288K.
What happens when one measures the temperature using a sensor situated within the convecting medium is that the sensor records the local temperature produced by both radiation and conduction from the surrounding molecules and so records the correct temperature at the location/height where it is situated.
The lower the sensor travels within the convecting medium the greater the proportion of the temperature sensed is derived from conduction because any convecting medium becomes warmer as one descends by virtue of its interaction with the gravitational field.
When located at Earth’s surface the sensor is then receiving the full amount of conduction so it then records 288K.
The total radiation field at the surface will be commensurate with 288K but conduction and convection through the vertical column draw on that progressively with height so that only 255K gets out to space.
Conduction and convection does not draw out radiation by absorption of that radiation directly but rather it draws it out indirectly by conduction of kinetic energy of motion and it is that removal of kinetic energy of motion by conduction and subsequent convection that incrementally with height reduces temperature and thereby reduces radiation to space to a level commensurate with that lowered temperature.
Beneath a radiatively inert atmosphere the Earth’s surface would still be at 288k in order to emit 255K to space AND support the continuing convective overturning of atmospheric mass.
There will still be just as much convective overturning because incoming radiation reaching the surface will still produce uneven surface heating and density variations in the horizontal plane.
The decline in atmospheric density with height which is unavoidable around a sphere will do the rest.
It may be that this misunderstanding about the interplay between radiation and convective overturning is relevant to the current dark matter / dark energy question in cosmology.
By the same means vast quantities of energy engaged in convection throughout the universe would be invisible to radiation sensors simply because the potential energy that drives convection is not heat and does not radiate.
The Big Bang theory envisages constant outward movement driven by an initial explosion. There is no consideration of the effect of convective overturning in that model.
A model of the universe that includes convective overturning would produce the same conundrum as we see when trying (and failing) to measure temperatures at remote locations beneath a convecting medium by using radiation sensors alone.
I think the answer to all this is that one cannot measure the true surface temperature of a solid surface beneath a convecting medium from radiated energy alone.
From space the Earth appears to be at 255K because it releases energy to space commensurate with that temperature.
However, at the surface, beneath the convecting atmosphere the temperature is 288K.
What happens when one measures the temperature using a sensor situated within the convecting medium is that the sensor records the local temperature produced by both radiation and conduction from the surrounding molecules and so records the correct temperature at the location/height where it is situated.
The lower the sensor travels within the convecting medium the greater the proportion of the temperature sensed is derived from conduction because any convecting medium becomes warmer as one descends by virtue of its interaction with the gravitational field.
When located at Earth’s surface the sensor is then receiving the full amount of conduction so it then records 288K.
The total radiation field at the surface will be commensurate with 288K but conduction and convection through the vertical column draw on that progressively with height so that only 255K gets out to space.
Conduction and convection does not draw out radiation by absorption of that radiation directly but rather it draws it out indirectly by conduction of kinetic energy of motion and it is that removal of kinetic energy of motion by conduction and subsequent convection that incrementally with height reduces temperature and thereby reduces radiation to space to a level commensurate with that lowered temperature.
Beneath a radiatively inert atmosphere the Earth’s surface would still be at 288k in order to emit 255K to space AND support the continuing convective overturning of atmospheric mass.
There will still be just as much convective overturning because incoming radiation reaching the surface will still produce uneven surface heating and density variations in the horizontal plane.
The decline in atmospheric density with height which is unavoidable around a sphere will do the rest.
It may be that this misunderstanding about the interplay between radiation and convective overturning is relevant to the current dark matter / dark energy question in cosmology.
By the same means vast quantities of energy engaged in convection throughout the universe would be invisible to radiation sensors simply because the potential energy that drives convection is not heat and does not radiate.
The Big Bang theory envisages constant outward movement driven by an initial explosion. There is no consideration of the effect of convective overturning in that model.
A model of the universe that includes convective overturning would produce the same conundrum as we see when trying (and failing) to measure temperatures at remote locations beneath a convecting medium by using radiation sensors alone.
You can “measure” the temperature, Stephen, but Stefan Boltzmann calculations prove that the required energy does not include any contribution from back radiation.
Hence Stephen, you have no explanation as to how the required thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus or Earth.
I’ve already shown why the radiative forcing GH conjecture is nothing but fictitious fiddled physics, Stephen, as you might have the ability to understand. It was in comments above, but it seemed I had to reiterate it, which I did in this comment.
Your hypothesis still requires solar radiation and back radiation to “explain” how the surface acquires the necessary thermal energy. But it’s wrong to add back radiation, and so you have no explanation at all.
And, Stephen, there’s no “uneven surface” at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus – no surface at all Stephen.
Doug,
I mention no back radiation.
It is a matter of PE reconverted to KE in adiabatic descent.
For a ball of gas with no solid surface beneath it the surface can be taken as the deepest point to which insolation reaches.
A rotating sphere will always have uneven surface heating at that point.
No matter the depth that the insolation gets to it will still lead to convective overturning through the entire vertical column or in the case of a ball of gas alone through the entire ball of gas.
I told you that before but you ignored it.
Stephen refers to “the deepest point to which insolation reaches.”
Well, the nominal troposphere of Uranus is 350Km high, but hardly any of the original 4W/m^2 of solar radiation gets past the methane layer in the stratosphere. Even the full 4W/m^2 can’t warm anything much above 60K, whereas I am talking about temperatures that are hotter than Earth’s surface and which I have explained are maintained by downward heat creep (heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer) on the sunlit side, offsetting the upward convection on the dark side.
What’s your problem in understanding the physics I have explained in my paper, which is derived directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Your problem is that you have no explanation as to how the base of the troposphere of Uranus, or the surfaces of Earth and Venus get to the temperatures they are at and actually rise in temperature on the sunlit side. Show me your calculations, Stephen. I can quantify all I need to, including close calculations of all planetary temperatures even in the outer crust of Earth for example. Where is your “convective overturning” in the outer crust?
What happens when there is no wind at all Stephen and no sunshine in the long Antarctic winter, or even just at night in your backyard? Have you even measured temperatures all through the night, and explained the slower cooling? Why don’t we see faster cooling after the Sun sets? There’s no reason for any downward convective heat transfer in calm conditions at night, Stephen.
“it will still lead to convective overturning through the entire vertical column”
Convection is a heat transfer mechanism. Hence you are also talking about a downward heat transfer in a planet’s troposphere. On Uranus, for example, we are both talking about, and realizing the need for an actual transfer of thermal energy from cold to hot, in fact right down to the 5000K solid core of Uranus several thousand kilometers below the stratosphere, which is the source of the thermal energy that has just been absorbed due to the Sun’s very weak radiation.
The difference is, Stephen, that I have been the first in the world to explain why such a heat transfer does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a vertical plane in a force field like gravity. And I have backed that up with experiments using centrifugal force. I talk the language of physics, Stephen, whereas you don’t even distinguish between natural and forced convection, or see a need to, because you totally ignore all discussion of entropy, and thus disregard the law of entropy about which you could read at http://entropylaw.com as I have mentioned several times.
Cold PE becomes hot KE during descent.Hot KE becomes cold PE during ascent.
At any given moment half of any stmosphere has an upward component and half has a downward component.
That is all you need.
Convection is NOT a heat TRANSFER mechanism.
Convection is an energy TRANSFORMATION mechanism from KE to PE on the ascent and PE to KE in the descent.
Total energy (KE + PE) is constant throughout the vertical column.
The concept of downward heat creep is not necessary.
The same principle applies within any planetary interior that is convecting.
Since you do not understand adiabatic convection you have invented an alternative concept which is not needed and which does not happen.
Up and down convection achieves the results that you claim for your so called heat creep.
“The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
—Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
You cannot work out what will happen in a natural thermodynamic process in an isolated system unless you can determine what would make entropy increase. Then, in order to work out when the process will cease, you need to be able to work out when entropy will stop increasing. That is what I have done, whereas you haven’t even discussed entropy.
For example, there is no law of physics which says adiabatic expansion will always cause cooling, or that air which has just been warmed will necessarily only rise. You can only know what will happen if you can work out what would result in entropy increasing. When does your convection go up and when does it go down, or perhaps horizontally?
I have cited a horizontal partitioned sealed insulated thin cylinder of gas with one half at three times the pressure of the other half, but initially both halves being at the same temperature. Slide out the partition (through a slot) and one half expands while the other half is compressed. But neither changes temperature because we know the whole lot will end up at the same temperature and there has been no energy entering or leaving the whole cylinder.
The entropy calculations for the above horizontal cylinder are easy, because we know from the Ideal Gas Law that pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density. Since temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy (per molecule) we know that temperature cannot change because it is already equal in each half and there is no net change in mean gravitational potential energy per molecule. So the Clausius corollary of the Second Law is applicable because the process is in a horizontal plane.
Hence neither half makes the other half either hotter or colder. But temperature is constant and so we get density being proportional to pressure from the Ideal Gas Law.
Initially there was both an unbalanced density potential and an unbalanced pressure potential. But the Second Law tells us unbalanced potentials dissipate until entropy is maximized. Thus pressure and density each vary in each half, maintaining proportionality to each other (and thus constant temperature) until (simultaneously) they each become equal in each of the two halves and we thus have thermodynamic equilibrium, and entropy no longer increases.
Note that this is an example of entropy increasing without any change in temperature. Another such example is chemical diffusion of two different gases.
For net molecular movement, or even just net apparent motion of a temperature front, there must initially be unbalanced energy potentials, and those must take into account all forms of energy including molecular (micro) gravitational potential energy (PE), not just molecular kinetic energy (KE) in various degrees of freedom.
So we can easily have a higher total energy potential at the top of a column if (PE+KE) is greater there than is (PE+KE) at the bottom. This does not necessitate KE being greater at the top because gravitational PE is automatically greater due to the height difference. So, in the resulting adiabatic process, in the absence of wind or any external new energy or matter input or output, the unbalanced energy potential will dissipate, and this results in a net transfer of KE downwards.
Thermodynamic equilibrium is established when the process stops, which it does when entropy can no longer increase, and that is of course when the initial unbalanced energy potential has dissipated. This happens when (PE+KE) is the same at each height and, because PE has a gradient, KE (temperature) has the negative of that gradient when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained and “heat creep” stops because, by definition, there is no further internal heat transfer across any boundary when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained.
“So we can easily have a higher total energy potential at the top of a column if (PE+KE) is greater there than is (PE+KE) at the bottom. ”
Since PE is created from KE during uplift I do not think that is possible except in the thermosphere where there are hardly any molecules but direct insolation heats them to very high temperatures.
Up to the top of the mesosphere the principle that KE + PE is the same all the way up seems to apply.
I much prefer my much simpler description which is based on established meteorology but I accept that you think that is all nonsense.
I must respectfully continue to disagree.
The upper troposphere is cool enough to have its temperature raised by solar radiation. It is this new energy which raises the KE, thus creating imbalance in (PE+KE) because gravitational PE is a function of height and thus the same for all identical molecules at the same height no matter what.
For goodness sake, Stephen, spend an hour or two studying what I have written in the website and linked paper. You can’t even explain yourself using correct physics terminology. You never distinguish between natural convection and forced convection, even though the results of each are very different.
Then go to this comment and realize that your conjecture does not explain how the new thermal energy added at the top of the troposphere gets into the surface and raises its temperature during the day. Without such an energy input, you cannot explain how the surface gets to the observed temperature in the first place.
Stephen, if your “sensor” is a mercury thermometer the measurement it provides is based on the mean kinetic energy of the molecules which collide with its bulb. It is not hard to shield the thermometer from all solar radiation and even from most radiation from the surface. In calm conditions the thermometer measurements at various heights will still confirm the temperature gradient. So what’s your point?
By the way, the word “convection” is short for “convective heat transfer” and convection is indeed a heat transfer mechanism, not a mechanism that primarily converts kinetic energy to potential energy or vice versa. The latter mechanism merely establishes the temperature gradient, even in the calmest of conditions.
So you need to explain the necessary heat transfers from the cooler regions in a planet’s upper troposphere downwards to warmer regions and sometimes into the surface. That you have not done with any of the very necessary discussion of entropy.
“It is not hard to shield the thermometer from all solar radiation and even from most radiation from the surface”
You cannot shield the thermometer from the kinetic energy that surounds it. That kinetic energy is derived from incoming solar radiation interacting with the mass of the surface and the ambient temperature of the surrounding gases.Shielding the thermometer from ‘radiation’ is meaningless because radiation has no temperature. Heat only arises when radiation interacts with matter and it is the matter that has kinetic energy and not the radiation.
In so far as those surrounding gases are non radiative their temperature/ kinetic energy is a consequence of conduction from the surface or conduction from radiative molecules that intercepted and absorbed radiation from the surface.
The temperature gradient with height is a consequence of decreasing density with height which allows rising air to convert KE to PE and thereby cool as a result of expansion into the less dense environment despite total energy content (KE +PE) remaining the same.
The point being that the thermometer reading is a product of both radiation and conduction and since conduction results in convection the amount of KE available to heat the thermometer declines with height.
As for convection being a means of heat transfer:
“convective heat transfer involves the combined processes of conduction (heat diffusion) and advection (heat transfer by bulk fluid flow).”
Advection generally means heat transfer in the horizontal plane not the vertical plane which fits my description rather than yours.
My description involves convection taking kinetic energy upwards in one location (a low pressure cell) converting it to PE off the surface and returning it to the surface as KE in another location (a high pressure cell).
Advection then occurs by way of winds flowing from high pressure regions to low pressure regions.
Thus heat is not transferred upwards or downwards. PE is transferred upwards and downwards but PE converts from KE in uplift and to KE in descent resulting in advection at the surface.
Note that the atmospheric KE does not transfer into or below the surface of a planet because it warms the surface not by direct conduction to the surface but by reducing convection from that surface.
The heat inside a planet is derived from a separate convective loop of molten material within the planet and that internal convective loop is driven by density differentials between surface and core acting against gravity when the material moves toward the surface and with gravity when it sinks back towards the core.
You have mistakenly conflated the convective overturning within the atmospheric gases and the separate convective overturning within the liquid portion of the planetary body.
So now I find two errors in your narrative:
i) You do not understand convection so you unnecessarily invented heat creep.
ii) You fail to realise that the convective loop above the surface (rising and falling air) is separate from the convective loop beneath the surface (rising and falling of liquids or solids with liquid characteristics beneath the surface).
The more I go into your stuff the more I see the errors.
— Stephen Wilde says:
April 26, 2015 at 4:41 PM
“It is not hard to shield the thermometer from all solar radiation and even from most radiation from the surface”
You cannot shield the thermometer from the kinetic energy that surounds it. That kinetic energy is derived from incoming solar radiation interacting with the mass of the surface and the ambient temperature of the surrounding gases.Shielding the thermometer from ‘radiation’ is meaningless because radiation has no temperature. Heat only arises when radiation interacts with matter and it is the matter that has kinetic energy and not the radiation.–
My first reaction/response was to say “and only surfaces absorb sunlight [or any radiation]- gases do not.
But then in occured to me, “how much surface area does a gas molecule have?”
So the size of gas molecule [very very small as compared to a square meter of sunlight at say 1000 watts per square meter] would be how much it could possibly absorb, so for 1000 watts per square meter something like a trillionth of a watt.
Which is “only roughly” amounting to nothing in terms of the possible amount of warming a gas molecule could get from sunlight or any kind radiation which less then 1000 watts per square meter.
As far as I recall cosmology has only ever proposed steady atate or continuous expansion / contraction.
Neither model involves the movement of energy in and out of potential energy at different locations and different times in convective overturning.
Maybe the visible matter in the universe is actually lumpiness akin to clouds in a vast universe wide convective overturning cycle with consequent distortion of our ability to see what is really going on when using radiative means of observation only ?
Go back to this comment.
Joel , everything you claim is so easy to refute with data.
The problem for you is you do not accept the data no matter the source unless it is from a pro AGW theory source which will of course support AGW theory.
That does not work for me.
“The problem for you is you do not accept the data no matter the source unless it is from a pro AGW theory source which will of course support AGW theory.”
No…Unless you consider the entire world of peer-reviewed literature to be “a pro AGW theory source”. It is not me who has been linking to ideological sites with a very explicit agenda; it is you. I have been sticking to the peer-reviewed literature.
And, in many cases, I have explained to you EXACTLY what is wrong with the data or presentation of the data that you have uncritically grabbed from these ideological sources. You can’t defend them, but you keep believing them anyway because they tell you what you want to believe.
I like you, Salvatore, but you really need to take the idea of skepticism to heart. Skepticism does not mean just being skeptical of ideas that you don’t like anyway; it means of being skeptical of ideas, data, and presentations even when they do align with what you want to believe.
And, I’ll just warn you that, while in this corner of the internet it may be popular to look at the sources that you are looking at, these are not the sources that the real scientists are looking at. And, hence you are going to continue to be puzzled as to why the scientific community, as expressed through all of its various channels (IPCC, NAS and the analogous organizations in all of the G-8+5 countries, AAAS, AMS, AGU, APS, …), continue to reach very different conclusions about AGW than you do.
And, yes, I know you guys hate “arguments from authority”, but the fact is that scientific authorities are authorities for a reason. They are not infallible, but if one is realistic about one’s abilities relative to others then one has to be willing to entertain the serious possibility that the authorities might understand things that you don’t.
I had this come up just last week: In relation to a project one of my students is working on, I did a calculation to derive “the rocket equation” from scratch using conservation of angular momentum and I got an answer that did not quite agree with the accepted result. For a while, I couldn’t for the life of me see what I was doing wrong, but I knew it was unrealistic to expect that I was right and the scientific authorities were wrong in this case. So, I kept looking it over and eventually realized my error.
Time will tell. That I think we can agree on.
In addition if we all agreed this would not be exciting or interesting.
What I like about Joel, is he does not back down and he gives as much as he takes. He engages. Good. Even though we do not agree.
Go to this comment.
Yes, Joel, you do not accept the empirical data that I have presented. Read this reply to Norman, and my comment yesterday regarding Adelaide temperatures, and my study which proves with statistical significance that dry regions have higher mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures than more moist regions at similar latitude and altitude.
Well well, sorry Roy, but you still have not convinced me. In the Sahara desert, night time temperatures indeed can come under or close to freezing temperature, with a complete open blue sky!
Gas molecules have a very low emisivity (or absorptivity), so the energy the CO2 molecules can absorb and reemit eventually is very very small, and can, no way, heat up the molecules of a solid soil that is at a higher temperature, because these are already at that higher temperature and emitting radiation.
The earths temperature is well explained by compression of the gas through gravity. Variable solar input explains the small variations.
“Gas molecules have a very low emisivity (or absorptivity)”
There is a very long path length through the atmosphere, however. Look, all these things are calculated. If you deny that CO2 is absorbing the energy, then you are denying empirical data that says otherwise and radiative transfer theory that matches it very well (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CBs09bO1wfc/UYCrTpw8eOI/AAAAAAAABCY/CCm6vAd8uZQ/s640/Earth+Emitted+Radiation+Iris+Modtran+Comparison+Shows+Scatter+Effect.png). And, you have to deny the whole field of remote sensing, including the work by Dr. Spencer and Christy to measure temperatures in the atmosphere that way.
“The earths temperature is well explained by compression of the gas through gravity.”
Only if you don’t understand how to apply conservation of energy to the system. Then you have a little problem of the Earth’s surface emitting 390 W/m^2 to space while the entire Earth+atmosphere only absorbs 240 W/m^2 from the sun.
— Joel Shore says:
April 26, 2015 at 2:41 PM
“Gas molecules have a very low emisivity (or absorptivity)”
There is a very long path length through the atmosphere, however. Look, all these things are calculated. If you deny that CO2 is absorbing the energy, then you are denying empirical data that says otherwise and radiative transfer theory that matches it very well —
The point is not that greenhouse gases [and largest greenhouse gas even in a desert is water vapor] do not add some amount of warming, but rather the only significant amount of warming [slowing the rate of cooling at night].
And I would say that the latent heat of H20 [and specific heat of water] is a significant warming aspect of the greenhouse gas, H20. So, not just the radiant properties of H20.
Radiation only slows radiative cooling. Non radiative cooling accelerates and compensates and nullifies and wipes out any effect of back radiation. Do you people get it yet? The Sun’s mean radiation left for warming the surface (after non radiative losses) is only 66W/m^2.
You can’t add back radiation of 324W/m^2 to that 66W/m^2 and use the total of 390W/m^2 to “explain” the 288K because, if you do the same thing and add back radiation to the local solar flux on clear days around noon, especially in the tropics, you get absurdly high temperatures, especially if you calculate backradiation as 83% of the outward flux at those higher temperatures, but also even if you only use the mean of 324W/m^2.
It’s all fictitious fiddled physics.
What really happens is what I have been the first in the world to explain, so don’t expect to learn it elsewhere. It’s all at http://climate-change-theory.com being read by over 600 others per week.
How can you know my explanation is correct? Well it works – everywhere – all planets and moons – above and below any surfaces. It explains empirical data, as all good physics should. The GH conjecture does not.
— Doug Cotton says:
April 26, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Radiation only slows radiative cooling. Non radiative cooling accelerates and compensates and nullifies and wipes out any effect of back radiation. Do you people get it yet? The Sun’s mean radiation left for warming the surface (after non radiative losses) is only 66W/m^2.
You can’t add back radiation of 324W/m^2 to that 66W/m^2 and use the total of 390W/m^2 to “explain” the 288K because, if you do the same thing and add back radiation to the local solar flux on clear days around noon, especially in the tropics, you get absurdly high temperatures, especially if you calculate backradiation as 83% of the outward flux at those higher temperatures, but also even if you only use the mean of 324W/m^2.–
The surface of earth commonly is heated to 70 C [the ground surface not air surface].
To get a ground surface to 70 C requires hundreds of watts of direct sunlight. Nothing else [other than fire or volcanic lava] could warm the surface to such a temperature.
This 66W/m^2 number is some kind of an average amount and has nothing to do with temperature of a surface [or surface air temperature].
So what causes warm day time temperature on Earth is hundreds of watts of direct sunlight. Or roughly speaking to get a temperature to warm up to 20 C requires about 500 watts of direct sunlight. That is to say to warm up to this temperature rather than to cool down or remain at this temperature.
So nothing other than 500 watts or more of sunlight can warm the surface as warm as we commonly experience everyday,
but one only needs a few hours of such direct sunlight and for area to warm does require a particular spot to be in direst sunlight. Or it could be in the shade or under a cloud, but one need this amount or more of direct sunlight somewhere within say 100 km warming some kind of surface.
Or 66W/m^2 of direct sunlight is not going to make anything very warm.
And things like the fantasies of backradiation can not increase the temperature of anything. And likewise things like convection and latent heat are mostly about preventing heat loss, rather than increasing the temperature.
So how hot earth gets is related only to direct sunlight and must be hundreds of watts of direct sunlight.
No…Unless you consider the entire world of peer-reviewed literature to be “a pro AGW theory source”. It is not me who has been linking to ideological sites with a very explicit agenda; it is you. I have been sticking to the peer-reviewed literature.
I hate to say this but I really believe almost the entire world of peer reviewed literature is pro AGW. I would say at least well over 90 % on the low side if not close to 100%.
This has become very political and money driven, in contrast to a pure scientific endeavor in my opinion.
In government “fueled” research. But most of science of any kind [except perhaps nuclear science] is not “fueled” by governments.
SDP writes “I have been sticking to the peer-reviewed literature.”
Good, well read my peer-reviewed papers and learn what is really happening. If you can prove me wrong you may be on the way to being the first in the world to do so, and thus qualify for the AU$5,000 reward – if you also produce a similar study that proves the opposite.
SDP writes “I have been sticking to the peer-reviewed literature
No Doug, Joel said that. I said I do not subscribe to any of it.
Doug,
Well, I guess you could describe those papers as “peer-reviewed,” as they are reviewed by other people with a similar degree of competence in the field so they were indeed your peers.
But, no, I meant peer-reviewed by actual competent scientists in the field, as one would have if the papers were submitted to a reasonably good journal in the field.
No offense, but this sort of stuff is just epicycles without any serious physical basis. The accumulated sunspot departures from some arbitrary mean makes little sense and would probably lead to unphysical divergences of temperature in both directions if carried back in time.
What could I say other then you see black when I see white and vice versa.
We have really gone through this in detail, and exhausted all the arguments pro and con, from both points of view.
The only thing left to do is see what happens going forward.
I will hold you to what you said and you do the same for me and let us see.
That’s why you could have saved a hell of a lot of time by spending an hour or two studying what is at http://climate-change-theory.com and in the linked papers, because that is what is happening in the real Solar System in all planets and satellite moons, above and below any solid surface. Everyone who studies it realizes that they cannot refute it.
Doug, we will see who is most correct. Time will tell.
Fair enough, Salvatore!
“I will hold you to what you said and you do the same for me and let us see.”
It seems to me, that we will continue to warm from the coldest period of our present interglacial period.
We had a significant amount of oceanic warming from the time of Little ice age, and this is reflected in some sea level rise.
I don’t expect sea levels to fall, nor glacial to advance any
time soon [within 20 years] not in comparison to the glaciers
that have retreated and sea level that risen since 1850.
So in near term, it seems roughly speaking we continue the pause [with slight increase or decrease in average temperature].
And so if this broadly happens over next 10 years, what could expect to see?
It’s seems far more likely we will new theories within 10 years than anything to see.
So if it’s theories one hopes to see, I expect the trend to continue of less alarmism regarding “global warming” as it’s becoming less “profitable” and just looks too silly.
Stephen: I have replied to an earlier comment of yours here.
Joel,
“RW, your statement is based on two implicit assumptions:
(1) Cloudiness will increase in a warmer climate.
(2) It will do so in a relatively uniform way (e.g., high clouds vs low clouds).
Neither of these assumptions is obvious. In regards to the first assumption, when the climate gets warmer, there is more water vapor in the atmosphere but the warmer air can also contain more water vapor before it becomes saturated. In fact, the absolute humidity is expected to increase in such a way that RELATIVE humidity remains nearly constant, or maybe even decreases slightly.
In fact, a well-known AGW-skeptic scientist, Richard Lindzen, based his “iris hypothesis” on a conjecture that would violate both of your implicit assumptions: He proposed that high clouds would decrease in a warmer climate and that, because high clouds have a greater greenhouse effect than albedo effect, this would result in a negative feedback (the greenhouse effect of clouds would be reduced).
Now, Lindzen’s specific hypothesis hasn’t fared very well in most empirical studies, but the point is that both skeptic scientists like Lindzen and mainstream scientists who support the consensus on AGW agree that one can’t use the sort of simplistic reasoning that you are using to figure out the sign of the cloud feedback.
You are making the same mistake as RW: You are confusing the overall radiative effect of clouds with the feedback effect of clouds when the temperature warms. The former is known to be negative; the sign of the latter depends on the details of whether clouds increase or decrease in coverage as the climate warms and which kinds of clouds increase or decrease (low or high clouds) and how do the clouds change in opacity or height or what have you.”
As best I know, the 20 W/m^2 calculated net cooling effect of clouds is not based any specific observed proportion of cloud types. And BTW, it is huge net cooling effect given clouds are far better IR absorbers than GHGs.
1) Yes, the data clearly shows that clouds increase when the climate warms.
2) Clouds and the various types that form are generally associated with weather, which is largely chaotic and unpredictable in the short term. But the ultimate path of water will remain the same in a warmer world. That is, surface water -> evaporated water -> clouds -> low clouds -> precipitation -> surface water. No matter what happens to relative to humidity in a warmer world, an amount of water equal to what’s leaving the surface must be returning to the surface in any reasonably short period of time.
As stated before many times, the critical issue is what will the net radiative effect of the increased clouds be on incremental warming.
These plots here of 25 years worth of satellite data provide the answer:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_ca.png
http://www.palisad.com/co2/gf/st_wc.png
All that matters for climate change is how the long term average net effect of clouds and water vapor will change in response to climate change (in this case incremental global warming). The net effect of clouds and water vapor in the short term is largely chaotic and unpredictable; however, a clear pattern of net average behavior emerges when you look at decades long term data.
The data, in particular the inflection point around 0C, reveals that the long term aggregate net radiative effect of clouds is only to warm when the surface is snow and/or ice covered. The basic physics of this are fairly simplistic in that snow and ice reflect about the same amount of solar energy as the clouds do, and clouds are significantly more opaque to upwelling IR from the surface and lower atmosphere than the clear sky is; thus whether there are clouds or no clouds, about the same amount of solar energy is reflected back into space, so the presence of clouds is to make the surface warmer by delaying more absorbed solar energy beneath them than is reflected away in total.
The inflection point around 300K is where the combined effect of evaporative cooling and cloud caused cooling (from solar reflection) is so strong the Sun cannot heat the surface above about 300K over the oceans, which indicates really strong combined net negative feedback of clouds and water vapor in the tropics.
“As best I know, the 20 W/m^2 calculated net cooling effect of clouds is not based any specific observed proportion of cloud types.”
Yes, because it is a statement about the net effect of clouds in the current climate system, i.e., where they have their current proportion of clouds of each type. That is one reason why it is not trivial to figure out how the effect of clouds will change in a warming climate.
The rest of your post is just repeating your completely untested hypothesis that you can diagnose the cloud feedback in this simplistic way. There is no way of knowing whether you can simplistically look at the current distribution of cloudiness with variation of temperature across the Earth and make any firm conclusions about how this will change in a warming climate. None of the climate scientists working in the field seem to think that you can, and even a skeptic like Richard Lindzen doesn’t agree with you, basing his conjecture on a mechanism that violates both of your assumptions (i.e., that cloudiness will increase as the climate warms and that such an increase in cloudiness necessarily leads to a cooling effect).
Test your hypothesis by making a similar plot to the ones you show but from output of climate models running in the current climate state. Since most of them have a positive net cloud feedback, your hypothesis would argue that a similar plot done for them would yield a different picture, without that inflection point. If this is indeed the case, you might have a decent hypothesis. However, if it isn’t, then your hypothesis that this is any sort of good diagnosis of the climate feedback in response to warming is mistaken. My prediction is that you will find the latter, but who knows?
“None of the climate scientists working in the field seem to think that you can”
Of course they don’t – it would ruin the hoax if they did.
But the fact remains that my study* shows a direct correlation between mean precipitation and temperature over 30 year periods.
And no one has ever produced a study showing any evidence what-so-ever that mean levels of water vapor cause the surface to be nearly all of 33 degrees warmer.
*
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
Data …
City, Country/State, Continent, Altitude, Maximum, Minimum, Rainfall, Adj* Max, Adj Min
01: Manaus, Brazil, SA, 39m, 27.3, 18.7, 238.7, 23.4, 14.8
02: Goiania, Brazil, SA, 749m, 30.1, 19.5, 209.6, 31.1, 20.5
03: Kadoma, Zimbabwe, AF, 1160m, 28.6, 17.7, 183.2, 32.5, 21.6
04: Halls Creek, Western Australia, AU, 422m, 36.6, 24.4, 164.9, 35.4, 23.2
05: Charters Towers, Queensland, AU, 336m, 33.5, 22.4, 164.7, 31.7, 20.6
06: Pedro Juan Caballero, Paraguay, SA, 563m, 29.9, 20.4, 160.4, 29.6, 20.1
07: Mariscal Jose Felix Estigarribia, Paraguay, SA, 151m, 35.4, 22.9, 129.3, 32.0, 19.5
08: Mount Isa, Queensland, AU, 356m, 36.4, 23.7, 117.3, 34.6, 21.9
09: Francistown, Botswana, AF, 1001m, 30.8, 18.9, 115.5, 33.8, 21.9
10: Maun, Botswana, AF, 943m, 32.2, 19.8, 109.4, 34.8, 22.4
11: Ghanzi, Botswana, AF, 1100m, 32.4, 19.3, 104, 36.4, 23.3
12: Longreach, Queensland, AU, 193m, 37.1, 23.3, 73.0, 33.8, 20.0
13: Beitbridge, Zimbabwe, AF, 456m, 33.5, 21.9, 56.8, 32.3, 20.7,
14: Paraburdoo, Western Australia, AU, 389m, 41.2, 26.0, 51.4, 39.5, 24.3
15: Alice Springs, Northern Territory, AU, 545m, 36.9, 21.8, 39.9, 36.5, 21.4
Joel,
“Yes, because it is a statement about the net effect of clouds in the current climate system, i.e., where they have their current proportion of clouds of each type. That is one reason why it is not trivial to figure out how the effect of clouds will change in a warming climate.”
The point you seem to be missing is varying cloud coverage and the cloud types that make up the varying coverage are basically driven by random short term chaos in the system (i.e. the random chaos associated with weather). Short term chaos like this has no affect on the long term average behavior of the system (only the path it took to manifest the long term average behavior), and the long term average behavior is all that matters for climate change.
“The rest of your post is just repeating your completely untested hypothesis that you can diagnose the cloud feedback in this simplistic way. There is no way of knowing whether you can simplistically look at the current distribution of cloudiness with variation of temperature across the Earth and make any firm conclusions about how this will change in a warming climate.
Occam’s razor is always one of science’s best tools. The data in the plots do provide the average long term net dynamics of clouds and water vapor; moreover, they also provide a clear physical reason why the net radiative effect of clouds is to cool by such a large amount. Mainstream climate science doesn’t even provide or know the physical reason why clouds cool by so much, yet this is such basic starting point that would need to be known before they could accurately predict what the net effect would be on incremental warming.
BTW, less significant are the 2.5 degree slice averages than just the overall pattern which is really the key revealer. It simply shows that above about OC, which roughly corresponds to where the surface is not snow and/or ice covered, the more clouds there are (independent of the types of clouds that make up the amount), it tends to be cooler and when there are fewer clouds, it tends to warmer. Below about OC, the opposite is the case.
“None of the climate scientists working in the field seem to think that you can, and even a skeptic like Richard Lindzen doesn’t agree with you, basing his conjecture on a mechanism that violates both of your assumptions (i.e., that cloudiness will increase as the climate warms and that such an increase in cloudiness necessarily leads to a cooling effect).”
As best I know, Lindzen’s so-called IRIS hypothesis is just one proposed mechanism as to how the net negative feedback may work and is not exclusionary to other potential fundamental mechanisms. I’m also no so sure Lindzen would disagree with this interpretation of the data, as the author derives the same feedback factor as him (about 0.7C per 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing) and does so using very similar methods:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens/index.html
“Test your hypothesis by making a similar plot to the ones you show but from output of climate models running in the current climate state. Since most of them have a positive net cloud feedback, your hypothesis would argue that a similar plot done for them would yield a different picture, without that inflection point. If this is indeed the case, you might have a decent hypothesis. However, if it isn’t, then your hypothesis that this is any sort of good diagnosis of the climate feedback in response to warming is mistaken. My prediction is that you will find the latter, but who knows?”
The data in the plots is nearly 3 decades worth and directly measured, but exactly how the climate models derive positive cloud feedback is not clear and is ultimately based on heuristics, i.e. guesses based on a boatload of assumptions. Is the positive feedback in the models from decreased cloudiness in response to warming or greater increased IR opacity than increased solar reflection from increased cloudiness in response to warming. I’ve understood it’s the latter, but if it’s the former then that seems really far fetched, if not spectacularly physically illogical.
–Is the positive feedback in the models from decreased cloudiness in response to warming or greater increased IR opacity than increased solar reflection from increased cloudiness in response to warming. I’ve understood it’s the latter, but if it’s the former then that seems really far fetched, if not spectacularly physically illogical.–
It seems decrease cloudiness in daytime tropics, would a significant warming effect. Though I don’t know how you could get this.
Significant tropical surface ocean movement as what occurs with El Nino could do it, but don’t I know how one could get more than what we “normally” get.
“The point you seem to be missing is varying cloud coverage and the cloud types that make up the varying coverage are basically driven by random short term chaos in the system (i.e. the random chaos associated with weather).”
No…There can be a systematic change in this with warming of the climate.
“I’m also no so sure Lindzen would disagree with this interpretation of the data, as the author derives the same feedback factor as him (about 0.7C per 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing) and does so using very similar methods…”
Well, I would say the fact that they get similar results but have very different and conflicting mechanisms to get there may have more to do with the fact that they are both strongly inclined toward wanting the climate sensitivity to be low. It does not take away from the fact that there is a direct conflict between what you claim those graphs show and what Lindzen claimed would happen with his iris effect.
“The data in the plots is nearly 3 decades worth and directly measured, but exactly how the climate models derive positive cloud feedback is not clear and is ultimately based on heuristics, i.e. guesses based on a boatload of assumptions. Is the positive feedback in the models from decreased cloudiness in response to warming or greater increased IR opacity than increased solar reflection from increased cloudiness in response to warming. I’ve understood it’s the latter, but if it’s the former then that seems really far fetched, if not spectacularly physically illogical.”
If you look at FAQ 7.1 in Chapter 7 (on pp. 593-594) of the IPCC AQR5 Working Group I report, they say that the main two predictions of the models that lead to a positive cloud feedback are:
(1) High clouds rise in height as the troposphere deepens and this leads to a larger difference in temperature between the surface and the clouds, which means a larger greenhouse effect due to these high clouds.
(2) A reduction in mid- and low-level cloudiness (elsewhere I’ve seen it said that these are mainly marine boundary layer clouds) and a shift of storm tracks poleward in regions with less solar insolation. Both of these result in a decrease in albedo.
It has also been said that the biggest variation in the climate sensitivity for different models comes from (2). See, for example, this paper: http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~jldufres/publi/2005/Bony.Dufresne-grl-2005.pdf
It also concludes that there are discrepancies between the models and empirical data on interannual sensitivity of clouds to temperature changes but that the high-sensitivity models generally do somewhat better than the low-sensitivity models at reproducing things.
Joel,
“No…There can be a systematic change in this with warming of the climate.”
Can be, yes. Lots of things can hypothetically occur. However, the point you are missing is there are changes in such distributions from year to year even as the global temperature barely changes. It’s random weather driven chaos and not of any practical use in determining the long term net average effect incremental clouds will have on the climate.
“Well, I would say the fact that they get similar results but have very different and conflicting mechanisms to get there may have more to do with the fact that they are both strongly inclined toward wanting the climate sensitivity to be low. It does not take away from the fact that there is a direct conflict between what you claim those graphs show and what Lindzen claimed would happen with his iris effect.”
Lindzen’s IRIS hypothesis is not that of a reduction in overall cloudiness, but instead a reduction in cirrus clouds. His hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it’s perfectly consistent with the physics I have laid out.
Besides, a reduction in overall cloudiness would surely result in additional warming, because more solar energy is let through than prior in that case. So Lindzen’s hypothesis is definitely not that.
“If you look at FAQ 7.1 in Chapter 7 (on pp. 593-594) of the IPCC AQR5 Working Group I report, they say that the main two predictions of the models that lead to a positive cloud feedback are:
(1) High clouds rise in height as the troposphere deepens and this leads to a larger difference in temperature between the surface and the clouds, which means a larger greenhouse effect due to these high clouds.
(2) A reduction in mid- and low-level cloudiness (elsewhere I’ve seen it said that these are mainly marine boundary layer clouds) and a shift of storm tracks poleward in regions with less solar insolation. Both of these result in a decrease in albedo.”
This is ultimately really just heuristics, i.e. guessing, and is contradicted by the long term average data, which reveals a very clear overall pattern.
It has also been said that the biggest variation in the climate sensitivity for different models comes from (2). See, for example, this paper: http://www.lmd.jussieu.fr/~jldufres/publi/2005/Bony.Dufresne-grl-2005.pdf
It also concludes that there are discrepancies between the models and empirical data on interannual sensitivity of clouds to temperature changes but that the high-sensitivity models generally do somewhat better than the low-sensitivity models at reproducing things.”
That’s somewhat interesting. I didn’t read the whole thing in detail, but it looks like they are using linear regressions to measure feedback response to surface temperature changes. That is highly suspect since cause and effect, i.e. forcing from feedback, for temperature changes cloud changes, are probably not accurately accounted for using that methodology. That is, are the cloud changes themselves (if driven by random chaos), mostly causing the temperature changes (forcing) or are the cloud changes mostly responding to the temperature changes (feedback). If it’s the former, the observed TOA net flux changes will not give an accurate feedback measure.
The big advantage of looking at the hemispheres separately is the overwhelming and obvious distinction between cause and effect, i.e. forcing from feedback.
http://www.palisad.com/co2/plots/wbg/nh/gain.png
http://www.palisad.com/co2/plots/wbg/sh/gain.png
That is, in each hemisphere, the temperature changes are overwhelmingly caused by the large changes in incident solar power and the cloud changes slightly lag or coincide with the temperature changes. In other words, it’s overwhelmingly obvious the cloud changes are not causing the temperature changes.
Also, it is pretty clear that clouds normally act as negative feedback to normal weather/climate processes affecting surface temps. We see this in the seasonal hemispheres, as you point out, where the ‘net CRE’ grows strongly negative in summer and positive in winter:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_toa_cre_net_flux_september-climate_year-1.gif
We see this same pattern also in the tropics, both on a daily basis (from moist convection responding to surface solar heating), and during things like major ENSO-events. It is a well-known phenomenon that tropical cloud cover during El Niños works to reduce warming (that is, going against the rising trend), while during La Niñas their effect is to reduce cooling (that is, going against the falling trend).
– – –
Also, this talk about a positive WV feedback to warming seems to confuse different subsystems of the Earth. A warming atmosphere does not in itself magically cause it to hold more WV. It doesn’t just appear out of nowhere. A warming atmosphere is rather caused by more WV being injected into it. From the surface. It is the SURFACE warming that causes more atmospheric WV, from higher evaporation rates.
So more evaporation is a NEGATIVE feedback to SURFACE warming, and an indirect CAUSE of subsequent tropospheric warming, by transferring all this extra latent heat into it, so that when it eventually condenses and turns into an excess of clouds and precipitation, a surplus of heat is released:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/rain-vs-heating.png
The funny thing is, there is indeed a tropical tropospheric ‘hot spot’ during El Niños, just as there’s a tropical tropospheric ‘cold spot’ during La Niñas.
However, these are short-term tropospheric amplifying phenomena. Theory predicts that the tropical troposphere will also amplify the surface signal in the long term. But this prediction is something one has been utterly unable to verify in the real Earth system. Something’s apparently missing in our general understanding …
BTW, Joel — do you perhaps see that the analysis of the data I presented on clouds and water vapor shows that Doug’s hypothesis that water vapor cools is almost surely not correct.
I’ll give you a hint, and it involves the inflection point around 0C in this plot:
http://www.palisad.com/co2/sens/st_ca.png
If Doug’s hypothesis were correct, the inflection point would need to not exist. Do you know why?
I wrote:
“shows that Doug’s hypothesis that water vapor cools…”
I should clarify what I meant by this, and that is Doug claims that water vapor does not act as a GHG and/or does not act to elevate the surface temperature above what it would otherwise be.
Doug also claims the same about clouds.
If you can’t be bothered reading the whole study in the paper linked at http://climate-change-theory.com then read the summary and peruse the data in this comment above.
Go back to this comment everyone.
It’s midnight here, so I’m signing off.
Why does world at Earth distance from the sun radiate an average of about 240 watts per square meter and is warm enough to have liquid water cover most of it’s surface?
A planet which was entirely covered with water and had 1 atm
of gases would also on average radiate about 240 watt per square meter.
And it seems to me that such world completely covered with water would have an higher average temperature as compared to Earth.
But even though this world completely covered with ocean would have a higher average temperature, Earth has higher air temperatures than what one could ever get on this world completely covered with water.
Or land surfaces on Earth reach an air temperature as high as
56.7 C [“Furnace Creek Ranch (formerly Greenland Ranch), Death Valley, California 10 July 1913”- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records ]
And many other times and places on various land area on Earth has had air temperature above 50 C.
In addition to ground surface temperature [which isn’t as commonly measured] temperature can exceed 70 C.
So world covered with ocean would not get air temperature much above 40 C nor surface temperatures above 40 C, but rather it’s average temperature should be warmer.
In a real world or in a model one could could have range of possible average temperature. And saying it should be warmer than average temperature 15 C. And I suspect the average temperature would actually be about 25 C and with average ocean temperature of 10 C or warmer [our Earth average ocean temperature is about 3 C].
It seems possible that world completely covered in ocean
could have an average temperature of 5 C or say 30 C. Or my guess of average temperature could have a large error range.
And 5 C and 30 C would be very different worlds. The 30 C world would have no sea ice. And the 5 C world would still have a fairly warm tropics but half [or more than 1/2] the world would covered with sea ice.
But as said I think this world covered with ocean would have higher average temperature than 15 and think it’s most likely to be around 25 C.
But the point I am leading to is that within the extreme range of 5 to 30 C average global temperature, the 240 watt average which earth radiates would roughly be the same for the world covered with ocean.
Or the water world which a bit cooler than Earth, or a lot warmer than Earth, would not have much difference in the average amount it radiates to space.
Or 240 watts has little to do with the temperature at the surface of a planet.
Now, there are couple reasons that that would be the case.
One reason, is that it’s the 1 atm of atmosphere which largely dictates how much is radiated into space.
Or a world will 2 atm would radiate quite a bit less than 240 watts, and .5 atm atmosphere would radiate considerably more than 240 watts per square meter.
Another reason is the tropics are essentially are unchanged-
in either case of 5 or 30 C average global temperature.
Or the geometry hasn’t change and tropics still [as with Earth] receives most or the sun’s energy.
Does or can greenhouse gases affect how much the earth radiates an average of 240 watts per square meter.
No, not really.
Though greenhouse gases can effect the average temperature
by some amount.
And of course the world covered with water will have the greenhouse gas of H20 and there would clouds with there water droplets and water is largest component of the greenhouse effect.
Firstly, it radiates 340W/m^2 equal to the input. You forgot to add the reflected radiation. The difference between input and output rarely varies by more than ±0.6%. Any radiative imbalance is the result of natural climate change, not the cause of climate change.
The reason why the surface temperature of Earth (and Venus etc) is hotter than the effective radiating temperature (found about half way up the troposphere) is explained by the new 21st Century breakthrough in physics which is proved from the Second Law of Thermodynamics in my paper linked from http://climate-change-theory.com from which you will learn heaps that will blow your mind.
I bet you can’t prove the physics therein wrong. Just try!
“I bet you can’t prove the physics therein wrong. Just try!”
I believe you said H20 gas cools the atmosphere.
Say one had two 100 by 100 meter columns of air which goes from sea level to 100 km elevation.
Say the air outside columns had 1 cm of water in it- roughly .1 % or 1000 ppm.
And one column has 1 mm [100 ppm] of water in it and the other column had 4 cm of water in it [4000 ppm].
Both columns are insulated.
And say in evening the air in both is 20 C. Does column with
4 cm water cool quicker.
Or say columns are dry air lapse rate and wet air lapse rate.
Dry: “The rate of temperature decrease is 9.8 C°/km”
Wet: A typical value is around 5 C°/km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
And surrounding air at 6.5 C/km
And all are 15 C at zero elevation,
So with 6.5 C lapse and at 5000 meter it is -17.5 C
And Dry: -34 C
And wet: -12 C
Does the wet column cool at faster rate?
And if so how much faster?
No.
Moist air cools more slowly than dry air.
WV is a GHG and catches/re-radiates LW. On cooling to the fog point then condensation releases LH and arrsts cooling further. Vis adiabatic ascent of a moist parcel.
All basic meteorology.
Toneb says:
April 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM
No.
Moist air cools more slowly than dry air.
WV is a GHG and catches/re-radiates LW.
Yes, greenhouse gases do absorb and re-radiate certain LW.
-On cooling to the fog point then condensation releases LH and arrests cooling further.–
The condensation adds heat to the water droplet and water droplet can conduct/convect heat to gases and also water droplet will radiate heat to surface or space or to other greenhouse gases. And of course if water droplets are warmed enough they can evaporate back into gas.
Or generally water droplets are at same time evaporating and condensing and also can combine with other water droplets.
And if cold enough droplets can form into ice particles [giving off more heat from this change of state].
And of course if H20 gas becomes liquid/solid it’s no longer a gas and thereby lowers H2O partial pressure and general density/pressure of the atmosphere. Just as the creation of water vapor from water also increases H2O partial pressure and overall increases pressure and density. Though in localized region H2O is lighter than atmospheric gases and will make per cubic meter of atmospheric gas less dense [causing it to rise]. But water vapor is displacing other gases from the cubic meter, so overall one increasing density and pressure of the atmosphere when one increases water vapor, and decreasing it when it condenses.
And it’s this process of condensing and evaporation which alter the lapse rate.
–Vis adiabatic ascent of a moist parcel.
All basic meteorology.–
Yes.
But Doug thinks H20 gas cools the atmosphere and he wanted me to disprove his physios.
And so I asked him how much he thinks it would cool the atmosphere.
Deductions about the extent of water vapor cooling can be made by doing studies such as that in the Appendix of my book and paper linked from http://climate-change-theory.com.
Roughly, in a very dry region the radiation properties of water vapor (NOT latent heat release as per AGW garbage) reduce the gravitationally induced temperature gradient to, say 8 degrees per kilometer. In moist regions it may be 6.5 degrees per kilometer. If the pivoting altitude (defined in my book and paper) is about 3.5Km then the difference in the supported surface temperatures (explained in my book and paper) would be about 5 degrees (1.5 x 3.5) which is in keeping with the study results because they are based on means of each third and so the differences are not as extreme …
Means of Adjusted Daily Maximum and Daily Minimum Temperatures
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
Water vapor could not raise the surface temperature whilst at the same time reducing the temperature gradient, thus making the increase in temperature in the upper troposphere far more than the assumed increase at the surface. If that could happen and you could prove it happens with empirical data, then you would be half way towards getting the $5,000 reward I have had on offer for over two years for the first to do so. Then you also just need to prove my development from the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be wrong. See http://climate-change-theory.com for details.
Water vapor in the lower troposphere radiates energy to WV in the upper troposphere. Water vapor in the upper troposphere can nearly always be warmed by incident solar radiation in non-polar regions (as per Stefan-Boltzann calculations) but that is not often the case for water vapor in the lower troposphere which is already too hot to be warmed by radiation from the Sun, especially when clouds above it may be shading it from the Sun anyway. As I have explained in another comment, direct solar radiation raises the surface temperature only for far less than 20% of Earth’s surface.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm
RW this has the latest data on cloud cover versus temperature . Many graphs.ch
http://www.climate4you.com/images/CloudCoverLowLevelObservationsSince1983.gif
A graph of trend of low cloud coverage. Notice low clouds have been decreasing.
From the article I just sent which concludes and I agree that a 1% increase in clouds overall will result in a .07c decline in air temperature.
As mentioned above, it has been suggested that the special conditions during the period following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption might affect the association between monthly low cloud cover and global temperature shown in the diagram above. However, removing the data from the period with low temperatures after the eruption (199107-199212) only has a very small effect on the statistics as can be seen from the text in the diagram. So the conclusion remains that an global increase in low cloud cover of 1 percent empirically is associated with a decrease in global surface air temperature of about 0.07oC. Click here to see a similar analysis for the total global cloud cover.
–From the article I just sent which concludes and I agree that a 1% increase in clouds overall will result in a .07c decline in air temperature. —
I think it matters a lot where and when the clouds are.
And what does 1% increase overall mean?
Clouds persisting 1% longer could be an example of more clouds.
One have the clouds be bigger. One could have more clouds.
Etc.
“The new global datasets show that clouds typically cover almost two-thirds of the planet, some 10 percent more than had been thought. Oceans are significantly cloudier than continents.”
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#DISTRIBANDCHAR
So oceans cover most of the Earth and apparently per square km or area of ocean there is more clouds than on land.
The least amount of ocean compared to land in in the northern hemisphere. The highest percentage of ocean is in southern temperate zone, and next is tropics.
So the southern temperate plus Tropical zone have most ocean
area, and the ocean area has most cloud.
Plus let’s add in that Southern Hemisphere in it’s summer is closer to the Sun and receives more sunlight than Northern Hemisphere.
So say in terms of amount of clouds it was 100, then southern temperate and tropical ocean could +80 and everywhere else is the remaining 20 or less. So 1% increase getting the vast majority of clouds to southern hemisphere, or clumping it together and evenly distributing?
So that about where. And then one has when- more in summer than winter, more at night than day.
Continuing:
“Slightly more than 70 percent of the sky over oceans is cloudy, but a little less than 60% of the total land area is usually covered with clouds. Almost a fifth of the continental surface is covered by large areas of clear sky, whereas less than 10 percent of the ocean surface is. ”
And:
“Cloud over the ocean, for instance, are different in some ways from clouds over land. The tops of ocean clouds are generally slightly more than a kilometer (3300 feet) lower than the tops of clouds over land, but ocean clouds reflect about 3% more sunlight on average than clouds over land.”
They get into the details if you bring up the various charts.
They show tropical cloud cover both for high and low clouds and global high cloud coverage and low cloud coverage etc.
Go to this comment as I’m getting too busy now with my contacts with politicians and physicists to reiterate answers to gullible brainwashed people like Norman, Tim and Joel. My answers are already written at http://climate-change-theory.com anyway, where the physics is correct and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.
Doug what I think you need to do to give yourself a more credible stance is prove this through data and experimentation.
Why don’t you and the ones that believe in what you are saying is correct develop a model that would simulate what you suggest?
Hi Salvatore,
you wrote:
“Doug what I think you need to do to give yourself a more credible stance is prove this through data and experimentation.”
And I fully agree with it, but you continue:
“Why don’t you and the ones that believe in what you are saying is correct develop a model that would simulate what you suggest?”
Instead, this is a complete nonsense for me. Having wrote a bunch of various softwares and firmwares and knowing that Doug has a good experience in this field too, I believe that he doesn’t have any problem to write a simulator which show he is perfectly right, but in that case it proofs nothing else that in the computer memory anything is possible.
IMHO the final goal of science shouldn’t never be a simulation, the final goal of science should be matching the theory with the reality of facts.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
–Instead, this is a complete nonsense for me. Having wrote a bunch of various softwares and firmwares and knowing that Doug has a good experience in this field too, I believe that he doesn’t have any problem to write a simulator which show he is perfectly right, but in that case it proofs nothing else that in the computer memory anything is possible.–
I would have a problem to writing a simulator. I would guess my approach would be to find a simulator, play with it, and then perhaps learn a bit about it, and fiddle with it. I suppose eventually I could build one. But just building one
would similar to me building airplane- or worse.
–IMHO the final goal of science shouldn’t never be a simulation, the final goal of science should be matching the theory with the reality of facts.–
I tend to agree, but if one can easily make simulator, I would tend to make simulations- if that is what you are good.
I am curious how easy it would be.
It seems to me it would be quite difficult to simulate a lake on Mars. Else I would have seen one- certainly someone should be interested in it.
An example of simulation of planet:
http://s11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/index/
And specifically:
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Sky_dragon/topic/7516417/1/
I was completely useless in terms of making any code for it, but I found it an interesting exercise and I wondered how close to reality it was. Now this kind of simulation was within my able to learn how to do, it was matter learning excel, I learned a little bit, but it’s something apparently I interested enough to spend much time on. So spend hours on it, but something needs more time. So briefly, not my thing.
I see the great advantage of such a thing is to explain something to wider audience. And obviously one look at the parameters and change them. Anyhow that was simple model and lake on Mars could as simple or far more complex.
I guess as far as a lake on Mars, it’s my belief that the larger the lake, the different the result would be- in terms of evaporation. Or interaction of local evaporation with regional and global amount of H20 in Mars atmosphere.
And/or how much heat needed [say from nuclear reactor or solar heating] to keep at lake 10 C.
Or other things like huge greenhouse on the Moon. And etc.
thanks
Hi gbaikie,
my point was that a simulator is nothing more than a software that represents the result of the functions the designer embedded in it, no matter they are right or wrong.
For example, Tomb Raider is a good simulation of a young well shaped chick who can handle two machine guns a time, one on her left arm and one on her right one. Lara Croft lived first in the fantastic mind of her designer, then she lived in the computer memory of thousands of Tomb Raider’s enthusiasts and in the virtual world of a well sold movie.
Anyways, in the real world, a chicks with that silhouette almost surely dislocated her shoulders after the first two machine gun shots.
A simulation can only add more uncertainties to a theory because writing it the SW designer could add errors.
I just wonder reading scientist asking for a simulator to check a theory, instead of analyzing the equations involved in that theory. The review of other theories should be a consistent part of the work of a scientist.
Doug could be right or wrong, but in my opinion adding a simulator to his theory makes no difference.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
No he couldn’t be wrong because the Second Law of Thermodynamics couldn’t be.
Hi Doug,
my “Doug could be right or wrong” was a generic assertion about you (just because Salvatore asked you to write a simulator).
Indeed, I was just arguing about the uselessness of a simulator for demonstrating a theory.
IMHO a simulator is a powerful and useful tool for check the results of known theories in a particular system before apply those theories in the real world for solving real problems. Nothing more nothing less.
They should never be used to proof anything.
Have a great day.
Massimo
The experiments with centrifugal force may not prove what I am saying is correct, but they support the hypothesis and do not in any way disprove it. No empirical evidence disproves it to my knowledge.
See http://climate-change-theory.com – as viewed by over 8,750 since January.
–my point was that a simulator is nothing more than a software that represents the result of the functions the designer embedded in it, no matter they are right or wrong.–
It’s a good point to keep in mind.
Excuse me, but I can tend to be excessively philosophical, and therefore, what I would say is, what you say about a simulator, is also true of life and/or existence.
So, it’s a good point to keep in mind, but…
–For example, Tomb Raider is a good simulation of a young well shaped chick who can handle two machine guns a time, one on her left arm and one on her right one. Lara Croft lived first in the fantastic mind of her designer, then she lived in the computer memory of thousands of Tomb Raider’s enthusiasts and in the virtual world of a well sold movie.–
“Lara Croft lived first in the fantastic mind of her designer,” is what I mean.
Art is mostly about prying stuff out of one’s skull [and/or heart].
I am big fan of art, particularly when there is something to pry out.
And art is essential part of science.
Other essential parts of science are: exploration, technology, free trade, and liberty/democracy.
Hi gbaikie,
“And art is essential part of science.”
I perfectly agree with you.
IMHO imagination (that is your “art”) should be a fundamental part of the scientific process, it must be the trigger the research which should lead to the final verification of the imagined theory.
My worry about the scientific community of these times is that many think that doing science is reading books and verifying what is write in them just simulating the theory with a computer. Not that indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Comment #1500
To wrap it up, the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface of Venus is about 10% of what Earth’s surface receives. If Venus had an atmosphere with the same mixture of gases as Earth, but the same height as the actual Venus atmosphere, then the surface temperature of Venus would be fairly similar to the 735K that it is, because the intermolecular radiation in the Venus atmosphere reduces the gravitationally induced temperature gradient by nearly as much as does water vapor on Earth by its radiation, not its latent heat release.
This cooling effect of 1% or so of water vapor is greater than that of over 97% of carbon dioxide on Venus because water vapor radiates in many more frequencies than does carbon dioxide. The Venus gradient is reduced by about 20% to 25% whilst Earth’s is reduced by about a third. For the Uranus troposphere (and Neptune’s) the reduction is very slight – about 5%, maybe 10% at the most.
In every planetary troposphere gravity sets up a density gradient and (simultaneously) a temperature gradient. This all happens at the molecular level as physicists can now understand using Kinetic Theory and the better understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that has been talked about since the late 1980’s and which climatologists and meteorologists deliberately ignore because it spoils their carbon dioxide hoax.
The important thing to understand is that the temperature gradient represents a “sloping thermal plane” in three dimensions in the troposphere. Because the slope is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, in regions where it is perfectly formed in calm conditions at night all further heat transfers spreading over that plane cease. It is analogous to when rain falls on a part of a lake and the water spreads out in all accessible directions until, when calm (mechanical equilibrium) conditions eventuate, all further flow stops.
Just like that water which was driven away in all directions from the location where new rainwater was being added, so too is molecular kinetic energy (thermal energy) driven away by heat diffusion and natural convective heat transfer in all directions away from regions where new thermal energy is being added, usually in one way or another by new solar energy each morning. And it all happens via molecular collisions.
The Sun’s radiation of 168W/m^2 absorbed by the surface cannot, on average, raise the surface temperature above about -41°C, but we know the surface is hotter than that, and the reason is because solar energy is absorbed in the upper troposphere (and clouds) and some of that new energy then spreads out over the sloping thermal plane and reaches the surface. So, yes, the Sun’s radiation can perhaps raise the temperature of something well under 20% of Earth’s surface at any given time, but because it is definitely not doing so more than half the time, it is not that radiation to the surface which is causing the mean surface temperature to be what it is globally. The sloping thermal plane acts like a lid on the whole system and radiative cooling to space almost stops when the thermal plane moves down to its overnight minimum whilst still retaining the same gradient in calm conditions that night. The next day the process reverses and thermal energy starts to raise the whole thermal plane back to the maximum level (but still having the same gradient) and thus the surface temperature is raised, even when clouds block that day’s sunshine from reaching the surface.
Similar things happen om all planets, except that the others have higher tropospheres which render the Sun’s direct radiation to the surface totally useless in terms of raising the temperature. It is these non-radiative heat transfers (all totally 100% due to molecular collisions, not wind of any form) that deliver the required energy and have trapped some energy over the live of the planet under that sloping thermal plane that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
You know where to read about it …
http://climate-change-theory.com