Home/Blog
I continue to see some commenters here supporting the notion that the warmth of the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface can be explained through atmospheric pressure, rather than the so-called “greenhouse effect” (GE). The GE comes from the ability of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to absorb (gain) and emit (lose) infrared radiation at terrestrial temperatures.
Of course, if there is no GE, then global warming cannot be caused by the addition of more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. This view has a pretty widespread following, and I continue to get emails asking me about it.
I consider the “no such thing as a greenhouse effect” people to be wrong, and once again I will try to explain the reasons why. The GE does not contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and without the GE, we would not even have weather in the atmosphere (more on that, below). I have written many posts covering this subject over the years, but since the issue persists, I will go over the high points once again.
WHAT CAUSES TEMPERATURE TO CHANGE?
The first thing we have to agree upon is what causes the temperature (of anything) to change: energy gain and energy loss. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about air, the human body, a car engine, or a pot on the stove…temperature goes up when energy gain exceeds energy loss, and temperature goes down when energy loss exceeds energy gain. This is basic thermodynamics, it is how quantitative temperature changes are estimated when engineers design stuff, in weather forecast models, and in physics calculations in general. If we cannot agree on this basic point there is no reason to continue the discussion.
WHY IS THE ENERGETIC VIEW OF TEMPERATURE IMPORTANT?
The reason why we must talk in terms of an ‘energy budget’ when discussing temperature is that people tend to forget that energy LOSS is just as important as energy GAIN. For example, you cannot compute what the temperature of an object will be by shining sunlight of a known intensity on it. Yes, sunlight is virtually the only source of energy in the climate system, but the average surface temperature of the Earth cannot be estimated from the strength of this source; the processes which control the rate of energy LOSS are also involved. And the Earth’s greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss by the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.
AIR PRESSURE
First, let’s examine the effect of air pressure. It is true that if you take an air parcel at low pressure (say, high in the atmosphere) and bring it down to the surface it will be compressed and its temperature will go up. If no heat is gained or lost to its surroundings (an adiabatic process, and we will ignore the complicating effects of water vapor condensing) the rate of temperature rise is about 9.8 deg. C per kilometer in altitude, the so-called ‘adiabatic lapse rate’.
So, if the atmosphere was continually mixed, and we ignore the effects of water evaporation and condensation, then the atmosphere would be warmer near the surface than at high altitudes, and the temperature would fall off with height at the rate of about 9.8 deg. C/km. This is the basis for the argument that it’s not the greenhouse effect that warms the Earth surface so much (and Venus’ surface dramatically more), but atmospheric pressure, instead.
But this incomplete view has a number of unexplained problems…
For example, what would the absolute temperatures be? The adiabatic lapse rate only tells you how temperature changes with height…not what the actual temperature would be. So, what temperature would you start the parcel of air high in the atmosphere at, before bringing it to the surface and warming it? Why did you choose that initial temperature? Existing theory, with the greenhouse effect, can allow you to compute that temperature from first principles.
And how to explain the effect of convective heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere, if the atmosphere has no way to cool itself? I think that the no-GE folks agree that there is net convective heat transfer from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere (that’s mostly how the atmosphere get heated, by the surface). As part of this, water is also evaporated at the surface which requires energy…this energy is then released high in the atmosphere when the vapor condenses into clouds and precipitation, contributing to the convective heat transfer.
If this convective heating of the atmosphere is continuously occurring, what prevents the atmosphere from warming endlessly? It must have some mechanism of heat loss just as large as the heat gain in order for the temperature to finally settle out around some average value. The answer is that the atmosphere continuously cools by emission of infrared radiation to outer space, primarily by ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, water vapor being the most important, and carbon dioxide being second most important.
But that IR emission occurs in all directions…not just upward. And it’s the downward emission of IR radiation that causes the greenhouse effect.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Anything that emits IR also absorbs IR, and this makes the intuitive understanding of how IR radiation affects the atmospheric temperature profile difficult. Unlike the sun, which is a single (and ultimate) source of energy, every atmospheric layer is both an emitter and absorber of IR energy. The fact we can’t see IR radiation with our eyes further impedes our intuition.
Importantly, the amount of IR energy a parcel of air absorbs is mostly independent of temperature, but the amount it emits is very dependent on temperature. The idea that air emits IR at the same rate it absorbs is, in general, just plain incorrect.
The atmosphere, even though it is colder than the surface of the Earth, emits IR toward the surface. This does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which only says that the NET flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature.
EXAMPLE: Think of two identical, solid plates at the same temperature facing each other. Hopefully we can all agree that there will be no net flow of IR energy between them, because they are both emitting IR at the same intensity.
Now imagine one plate is 10 deg. C cooler than the other…there will be a net flow of IR radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plate, right?
But what if the cooler plate is 200 deg. C cooler than the warm plate, rather than only 10 deg. C cooler? Can we agree that the net flow of IR radiation will be even larger? If so, that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer object…because energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.
If you want to (curiously) argue that the cold plate doesn’t actually emit energy that is absorbed by the warmer plate (as PhD physicist Claes Johnson has argued with me), you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right? Well, that’s all that is required for the existence of the greenhouse effect.
And that’s what happens with the atmosphere…downward IR radiation from the sky reduces the net IR loss by the Earth’s surface, causing it to achieve a higher temperature than it would have if there was no downward radiation from the sky, and the Earth’s surface was allowed to emit IR unimpeded to the cold depths of outer space (2.7 K temperature). It doesn’t matter that the atmosphere is colder than the surface.
How do we know there is downward IR radiation from the sky?
Because it can be measured. Instruments that are selectively sensitive to IR measure changes in temperature within the instrument in response to changes in the balance between incoming and outgoing IR radiation. You can buy a handheld IR thermometer, which is sensitive to a range of IR wavelengths that are only somewhat affected by water vapor and CO2, point it directly upward at a clear sky, and it will register a fairly cold temperature. By itself, this doesn’t prove much. But if you then point it at an oblique angle (say 45 deg), it will register a warmer temperature.
Now, think about what just happened… even though you are pointed the IR thermometer at a cold target, its temperature actually went up! So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still! (If that cold object is warmer that an even colder object it replaces…like the atmosphere at a cold temperature instead of outer space near absolute zero temperature).
This is the most direct proof of the greenhouse effect I can think of. After all, what is the greenhouse effect? It is downward IR radiation from the sky causing the surface temperature to increase, compared to if that downward radiation didn’t exist. That’s exactly what happens within the handheld IR thermometer, and it is going on everywhere on Earth, all the time.
WEATHER WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
One of the features of a greenhouse atmosphere, which many people don’t realize, is that in addition to the lower atmosphere being warmer, the upper atmosphere is colder than it would otherwise be without the greenhouse gases. For example, addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is supposed to warm the surface, but cool the stratosphere and mesosphere. Greenhouse gases destabilize the atmosphere to the point that convection occurs, which then pushes the lapse rate toward a convective one (between dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic). This was first demonstrated with radiative transfer calculations by Manabe and Strickler (1964).
So, it is actually the destabilization of the atmosphere (net radiative warming below, net cooling aloft) by the greenhouse effect that leads to convection, clouds, and precipitation. If the atmosphere could not absorb or emit IR energy at all (a physical impossibility), and if we ignore sunlight absorption by ozone and water vapor, the atmosphere would become the same temperature as the Earth’s surface through direct conduction. This would take a very long period of time to occur, because air is such a good thermal insulator (which is why Styrofoam works so well). This kind of atmosphere is very stable, convectively, and vertical motions would largely cease (there might be some small planetary-scale motions due to the poles being cooler than the tropics.
FINAL COMMENTS
The quasi-adiabatic lapse rate observed in the atmosphere is the result of convective overturning, which itself is caused by destabilization of the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect. The lapse rate, by itself, cannot explain why the surface temperature of the Earth is what it is…it only tells us how the temperature changes with height in response to convective overturning….not what the temperature would be.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect involves radiative fluxes of hundreds of Watts per sq meter, and is included in all of the weather forecast models that are used around the world every day to forecast weather. Without the GE, the models would simply not work; you cannot ignore infrared radiative transfer in the atmosphere. Without downwelling IR radiation from the sky, nighttime on Earth would be much colder than is observed, as 300+ W/m2 of continuous cooling to outer space would cause rapid temperature drops.
Those IR effects are the basis for atmospheric temperature sounding from IR radiometers, flying since the 1980s with the HIRS instruments. The technology simply would not work if CO2 in the atmosphere was no emitting IR radiation upward and downward. The latest NASA AIRS instrument has actually measured the decrease in IR energy from the Earth as CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. This is observational evidence that an increased greenhouse effect reduces the rate of loss of IR energy to outer space, which should lead to some warming.
The IR emission by water vapor, which obscures the satellites view of the surface, can be seen in this GOES 6.7 micron image from this morning. That IR emission is occurring downward as well as upward, contributing to the greenhouse effect.
The fact that you can see the direct effects of the atmospheric greenhouse effect with even a $50 handheld IR thermometer provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect exists.
A few of the comments which will follow this post will no doubt argue against what I just presented. Fancy, technical buzzwords will be thrown around to convince you why I’m wrong. Australian Doug Cotton (who sometimes posts comments under fake names) is the leading proponent of this view. Yes, I agree with Doug that if you take a parcel of at at a certain temperature and compress it (increase its pressure), its temperature will rise…but this comes nowhere near to quantitatively explaining why the Earth’s surface temperature (or upper atmospheric temperature) is what it is.
Let me just say that, the concepts I have outlined above have been used to predict what the average temperature profile of the atmosphere looks like, from first principles and based upon laboratory measurements of the IR absorption by various gases, and they work very well (we have done this ourselves). You can run a time-dependent 1D model with an assumed atmosphere near absolute zero, or even at 1,000 deg. C, and the physics in the model (involving physcially-based energy gain and energy loss terms in every atmospheric layer) will gradually produce an average temperature profile that looks very much like that observed in the real atmosphere.
Until the no-greenhouse effect people can do the same, their hand waving arguments will be only that: hand waving arguments. And even if they could do it, how would they justify ignoring infrared radiative transfer effects in the atmosphere, which have been so well established for many years?
Finally, just because the greenhouse effect exists does not mean that global warming in response to increasing carbon dioxide will be a serious problem…that is another issue entirely, and involves things like cloud feedbacks. I’m only referring to the existence of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect, which to me is largely settled science.
If you are interested in my many other posts on other aspects of the greenhouse effect, just enter that search term into the search box near the top of the sidebar panel to the right.
I agree that Earth greenhouse effect is a largely settled science. But the numerical approach published by IPCC (i.e., climate sensitivity parameters, etc.) are also largely wrong.
climate sensitivity is the net result of the behavior of the total climate model responding to radiative forcings, and so depends upon very uncertain parameterizations due to clouds, among other uncertainties.
Thank you very much Mr. Dr. Roy Spencer; I am quite surprised as I did not expect a reply from yourself. As you say there are many uncertainties for preciselly determining the exact value of parameters like climate sensitivity. One of the most important uncertainties is related to the values of global temperature.
I have been compiling the land+ocean global temperature anomalies from Berkeley Earth and from NASA/GISS; and also the lower tropospheric temperature from RSS and from UAH; but in all of these data I find a huge issue:
(A) imagine that any instrument for meassuring global temperature has an error of +-0.01 degree. Imagine also that in every single point of Earth at a given time their temperature is 15.2 C. Lets set 14.55 C as Earth’s global temperature. In this (A) case we get a +0.65 C of global temperature variability, and an instrumental error of +-0.01 C.
(B) now imagine we meassure the actual global temperature and get that some areas it is 25C, others 0C … and that in a global average the temperature is 15.2C. BUT in this other (B) case, we get a +0.65 C of global temperature variability, an instrumental error of +-0.01 C AND a statistical error of +-2.6 C (this being due to interpolations, averagings, etc.).
Whether case (B) can be real or not: we do not know. As in each global temperature meassure I have compiled: no information is provided about their actual uncertainties.
I wonder Mr. Dr. Roy Spencer if you could give us, in a future post (or if you have already provided it in a past post), some information on how it is calculated the statistical error from the UAH raw data.
Dr Spencer, with respect, how can you account for the fact that your 1D model works when the surface attenuation of radiosity is a function of 3 dimensional geometry. ie radiation is a vector quantity, a surface radiates into 2π steradians so most of the attenuation is from the cancellation of horizontal vector components in the line by line analysis that retrieves the net radiative flux?
You make up a model. You give it limited scope, punch in some numbers from gravitational products, to explain the obvious. Remove the products and claim it doesn’t work without them. I can understand that.
Dr Spencer, sir, you are making a schoolboy error, in thinking, that Watt for Watt, long wave radiative potential, unavailable for work or power, is Watt for Watt the equivalent of solar, of which every photon is of an energy available to increase the mean kinetic energy.
Natures inability to tap into the downwelling radiation you claim is twice as powerful as the Sun must, supported by the failure of the zest of industry, manifest itself as a doubt.
GoeffWood, why can’t you comment downwards?.
I mean, by replying at my comment you are diffusing my query. It was a legitimate query, as in order talk about greenhouse effect vs. climate sensitivity parameters, we must first be sure on how we are accuratelly measuring global temperatures.
For example, Cederlf et al’s “Assessing atmospheric …” paper sets, for the period 1979-2014, the global temperatures: ERAI 0.12+-0.03, GISS 0.16+-0.03, HAD 0.16+-0.03, UAH 0.11+-0.05, RSS 0.12+-0.05. But I cannot understand any of these 0.03 or 0.05 errors as the statistical errors must be much higher than these (notice that we are interpolting & averaging temperatures from many different Earth’s areas).
Antonio. My apologies to you. I did not intend to redirect your thread. I am sometimes lacking in tact with subjects I feel strongly about.
I feel that, unlike many traditional sciences, climatological data is often presented without error bars to a rather uncomfortable precision which implies great, but unverified accuracy. As far as I understand instrumental precision in temperature is often +/- 0.1deg, and this should be at least carried through if this is the case.
In any model with significant radiation involved, then temperatures cannot be simply averaged do to the T^4 dependence of flux. Effective mean radiative temperatures (physically sensible means) are calculated from the mean of fluxes as fluxes balance at equilibrium but temperatures don’t.
The Diviner team measuring the Moon with millions of dollars investment in lunar satellite radiometer don’t get this and, regrettably produce ‘stupid’ average temperatures for the lunar surface which cannot balance fluxes. Nor will they respond to emails asking them to ratify the averages quoted.
Antonio, if a team of ‘scientists’ cannot respect basic heat transfer rules then I believe you are in a strong position to question the accuracy of data.
Sorry again for the rude interruption.
Geoff Wood:
“Effective mean radiative temperatures (physically sensible means) are calculated from the mean of fluxes as fluxes balance at equilibrium but temperatures don’t.”
I agree. The whole concept of a “global average temperature” is a non physical myth. Temperatures are not additive physical quantities and thus cannot be averaged. Especially when they represent the temperature of different media like land and oceans. I posted an article about this on Judith Curry’s site:
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/are-land-sea-averages-meaningful-2/
Land varies more than water since it has lower specific heat capacity. This means that if we wish to assess the effect of radiative changes to the energy budget, land+sea is biased warmer by the land temps. In the article I suggest a means to weight land to reduce the error.
I am unsure how this argument applies to UAH satellite retrievals. Though they are all atmospheric readings the atmosphere is a very variable composition of water vapour and other gases, so equally not of constant heat capacity.
Possibly, since they are all radiative measurements, averaging may be applicable. It would be interesting is Dr Spencer could comment on that.
When I said ” land+sea is biased warmer” I meant biased to being more volatile : warmer in the case of end of 20th c. warming.
This means that taking land + sea vs dRad will lead to an exaggerated estimation of climate sensitivity.
Greg – Correctly averaging the surface energies and converting to temperatures shows negligible difference with generally accepted methods for thermometer data so, for convenience, the current methods for global surface temperature are acceptable. The extra work isn’t worth expending additional resources in human time and treasure.
Ball4. You are making a statement in saying that thermometer readings are identical to flux conversation equivalence and calculated effective temperature means. For a pure radiative model the non linearity of radiative flux to temperatures requires conversion from temperature to appreciate the flux balancing requirement of equilibrium.
Should I take, from your answer, that if temperatures are OK to be area weighted and averaged that the surface radiation is insignificant?
Is that what you are saying?
Are you also saying that for equal areas, a -1K change at the surface at 305K is equal but opposite to a 1K change at 250K in terms of a sensible physical average and Earth’s answering to its own energy balance?
Insignificantly different surface radiation Geoff. Your last question I don’t understand, try rephrasing if interested in discussing.
Hi Ball4. I am sure you are aware of Holders inequality. In a purely radiative model, due to the non-linearity of flux to temperature far more radiation comes from the warmer areas, so the sensible physical mean has to be weighted towards the warmer temperatures due to their significance in the radiative balance at eqm.
So, does it make sense to take an arithmetic mean of area weighted surface temperatures without considering the increased radiative potential of the higher temperatures? The Diviner team working on lunar data unwittingly confess that a mere 0.5m below the lunar surface it is around 40K warmer than their ‘measured’ value (the regolith itself being literally a physical integrator of the surface flux).
So, do you feel, that here on Earth, surface radiation and its relative importance in answering to space allows thermometer readings, unweighted except for area, to be averaged? This surely only works if surface radiative emissions are very low?
Updating my last comment on Cederlof’s paper. I am more and more convinced that for the period 1979-2014, the global temperatures: ERAI 0.12+-0.03, GISS 0.16+-0.03, HAD 0.16+-0.03, UAH 0.11+-0.05, RSS 0.12+-0.05; are a nonsense.
The calculations of variational anomalies global temperatures (VAGT) might be right, but those errors are definetelly wrong.
I explain myself on how I think this error calculation should be appropriatelly achieved:
-Instrumental errors can be in the order of 0.01 K.
-Statistical errors, once you get the VAGT, could be in the order of 0.03 or 0.05 K.
-But there is a systematic error: a statistical error produced when you interpolate and average in order to get those VAGT. This other error is the key one and depending on the latitudes and on the measuring method (satellite, land&ocean surface sensors, etc.) could rise the global error up to an order of 1 K (i.e., those 2.6 K I said above).
Next, assuming that those errors are independent, we can calculate the global error as: e_global = SQRT (e_instr^2 + e_sat^2 + e_syst^2)
I am completelly sure about this. If people in UAH, or in the academic world, want to follow this idea, please note that my name is Antonio Sese.
Geoff, if considering the increased radiative potential of the higher temperatures made a significance difference then the Tmedian published data products would do so. There is plenty of research freely available using the more valid radiative approach and no significant difference has ever been found for Earth so do the research and get comfortable on your own with the practical solutions to the situation as they exist.
Hi again Ball4.
I am comfortable with the situation here on Earth. I was asking you your opinion.
The surface radiative emissions have been annihilated by the presence of this complex atmosphere such that from a radiative potential of around 370W/m-2 only around 60W/m-2 leaves the surface as real energy (the ability to do work) with only around 20W/m-2 of that
adding to atmospheric energy mainly through non-saturated bands.
In projecting an equilibrium surface temperature from the upper troposphere’s physical properties I do not have to factor for opacity in the lower atmosphere. In conclusion I am dismissing the notion of radiative ‘heat trapping’ through opacity. I am also declaring that surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric radiation is a product of the ‘unmodified’ gradient set by gravity without reference to long wave transmission.
I feel that the conclusion that Tmedian is OK to be measured by thermometer and simply averaged supports the notion that from the surface there is no evidence of a T^4 dependence in the flux balancing that renders this method invalid in a purely radiative model.
Not sure why you haven’t attempted to explain or ratify your own experience of this.
Geoff, there is evidence radiative flux balances at the surface 1.5m high in basic text books. You must not have looked thoroughly. For example Bohren 2006 P. 33, insert measured atm. emissivity 0.80 (current optical depth) and the simple analog returns approx. Tmedian 288K, reduce atm. emissivity to 0.01 (N2,O2, same albedo) and the formula returns approx. 255K for a much thinner optical depth.
Ball4.
You have lost credibility. Radiative flux cannot balance anywhere near the surface due to moist convection.
Do not try to patronise me.
Radiative flux can only balance in a vacuum, dear.
Hi Geoff,
Because I agree so much with you, I have trying to find someway to contact you outside this website. I find you, Mike Flynn, ball4, and others have been been interacting since 2013.
You wrote: “I can throw repeatedly an object into the air and see it gain gravitational potential energy and lose kinetic. As an infinitely repeatable process.
“Kinetic theory of gases allows for the fact that molecules spend most of their time in between (in free fall) almost perfect elastic collisions (explains the low emissivity of all gases). In between collisions the paths are, to the quantum resolution of the universe, modified by gravity which perpetually accelerates matter downward as defined by gravity. Kinetic energy at lower altitude. Temperature is a measure of mean kinetic energy.”
This is where any understanding of the atmosphere must begin but I do not find the others giving much attention to this gem to which you attempted to bring to the attention of others.
If you are inclined, you can make contact with me at: http://principia-scientific.org/feynmans-blunder-part-1/
Have a good day, Jerry
Geoff, the temperature in my computer room is not changing yet all the walls are radiating at me & me at them. Thus radiative flux in/out is balanced. I can assure you there is no vacuum, seems to be a little less than 1 bar reading.
Ball4. Why are you doing this? Why are you such a proponent of radiative heat transfer? Everyone including ‘duck eggs’ knows that a ‘radiatior’ in a room is actually a ‘convection heater’ on this planet.
Coupled thermal system, all methods of heat transfer possible? Ringing no bells?
Sure, Geoff, there is radiative, convective, and conductive energy transfer all trying to equilibrate at once thru 1LOT independently. No vacuum needed for radiative energy transfer. 2LOT tells us net energy flux in the direction increasing entropy.
Hi Antonio and Greg,
You guys and Geoff are having a good discussion. And although you three seem to generally agree with each other on certain fundamentals, it seems you are still struggling to understand (accept) fully what the other is writing.
Yesterday I invited Geoff to consider my article http://principia-scientific.org/feynmans-blunder-part-1/ and he did. And he immediately identified what Feynmans blunder had been. Which is something which no one to my knowledge had done before. While he has done this and Feynmans Blunder-part 2 has been published, you two could go this article to test your abilities to identify Feynmans blunder. And maybe find a better site to have a meaningful discussion with each other without the distractions of hundreds of other comments.
Relative to your considerations here I question the advisability of averaging even the temperature of a 24-hour period because there are many different actual temperatures which could lead to the same average temperature. Averaging like this only destroys information.
Have a good day, Jerry
Ball4 says: August 3, 2016 at 2:06 PM
“Insignificantly different surface radiation Geoff. Your last question I dont understand, try rephrasing if interested in discussing.”
That is Trick intentional distortion of science as usual!
The linear function of atmospheric exitance to space is near 2sigmaT^3deltaT. That huge exponential (absolute temperature^3) makes your fantasy squawking of “Insignificantly different surface radiation”, merely vast Trick nonsense!
With it variable atmospheric column water. Any surface EMR exitance to space may be scientifically ignored. All EMR exitance to space of Earth system entropy, originates in the atmosphere, not from the surface. Surface temperature is a gravitational effect not a surface radiative effect!
Geoff Wood says (1 Aug 2016, 15:52)
“Dr Spencer, sir, you are making a schoolboy error, in thinking, that Watt for Watt, long wave radiative potential, unavailable for work or power, is Watt for Watt the equivalent of solar, of which every photon is of an energy available to increase the mean kinetic energy.”
Geoff, a watt is indeed a watt, no matter what the source. It accounts for the temperature of the emitter and the wavelength of the photon which delivered the energy represented by that rate.
If you disagree, kindly demonstrate from first principles how a photon flux at a rate of 1 watt per meter squared (W/m^2) from the sun differs from the photon flux at a rate of 1 W/m^2 from a cloud, or differs from the photon flux at a rate of 1 W/m^2 from clear air. All would deliver the same energy per second to a rock on the ground.
Hi ball4,
First, a while back I tried to find you active in order to thank you for directing me to the NOAA Surfrad data and I could not find you. So thank you very much. I wonder why you and others do not more frequently refer to it?
However, you wrote: “Geoff, the temperature in my computer room is not changing yet all the walls are radiating at me & me at them. Thus radiative flux in/out is balanced.” and I doubt the radiative flux between you and the walls is balanced. For I doubt the walls are at 37C as you are? If they are, suspect you are very uncomfortable.
Have a good day, Jerry
The walls of my room are radiating at me at about a steady 78F from all directions jerry and me at 98.7F at them. I can see the cooler walls even from my warmer eyes as some daylight gets in. The room air temperature is steady; evidently I’ve caused the air temperature to rise to a point so that the walls are also radiating in balance to a sink beyond.
But you are hearing the ceiling more than the floor.
Heating the ceiling more than the floor. Three times to stop bloody spell check making heating into hearing ?!?!!!
Why do you shrink back to Fahrenheit? Is it relavent here?
Yes, spell Czech can do odd things, and yes, I could be radiating less energy toward the ceiling than the floor is even though I am warmer, top of head emits narrower radiation field than cooler floor. Would have to run the actual numbers.
Ball4. You are being tangential.
Real issue.
Input solar at surface ~160W/m-2
Moist convective losses ~100W/m-2
Long wave net flux ~60W/m-2
No radiative balance due to other heat transfer processes
Your net longwave is from surface Tmedian 289.7K for 400 radiated up minus 340 radiated down = 60 net
340 LW radiated down = 100 + 80 + 160 i.e.
moist convective losses 100 returned + solar absorbed in atm. down 80 + 160 atm. radiating down from effective 230.5K
TOA 240 in and 240 out (from other half of 80 + 160 up).
Radiation is all balanced, surface and TOA.
Ball4. Where does 289.7K come from to give a nice 400W/m-2?
Firstly Earth’s mean is less than 288K by current averaging and secondly you are producing a radiative potential from a black body ε=1 relative to zero Kelvin.
Much worse is the downwelling (unavailable for work or power, imaginary flux) of 340W/m-2 radiated down and 160W/m-2 radiated down (unavailable for work or power imaginary flux) both calculated as black body fluxes when there is an atmospheric window with 0.36 band power transmission.
Can’t have emissivity without opacity. The atmospheric window with 0.36 power transmission limits opacity and emissivity ‘dear’. Try your flux balancing with ε=0.65 for blue sky atmosphere and realise that the net radiative losses come from cancellation of horizontal radiative potentials not downwelling unavailable for work of power fictional nonsense.
You really are intent upon losing all of your credibility aren’t you?
You really don’t understand the reality that opacity, once band limited decouples, since you insist on strong radiative coupling which, provably, does not exist.
My 289.7K Tmedian comes from matching your 4:26pm numbers Geoff, the real question is where did your numbers come from?
My 340 is from CERES data 2000-2010 period when Earth Tmedian was ~289.7K. I am not producing a radiative potential from a black body ε=1 relative to zero Kelvin, what did I write giving Geoff that idea? None of my numbers were calculated, all were measured.
My 340 and 160 are routinely measured Geoff, neither are “calculated as black body fluxes when there is an atmospheric window with 0.36 band power transmission.”
The atm. emissivity looking up is measured at global ε=0.80 with around atm. ε=0.70 found in dry arctic regions and about ε=0.95 in humid equatorial tropics. Not 0.65 Geoff, where did you get that?
I did not write the diffuse LW 340 measured all-sky emission to surface and/or 160 LW down is available for work Geoff, that would violate 2LOT. They are available for 1LOT energy balance though, by law (energy is conserved in any arbitrary control volume.)
Ball4 says: August 5, 2016 at 4:45 PM
“My 289.7K Tmedian comes from matching your 4:26pm numbers Geoff, the real question is where did your numbers come from? My 340 is from CERES data 2000-2010 period when Earth Tmedian was ~289.7K. I am not producing a radiative potential from a black body ε=1 relative to zero Kelvin, what did I write giving Geoff that idea? None of my numbers were calculated, all were measured.”
More Trick intentional misdirection,
Thar CERES satellite surface radiance comes only from the 26% surface observable in the 8-13 micron band from that altitude. All the rest is cloud cover. From that narrow band sporadic ‘radiance’ a local ‘brightness temperature’ of 280-290 K was estimated In that band, toward zenith and the cooled satellite sensors, approximately 18W/m^2sr was an actual flux to the cooled sensor. All are measurable and repeatable. A ‘brightness temperature’ has absolutely no relationship to a thermometric, thermodynamic, or chemical temperature, this is a fantasy, sometimes useful!
Earth’s surface cannot radiate into an integral solid angle of PI steradians because of the ever present atmosphere, which strictly limits such exitance by its opposing radiance, as explained by Dr. Spencer and clearly demonstrated by the yet to be falsified S-B equation as a maximum possible flux transfer. Even that maximum has never been observed!! Another theoretical, useful in very limited cases.
From these fantasy numbers, you and your corrupt cohorts attempt to promote some 340 W/m^2 radiative flux exitance from this Earth’s surface. Such has never been so measured nor can it ever be measured, as it simply is never generated as a flux.
Very clearly stated and quite understandable! I agree with the reasoning.
Agree with the reasoning?
Let’s apply the rules.
1) radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. ie it is a product of a thermal gradient.
2) gravity provides a thermal gradient as part of containment.
3) radiative heat transfer, if significant, reduces the thermal gradient by cooling the warmer body and heating the cooler.
4) if radiative heat transfer is insufficient to modify the gradient it remains a ‘product’.
There is no evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified in any way, globally averaged, by long wave radiation. The lower troposphere is in exact energy balance with 7.5km, despite the bulk of long wave opacity ‘heat trapping rubbish’ being below.
How can I calculate the surface temperature from altitude, through the ‘heat trapping rubbish’ (long wave opacity), without a radiative transfer code?
Surely the ‘photon delay’, ‘recycling of energy’, full affect must be where the opacity lies (lies, did I say that?).
Shall we contemplate the pure Nitrogen atmosphere?
According to climate science Nitrogen emits very nearly nothing.
But attached to a surface in the Sun, whose illumination would not be significantly attenuated by this ‘pure Nitrogen atmosphere’ it would, by direct contact, be locally heated and forced to rise above all Nitrogen not at this temperature. Come night the surface would cool, but who cares, we measure at 2m. Anyway ‘proper’ convection ‘according to some’ requires radiation. At night without teleconnections the very near surface layer would stratify and not transfer any atmospheric energy to the surface. Doesn’t matter, we measure at 2m.
So the would the atmosphere be warm or cool?
Dunno.
Also, rather irritatingly the Nitrogen atmosphere is directly heated by the Sun in harmonic oscillator bands not accessible at 287K. But it has no cooling mechanism otherwise it would be a ‘greenhouse gas’ and make things too warm.
Lucky us!
Dr Spencer, sir. You have told me that just because I can’t see it doesn’t make it real. Ok.
But what about what I can see?
I can throw repeatedly an object into the air and see it gain gravitational potential energy and lose kinetic. As an infinitely repeatable process.
Kinetic theory of gases allows for the fact that molecules spend most of their time in between (in ‘free fall’) almost perfect elastic collisions (explains the low emissivity of all gases). In between collisions the paths are, to the quantum resolution of the universe, modified by gravity which perpetually accelerates matter downward as defined by gravity. Kinetic energy at lower altitude. Temperature is a measure of mean kinetic energy.
The number of 9.8K(C)/km you quoted is from this physics. (Do you wish that I further detail?). It’s does not require any radiation to describe. Do you or think it weird that by coincidence this should happen?
Geoff, better science to write 1) radiative energy transfer does NOT require a thermal gradient, both bodies can be at the same temperature. No heat flow but this is still photon flux each way, photons do not annihilate as positron/electron. In fact incoherent photons do not interact at all so far as is known.
There IS evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified by local LWIR. Dr, Spencer provided a test showing that due LW from cirrus overnight about a year ago. There is no reason the global avg. is not similarly affected.
For earth, as I wrote above one layer is sufficient for a simple analog to compute Tmedian from atm. longwave opacity looking up. See the ref. I provided, there are others. The opacity effect is in the extinction coefficient of each specie and the total pressure. For Venus, yes, RTM code is necessary as one layer will not do because the opacity is near 1 (due total pressure, specie extinction coefficient) at all similar lower layers.
Utter rubbish.
The fluxes you are calculating are Stefan-Boltzmann. Set T1 =T2 and the heat transfer is zero. How could it be simpler than that?
No thermal energy is transferred without a temperature difference where heat is thermal energy and transfer is a reduction in one at the gain of the other by conservation and definition. I don’t require to hear about your delusions that say otherwise.
“photons do not annihilate as positron/electron. In fact incoherent photons do not interact at all so far as is known.”
To a point in space random incoherent variations in the electric and magnetic field with no implied directivity or polarity should always sum to zero. Only the net is detectable above ambient noise. They are only ‘photons’ at the point of collapse of the wave function.
“There IS evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified by local LWIR. Dr, Spencer provided a test showing that due LW from cirrus overnight about a year ago. There is no reason the global avg. is not similarly affected.”
Wrong again. AMSU microwave measurements provide data from 7.5km which prove to be in exact energy balance with the surface through heat capacity and gravity only. Latent heat is a form of heat capacity. No heat trapping rubbish hear ‘dear’.
“or Venus, yes, RTM code is necessary as one layer will not do because the opacity is near 1 (due total pressure, specie extinction coefficient) at all similar lower layers.”
Rubbish. I can treat Venus exactly as Earth and neglect long wave heat transfer and opacity. The surface temperature is calculable as an energy equilibrium with 50km where the smear of pressure broadening cannot be the same as at the surface.
You should do some research for yourself and satisfy yourself that this is true.
Set T1=T2 and the bodies exchange photon energy but do not change in Tmedian Geoff. IF T1 .NE. T2, there is 1LOT energy transfer, 2LOT gives the direction. Heat does not exist separate from constituent KE in either body 1 or 2, thus cannot transfer despite the dictionary trying to make it so.
If Venus surface temperature is calculable as “an energy equilibrium with 50km” then do so and show us. Layer by layer balancing RTM works fine for Venus as 1layer does for earth, found in many accessible publications.
Photon as wave or (collapsed – Geoff term) particle? I ask Geoff what new discoveries have 1) the particle or photon aspect of light, and 2) the wave aspect of light, given rise to? Let us know. My answer: 1) I am not aware of any, 2) holography, lasers, intensity & all of interferometry measurements, phase conjugation, interference filters, radar, so on.
Photons as particles seem like objects we can kick or get kicked by, EM waves extending thru all space are not so easily incarnated. And yet an EM wave is just as much a thing as a photon, both possess energy and momentum (both linear and angular), but not, it seems, mass.
You say,
“If Venus surface temperature is calculable as an energy equilibrium with 50km then do so and show us. Layer by layer balancing RTM works fine for Venus as 1layer does for earth, found in many accessible publications.”
Firstly, Venus only exists as a gravitational condensate and as such was much hotter initially than this equilibrium state with the solar flux. It has cooled to this level from a higher energy state through its ability to radiate. ‘Without the ability to radiate’ relieves any questions as to why the gradient is important ‘as it doesn’t define any specific temperature’. It would be ‘very hot’ from the original ‘collapse’, and stay that way. Ok with that?
Radio occultation measurements from Magellan recovered a thermal profile for Venus available and attributed to Jon Jenkins.
Temperature at 49.5km (1 bar) was 339K. Surface temperature range 673K to 773K from different sources. Generally accepted as 737K.
In calculating an equivalent surface temperature from altitude we can iteratively predict a gradient from -g/Cp from Cp for CO2 at 350K from engineering catalogues. This gradient can be projected down to the next catalogued heat capacity variation for Cp for CO2. Heat capacity for CO2 increases with temperature as more vibrational modes add to the heat capacity as they become available to equipartition with the kinetic distribution. Hence the gradient starts to reduce from the original surface projection from altitude of, -g/Cp,
-8.8/0.895 = 9.8K/km
49.5×9.8 m= 822K as an initial surface projection. Too high.
Taking the subsequent iterations into account it is possible to pull the gradient into a less steep curve by using the cataloged value for Cp as the thermal energy (temp) increases.
By this equivalence, where we are taking the gravitational energy difference at the new lower altitude and redistributing it between the available thermal states, where Cp gives us the thermal response to energy changes. In a gravitationally bound system the sum of thermal states that undergo equipartition gives Cp. it can be shown that,
P.ΔV=R
And, following,
Cp-Cv=R
Where R, is thermodynamic work at 8.31 J/K.mol
Cp allows the gas to change volume with an increased heat capacity allowing for external work.
We can then iteratively run down through the atmosphere of Venus preserving total energy as we add the depletion of gravitational potential into the increasing heat capacity of the CO2.
A twenty step iteration gives a surface equivalence temperature for Venus of around 757K.
It does not require me to conclude from this that there ‘must’ be ‘heat trapping’ (rubbish) recirculating to explain the surface temperature.
It’s an energy equivalence.
Geoff, you didn’t calculate Venus temperature at 49.5km, you used a temperature measurement. This method will not be available for exoplanets.
Multi-layer energy balancing LBLRTM does not need any initial temperature measurement at all. Just like a beginner’s analogue 1 layer energy balance works for Earth surface. The LBLRTM method can be applied to exoplanets.
y=mx+b. The slope m can be from g/Cp but you will always need a temperature measurement at some altitude for b. LBLRTM works from 1st principles (1LOT) energy balance for a set of N slabs to compute surface temperature without knowing any temperature measurement for b beforehand.
Ball4. You grow more and more comical with time.
“My 340 is from CERES data 2000-2010 period when Earth Tmedian was ~289.7K. I am not producing a radiative potential from a black body ε=1 relative to zero Kelvin, what did I write giving Geoff that idea? None of my numbers were calculated, all were measured.”
But you did produce figures calculated.
“net longwave is from surface Tmedian 289.7K for 400(W)radiated up”
ε x 5.67×10^(-8) x (289.7^4)
Is only 400W/m-2 if ε=1
ε=1 does not apply to terrestrial solids or liquids. IT IS CALCULATED.
Worse still,
” 160 atm. radiating down from effective 230.5K”
Again;
ε x 5.57×10^(-8) x (230.5^4)
Which is 160W/m-2 for ε=1
BLACK BODY EMISSIVITY FROM A GAS ………,
You are having a laugh aren’t you?
Given the atmosphere’s transmission window. Black body fluxes from a gas with 0.36 transmission.
And claiming measured, not calculated.
Then, from the millions of measurements of Earth, when I use one from Venus, you say no, no, you cannot use a measurement, it has to be calculated.
Our method, you say, can be used where no instrument can corroborate its accuracy!
1LOT +2LOT = aLOT OF LAUGHS.
Hah hah hah.
Geoff, Earth natural L&O surface emissivity is measured around 0.95, it is rounded up to 1.0 for convenience & NOT calculated.
The 400 is measured, the 160 is measured all routinely 24/7 by NOAA ESRL. There is also some round off for convenience. Earth atm. emissivity looking up is measured at global 0.8, rounded also for convenience. If you prefer, go to the trouble of not rounding and nothing more of interest will be learned.
Ball4,you have said,
“Radiation is all balanced, surface and TOA.”
No it isn’t, if you have guessed at the emissivity and fudged the numbers to suit.
“289.7K for 400 radiated up”
Well that is 380W/m-2 for ε=0.95, not 400W/m-2 (as a maximum radiating to a zero K surface).
“160 atm. radiating down from effective 230.5K”
You reckon on an average sky emissivity of ε=0.8, which gives a theoretical maximum radiative potential of 128W/m-2 to a zero K surface.
So do you want to cut out the bull’ and do the correct balance once we have rejected the nonsense fluxes you have created?
You have also said,
“moist convective losses 100 returned”
Utter rubbish. Water requires 2230J/g to vaporise and releases the 2230J/g upon condensation back into liquid form. The water falls back to Earth as a liquid without changing state under normal conditions. The heat transfer supported by hydrological cycle data requires around 100W/m-2 of surface energy transferred to the atmosphere as a one way process. From the atmosphere it is partly lost to space according to physical rates applicable to the atmosphere’s mean temperature and emissive properties.
Radiation cannot be balanced at all levels when other heat transfer processes are available.
Why does the Sun have layers labelled radiative and convective? When radiation cannot transfer energy to answer to the gradient set by gravity, convection seamlessly intervenes to satisfy the thermodynamic requirements. On Earth the availability of a condensing gas massively adjusts the gradient as a super efficient heat transfer process that cools the surface and heats the atmosphere, by the same amount.
The ridiculous need you have to balance radiation in face of the hydrological cycle which requires massive amounts of accountable surface energy to lift water off the surface to an altitude where it can radiate that energy, in part to space, illustrates the lengths you will go to to misdirect.
Carry on.
Geoff, no guessing on the atm. emissivity at the various latitudes, perhaps you missed where I wrote atm. emissivity looking up is measured 0.7 in the dry arctic regions and 0.95 in humid equatorial tropics.
If you want to use 380, then fine adjust the numbers YOU wrote 4:26 accordingly and properly account for the reflection inherent to surface ε=0.95 instead of the convenience of no reflection rounding up, won’t change much, you will still properly find balance at surface and TOA after a lot of work.
I don’t reckon global atm. at ε=0.80 Geoff, that is what the measurements show. There is nothing to correct in the surface balance or the TOA balance, it is all from measurements.
Moist convection is 100 up (Geoff number), none gets to space (it doesn’t rain in space and there is no convection getting to space) so 100 moist convection is returned to surface in balance in this epoch.
Geoff is right about: half of the atm. radiation to space the other half to ground as shown in my 5:16pm balance. Radiation IS balanced at all levels Geoff over long time periods, multi-annually. Unless you support the missing heat hypothesis.
The sun has a bit different pressure and temperature ranges Geoff, not anywhere near terrestrial ranges.
Yes, H2O (hydrological cycle) changes the balance on Earth, working with the other IR active gasses about 33K as measured (Ts-Te).
Ball4.
Radiation can only balance across a vacuum.
Heat transfer is the result of a thermal gradient, which cannot be produced by heat transfer alone.
Models of atmospheres in pure radiative balance exhibit lapse rates far exceeding anything measured on Earth. As other (real and apparent) heat transfer mechanisms are included to these models the gradient is reduced to coincide more accurately with measurements. Once convection is allowed the slope represents the dry adiabatic and once latent heat transfer is included in representative measure then we approach the global mean of around 6.5K/km. this figure unless modified by a heat transfer process of significance becomes the driver of surface to atmosphere and inter atmospheric heat exchange, as by logical inference any controlling heat transfer would heat or cool the extremes and modify the gradient.
You state,
“Moist convection is 100 up (Geoff number), none gets to space (it doesnt rain in space and there is no convection getting to space) so 100 moist convection is returned to surface in balance in this epoch.”
Again you are missing the point. There is no pure radiative balance at the surface as other heat transfer processes are included and available to produce the necessary flux balance required for equilibrium. The surface cannot be in radiative balance because some significant heat is transferred from the surface to the air by moist convection.
A hurricane can be viewed via the Carnot cycle, one isothermal leg where air streams down a pressure gradient towards the eye. It should cool as it does external work in expanding into a lower pressure region, but contact with the warm sea prevents this happening. Uptake of water into the warm air produces buoyant instability as H2O is lighter than air. As the air rises and cools the water condenses and releases latent heat into the gaseous mix. This provides extra buoyancy lifting the air adiabatically to upper tropospheric levels. Here the energy is open to be radiated to space through the low opacity atmosphere. As the air attempts to cool by these radiative losses, it’s ability to stay aloft is impeded. However as it falls it gains thermal energy from gravitational potential losses and so remains largely isothermal. If caught up in teleconnections the air returns to sea level following a dry adiabatic.
Two adiabatic steps, two isothermal. Classic thermal engine ripping ocean energy to altitude where opacity cannot inhibit loss of that energy to space. Cooling the ocean, heating the upper atmosphere and transferring energy from the sea to space without the help of surface radiation.
100 up, no 100 down by moist convection.
The ripping to bits and destruction of surface objects is part of the available energy you can tap into as a result of the spontaneous exchange that a thermal gradient can produce.
This happens all the time in the lower atmosphere up to the boundary layer where we see clouds form. Not the runaway of a hurricane but energy transported by moist convection that hasn’t been transferred by radiation and in doing so prevents surface radiative balance; in fact inhibits surface radiation by reducing the thermal gradient, like any efficient heat transfer process would.
The uncomfortable fact you have to answer to is that the tropospheric gradient, to which all heat transfer mechanisms answer, is predictable from a pure mechanical model. Kinetic theory in a gravity field. Modified only by the heat transferring abilities of the condensing gas we call water.
Geoff, the temperature reading on my house thermostat is the same as it was an hour ago in calm conditions with no energy bill change. Radiation in and out was thus balanced, I can assure you there is no vacuum in my house. The atm. is likewise in largely radiative-convective equilibrium. See MW67.
Kinetic energy transfer is the result of a temperature gradient.
The 6.5K/km lapse is not global, it is a standard voted by committee for the midlatitude tropics.
In your hurricane scenario none of the 100 moist convection up gets to space, all is returned for 100 down, stays in system as convection and rain do not transfer their energy to deep space sink, only radiative transfer does. The storm system up convects/evaporates just as much energy as it down convects/rains, 100up, 100 down observed in balance over multi-annual periods.
Ball4 says: August 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM
“Geoff, better science to write 1) radiative energy transfer does NOT require a thermal gradient, both bodies can be at the same temperature. No heat flow but this is still photon flux each way, photons do not annihilate as positron/electron. In fact incoherent photons do not interact at all so far as is known.”
More of the Trick fantasy pink photons, never observed.
For thermal radiative flux to ever be generated from a temperate surface; a surround with a lower ‘radiance’ (temperature) at each frequency must exist as demonstrated by the not so far ever falsified S-B equation as a maximum flux. That flux can always cease to exist or even reverse in direction, if the temperature of the surround is increased. BTW any thermal flux if generated, can almost always be converted to sensible heat at the lower temperature receptor. If that cold receptor (IR detector) has a low enough ‘work function’ for displacement of the lattice structure; the generation of a minority carrier can be observed even from flux with only a Plank action value of 0.3ev (3 microns), a ‘photon event’. Although the 10 micron detectors seem to work in a similar fashion, I have yet to detect the actual “event” of a 0.1ev ‘fancy photon’.
Geoff,
The differential radiance required to allow surface radiative exitance is almost non existent, certainly not sufficient for hypothesis. Atmospheric conductive heat transport, even with the measurable altitude temperature gradient, seems to be completely missing, likely due to the same gravitational effect that maintains that very same thermal gradient. The Earth’s mechanical centrifuge, tangential air mass physical motion eastward at 1000 cos(latitude) MPH, must move sensible and latent heat radially outward, to be dispatched via thermal EMR to space, in a manner more efficative than mere surface stuff.
Any airborne water above 2000ppmm can do that easy! Atmospheric CO2 above 150 ppmv changes nothing at all! Trick is a true schmuck! What a wonderful planet to be upon. (always full of wonder) 🙂
All the best! -will-
Thanks again Roy. This gravity meme is very strong, already back in 2003 i wrote together with Peter Dietze a rebuttal to Hans Jelbring in E&E: Dietze, Peter and Hans Erren, 2003. The Greenhouse effect should not be redefined, Energy and Environment Vol.14, No 6, pp. 921-922, December 2003
Hi, Hans. Long time since your (our) days in Climate Sceptics. I suppose you did read Hans Jelbring’s doctoral thesis “Wind controlled Climate”.I have learned a lot since he gave me, back in 2010 in Stockolm, the book where he defends his thesis. Also, Willis Eschenbach is not fully convinced about the Greenhouse Effect, and his opinion about the importance of winds (horizontal convection) in distributing the heat along the parallels in the equatorial zone is a factor that made me think twice about the traditional GE. I am stil in the middle of the street, not deciding which streewalk is the one taking us to the truth.
Venus pressure at the surface where there is 90% CO2 is 90 bar but at about 30 bar in the sulphur layer is below zero… And the thin Martian atmosphere whith its 90% CO2 greenhouse gas and low temperature give me some grounds to troublig thoughts… Who said physics and climate was easy?
“This gravity meme is very strong.”
Interestingly, Dr Oskar Emil Meyer in his absolutely classical work, “The Kinetic Thoery of Gases,” first published in 1877 but appearing in further editions through the early 1900s, ENDORSED the view that gravity would induce a temperature gradient in a gas, and apart from Loschmidt merely gave references to two never-translated papers in obscure Italian Journals.
Even more interestingly, Professor J J Thomson (the 1906 Physics Nobelist, “discoverer” of the electron, and the father of ANOTHER Physics Nobelist {1936} Professor G P Thomson [whom I knew in his twilight at Cambridge in 1962] in the text-book on Heat which J J wrote with Professor J H Poynting (of “Poynting Vector” fame) acknowledges Meyer as the doyen of Kinetic Theory and writes that the details in their book COME from Meyer.
Yet more interestingly, Meyer dismisses the whole business as of no interest to Physics, but merely a minor point in Meteorology!
Finally, to complete the circle, all these luminaries were actually WRONG, because they did not realise that their theoretical treatment was too “sparse” to admit the concept of pressure, and thus they were excluding sound waves, whereby any beginnings of a gradient must be obliterated almost instantly by an insensible reflection from the containing surface.
Nicely done! Thank you.
The idea is that if we were to away the green house effect then all the heat in the earths surface would instantly be sucked out of the earths surface and into space but where we have seasonal variation it takes time for the earths surface to heat up and cool down , we could take away the g.h.e. and this heating and cooling would still occur between summer and winter.
Don’t know where you got that “idea” from.
As a suggestion, to make it slightly more explicit, you could stress the one-way mirror effect. Some argue that if CO really were opaque to IR then the incoming IR wouldn’t reach the earth’s surface in the first place.
For CO read CO2. This text box doesn’t recognize the Alt-253 superscript.
there is very little IR coming in from the sun, most of the energy is at visible wavelengths. Outgoing energy is in the IR because terrestrial temperatures are much lower than the temperature of the sun.
Wikipedia –
“In terms of energy, sunlight at 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).”
I know you don’t agree, but others may wish to check for themselves.
Cheers.
Less than 5% insolation is at wavelengths greater than 2.6 microns!
Mike,
It is important to consider specific wavelengths of IR. You are indeed correct that there is more overall IR than visible energy. However, the vast majority of the sun’s IR is SHORTER wavelength than 4 um, while the vast majority of the earth’s IR is LONGER wavelength than 4 um. (See for example http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg)
So to clarify Dr Spencer’s statement, there is very little IR longer than 4 um coming in from the sun. Outgoing energy is in the IR longer than 4 um.
It is the ‘longer than 4 um IR’ that is critical to the greenhouse effect.
Tim,
This is a problem. Foolish Warmists make a statement they know to be incorrect – or even worse, don’t know they are wrong. The usual excuse is that they have “simplified” the answer. The real reason is that they really haven’t got a clue what they are talking about.
How about adopting a bit of real science, rather than Cargo Cult Scientism? Light is light, or EMR, if you wish. Calling it IR or LW or SW is both confusing and unscientific, which is why climatologists are addicted to vague and in definable weasel words.
One foolish Warmist “clarifying” another’s incorrect statement merely adds to the confusion. You can no more define your greenhouse effect than any other foolish Warmist.
CO2 heats nothing. The energy from the Sun (referred to but foolish Warmists as the “greenhouse effect”) warms the surface. In the absence of the Sun the surface cools.
You may have already noticed that the greenhouse effect doesn’t provide any heating indoors, in the shade, when it’s cloudy or during solar eclipses. That’s because it doesn’t exist.
Cheers.
Right, Tim, Roy I think meant surface insolation. SWIR is mostly absorbed in the atmosphere. Very little reaches the surface, though I can’t say exactly how much.
“You can no more define your greenhouse effect than any other foolish Warmist.”
Planet GHE defined as (Ts-Te). Figure it out Mike. Study up, started when Tyndall’s room experimentally went up more than 5F just adding CO2. The EMR went on.
Ball4 says: July 30, 2016 at 7:59 PM
(You can no more define your greenhouse effect than any other foolish Warmist.)
“Planet GHE defined as (Ts-Te). Figure it out Mike. Study up, started when Tyndalls room experimentally went up more than 5F just adding CO2. The EMR went on.”
GHE defined by whom? Over-educated idiots like Trick and his associated cabal? There is no greenhouse effect in any of the physical sciences!
No, it’s not. But it is a terminological problem not physical. People confuse IR with IR all the time because different part of ‘IR’ spectrum have different properties yet they are called the same. There indeed little energy coming from the sun in the frequency range where earth emits, but in the near-ir it actually emits ALOT of radiation. here’s what i googled up http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/TOARAD.jpg
Note that this chart is in wavenumber/frequency as opposed to wavelength so that the visual are under the graph would be proportional to the energy, since energy is proportional to frequency, and reciprocal to wavelength.
((the chart from http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm ))
coturnix says: July 31, 2016 at 9:49 PM
“No, its not. But it is a terminological problem not physical.”
It seems to be only your lack of understanding of scientific thermal radiance terminology. Approximately 20 different terms all with different meaning, never including the “corrupt slang radiation”!
“People confuse IR with IR all the time because different part of IR spectrum have different properties yet they are called the same. There indeed little energy coming from the sun in the frequency range where earth emits, but in the near-ir it actually emits ALOT of radiation.”
Why google, never a clue there, only popular opinion? Insolation, radiance W/m^2sr, or irradiance W/m^2 is much much higher from the Sun at every wavelength/frequency, than possible from Earth. In fact, this Earth emits no thermal EMR in the apparent nie as nor actual direction of the Sun. Such is prohibited by physical Law! In most other directions this Earth’s atmosphere radiates to lower radiance space the very maximum it can, governed by that same physical Law! This is the only reason that this wonderful Earth has such a low surface temperature in the direction of that insolation.
“Note that this chart is in wavenumber/frequency as opposed to wavelength so that the visual are under the graph would be proportional to the energy, since energy is proportional to frequency, and reciprocal to wavelength.”
Again very high intent at misdirection; and scientifically WRONG!
Energy or more properly Plank’s action value increases with frequency only to a defined limit, Wien’s displacement. Above that frequency the Plank 4space action per cycle of radiant flux continues to increase (quantum) but the units of energy drop like a rock. This current universe does not support UV catastrophe, but all Climate Clown GCMs do!
Thank you for your interest! -will-
One thing the eminent Dr Spencer misses is that while it requires energy transfer to increase or decrease an object’s (or a gas’, or whatever) temperature, this process is terribly inefficient and most of the energy is irrevocably lost, for example when the agitation of a CO2 molecule by an IR photon is canceled by agitation from a later photon. This inefficiency is one reason why so-called GE gases cannot do something coherent and useful like increase the Earth’s average surface temperature by 33C. Maybe an irrelevant 0.0033C, but not 33C. The real GHGs are N2, O2 and Argon which do not readily emit photons at normal atmospheric temperatures. Hold your hand in front of your face. It experiences an air temperature which has microscopically little to do with 400PPM of CO2. Erase all the CO2 in your room or front yard and you will not notice a temperature change unless you believe my absurd theory of Little Carbon Dioxide Suns. Here’s the real question: how did the 1,000,000PPM (close enough) of N2, O2 and Argon get its temperature?
The real Green house Effect is partly due to fast heating by short wavelength high-energy incoming radiation and slow cooling due to low energy, longer wavelength outgoing radiation. The atmosphere can integrate or dissipate thermal energy, but is not a heater. The gradient from source to sink can be modulated, but it is impossible for the sink to increase the source’s energy or temperature.
Each year, the Sky Dragon Slayers become more and more vindicated.
and…away we go!
Ken,
In the lower troposphere, the time for a CO2 (or H2O) bonding electron, which has just absorbed an IR photon and now has greater energy, to lose that energy by emitting an IR photon is orders of magnitude longer than the time for that molecule to collide with another air molecule and transfer its energy to that other molecule. That is how absorbing IR heats the air.
Yes. I did a post on this issue years ago.
Dr. Spencer,
Please include the myriad of articles you’ve made on this subject in your menu on your homepage. It may make it easier for some to refer to them.
I’ve always enjoyed these explanations, thanks!
Ken Coffman says:
“Hold your hand in front of your face. It experiences an air temperature which has microscopically little to do with 400PPM of CO2. Erase all the CO2 in your room or front yard and you will not notice a temperature change unless you believe my absurd theory of Little Carbon Dioxide Suns.”
This makes no sense at all. You really don’t have a clue what Dr. Spencer is talking about. Maybe you should try arguing with him about solar panels instead.
I tried an experiment inspired by your logic. I sat in my bedroom and I held my hand in front of my face. The temperature I felt had nothing to do with the sun. So I closed my curtains and the room got dark, but my hand felt the same temperature. Therefore the sun has no effect on the temperature of the earth.
This is obvious when you think about it. The sun is over 90 million miles away from the earth and in between there is the cold region of outer space. How could the warmth from the sun pass through a cold region and warm the earth? That would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics! Ooh, I think I am on to something! What is the process for becoming an official Dragon Slayer?
As I mentioned above, we get heating via “…fast heating by short wavelength high-energy incoming radiation…” from the Sun, of course. To be a Sky Dragon Slayer, you have to think rigorously in terms of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. Good luck with that, Mr. Sealy.
Where is your rigor oh Sky Dragon? Can you produce an energy balance equation that does not include IR emission from water vapor and CO2 that predicts the correct global temperature?
I am not talking about your silly thought experiments about removing CO2 from a room. Show me the actual mathematics and physics that your alternate global energy balance theory rests on. Then explain how it agrees with actual measurements of out-going radiation from satellites that show distinct bands in the spectrum from CO2 and water vapor (and not argon and nitrogen)
RS
Please provide a reference for John Tyndall’s “increasing his room temperature by 5c”, this is the kind of useful, empirical thing I’m very interested in.
Ken, it was a range of 5F for air.
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
It was for pressurizing an exhausted tube, a different thermodynamic phenomenon having nothing to do with the air in a room and CO2 content..
DHM, Prof. Tyndall made sure any compression heating effects were eliminated by observing the needle deflection was in steady state for his room. He was well aware of the transient effects of compression on his testing. In fact, he noted the needle moved without any compression apparatus at all, detected unheated CO2 heating his room at room STP.
“…Tyndall’s increasing his room temperature by 5c…”
It is the equivalent of an urban myth.
Tyndall was measuring the temperature changes inside his eperimental tube, not his room, and the phenomenon was just the familar one whereby you sometimes change the temperature by pumping gas in or out of a container. It was an experimental error he was removing from his work! The full quote which “torontann” pulled out on another thread a short time ago runs thus (with added emphases to show that it is the TUBE he is writing of):
“A thermo-electric couple was soldered to the external surface of the experimental TUBE and ITS ends connected with a galvanometer. When air was admitted [to the TUBE] a deflection was produced. which showed that the air, on entering the vacuum [in the TUBE], was heated. On exhausting [the TUBE] the needle was also deflected, showing that the interior of the TUBE was chilled. These are indeed known effects; but I was desirous to make myself perfectly sure of them. I subsequently had the TUBE perforated and thermometers screwed into IT airtight [with the bulbs inside, we must assume, as otherwise it would be nonsense]. On filling the TUBE the thermometric colums [the threads outside you observe] rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air [redundant, since air has already been specified] to 5 (degrees) FAHR.”
How anyone can think he is saying the whole room went up 5 degrees, with this description beats me. He then goes on to say that this anomaly was temporary, and did not greatly affect his substantial experiments with the tube.
Dave – Prof. Tyndall removed his whole apparatus and the needle still moved showing a T increase. And yes, the whole room went up 5F when the room considered is the experimental chamber.
Ball4 are you saying “the room” is the lab? That is just what I thought you were saying! Since you say Tyndall “removed his whole apparatus” you cannot be referring to the tube as his chamber, can you?
Just to be perfectly sure Ball4 , by “room” you mean:
“a part or division of a building enclosed by walls, floor and ceiling”?
What were the exact dimensions of the “room” that Tyndall did his experiments in? Does he say whether he kept the doors and windows shut? Was it winter, was it summer? How long did it take for the room to go up 5 F? How many times did he repeat the experiment? I only ask because you seem to know so much about his lab.
Test chamber size is given in the paper. The 5F variance was for the test chamber not the lab room & he discusses the time to steady state. When Prof. Tyndall removed the apparatus he just squirted the gas out into the lab room (summer and fall 1859) and measured the thermo-electric pile needle deflection. Gas extinction coefficient is not a function of room size.
To settle any confusion you have, just read the linked paper.
I wonder if mpainter will post 150 obnoxious replies on this one too even though Roy Spencer just told him he is dead wrong about CO2.
Robert D
I was thinking the same thing…..
I’ve already thought of 74 comments and there’s lots more coming. I’m going to make you read each and every one.
mpainter:
I stopped reading your comments when I realized you never write anything even remotely constructive to the conversation. That was about 3 years ago. If I want to hear a narcissistic nut make hateful comments I can just go to a Trump rally.
You still manage to annoy me because I have to scroll through 100+ comments of yours every post to check to see if anybody else has anything interesting to say. I suppose you will get a slight rise out of that.
Cheers,
Robert D
Each and every one.
Cheers.
By the way, Robert d, how about a little science so that I can see your stuff. Standard AGW boilerplate will do, please and thanks.
Cheers, mpainter
mpainter: This is a pretty pathetic request given that you have never proposed an iota of science here. I unfortunately lack Robert D’s discipline (and probably have more free time), so I tend to read all the comments here. I would wager that you have never written anything on this site that is quantifiable, nor anything that is provably falsifiable. In other words, you are just faffing.
Maybe you should just get to the point and ask Robert D for his “hand” size. That is what this all is really about for you. Science has nothing to do with it.
CSL
Personally, I enjoy mpainter, finding his comments illuminating and entertaining.
What I don’t care for are comments such as “If I want to hear a narcissistic nut make hateful comments I can just go to a Trump rally.”, which I take offense to generally and personally.
I suppose one could, instead, go to a Crooked Clinton rally to find those who are 1 – sycophants 2 – rent-seekers 3 – transfer payment recipients and 4 (but most important) immoral.
Let me be clear – just because HRC hasn’t been indicted doesn’t mean she is moral. Yet there are plenty who will vote for her – why – because they see no problem with her behavior.
Does this describe you Robert?
Lewis, thanks but it is easy to ignore the commenters who offer only venom and no science. I consider it clear proof that the AGW types are no more than cultists.
I do not deny that the removal of the green house effect will result in the earths surface cooling by about 33 degrees c but that might be over 100 years or a 1000 tears.
the greenhouse effect on surface temperature is actually more like 60-70 deg. C warming. It is reduced to around 33 deg. C because of convective heat transport away from the surface.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/why-33-deg-c-for-the-earths-greenhouse-effect-is-misleading/. But, yes, it would take a long time to reach energy equilibrium, because of the huge heat capacity of the ocean.
“The greenhouse effect on surface temperature is actually more like 60-70 deg. C warming. It is reduced to around 33 deg. C because of convective heat transport away from the surface.”
That is where you are double counting by adding the assumed greenhouse effect from downward IR to the greenhouse effect from adiabatic descent.
If you take the radiative imbalances as having been neutralised by convection then 33C is taken up adiabatically, 33C is returned to the surface adiabatically and you only need the observed 33C to maintain radiative balance with space.
no, Stephen…look at the figure I linked to…pure radiative equilibrium leads to a surface temperature at least 60 deg above the case where there is no greenhouse effect (IR emitted from surface temperature in radiative equilibrium with solar input). The resulting super-adiabatic lapse rate drives convection, which leads to only a 33 deg excess at the surface. This has been around for over 50 years, and yet people still refuse to try to understand it. There is no “double counting”.
That’s just another (incorrect) way of looking at the numbers.
You are talking about pure radiative equilibrium but it is not pure because one actually sees radiative equilibrium of 255K and entirely separately an adiabatic equilibrium within convective overturning of 33K giving a surface temperature of 288K
There is just the basic adiabatic lapse rate which is caused by a gravitationally induced density gradient in the vertical plane.
The density gradient comes first, surface heating occurs unevenly and convective overturning ensues regardless of GHGs.
The energy required for constant convective overturning is that 33K and it comes from adiabatic warming in descent and NOT downward IR.
Roy, this is what you said in your link:
” greenhouse warming effect of about 60 deg. C (the so-called pure radiative equilibrium case), and a convective cooling effect of about 30 deg. C. When these two are combined, we get the real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium case.”
What about the 33K warming in adiabatic descent?
Do you deny its existence?
Since adiabatic processes balance at 33K up and 33K down you cannot use that to reduce the pure radiative equilibrium case to the observed temperatures.
So it has to be something else and in reality it is convective adjustments altering the global air circulation to remove radiative imbalances before one accounts for the additional 33K required to maintain the motion of convective overturning.
It does not appear Stephen even looked at the M&W figure linked. Pure radiative equilibrium surface T is shown as the dot at 0 altitude near 320K not 255K as Stephen writes (“radiative equilibrium of 255K”). Earth GHE (Ts-Te) in this analysis then 320-255 = approx. 65K as Dr. Spencer correctly writes (“at least 60K”).
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ModelingLectures/LATlecture2a.pdf
Once convection is included find surface balances out at lower T and adding condensation an even lower T.
33K warming in adiabatic descent is non-existent by definition Stephen as it is not diabatic so doesnt warm anything. The temperature of the parcel (Tp) brought down slowly always equals the surroundings (Ts) established by energy balance at each pressure layer (Pparcel = Psurroundings) as Dr. Spencer notes. Parcel coming down doesnt warm the surroundings, the sun does, as Dr. Spencer correctly writes in top post, there is no fuel being burned in this adiabatic parcel.
This is not that hard Stephen but your lack of skill/study in radiative physics and atm. thermodynamics is glaring.
“warming in adiabatic descent is non-existent by definition Stephen as it is not diabatic so doesnt warm anything. ”
The adiabatic process involves warming or cooling without any transfer of energy in or out of the moving air.
Instead the energy of the air changes between thermal (heat/kinetic ) energy and convectively available potential energy (CAPE in meteorology).
Once descending air has converted some or all of its CAPE back to heat energy then it is warmer and can warm its surroundings diabatically.
The descending adiabatic parcel by definition is always at the same temperature as its surroundings Stephen. Therefore the descending adiabatic parcel can not ever warm its surroundings.
Well, the fact is that adiabatic warming in descent raises the temperature of the falling molecules so that they match the temperature of the surrounding molecules.
Then,the molecules present in the air can warm the surface diabatically via conduction at the base of the atmospheric column.
The surface rises from 255k to 288k and that ‘extra’ 33k is taken up in the next cycle of convective uplift so that it never gets radiated out to space. Instead it forms the next block of convectively available potential energy.
K worth of ‘energy’ is constantly recycled up and down leaving 255K to leave to space to balance new,incoming solar energy.
Parcel of molecules KE reaching the surface adiabatically exactly replace the parcel KE of the molecules that just left the surface adiabatically Stephen. No added surface warming, no fuel was burned.
Earth surface is raised the 33K (Ts-Te) by the sun’s burning a fuel providing down welling sw radiation, Stephen, enabled by the added atm. down welling lw radiation. No adiabatic process by definition can warm anything.
No greenhouse was harmed in the making of this movie.
“Parcel of molecules KE reaching the surface adiabatically exactly replace the parcel KE of the molecules that just left the surface adiabatically Stephen. No added surface warming, no fuel was burned.”
Of course. So there is sufficient energy locked into that adiabatic exchange to maintain the motion of convective overturning indefinitely.
There has to be additional energy at the surface to maintain that overturning.
If it were just 255K in and 255K out then there would be no additional surface energy and no convective overturning.
No fuel needs to be burned other than on the sun to produce that extra kinetic energy which appeared at the surface at the end of the very first convective cycle.
During that first convective cycle, until the adiabatic loop closed, extra energy built up within the vertical column in the form of convective available potential energy which does not register as heat.
Once the loop closed at the end of the first convective descent the surface temperature rose from 255K to 288K whereupon the final thermal equilibrium was achieved.
An equilibrium determined only by atmospheric mass, the density gradient (caused by gravity) and insolation.
The mechanism being conduction, convection and the transformation of energy to and fro between kinetic (heat) and potential (not heat) which causes a delay in the transmission of solar energy through the system and thus a surface temperature rise of 33K.
Simple really.
Even at Tmedian 255K there is surface convective overturning Stephen, as the fluid would still be warmed from below in a gravity field. That would stop at some altitude and the atm. become isothermal just like today (11km) at surface Tmedian 288K.
There was no fuel burned in the 1st cycle other than the sun Stephen, 1st adiabatic process warmed nothing – by definition.
Show as an equilibrium determined only by atmospheric mass, the density gradient (caused by gravity) and insolation. You imagine it all the time but never have done so. This will take some numbers Stephen, the things you fear the most.
I’ve said it clearly enough.
The numbers are in the US Standard Atmosphere which contains nothing about net positive or negative radiative flows.
The lapse rate slope underpins the entire system and that slope is a consequence of the average density gradient AFTER all radiative imbalances have been neutralised by convective adjustments.
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
Stephen the 6.5 committee number was derived from ALL the radiative, convective and conductive flows measured by the sounding rockets and balloons. They plotted them all for the midlatitudes and voted the 6.5 representative from ALL the measurements.
If you look at each sounding – not any one lapse is found straight balanced at 6.5. Try it, they show their work.
So what?
The average lapse rate slope set by mass and the density gradient reigns supreme.
Stephen, even you should realize the 6.5 LR set by the committee was for condensing conditions measured with existing humidity in the midlatitude tropics. The 9.8 ideal LR is set by gravity and Cp with no condensing in hydrostatic conditions.
Even ignoring the “the huge capacity of the ocean” the amount of energy accumulated over time by the atmosphere is small compared to the amount accumulated by earths surface because earths surface is much more massive more dense.
Don, the heat storage capacity of water per vulumina ist four times as large as from rock and stone. Having two thirds of the earth’s surface covered with water, the oceans are the main storage of heat.
Thanks for this clear post Dr Spencer. So to summerise…. If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we will get warming. There is no point in debating that, the science is settled. What we really need to discuss is how much will we warm and will it be a problem for life on this planet? Am I right?
That is my opinion, yes.
The effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is logarithmic and many of the CO2 bands are saturated. But, one one seems to know at what point saturation will occur. Do you have some insight as to what level of CO2 will be required? The additional CO2 is greening the Earth and adding biomass which is essentially taking energy out of the biosphere. Is it possible that at some point added CO2 will actually cool the Earth?
“Is it possible that at some point added CO2 will actually cool the Earth?”
Really … and that is based on what theory?
On the premise that CO2 cools the upper troposphere.
I think he phrased it as a question, not a declarative statement.
I would answer his question with a no, it won’t. What may happen (and I don’t propose this as a hypothesis) at some point is the the other effects that induce cooling from added CO2 will overcome the added energy that CO2 provides, generating a net cooling effect from added CO2. I don’t think there is any point at which additional CO2 itself will ‘cool’ the earth.
Based on the fact that additional vegetation changes the amount of energy that is used in photosynthesis. Photosynthesis and the resulting biomass not only stores carbon, it also cools by storing energy.
“On the premise that CO2 cools the upper troposphere.”
Last time I looked we lived down near the ground.
Whilst I have the utmost respect for Roy I remain of the view that he is wrong on this issue.
I do not agree with the Slayer view that there is no greenhouse effect either.
There is a greenhouse effect but it is a consequence of atmospheric mass conducting and convecting from an irradiated surface.
It is well established that in an atmosphere supported hydrostatically against gravity any radiative imbalances will be neutralised by convective changes.
“It is well established that in an atmosphere supported hydrostatically against gravity any radiative imbalances will be neutralised by convective changes.”
my, such a profound sounding — and yet incorrect — statement.
Try this:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
I’m not making this stuff up.
“Now, think about what just happened even though you are pointed the IR thermometer at a cold target, its temperature actually went up! So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still! (If that cold object is warmer that an even colder object it replaceslike the atmosphere at a cold temperature instead of outer space near absolute zero temperature).”
That is basically correct but wrongly interpreted.
The IR thermometer records the temperature at a specific optical depth.
If one then inserts an object less cold than space between the instrument and space then it will indeed produce a higher reading but only because that object is causing the instrument to read a temperature at a lower warmer height than at the boundary with space.
If the instrument focuses on a cloud, say, then the temperature recorded is that at the height of the cloud which is a lower warmer location than would be recorded under a clear sky.
An IR thermometer just records the temperature at the height along the lapse rate slope which shows an optical depth sufficient to trigger the sensor.
IR is indeed coming downwards but it has no effect on the surface temperature or on the lapse rate slope because for the system as a whole because convection always adjusts so as to eliminate radiative imbalances.
Ooooo…if only I had thought of “optical depth”!
“IR is indeed coming downwards but it has no effect on the surface temperature or on the lapse rate slope because for the system as a whole because convection always adjusts so as to eliminate radiative imbalances.”
Gee, like in the summer, Stephen? When all of that extra sunlight only creates more convection, but doesn’t raise the temperature??
Really??
You have to net it out for the entire globe. Seasons can be ignored in the totality of the system.
What goes up from an irradiated surface comes down somewhere else where the surface is at a lower temperature.
Adiabatic cooling in uplift is inevitably matched by adiabatic warming in descent for an atmosphere supported against gravity in hydrostatic equilibrium.
All one needs is temperature and density differentials in the horizontal plane beneath a point source of light such as the sun.
A rough surfaced rotating sphere is ideal.
ANY radiative imbalances will be adjusted for via convective changes otherwise there would be runaway cooling or runaway warming.
GHGs produce small changes in the global air circulation pattern
which does involve climate changes especially near climate zone boundaries but one would never notice compared to solar or ocean effects.
Whatever the climate variations the system remains at around 288K unless there are associated albedo changes which can cause slight warming or cooling.
What causes ice ages in your system? Interglacials?
Changes in albedo as per the Milankovitch cycles.
For changes within ice ages or within interglacials it is also changes in albedo but in that case as a result of solar induced changes in albedo (a separate subject).
As regards optical depth see here:
http://cddis.gsfc.nasa.gov/lw13/docs/papers/auto_mallama_1m.pdf
I’m not making this stuff up.
Now, think about what just happened even though you are pointed the IR thermometer at a cold target, its temperature actually went up! So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still!”
If you would bother to ask the folk that construct that instrument, they would demonstrate that the sensor surface exposed to the lower external radiance (temperature), actually decreased in temperature from that of the rear surface)! The thermal conductivity of the sensor measures the EM flux exiting from that thermometer. The external radiance or temperature is then calculated by substituting the known temperature and ‘measured flux’ into the whole S-B equation and solving for the unknown external temperature or radiance. Your “So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still!” is as silly, unphysical, and fake as you!
Depends on whether you are talking about an enclosure or not. Then, always assuming black-bodies,…
If you introduce a cold object into an enclosure with objects in a higher-temperature equilibrium, the ultimate effect will be to lower the temperature of those other objects.
If you bring a cold object near a warm object which is not enclosed – losing heat to deep space, say – that cold object will provide SOME IR to the warm object and the effect will be that the warm object will cool slightly slower than otherwise. (The IR that the cold object intercepts from the warm would otherwise simply have carried away its energy to space.)
If you use a focusing and reflecting system so that all the IR from all sides of the cold object are brought to bear on
the warm object you can warm the warm object quite considerably, provided the cold object and its surface is sufficiently large compared to the warm object. It is just a matter of Conservation of Energy accounting. The Second Law does not come into it – or rather only the bit that says universal entropy never goes down. I remember doing exactly this in school one afternoon. You just need Leslie boxes and parabolic aluminium foil mirrors facing each other, to do all sorts of interesting things.
Prevost’s “Law of Exchanges” is unfortunately always ASSUMED razther than demonstrated. Which is a pity since it is very easy to demonstrate. The lab experiments usually start with “A suitable source of I.R.,” which in practice is a lot warmer than the lab itself. Of course the bright boy, who is trying to cover all possibilities, is going to say “How about a source of thermal I.R. which is COOLER than the lab…?” That was when our teacher waved a hand towards the Leslie boxes and the foil…
There was considerable confusion in interpreting these easy experiments when they were first done because it was seriously thought that cold as well as heat could be “radiated”.
“…easy experiments when they were first done…”
I mean by people like Leslie, two hundred yars ago.
dave says: August 2, 2016 at 3:47 AM
“Depends on whether you are talking about an enclosure or not. Then, always assuming black-bodies,”
AQppears like mor4 ConseRAT BS with intent to deceive!
“If you introduce a cold object into an enclosure with objects in a higher-temperature equilibrium, the ultimate effect will be to lower the temperature of those other objects.”
What is the radiance (temperature) of the enclosure (surround)? What power is supplied to what to maintain your fake equilibrium?
“If you bring a cold object near a warm object which is not enclosed losing heat to deep space, say that cold object will provide SOME IR to the warm object and the effect will be that the warm object will cool slightly slower than otherwise. (The IR that the cold object intercepts from the warm would otherwise simply have carried away its energy to space.)”
If a powered object is exiting via EMR entropy to lower radiance space to achieve some temperature equilibrium any interference with such exitance, must result in an increase of temperature of the exiting surface. Such can never be called “warming” or transfer of power to! All you have is inane fantasy no science. There is absolutely no evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 has interfered in any way with the carefully balanced atmospheric thermal radiative exitance to space!
“Prevosts Law of Exchanges is unfortunately always ASSUMED razther than demonstrated. Which is a pity since it is very easy to demonstrate.”
Such has never and can never be demonstrated! The Pierre Prevost BS only indicates he was only peeing air! Prevost considered EMR a physical fluid that requires mass ‘the caloric’ for power transfer.
All EEs giggle at such a concept! With EMR there is no ‘caloric’, there is no thermodynamic, there are no photons, Only EMR power transfer under the strict physical Laws called Maxwell’s equations! Activity called temperature only sets up the differential radiance that allow such sometimes power transfer under the “Laws called Maxwell’s equations”!
All the best! -will-
If you use a focusing and reflecting system so that all the IR from all sides of the cold object are brought to bear on
“Without downwelling IR radiation from the sky, nighttime on Earth would be much colder than is observed, as 300+ W/m2 of continuous cooling to outer space would cause rapid temperature drops”
In fact no such warming from downward IR is necessary.
Overall (ignoring the effects of rotation and geography) warm air rises and cools adiabatically on the day side and cool air falls and warms adiabatically on the night side. The adiabatic warming in the descent on the night side is sufficient to account for the observed warmth of a surface beneath an atmosphere.
If one adds an effect from downward IR then one is double counting.
Gee, that is some interesting meteorology, Stephen. Air rises on the sunny side of the Earth, sinks on the dark side. I’ll try to remember that!
Sarcasm does not become you, Roy.
Rotation and geography plus the thermal inertia of the oceans jumble it all up for the Earth but the basic point is correct.
Adiabatic descent warms the surface without any need of downward IR.
actually, sarcasm is my real middle name. “W” just sounds more professional.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: July 30, 2016 at 5:33 PM
“actually, sarcasm is my real middle name. W just sounds more professional.”
Dr. Roy,
You are getting much better, thank you. You still are way behind Brad Keys at https://climatenuremberg.com/ The idea is the careful use of words that express what you mean for the careful reader, yet for the casual reader, result in “Wait, what, what did he say”.
Steven, How is adiabatic descent (air) going to warm the surface without IR?
The adiabatic process involves warming or cooling without any transfer of energy in or out of the moving air.
Instead the energy of the air changes between thermal (heat/kinetic ) energy and convectively available potential energy (CAPE in meteorology).
Once descending air has converted some or all of its CAPE back to heat energy then it is warmer and can warm its surroundings diabatically via emission of IR.
In effect the relevant IR is generated in situ from the height at which CAPE converts back to kinetic energy. There is no generalised downward flow because convective adjustments have already neutralised it.
The evidence that downward IR has been neutralised is the steady AVERAGE decline in temperature with height as per the US Standard Atmosphere.
To ascertain the US Standard Atmosphere one requires no input in relation to radiative flows in any direction.
“Steven, How is adiabatic descent (air) going to warm the surface without IR?”
If you would say what you may mean by the word “warm”, you might get some answer! As the atmosphere descend, for whatever reason, it compresses itself, under the influence of Earth’s gravitational field. This compression (increase in pressure and density) is but yet another way of accumulating power as energy, similar to sensible heat, or charging a battery. Both gas molecular rms velocity and packing density contribute to gas temperature, which indicates energy of both!
As the gas compresses temperature goes up because of the gas isentropic exponent! No ‘warming’, in the sense of sensible heat transfer, ever occurs! This is not adiabatic anything!
To ascertain the US Standard Atmosphere requires the input of radiative flows in all directions as measured by the thermometers in the many sounding rockets and balloons Stephen. Then a committee vote on the most representative line drawn thru the data plots.
Of course it does and taking the globe as a whole all the net radiative flows within the atmosphere net out to zero leaving mass, gravity (or rather the density gradient) plus insolation in complete control.
So now Stephen 5:05am agrees to ascertain the US Standard Atmosphere one requires input in relation to radiative flows in any direction opposite of Stephen 11:23pm.
With such glaring lack of skill in atm. radiation physics, Stephen casually switches sides overnight when called out.
If mass, gravity and insolation have complete control please show Earth Ts-Te 33K from them alone Stephen. You’ve never been able to do that & support your hypothesis which is made false by Dr. Spencer’s top post.
No, one does not need to know the radiative flows to establish the US Standard Atmosphere because taken globally they all net out to zero.
There is nothing in the Standard Atmosphere that is dependant on radiative flows.
Stephen reverses course yet again. Without a sufficient grounding in radiative physics this happens all the time.
Stephen now misses, again, the sounding rockets in the midlatitudes along with the balloons thermometer temperature data was gathered dependent on natural existing radiative flows (Stephen term). Then the committee voted them into the final product.
Actual temperatures were measured, not ‘radiative flows’.
You may well be a chap previously known as ‘Trick’ in another blog who had exactly the same verbal tics and existed solely to obfuscate.
Radiative flows is a Stephen term, tried to use it for Stephen benefit. Didn’t work.
Hi there, trick, I remember you. Ball4 you like better? Does it make your feel more clever? Maybe time to change your blogonym again, donchathink?
Stephen Wilde writes:
“The adiabatic process involves warming or cooling without any transfer of energy in or out of the moving air.
Instead the energy of the air changes between thermal (heat/kinetic ) energy and convectively available potential energy (CAPE in meteorology).”
His comment virtually intends to support the claim that a tall thermally isolated body of air at a fixed altitude, when at internal thermodynamic equilibrium, would have a temperature gradient, hotter at the bottom. That claim is mistaken.
Stephen’s comment shows muddled thinking arising from his carelessness with terminology. His comment as quoted above directly addresses the possibly changing altitude involved in convection, and so is not directly about thermodynamic equilibrium. His comment says “The adiabatic process involves warming or cooling without any transfer of energy in or out of the moving air.” There is a terminological muddle hidden in that sentence. Three kinds of energy interchange or transfer are relevant here.
(1) thermal conduction; this is practically zero in this context; this is the meaning of ‘adiabatic’.
(2) the air-body’s inward transfer of internal energy when the descending column is compressed with work being done on it by the air surrounding it; this gain of internal energy precisely accounts for the temperature increase of the air-body. This central fact is hidden by Stephen’s careless terminology.
(3) the air-body’s loss of overall gravitational potential energy due to its decrease of altitude; this does not directly affect the temperature of the air-body; if it is accepted that the whole system is stationary at the beginning and end of the air-body’s descent, then the work done in compressing the air-body, as just-above mentioned, is just equal to the just mentioned loss of overall potential energy. The total energy of the air-body is not changed, but there has been an inward transfer of internal energy matched by a loss of overall potential energy. It is the inward transfer of energy as work, giving a gain of internal energy, due to compressive work, that directly effects the rise in temperature. The matching loss of overall potential energy does not directly affect the temperature. This is an interchange of kinds of energy, without change of total energy. Stephen Wilde muddles himself by calling this “without any transfer of energy”, a careless and misleading use of terms.
A tall air-body in a vertical gravitational field, isolated from thermal and compressive transfers, is still not isolated from the gravitational field. When considered in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, it has a density gradient, and a corresponding pressure gradient, due to the gravitational field. It does not, however, have any residual continuing convective motion within itself, nor, at equilibrium, does it have residual continuing gain or loss of overall gravitational potential energy, neither within itself nor by transfer to or from the outside. At such thermodynamic equilibrium, it has a uniform temperature, a zero temperature gradient; the reader may confirm this by a careful survey of the literature of thetmodynamics; I think Stephen Wilde denies this. He is therefore, I think, mistaken. At the heart of his denial lies his muddle in treating ‘no change in total energy’ as if it meant ‘no change of internal energy’, when the reality is ‘interchange of internal energy with overall potential energy’. Dr Spencer does not make Stephen’s mistake.
Chris, a survey of the literature results in finding the ideal tall, isolated air column was thought to become isothermal at LTE by the early writers but they never proved it. A proof that the column will follow the ideal Poisson T(p) was achieved in Bohren Atm. Thermo. 1998, see sec. 4.4, using entropy maximization technique. Subsequent authors have extended the work.
Thank you, Ball4, for this comment. In Section 4.4 of Bohren & Albrecht 1998, I read on page 167: “Of all linear potential temperature profiles, a constant potential temperature maximizes the entropy of an isolated layer of the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium. … Why isn’t the equilibrium profile isothermal?” On page 176 of Iribarne & Godson 2nd edition 1981/1989, I read: “In the previous chapter we have considered the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is obvious that this type of equilibrium does not imply a thermodynamic equilibrium; for instance, the vertical gradient of temperature will imply vertical heat [transfer].” Thermodynamic and hydrostatic equilibria are defined by respectively different constraints. Using the calculus of variations on macroscopic thermodynamics, several texts on thermodynamics consider the problem of thermodynamic equilibrium of a system isolated except from gravity; such isolation includes rigid walls, excluding compressive work. For example: Gibbs, J.W. (1876/1878), pp. 144-150; ter Haar, D., Wergeland, H. (1966), pp. 127130; Mnster, A. (1970), pp. 309310; Bailyn, M. (1994), pp. 254-256. The methods of statistical mechanics are also used: Maxwell, J.C. (1867); Boltzmann, L. (1896/1964), p. 143; Chapman, S., Cowling, T.G. (1939/1970), Section 4.14, pp. 7578; Partington, J.R.(1949), pp. 275278. Also journal articles: Coombes, C.A., Laue, H. (1985), Am. J. Phys., 53, 272273; Romn, F.L., White, J.A., Velasco, S. (1995), Eur. J. Phys., 16, 8390; Velasco, S., Romn, F.L., White, J.A. (1996), Eur. J. Phys., 7, 4344.
The just foregoing references are from the Wikipedia article on thermal equilibrium.
Chris, yes, the potential temperature of Poisson T(p) Bohren 1998 eqn. 4.149 p. 166 – that vertical T profile was shown to be the one and only one that maximizes the entropy in the isolated column. All other profiles have a lower entropy thus are not yet at the heat death point max. entropy.
Subsequent authors to Bohren confirmed his work and calculated the constant T profile (isothermal) has a lower entropy than Poisson T(P) entropy so is not the LTE profile as suggested by the earlier authors you note.
The word ‘isolated’ is being used here in two different senses. The word ‘isolated’ refers to the kinds of constraint, the quantities that are maintained constant, and the corresponding quantities that vary for the maximization.
On page 22, Bohren & Albrecht write: “An isolated system exchanges neither mass nor energy with its surroundings.” On page 135 they write: “… the defining characteristic of entropy is that it is a measurable physical quantity that can only increase (for an isolated system).” On page 164, they write: “We conclude from this analysis that when the two bodies reach the same temperature, no further entropy increase is possible. And if we believe the second law, namely, that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, we conclude that equality of temperature characterizes the final equilibrium state of the two bodies in contact.”
Further down on page 164, they write: “Thus if we consider a layer of the atmosphere between two constant-pressure surfaces (planes), the total mass of this layer is constant. Suppose that the layer is isolated from its surroundings, neither heated nor cooled by radiation nor by interaction with adjacent air (or ground). What is the equilibrium temperature profile in this layer?” This is a departure from their former usage of words. “… interaction with adjacent air” needs clarification. The layer lies “between two constant-pressure surfaces (planes)”. How are the two constant pressures maintained? Which quantities are varied for the maximization? On page 165, they write: “… the forms of energy the layer can have, and because it is isolated, the sum of these energies must be constant”. Perhaps they intend that the relevant forms of energy of the fixed mass of the layer (the body) are (1) the kinetic energy of the body as a whole; (2) the gravitational potential energy of the body as a whole; (3) the internal energy of the body. Perhaps by their word ‘hydrostatic’ they mean that the kinetic energy (1) is zero. Let us suppose so. How is “interaction with adjacent air” prevented? To prevent transfer of energy as work, immovable rigid walls would be needed. It is reasonable to suppose that each of the two constant-pressure surfaces has its own respective pressure uniform over its horizontal extent. Is that all that is meant by “constant-pressure”? Or are those two uniform pressures also maintained constant for the maximization? If so, how should these two constant pressures be maintained through immovable rigid walls? I think Bohren and Albrecht intend that the two uniform pressures be maintained constant for the maximization, and that for that they must allow movable walls. Then two energy interchanges are possible: work that changes (1) the internal energy of the body; and work that changes (2) the gravitational potential energy of the body as a whole. I think this is what is intended by using the term ‘hydrostatic’ in their summary sentence of page 167: “Of all linear potential temperature profiles, a constant potential temperature maximizes the entropy of an isolated layer of the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.” I think here their word “isolated” intends to allow pressure maintenance through movable walls and compressive work.
Chris, the word isolated is not intended to allow pressure maintenance through movable walls and compressive work since eqn. 4.140 the sum of the energies is constrained constant for a totally isolated column of air in the hydrostatic atm., the total enthalpy per unit area is conserved. No interaction with adjacent air nor heating/cooling with surroundings by radiation.
It seems “intended” is not the right word. It seems that Bohren & Albrecht’s intentions are self-contradictory if they want to have their “hydrostatic atmosphere” also isolated from compressive work. What is the exact meaning of the words “the sum of the energies is constrained constant for a totally isolated column of air in the hydrostatic atm.,”? Exactly which energies? Exactly what does “hydrostatic atmosphere” mean? Exactly how can one set the pressures at the top and bottom of a totally isolated atmosphere? If isolating walls are not movable, are they immovable? Are they rigid? One may assume that no walls can insulate against gravity.
You write: “No interaction with adjacent air nor heating/cooling with surroundings by radiation.”
Exactly how is this non-interaction with adjacent air maintained?
I think that a “hydrostatic atmosphere” is not the same thing as a totally isolated atmosphere in the sense of one that is confined by impermeable rigid immovable thermally and radiatively isolating walls. They are constrained differently.
Chris, this is idealized, the energies are the sum of total enthalpy of the column 4.138 and the g field potential energy 4.139, so their sum 4.140 is constrained constant by 1LOT with idealized rigid totally adiabatic walls. Exactly what hydrostatic means is shown in 4.137.
The equilibrium T(p) answer can be found from applying 1LOT and 2LOT and the math dept. finding the one and only max. entropy point for this column – which is a total universe all to itself, no communication at all with surroundings only a gravity field.
To have the volume as an independent variable, internal energy is the appropriate potential; then the pressure is not independent. To have pressure as an independent variable, enthalpy is the appropriate potential; then the volume is not independent. Rigid immovable walls fix the volume, not the pressure. Movable walls are needed to fix the pressure.
Detailed discussions of this topic are to be found at http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2#/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061%3C0931%3AOMEP%3E2.0.CO%3B2 and at https://www.google.com.au/search?q=column+of+air+in+thermodynamic+equilibrium&client=tablet-android-samsung&source=android-browser&biw=800&bih=1280&prmd=ivn&ei=V2ytV4eqO4OW0gTBxpKwBg&start=30&sa=N . I hope these links will work.
The references I cited above are simply about the problem of thermodynamic equilibrium for a tall column of air isolated except for the presence of a gravity field imposed from the outside so that it is not affected by what happens inside the column. These further references are about the difference from that of the case considered by Bohren and Albrecht.
The first one works but I am sorry to say the second one does not. The second one is intended to lead to QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187197 (2008) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/qj.209, an article by R.A. Akmaev, entitled ‘On the energetics of maximum entropy profiles’.
Yes, Chris, the 1st paper confirms Bohren 1998 that the Poisson non-isothermal T(p) is correct as the authors compute a higher max. entropy than for T(p)=constant isothermal case for the totally isolated ideal trop. air column over layers several hundred mb thick.
The second paper also confirms Bohren 1998 and adds an even more rigorous solution to find Poisson T(p) is the higher max. entropy ideal solution at LTE than isothermal T(p)=constant.
Those who read these papers may form their own interpretations of them.
Ah ! Now I see a source of confusion. Throughout this topic is the background assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium throughout the extent of the body of air. This means, more or less, that the body of air has, at every point in it, a pressure, temperature, and density, nearly everywhere continuously distributed, and that those thermodynamic quantities, as intensities and specific quantities, pointwise obey the usual thermodynamic relations.
This applies only as background to the problems of present concern.
There are two problems of present concern that share this background. One is that considered by Bohren and Albrecht in their Section 4.4, cited by Ball4. They speak of a “hydrostatic atmosphere”. The other is the one that I would describe as follows: a tall column of air in a vessel with rigid, immovable walls that are impermeable to heat, matter, and radiation; it is in thermodynanic equilibrium; this means, amongst other things, that it has no flows, neither internal nor external.
It is the latter problem that has the solution of vertical uniformity of temperature.
The problem considered by Bohren and Albrecht has the solution cited by Ball4, namely a constant potential temperature, that is a non-uniform temperature described by a function T(p) that Ball4 labels “Poisson”; this solution does not describe thermodynamic equilibrium, but has flows. Since it has a non-uniform temperature, there is within it radiative transfer of energy as heat, flowing from the hotter parts to the colder parts. This internal radiative heat flow will be accompanied by other flows, as discussed by Akmaev 2008.
Chris, there is no source of confusion in the 3 works, they all confirm. The Poisson T(p) (Bohren 4.149) occurs as the totally isolated ideal column reaches max. entropy LTE, that is the heat death of this totally isolated column meaning there is no longer any heat flow as you are confused about.
There is no heat flow from hotter to colder parts as you write at LTE as that would only occur below and up to the max. entropy point. At max. entropy, the gravity field means any KE is exactly converted to PE as a constituent particle moves against/with gravity at Poisson T(p) max. entropy, there is no excess KE any longer, heat death has occurred.
The T(p)=constant solution is for the column allowed to do work on the air column above and below; that work performed by this column is exactly equal to and opposite in sign of the changes in internal, kinetic plus potential energy.
In a constant gravity field, one may imagine a tall column of air contained in a vessel with rigid immovable vertical walls that are impermeable to matter and radiant and conductive heat transfer. But the top and bottom walls, though still rigid and immovable, and impermeable to matter, are able to transfer energy as heat. One may imagine a steady, time-invariant state, with equal rates of heat entering at the bottom and leaving at the top. Convective circulation within the vessel maintains a time-invariant vertical temperature profile. This will result in the vertical profile of constant potential temperature. Heat is flowing in at the bottom and out at the top, at some arbitrarily prescribed rate. The rate will determine the value of the potential temperature, and the internal and potential energy density profiles. Internal radiative and conductive heat transfer are permitted, though they will be slow in comparison with convective circulatory heat transfer.
Leaving the vertical walls unchanged, when the top and bottom of the vessel are made to be impermeable to heat, then the column of air is isolated except for gravity. This will give an isothermal profile. The temperature will be the one derived from the heat-flow case of the previous paragraph when the heat flow is made to vanish. The internal and potential energy density profiles will again be determined by this zero heat flow. At this zero heat flow, it will not matter whether the top and bottom are permeable or impermeable to heat.
Interesting thought experiment…I’ll have to think that one through, Christopher.
But the top and bottom walls, though still rigid and immovable, and impermeable to matter, are able to transfer energy as heat.
Maybe Chris can redefine the top and bottom wall as ABLE (diabatic), but there will be no actual kinetic energy transfer as the KE at the top and bottom wall pressure levels are at the same local temperature with surroundings at LTE, the constant T(p). Actually the top and bottom walls were also defined as adiabatic, so Chris’ argument is moot, he simply redefines the problem in a way that does not matter to the result.
As this column can do work on the air column above and below, there can be work transferred across the top and bottom walls. That work is equal to and opposite in sign to the change in column internal, potential and kinetic energy. As I wrote above. So that column T(p) = constant at LTE, with the surroundings, Chris’ own first ref. math shows why that ideally happens in detail in Sec. 2.a.
Where the top and bottom walls are closed to work on the air columns above and below, i.e. Chris’ own ref. sec. 2b column is totally isolated universe unto itself, heat death occurs at max. entropy and KE no longer can flow across any pressure level internally, nor can work transfer externally, to increase universe total entropy which is the definition of heat death, here T(p) is shown as in Bohren eqn. 4.149 subject to the constraint Bohren 4.140.
It was just a passing thought, an initial attempt. Now I think it is not a properly set problem. The initial attempt did not determine the energies in the column.
My next attempt is to arbitrarily set the top and bottom temperatures for the case of heat permeable top and bottom rigid immovable matter-impermeable walls. The thermodynamic equilibrium cases are when the top and bottom temperatures are set arbitrarily but equal.
I just now tried to post links to two articles by Pehr Bjrmbom, 2015 and 2016, but my attempt seemed to miss the mark. I think the articles are partly relevant. One can get them both on the internet for free as pdf files. Given my head, I would slightly change the interpretations offered in those articles.
Spelling. The letter o with two dots does not transmit in this editor. My typing error also put m for n. The correct spelling is Bjornbom with two dots on top of the o.
Chris, try posting a google string for a search that results in the article(s).
On further thought, it seems to me that the two papers by Pehr Bjornbom are not relevant enough to the present discussion to justify posting their links. They are concerned with a rather special concept proposed by Bjornbom.
Hi Roy,
I have no idea about whether or not it is atmospheric pressure but I am certain it is not the “greenhouse effect” because the greenhouse effect is simply a numerical geophysical metric for atmospheric insulation using the numerical value of difference between effective radiating temperature and surface temperature and neither the numerical value of 34.51C (the greenhouse effect calculated for 1980) nor the numerical value 34.46C (the greenhouse effect calculated for 2002) can have any effect on global temperature.
In Hansen et al 1981 http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
Hansen properly defines the greenhouse effect as
“The excess, Ts – Te, is the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,
Ts is surface temperature and Te is effective radiating temperature which is computed from OLR and the Stefan Boltzmann Constant. (in the past before satellite measurements Ts was calculated from the solar constant minus albedo instead of from OLR because there were no OLR measurements at the time.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
In his 1896 Paper “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground” Arrhenius makes no mention of the greenhouse effect because this numerical difference has no bearing on the effect from carbonic acid on the surface temperature.
Interestingly Arrhenius stated that he made no measurements above 9.5microns which means that he never included any effect from CO2 because CO2 only has an effect between 13microns and 17 microns which is well above what he measured.
(bottom paragraph page 248)
It was in this paper that Hansen coined the term greenhouse warming and invented a CO2 forcing parameter for his climate models of 5.35ln(2) for a doubling of CO2
(Hansen’s model #4 is 2.78C derived from 5.35ln(2) times a climate sensitivity factor of 0.75C/W/m^2)
As a result of this paper written 35 years ago “the greenhouse effect” became an effect instead of simply a numerical value as it was originally defined, and because of this change in meaning only Geophysicists like me who completed our studies of theoretical geophysics when the greenhouse effect still meant
Ts – Te are aware of its true meaning.
Another metric for atmospheric insulation would be the radiation from the surface calculated from the Stefan Boltzmann law minus OLR
for 14.35C 287.5 K the radiation level is 387.37W/m^2
Olr averaged over the past 3 decades is 232W/m^2
so according to these measurements Clouds water vapour and to some small extent CO2 have reduced the surface radiation by 152W/m^2.
My estimate is that clouds and water vapour are responsible for at least 90% of this 152.37W/m^2 reduction which only leaves 15.237W/m^2 possibly attributable to CO2
The question then is how much more effect can come from increases in CO2 considering that the 14.77micron band affected by CO2 is already too close to satureation from current 400.83ppmv CO2 concentration (2015) that only a miniscule amount of further effect is possible.
http://jimpeden.blogspot.ca/2009/11/norm-kalmanovich-on-global-warming-hoax.html
There is a very good scientific reason that the massive increase in CO2 emissions since 2002 has not caused any global warming!
Norm K
wow, “15.237” W/m2! I wish I could be so precise!
Come on Dr. Spencer, Norm’s historical narrative is reasonably precise. The greenhouse gas effect is just recent and now one has ever measured it. Those of NOAA climate monitoring are virtually programmed measurement of backradiation as a result of incorrect calibration equation of pyrgeometers.
Nabil – Multi-annual Earth Ts is measured by the surface thermometer field. Multi-annual brightness Te is measured by satellite radiometer field. The difference (Ts-Te) is measured.
Many other solar system objects similar but sparser fields have been measured for (Ts-Te). Reasonable data has become available.
“Ts-Te is measured”
So what? This does not mean greenhouse gas effect exist.
Backradiation is the greenhouse gas effect and no one has ever measured it, period. It has always been calculated and it is time to prove it experimentally.
Measuring Ts and Te for Earth means its GHE = Ts – Te has been measured Nabil.
Ball4,
You only calculated greenhouse gas effect as defined by you. Show us how this effect reaches the surface by placing an instrument on surface. Give us infrared image of it at night if you can as we do for a home, cat, or dog.
Easier, just ask infrared astronomer, they will tell you that there are no 342 w/m2 of backradiation. Therefore, the science is settled-backradiaiton, which is the greenhouse gas effect, does not exist.
The IR astronomers moved their equipment to high, cold, dry places & space at great cost to humans and treasure to avoid Earth GHE. If you prove planet GHE does not exist, you should let them know pretty quickly.
Dr. Spencer in the top post provides an answer to your search for how the effect reaches the surface.
GHE = Ts – Te is the common defn. not just mine. It serves well.
By the way, all temperature measurements are calculated not just pyrgeometer measurements. Mercury thermometers calculate the expansion of a pool of mercury, calibrated to read out correctly at boiling and freezing point of water.
Same for IR thermometers, mine reads out ice water and boiling water temperatures sufficiently correctly that I trust it as good as thermometry for much practical use.
“Backradiation is the greenhouse gas effect and no one has ever measured it, period. ”
That is obvious and interesting point.
Clouds or interior walls of a room will have “Backradiation”
and they are not caused by gases or greenhouse gases.
In atmosphere dust and water droplets will have this
Backradiation. Smog and forest fire smoke is not gases and would have Backradiation.
So if measuring backradiation greenhouse gases how does it compare to the similarly measured backradiation of clouds.
Or clouds [not a greenhouse gas] obviously cause nights to be warmer so how much of difference of backradiation from clouds as compared clear skies.
I don’t know. But I suppose I could point my hand held IR thermometer at cloud, but then again it’s not really suppose to measure backradiation. But then again, Roy W. Spencer seems to think it’s measuring something to do with greenhouse effect.
But anyhow, if point it at cloud and point it at clear skies
what differences should I expect?
And what reasons are there for differences [other than it’s the wrong instrument to measure it:)]
The issue is very simple. On a clear day, if you point the IR thermometer straight up it will read one temperature. If you then point it obliquely, it will read a warmer temperature. The IR thermometer has just measured an INCREASE in the surface temperature of a thermopile in response to an increase in downwelling IR radiation, even though the portion of the sky it is pointing at is COLDER than the instrument.
That observed warming IS the greenhouse effect.
The very term “back radiation” misleads. The greater the wv level, the more potent the GHE and the more opaque is the atmosphere. Isotropic radiation of the atmosphere involves a very short distances, a few meters at most. How much heat is conveyed to the surface under such conditions? I doubt that the answer can be reliably given.
Not bad mpainter. The answer you seek for heat conveyed as the atm. opacity and emissivity change can be idealized and beginners can find reasonable formulae to compute the 255K and 288K since there are so many measurements on Earth for the input data to a simple energy balance, build a foundation for further research.
Your 255 K does not stand up in consideration of the fact that SST is determined by insolation alone.
Energy from visible light accumulates in the oceans. This cumulative process is what determines SST, not back radiation. The AGW assumptions fall to the ground when nature has her say.
Another obvious fact: water is opaque to LWIR. The so-called back radiation cannot contribute to SST. Air temperature is determined by surface temperature, and not the reverse. The better informed AGW types have snapped to this obvious fact of physics, and now have revised their science in this regard. They now claim that the temperature gradient is altered and this warms SST. Ha ha, this is even dumber because sea surfac.e does not cool via conduction. AGW RIP.
The cumulative SS loss process is needed for SST balance too mpainter not just the insolation as you incorrectly write. See top post try actually reading it for once:
“sunlight is virtually the only source of energy in the climate system, but the average surface temperature of the Earth cannot be estimated from the strength of this source; the processes which control the rate of energy LOSS are also involved”
Water at SS absorbs about 96% of incident light rays and reflects about 4% across the spectrum & hemisphere. So modulating LWIR by clouds does affect SST free to evaporate. Dr. Spencer ran a test with the data supporting.
The dirt surface is also opaque to LWIR. Writing the SST (or dirt surface) is not affected by conduction will not win honor points mpainter.
Processes affecting energy transfer gain and loss are conductive, convective and radiative.
The term back radiation is in fact very misleading terminology. The interaction between thermal radiation from the Earth and the CO2 molecule entails the capture of photons of wavelengths at or near resonance with the 20,397GHz natural vibration along the axis of the CO2 molecule through the dipole moment generated. This resonance wavelength is 14.77microns and the effect reduces to zero at 13microns and 17 microns leaving a “V” shaped notch in the Earth’s thermal radiation spectrum as measured by the Nimbus 4 Satellite in 1970. http://www.geoconvention.com/archives/2010/0058_GC2010_Effect_of_Doubling_Concentration_of_CO2_in_the_Atmosphere.pdf
When these photons are captured by the CO2 molecule they are annihilated and their energy is transferred to the molecule inducing this 20,397GHz vibration.
After a short period of time the energy is released in the form of a new photon which is emittied in some random direction, and this photon direction can equally be in a net upwards downwards or sideways direction. The net upwards direction can have the photon escape into space while the net downward direction can have the photon return to the Earth surface.
This return to the Earth’s surface of re-emitted photons can be construed as “back radiation” but as mpainter says this term is very misleading.
Norm K, the photons are not re-emitted, they die, are annihilated when absorbed. The emitted photon is completely new birth. Refection & transmittance are the life of photons.
The newer energy balance papers have moved away from back radiation term used decades ago to a more meaningful clear sky emission to surface and all-sky emission to surface.
Yeah, but solar energy is cumulative in the oceans. Down to 100 meters. Close your eyes to this fact, because if you open them you will explode your AGW molded brain.
Eyes are not closed to that fact mpainter. If you have a ref. that does so, do not keep it secret.
-The issue is very simple. On a clear day, if you point the IR thermometer straight up it will read one temperature. –
Ok just did that got -18 F
-If you then point it obliquely, it will read a warmer temperature. –
Ok did that, and got a lot more variation but call it less than 5 F.
3 pm, not really clear, somewhat hazy, but no clouds.
–The IR thermometer has just measured an INCREASE in the surface temperature of a thermopile in response to an increase in downwelling IR radiation, even though the portion of the sky it is pointing at is COLDER than the instrument.
That observed warming IS the greenhouse effect.–
The relevant issue is you are saying it’s backradiation it measures.
And when I point it at my ceiling and it says 103 F [and a wall is 86 F] -which therefore is likewise backradiation or if you like downwelling IR .
at 3 pm
And I don’t have cloud to point at but when I do have a cloud to point at, it likewise will be backradiation.
I would expect if the day was less hazy, my guess
is I would perhaps get lower temperature reading of the sky. And where the sun is could affect the temperature reading- noon vs near morning or sunset. Also get difference
depending on humidity. [Not sure what present humidity is-
but, internet say San Pedro is 59% with wind at 8 mph, and 79 F- and sunny. Which is about 5 miles away and nearer the coast from me, in Torrance, CA]
Anyhow, the point is that when there clouds which are causing the nights to be warmer, what will the difference be
in their downwelling radiation as compared to clear sky.
Or can we predict temperature effect of certain types of clouds by measuring the downwelling radiation.
Or if point Ir thingy at a clouds and it’s X degrees, will be predictive of whether night will be warmer or cooler depending it’s temperature?
“If this convective heating of the atmosphere is continuously occurring, what prevents the atmosphere from warming endlessly?”
The warming of the surface from descending convection allows more radiation direct to space from the warmed surface without needing radiative gases to assist.
The thermal consequences of the radiative properties of GHGs are neutralised by convection, the warming of the atmosphere during convective descent warms the surface and the surface radiates more to space.
There is no endless warming.
A planet with an atmosphere only reaches its stable long term temperature AFTER any radiative imbalances have been neutralised by convective overturning.
Thereafter changes in the radiative gases only result in changes in the structure of convective overturning and NOT the temperature of the system as a whole.
(Sits back and awaits an onslaught)
Credit to Roy for focusing on this specific issue here so that it can be properly (one hopes) explored.
The ENTIRE tropospheric column cools radiatively at night…this can be seen in radiosonde data, for example morning (12Z) versus evening (00Z) radiosonde ascents in the U.S.
Most of that tropospheric air never comes in contact with the ground during the night, Stephen. In general, it takes days to weeks for descending tropospheric air in the upper troposphere to reach the surface…yet the entire column cools at night, in a matter of hours…which means through IR radiation.
I find it hard to fathom that you believe such a thing…who taught you this?
Mostly, heat loss is from the ground unless there are clouds GHGs or aerosols present in which case heat loss is indeed from those materials within the entire column and they alter the local lapse rate slopes which leads to convective adjustments that reduce surface cooling correspondingly.
So, the right amount of radiation always escapes to space either from the surface OR from the atmosphere and if there is any imbalance then convection adjusts to neutralise it.
For a radiatlvely inert atmosphere ALL heat loss to space must be from the surface and the speed of convective overturning would have to accelerate in order to return sufficient heat to the surface fast enough to retain radiative equilibrium with space.
The more energy goes to space from within the column the less fast convective overturning needs to be.
As for ‘who taught me’ I joined the Royal Meteorological Society in 1968 and have remained a member ever since and have kept in touch with all aspects of climate, meteorology and other sciences that have a bearing on those disciplines.
hmmm…sounds like you are suddenly much more in agreement with me. The only thing I see in your latest comment I disagree with now is “…and if there is any imbalance then convection adjusts to neutralise it.” Yes, convection increases when there is more radiative heating…but temperature also increases as well. Otherwise, it can’t drive increased convection.
Try this:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
Im not making this stuff up
Due to a near instantaneous adjustment in convective overturning there is no additional radiative heating from GHGs.
The convective column immediately changes it’s cell sizes and speeds so that radiation absorbed from the ground by GHGs is matched (at hydrostatic equilibrium) by radiation lost by GHGs to space from a greater height.
Changes in convective overturning which are caused by radiative imbalances within the vertical column all occur off the ground whilst the average ground temperature remains the same as before.
Equal and opposite changes to the observed lapse rate slope at different heights do the trick.
Since the changes in lapse rate slopes are equal and opposite overall the average slope used by the US Standard Atmosphere works just fine for all practical purposes.
“For a radiatlvely inert atmosphere ALL heat loss to space must be from the surface and the speed of convective overturning would have to accelerate in order to return sufficient heat to the surface fast enough to retain radiative equilibrium with space.”
Can you name one “radiatlvely inert atmosphere” with a thickness of 50 km please? Mechanical convection, due to Earth’s centrifuge (tangential airmass momentum eastward 1000 MPH at the equator) assists in ‘convecting’ sensible heat from the surface to an elevation where it may be be radiated to space via EMR exitance more effectively than from the surface. Your comic book meteorology is true BS. Your concept of thermal electromagnetic radiative flux is much worse!
Even with no rotation and therefore no centrifugal forces there would still be convection up on the day side and down on the night side simply due to uneven surface heating leading to density variations in the horizontal plane.
I do agree though that a radiatively inert atmosphere is an impossibility.
Stephen Wilde says: July 31, 2016 at 12:15 AM
“Even with no rotation and therefore no centrifugal forces there would still be convection up on the day side and down on the night side simply due to uneven surface heating leading to density variations in the horizontal plane. I do agree though that a radiatively inert atmosphere is an impossibility.”
Your flat surface with 50 Km Z-altitude is your deliberately fraudulent impossibility! Even without the very asymmetrical insolation, mechanical convection must result in Hadley, Ferrel, and Polar, convections. These are complete with jet streams and polar vortices, complete with chaotic wiggles! Your comic book meteorology is the exact thing that interferes with any learning!
No flat earth.
Just a sphere that is non rotating.
Of course there will still be convection, that is my point !!!
Stephen Wilde says: July 31, 2016 at 3:41 AM
“No flat earth. Just a sphere that is non rotating.”
This Earth is rotating, no mater what your fantasy, creating all manner of air mass momentum That overrides most all of your “upsetting of atmospheric neutral buoyancy”, by insolation that you call ‘convection’ for some unknown reason!
“Of course there will still be convection, that is my point !!!”
Your Solar induced nonsense only messes with any calculation of the compressible fluid flow. It is the mechanical convection that reduces the radiative lapse rate from 17 C/km to 10 C/km or 5 C/km condensing.
All these terms are negative with respect to increasing altitude in Earth’s troposphere.
Check out this description as to how convective changes neutralise radiative imbalances in the Troposphere.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
Earth is receiving an energy flow in the form of short-wave radiation (mostly visible light) from Sun. Earth is emitting almost the same energy flow to space in the form of long-wave radiation, that is IR radiation. If Earth would not be radiating IR radiation to space there would be no energy balance and Earth would become hotter and hotter without an end because of the heat being received from Sun.
It has been found by satellite observations that the IR radiation from Earth to space is emitted from greenhouse gases at an average altitude of about 5000 m where the temperature is 255 K. Because the temperature in the atmosphere decreases with altitude due to the gravity effect with 6.5 K/km, the temperature 255 K at 5000 m altitude corresponds to a temperature at Earth’s surface of 288 K.
The radiation temperature of 255 K of the greenhouse gases at the average radiation altitude must always be the same in order to the IR radiation from Earth to space to balance the radiation from Sun. If the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increased this would increase the average altitude where greenhouse gases radiate IR radiation from Earth to space but not change the radiation temperature 255 K. Thus, with more greenhouse gases giving a higher average radiation altitude the temperature at the surface of the Earth due to the gravity effect would increase above 288 K.
In summary we see that the gravity effect that the temperature decreases with altitude and the IR radiation properties of the greenhouse gases both are necessary for the greenhouse effect to work. If there would be no gravity effect the temperature at the surface would be the same att 5000 m and at the surface and the surface temperature would be 255 K. If in that case the greenhouse gas content would be increased the average radiation altitude with the temperature 255 K would again increase but the surface temperature would stay at 255 K.
The gravity effect is necessary for making Earth habitable but this effect cannot do this important work without the effect of the greenhouse gases.
“The gravity effect is necessary for making Earth habitable but this effect cannot do this important work without the effect of the greenhouse gases.”
With respect, GHGs are not necessary.
The raised average temperature of the surface from warming caused in convective adiabatic descent will always radiate enough additional energy to space from the surface to enable energy in to match energy out for the system as a whole.
It works even for a radiatively inert atmosphere.
With all respect but what I wrote is elementary textbook knowledge in planetary climate physics. With a radiatively inert atmosphere the average altitude for IR radiation would be zero and the average surface temperature would be about 255 K. In that case the gravity effect of the atmosphere would not be able to increase the surface temperature above 255 K and Earth would become a much more icy planet than today.
If that were correct there would be no energy at the surface to create the motion involved in convective overturning.
In reality convective uplift takes 33K upwards and convective descent brings 33K back down and the surface temperature is 288K as observed.
As long as the atmosphere is hydrostatically balanced that 33K cannot escape the planet of its atmosphere.
That textbook does not supply a complete description without convective overturning.
Thanks, you take up an interesting issue. What would happen with Earth’s atmosphere if it would be radiatively inert? Since the atmosphere in that case could not absorb radiation from the sun it would only get energy via the surface of Earth. The radiative balance for Earth’s surface would give it an average temperature of about 255 K. The atmosphere would have the temperature 255 at zero altitude but how the temperature would change with increasing altitude is not self-evident. I guess that this hypothetical case is a topic for future research.
If the atmosphere were radiatively inert then all radiation to space must go from the surface as you say.
There would still be a lapse rate and convective overturning but to get enough energy back to the surface fast enough that overturning would need to be very fast and violent compared to what we are used to.
Our aerosols, water vapour, clouds and other GHGs help to make the relatively slow speed of our convective overturning commensurate with life.
Mars sometimes shows great planet wide dust storms. I suggest that is a result of the speed of convecting overturning increasing significantly when radiative imbalances occur. In due course those imbalances are neutralised and the storms abate.
With the same due respect OLR as measured by satellites has averaged around 232W/m^2 which is equivalent to the surface temperature of a blackbody 252.916 K
The 255 K is not a measured value but what is determined from the assumption that the albedo is 30% and the solar constant is 1367W/m^2.
This 255 K determined in this way is the assumed effective radiating temperature which subtracted from the surface temperature assumed to be 288 K (14.85C) gives the standard greenhouse effect of 33C.
If there was no blockage of thermal radiation from the Earth’s surface by clouds (76%) water vapour (14%) and CO2 (10%) the Earth’s surface temperature would not have needed to warm up by this 33C (to stay with this 288 K 255 K example) to reach a radiation level sufficient to overcome the blockage by clouds water vapour and CO2 to match the net incoming energy from the sun (i.e. TSI – Albedo)
Thanks, the figures you mention I have no objection to. My point was to illustrate schematically how elementary textbook knowledge explains how the gravity effect and the effect of the greenhouse gases work together to form the greenhouse effect and the 33 K warming of the surface with today’s amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. With greater amount of greenhouse gases this warming will be greater, without greenhouse gases at all Earth would become almost fully ice covered and a dead planet without any life.
The claim that insolation is insufficient to warm the surface to its present temperature is nonsense. This claim ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that the ocean accumulates solar energy,due to the physics of water. The ocean is not a black body nor even a grey body but absorbs the energy of visible light to depth without radiating it, except fractionally. Thus heat is cumulative in the oceans in the tropics and subtropics and is transported poleward to warm the higher latitudes.
The GHE has been mischaracterized and somewhat exaggerated by the AGW crowd. Is this any surprise?
It is no surprise that nonsense poster mpainter can write oceans absorb without radiating. That finding by test would surprise Dr. Planck et. al.
There is no understanding in your, b4, so you try to get by on snark. Doesn’t work.
More than sound bites will not post tonight mp. Dr. Spencer’s top post is all the detail mp needs to improve anyway.
mpainter says: July 30, 2016 at 4:49 PM
“The claim that insolation is insufficient to warm the surface to its present temperature is nonsense.”
True!
“This claim ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that the ocean accumulates solar energy,due to the physics of water. The ocean is not a black body nor even a grey body but absorbs the energy of visible light to depth without radiating it, except fractionally.”
False BS! The oceans emit EMR in the 8-13 micron wavelengths almost as well as the average land surface.
“Thus heat is cumulative in the oceans in the tropics and subtropics and is transported poleward to warm the higher latitudes.”
Although the oceans have much more power storage per unit increase in temperature than land surfaces. Ocean heat loss is a function of surface wind velocity and highly sensitive to minor changes in ocean surface temperature and contaminants such as oil.
The situation is such that No one knows anything of what is going on with the weather! Anyone that claims to know about ‘Climate’ is a SCAMMER after your money!
Will j, I said “except fractionally”. Did you not understand that qualifier? The emission of oceans is not instantaneous, as in a bb. Energy accumulates. That is not false bs.
mpainter says: July 31, 2016 at 4:06 AM
“Will j, I said except fractionally. Did you not understand that qualifier? The emission of oceans is not instantaneous, as in a bb.”
The ocean surface has finite emissivity! Surface radiative exitance is spontaneous and continuous in every direction of lower opposing radiance.
“Energy accumulates. That is not false bs.”
Insolation power accumulates as sensible heat of the ocean. This same sensible heat is dissipated via evaporation and EMR exitance continuously! Any claim that all ocean sensible heat only convects poleward is intentionally misleading and false bs!
Tropopause rises and falls depending on the pressure gradient equilibrated by gravity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2015.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2016.png
Thank you Dr. Spencer. As always you explain a very complicated subject clearly. I’m jealous!
+100 (!)
I second that! It’s the first time that I read a simple explanation of this complex process.
An excellent post on the subject that should settle the matter.
However, you can sometimes overestimate some people’s capacity to listen and learn.
I, too, am expecting objections from mpainter, geran, gordon etc etc.
They are probably over at WUWT desperately trying to find some foolish argument to show us.
Roy,
Yes, there is a GHE and this depends on water. However, it has been mischaracterized. It does not increase atmospheric temperature but moderates temperatures by reducing the diurnal temperature range. The greater the GHE, the lower is the tmax, and the higher is the tmin. Compare the dry Sahara with the humid tropics.
The ultimate GHE is over the tropical ocean, where the diurnal temperature range is 1-2 C. This rather simple yet incontrovertible observation overturns AGW, imo. It also explains why there has been no warming this past eighteen years, going on twenty and why there is no tropical hotspot and no cooling of the lower stratosphere for 21 years.
I agree that the greenhouse effect reduces the diurnal temperature range. And yes, the greater effect exists over the ocean…but the very small diurnal range there is because of the huge effective heat capacity of the ocean. This is a separate issue from how the GHE raises the average temperature over both day and night.
How the GHE raises average temperature. To answer this question we consult Ma Nature once again:
Average July temperature Riyadh, Saudi Arabia : 96 F (36 C) ambient specific humidity 0.4%
Average July temperature Balboa, Panama : 81 F (27 C), ambient specific humidity 2.4%
By these observations we see that we achieve lower average temperature by a six-fold increase in the GHE.
Do you agree with the conclusion? ☺
I do not agree with the causation you are implying….
Saudi Arabia is in a persistent subsidence zone, which keeps the troposphere warmer, and it has almost no vegetation so the solar heating goes into sensible heating instead of evapotranspiration.
You can’t compare temperatures at these two locations and prove anything about the greenhouse effect.
Instead, why not use the example set by the physics in modern weather forecast models, which do an excellent job of explaining the temperatures at these two locations, (including IR radiative transfer) and include ALL physical processes that go into the difference in temperatures?
“Saudi Arabia is in a persistent subsidence zone, which keeps the troposphere warmer, and it has almost no vegetation so the solar heating goes into sensible heating instead of evapotranspiration.”
Quite so.
That additional surface heating is a consequence of placement beneath a subsidence zone and NOT from a downward flow of IR.
Instead additioinal IR arises at each height as one descends for as long as CAPE (convectively available potential energy (is being reconverted to kinetic energy during the descent.
The additional IR cannot flow anywhere (averaged around the entire planet) otherwise the US Standard Atmosphere could not work.
At every location and at every time a local radiative imbalance arises it is immediately neutralised by a change in the local convective air flow otherwise we could not see a consistent decline in temperature with height as averaged globally.
The mechanism involved is the constant adiabatic conversion of kinetic energy to convectively available potential energy (CAPE) in ascent for cooling and the reverse in descent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_available_potential_energy
I compare humidity at the two locations. Doesn’t matter what causes the difference in humidity. The difference in humidity explains the difference in climate, does it not? No need for models. This assumes that the GHE varies with ambient humidity.
It does not.
You have to compute and compare avg. wv density (from humidity) AND temperature at & above the sites. July Balboa surface (75F) is on avg. cooler at min. at night than Riyadh (81F).
Atm. radiation at the ground depends on vertical water vapor density and temperature profiles, you cite only surface data. Deserts have low precipitation, approx. 4 inches annual rainfall for Riyadh which is in a desert region of descending thus dryer air (as Dr. Spencer notes) & 15x as much for Balboa – not necess. lower atm. wv.
A combination of lower temperature but higher humidity at Balboa means the atm. radiation difference is TBD you have to do more work to form an opinion on the resulting annual avg. atm. radiation at the ground. Meaning converting each of the humidity and T profiles to wv partial pressures and then those to wv densities est. above the surface. It could be that atm. radiation on a clear night in Balboa is lower than in the higher T desert. Figure it out and fill us in, you claim to have the skills.
Oh and mpainter – redefining the GHE (Ts-Te) to argue something else (“The ultimate GHE is over the tropical ocean”) is not helpful. In any way. Stick with (Ts-Te).
You make little sense Ball4. What are you on?
Science actually. Pure Feynman defn.
1st principle theory supported with test. You should try it mp. Works.
Apparently you are afraid to make yourself clear. The last time you did that, I clobbered you.
The reason the science is not clear to you mpainter is the shallowness of your accomplishments. Keep up with testing and you will make good progress. Able to clobber all the more.
You have nothing but obfuscation and snark in your, b4.
Well somewhat more than usual mp as the site isn’t letting my detailed, test based longer posts go up. Resorting to sound bites. Refer to Dr. Spencer top post for details and remember Dr. Spencer has same middle name.
B4 says “It does not”
And so now we are instructed by this Oracle that the GHE does not depend on, and vary with, wv levels. How about that!
Whoa, that’s some poor reading comprehension.
Even understanding mpainter low accomplishment level in this field. Try to reread combination of lower temperature but higher humidity and the stuff about wv density mpainter, you know, a few times over and over, get up to speed in this field. Check other authors. Read what tests show, read that oceans absorb AND radiate from several authors that went out in the field and actually did the testing on the ocean.
B4, good advice if you would only take it.
I’ve used that advice for decades mpainter, try to show you are capable of its use.
Boilerplate AGW does not impress me. But that’s all you have. SST is determined by insolation for all the reasons I gave but which you cannot comprehend because it is not your beloved boilerplate.
mpainter says: July 30, 2016 at 5:24 PM
“How the GHE raises average temperature. To answer this question we consult Ma Nature once again: Average July temperature Riyadh, Saudi Arabia : 96 F (36 C) ambient specific humidity 0.4%”
Relative humidity for that temperature 10%! No condensation with increasing altitude. Temperature lapse 10 C/km. From 6km altitude 60 C increase downward.
“Average July temperature Balboa, Panama : 81 F (27 C), ambient specific humidity 2.4%”
Relative humidity for that temperature 100%! continuous condensation with increasing altitude. Temperature lapse 5 C/km. From 6km altitude 30 C increase downward.
What is the temperature at 6km altitude? -17 C? -36 C? What? Why?
There is absolutely no GHE whatsoever. You repeatedly display that you have no internalized education at all!
“By these observations we see that we achieve lower average temperature by a six-fold increase in the GHE.
Do you agree with the conclusion?”
All you ever have is your intent to deceive in any way possible! BEGONE SATAN!
Well spoken Roy.
I have thaught of what temperature a completely radiation passive and cloud free atmosphere would end up to.
It could end with a temperature like the hottest place on Earth reduced with the lapse rate.
At least it must end with a massive inversion all over the globe.
This site makes you think about the CO2 obsession:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I know it is absolute values and not about the effect from small increments.
“At least it must end with a massive inversion all over the globe.”
Only if convective overturning could somehow be suppressed, but it cannot.
Convection is inevitable from uneven surface heating where a sphere is illuminated by a point source of light such as the sun.
Only if convective overturning could somehow be suppressed, but it cannot.
My arguments are that any parcel of air that is heated in contact with the ground and heated more than the surrounding air will rise, and then replace the colder air higher up.
It is a one way process, because cold ground can not reverse the proces and make hot air to sink so that it can be cooled by contact to the ground.
Cold air aloft sinks and warms adiabatically as it does so.
Convective overturning is undoubtedly a two way process.
I like to think of it as a closed loop which retains surplus energy within itself to maintain motion.
A rise in surface temperature is the inevitable result.
In a dry adiabatic lapse rate environment, a cold parcel of air aloft is neutrally buoyant. Only in a super-adiabatic environment will it sink without being forced to. So, in a sub-adiabatic troposphere (the usual condition, except in the lowest several hundred meters over solar-heated land which is often superadiabatic), there must be a force applied to make the air sink…
In general, sinking air in the troposphere is forced to do so by moist convective updrafts, which provide the energy needed to force air in a statically stable environment to sink.
True,Roy, but what is your point?
Cold air aloft is forced to sink as a result of upward flowing warm air rising in an adjoining convective cell.
Why do you need a super-adiabatic environment to cause it to sink without being forced to?
It is always being forced to sink by continuing uplift elsewhere just as you say.
There can be no statically stable environment around a sphere which shows uneven surface heating when exposed to a point source of light such as a sun.
You don’t even need moisture to achieve convective overturning, just uneven surface heating causing density differentials in the horizontal plane.
Mars is pretty dry but there is plenty of convection and when radiative imbalances occur vast dust storms ensue wherein dust lifted from the surface assists radiative loss to space until it all settles back to the previous thermal equilibrium.
Cold surface makes fog. But this releases latent energy. This process depends on lack of surface radiation, and thus the warmer air radiates at a higher rate than the cooler surface can replenish this lost energy. No insolation, you see.
Is the warmer air warming the surface in this instance? The fog should absorb 100% of the surface radiation and eventually vaporize. But the fog usually does not lift until the sun reaches a certain height. Over water, fog would not have any effect on surface temperature, imo.
I’ve been considering a dry atmosphere. Water produces complexity that is unnecessary for the present discussion.
However, I will play the game.
Fog adopts the temperature of the surface with which it is in contact but note that it is in contact with two surfaces namely the ground beneath and the warmer descending air above.
There will be a thermal flow down through the fog to the surface beneath via conduction.
Have you noticed that in clear dry air radiative loss from the ground is very fast but if you overlay the surface with fog the rate of radiative loss to space declines considerably?
The reason is that the fog is warmed by the descending adiabatically warmed air above and conducts some of that energy to the ground which then cools less quickly.
The denser the fog the stronger the effect so that very dense fog can almost stop radiative loss from the ground.
Note that a cold surface beneath a warmer moist air mass does not necessarily result in fog. One can often see horizontal advection (wind) of warm air strong enough to keep the air above its dew point despite a fast radiating ground beneath.
The answers to the AGW debate are all present in the science of meteorology but very few physicists have much knowledge of that highly specialised field.
Meteorology shows how the laws of physics play out within and actual atmosphere and the real world outcomes are often counterintuitive.
That is why there is so much confusion about the interplay between radiative and convective energy exchanges.
Fog results from advection, usually.
Roy,
Reduced IR, measured TOA can be explained by increased photosynthesis as more plants sequester solar energy as organic material. For example, coccolithopores are reported to have increased by huge amount in the North Atlantic.
If you are referring to the CO2 retrievals from AIRS, that is done by examining how IR has decreased in the CO2 absorption bands versus at other wavelengths.
If that’s not what you are referring to, how does more solar energy going into photosynthesis cause a reduction in TOA IR?
Your post did not give specific wavelength but said IR energy. The link was inscrutable for me. Yes, increased photosynthesis should reduce TOA IR, if my understanding is correct. This should sequester more solar energy as organics. Photosynthesis utilizes a certain portion of the visible spectrum in which radiant energy is converted to chemical energy. It removes energy from the earth’s energy budget.
A lot of confused facts to choose from–I’ll just address a few:
Dr. Roy states: “The first thing we have to agree upon is what causes the temperature (of anything) to change: energy gain and energy loss.”
Again, this can be confusing to some. A temperature change is linked to “heat energy”, not energy in general. I have used the analogy of putting a book on a higher shelf. The “energy” of the book is increased, but there is no consequent temperature change.
Dr. Roy states: “If you want to (curiously) argue that the cold plate doesnt actually emit energy that is absorbed by the warmer plate (as PhD physicist Claes Johnson has argued with me), you still must admit that the temperature of the cold plate DOES affect the net rate of IR transfer from the warmer surface to the colder surface, right?”
Nope. IR from a colder surface does NOT interact with IR from a hotter surface. This is another “concept” that confuses many. It would take years of study to understand the physics involved, but an analogy is a radio antenna that only receives certain wavelengths. It does not “absorb” all wavelengths.
If that’s an analogy, it’s not a good one. We are referring to incoherent, broadband thermal radiation.
And, I don’t think I said the 2 radiation fields “interact”. I gave specific examples of the NET thermal radiative flux between 2 plates.
Can you tell me what the net flux would be between 2 plates, emissivity=1, in these 3 cases?:
1) one at 300 K and the other at 300 K?
2) one at 300 K, the other at 290 K?
3) one at 300 K, the other at 200 K?
Sure:
1) “net” = 0, the IR is the same
2) 300K warms 290K. (the 290K has no effect on the 300K)
3) 300K warms 200K. (the 200K has no effect on the 300K)
Oh, and “If thats an analogy, its not a good one.”
If you want a REALLY bad analogy, try this one: “The atmosphere is a blanket”.
Hey – good analogy geran 6:28pm. Now try to explain why that works so well. Not perfectly but good enough for a layman. Hint: you can use the Earth moon, cooler with no blanket.
Ball4, you can put “the atmosphere is a blanket” right up there with “cabbages emit visible light”.
You have quite an impressive collection of pseudoscience.
(I think Norm still has you beat, though.)
Yes, totally impressive. All tested, from 1st principles. Coincidentally, I have the same middle initial as Dr. Spencer 5:33pm. Helps.
Ball4,
Complete nonsense. Maximum temperature on the Moon exceeds anything on Earth. Your wondrous CO2 blanket seems to cool, rather than heat.
That’s why foolish Warmists love averages so much. They can be anything you want them to be, and are quite meaningless to boot!
Foolish Warmist. I’d give give you a clue, but you’d probably lose it, and become clueless again.
Have you any actual facts, or just more unsubstantiated assertions? Maybe a falsifiable hypothesis?
In the meantime, if you want to worry about imminent frying, boiling, toasting or roasting, feel free to worry twice as hard on my behalf. I can’t be bothered, but it seems like you might enjoy a good worry.
Cheers.
Slower rotation wrt to sun causes the extreme Mike, not the blanket. Not using avg.s either, using medians, which physically exist, the moon Tmedian is cooler w/o Earth’s blanket.
Ball4,
You might be interested to note (from Diviner) that the Moons surface heats faster than the Earth’s over the same time period. Foolish Warmists just assume whatever they like, without actually checking the facts.
At the same distance from the Sun, the Moon’s surface receives more energy per unit area than the Earth. No atmosphere to attenuate it, you see. No insulating blanket, if you like. Heats faster. Gets hotter.
This is why foolish Warmists go to extreme lengths to deny, divert, and confuse. They love averages, and made up sciency words. On the one hand, they deny that air can absorb and emit radiation, but then natter on about air temperatures. They obviously have no concept of what temperature represents, and are confused about the differences between radiative intensities, temperature, heat, energy, and other basic principles.
CO2 warms nothing. Your carbonated drink (containing more than 400 ppm CO2) is exactly the same temperature as its partner after you have released its CO2. (And allowed to reach a stable temperature, of course.) No green banana effect there!
Foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
CO2 warmed Tyndall’s room Mike, tests are good learning tools for you, try ’em. It also absorbs in carbonated drinks, its extinction coefficient in action. It is you using avg.s not me, I use medians. Try ’em.
Earth’s blanket moderates, slows changes, the moon has no blanket, goes to extremes but experiences cooler medians at the same orbit than earth by thermometer and brightness measurements.
You answered (1) … 0 W/m^2 flux. Now answer the other two with actual numbers. How many W/m^2 of thermal power goes from the warmer plate to the cooler plate?
Tim, I’m sure you can work the numbers. If not, there are online resources available.
The problem is not in the math, the problem is in the concepts.
No — we want YOU to give the numbers as you would calculate them. I am quite sure I know what Roy would say — and that it would agree with what I would say.
Tim, you’re famous (infamous?) for long-winded obfuscation.
If you insist on math, show the mathematical derivation for the Arrhenius CO2 equation. Why is that so hard for you to produce?
geran already showed 6:24pm that he can’t Tim. This won’t change.
Ball4 earnestly believes that a cabbage emits visible light. Just wait, he has to get his “special” goggles!
(Spooky.)
Actually geran, a cabbage emits visible band light even in a dark closet. In green, red, yellow visible bands and more! Point an IR thermometer at the cabbage in your closet, it will read room temperature. Even in the dark! Make sure the read out is lit for your lying eyes.
If you can’t provide even a simple calculation like this, why should anyone even bother trying to discuss more advanced topics with you?
Entertainment Tim. Only about 2000 channels on cable now and this is better.
Tim tries to obfuscate again: “If you cant provide even a simple calculation like this, why should anyone even bother trying to discuss more advanced topics with you?”
Tim, we’re still waiting for the mathematical proof of the Arrhenius CO2 equation.
If you can’t provide even a simple* calculation like this, why should anyone even bother trying to discuss more advanced topics with you?
*Simple–as in the “science is settled”.
Surely you know the mathematical proof, Tim. Why won’t you share with us?
Ball4 hilariously confuses visible light with IR:
“Actually geran, a cabbage emits visible band light even in a dark closet. In green, red, yellow visible bands and more! Point an IR thermometer at the cabbage in your closet, it will read room temperature. Even in the dark! Make sure the read out is lit for your lying eyes.”
No confusion geran. IR wave length bands start longer than visible bands above 700+nm; check out a spectrum map, might do you some good.
Nope, your own comment shows you are confused. You think an IR thermometer proves cabbages emit visible light. You think that your “special” goggles prove cabbages emit visible light.
Do you “see” an invisible friend with your goggles?
Hilarious.
geran, an IR thermometer is not a spectrometer which is the instrument that shows the cabbage emits visible band light in the dark closet as well the Planck formula. An IR thermometer measures brightness temperature over a narrow band which will be room temperature same as the thermometer stuck in the cabbage even in the dark without visible light! Try to get on same page.
Here’s the good professor’s paper:
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Which equation do you need explained in more detail than is provided in the paper?
Tim Folkerts,
Have you actually read the Arrhenius paper to which you linked?
Do you agree with all of it as being correct?
If not, why are you providing the reference if you know that some parts are nonsensical?
Others may be interested in your assessment of the scientific worth of the paper, given current scientific understanding. It doesn’t contain much of use, being based on untestable assumption, and containing enough errors of fact to make it an historical curiosity of no practical use.
For all I know, you still believe in the ether, the indivisibility of the atom, or Arrhenius’ eugenic ruminations.
Cheers.
Tim, I asked you to present the mathematical proof of the Arrhenius CO2 equation. You can not even find the equation, much less the proof!
I’ll give you the equation: (delta)F = 5.35 ln (C/Co) Watts/m^2
Now, you provide the mathematical proof. Show us the pseudoscience that creates energy out of (literally) thin air, 400 ppm!
Geran, his explanation & derivation are right there in the
paper. The answer has been provided. There is no point in either copying large chunks of the paper nor attempting to paraphrase the whole thing if you cannot articulate more precisely what you seek.
So again I ask, is there some particular part of the derivation that you don’t understand or that you disagree with?
Tim backs out: “There is no point in either copying large chunks of the paper nor attempting to paraphrase the whole thing if you cannot articulate more precisely what you seek.”
Gosh Tim, you usually can’t wait to write profusely when you think you’ve got a point. It’s almost as if you’re ashamed of this “proof”.
Yup, “circular reasoning” is only “proof” in pseudoscience.
It’s almost as if I expect you to be able to articulate your understanding and your concerns. If you are not willing to make a good faith effort, then there is no point in replying.
Tim, geran and good faith were separated long ago.
Tim threatens: “If you are not willing to make a good faith effort, then there is no point in replying.”
Tim, you typically love to “teach”. So, I gave you a chance. I asked for the mathematical proof of the Arrhenius CO2 equation, but you avoided the chance to “show your stuff”.
I’m just pointing out that the bogus equation has NO mathematical proof, in “good faith”, of course.
Dr. Spencer respectfully,
“If thats an analogy, its not a good one. We are referring to incoherent, broadband thermal radiation.”
Indeed Electromagnetic radiation; the most relativistic power transfer schema ever discovered! It is never ‘heat’!
“And, I dont think I said the 2 radiation fields interact. I gave specific examples of the NET thermal radiative flux between 2 plates.”
Perhaps you did not say the fields interact. but I do say so! They must at each and every frequency, and in each and every direction! This is not thermodynamics, this is what Maxwell’s equations insist upon for electromagnetic radiative flux.
You, or others, claim some bidirectional flux. Have you even one example for the beginning of such conjecture that may be falsified?
“Can you tell me what the net flux would be between 2 plates, emissivity=1, in these 3 cases?:
1) one at 300 K and the other at 300 K?
2) one at 300 K, the other at 290 K?
3) one at 300 K, the other at 200 K?”
If you would change your “net flux” to the “only flux ever discovered”, this whole CAGW BS would have never started!!!
Will – Maxwell did not write incoherent photons interact with each other. You will need to provide evidence of such to support your hypothesis the photon EMR flux is only net one way.
Ball4 says: July 31, 2016 at 4:16 AM
“Will Maxwell did not write incoherent photons interact with each other. You will need to provide evidence of such to support your hypothesis the photon EMR flux is only net one way.”
I have no such hypothesis of one way anything. I do have measurement of thermal electromagnet flux in the direction of lower radiance.
You are the one that claims opposing EM flux at the same frequency.
Have you any evidence of such whatsoever? Your concept of ‘photon’ is truly non physical and non relativistic also!
“no such hypothesis of one way anything” is now Will’s new position. Try to stick with that Will, opposing incoherent photons do not interact with each other.
Ball4 says: July 31, 2016 at 7:01 AM
“no such hypothesis of one way anything is now Wills new position. Try to stick with that Will, opposing incoherent photons do not interact with each other.”
Trick,
I have measurement. You only have your imaginary pink photons, that go shooting off in all directions. How come no one including you has never physically observed your fantasy ‘pink photons’?
Every and all electromagnetic field strength at every frequency, at every location vectorially sums to a single vector electromagnetic flux at that location. Nothing else has ever been observed!
You have no measurement Will, asserting one does not make it so. Incoherent photons do not interact, at any frequency, in any direction. Nothing else has ever been observed!
Ball4 says: July 31, 2016 at 8:38 PM
“You have no measurement Will, asserting one does not make it so. Incoherent photons do not interact, at any frequency, in any direction. Nothing else has ever been observed!”
Trick idiot,
I still have my notes of my measurement of flux from 1974 that show thermal EMR flux to a lower radiance (temperature) go to zero flux at zero temperature difference, then become a “from” flux as the opposing radiance (temperature) is increased. What have you ever measured? Anything ever? What? Can you even have a concept of how to measure anything? Give examples!
“Incoherent photons do not interact”
Indeed most are buried as stillborn, with condolences to mamma!
Now Will agrees notes show the net incoherent photon flux goes to zero by test for objects with no temperature difference. Same as my testing, Will.
Will also agrees to have no hypothesis of one way anything so the net flux Will measured is the sum of two way incoherent photon flux from two objects where the incoherent photons do not interfere.
I can understand Will! Remarkable.
geran writes: “A temperature change is linked to heat energy, not energy in general. I have used the analogy of putting a book on a higher shelf. The energy of the book is increased, but there is no consequent temperature change.”
A thermodynamic system (a body) has several kinds of energy. It has overall kinetic energy due to its overall motion relative to the reference frame of interest. It has overall potential energy due to its position in an independent external force field, such as gravity. It has internal energy due to the internal states of its components. Totalling these three, it has a total energy. It is change in internal energy that affects its temperature. Putting the book on a higher shelf increases its overall potential energy, but by itself does not affect its internal energy. Bending the book back and forth many times does not pass heat to it, but does increase its temperature because the bending involves friction within the book, which is adding energy by mechanical means, not thermal conduction. Dr Spencer is right to say that increase of energy raises temperature, presupposing he means internal energy. It is unscientific to speak of “heat energy” if by that one should mean a conserved component of the internal energy of a body. “Heat energy” makes sense only when referring to transfer that affects the internal energy. But there is no conserved component of internal energy that can be safely called “heat energy”.
geran writes: “Nope. IR from a colder surface does NOT interact with IR from a hotter surface. This is another concept that confuses many.”
Dr Spencer did not say that “IR from a colder surface interacts with IR from a hotter surface’. That is a fabrication of geran. Dr Spencer is right to say that the net rate of IR transfer is affected by the two surfaces’ different temperatures. His phrase “from the warmer surface to the colder surface refers to the net rate, not the separate one-way rates from colder to hotter and from hotter to colder. geran’s fabricated “interacts” arises from a muddle in his mind, not from valid physics.
Game, do you realize that rambling is oft associated with pseudoscience?
To call that rambling is a bit much. To the layman, the ability of the expert to explain his subject so that the layman can understand, is a sign the expert actually knows his stuff.
I understood very well and am a layman.
So, Lewis, if you “understood very well”, what did he say, in 50 words or less?
geran says: July 31, 2016 at 12:39 PM
“So, Lewis, if you understood very well, what did he say, in 50 words or less?”
Dr. Spencer carefully explained that “exists” a measurable thermal electromagnetic radiative power flux (transfer of power) between surfaces at different temperatures always in the direction of the lower temperature, and is a mathematical function of both temperatures.
37 Words! This is in direct opposition to the accademic claim that thermal radiative flux is ‘only’ dependent on the temperature of the emitter!
Will, tomorrow when the meds kick in, you may want to read the comments above and see if you can follow. My comment was addressing Christopher Game, not Dr. Roy.
Hope that helps.
geran says: July 31, 2016 at 9:46 PM
“My comment was addressing Christopher Game, not Dr. Roy. Hope that helps.”
Still does not help at all You questioned: So, Lewis, if you understood very well, what did he say, in 50 words or less?.
Lewis wrote to Game: “the ability of the expert to explain his subject so that the layman can understand, is a sign the expert actually knows his stuff.” Clearly the expert to be understood is Dr. Spencer and can not be Christopher Game. I was explaining what it was that ‘Lewis understood very well’, which was what Dr Roy wrote, not the trivia of Christopher! Again:
Okay, now I understand. It’s your reading comprehension that is confusing you.
My comment above was “So, Lewis, if you understood very well, what did he say, in 50 words or less?”
I was addressing about what Game had written. “He” was Christopher Game.
Hope that helps.
geran says: August 2, 2016 at 9:31 AM
“Okay, now I understand. Its your reading comprehension that is confusing you.”
Did you even read what you wrote for comprehension? You like Cristopher Game seem to have no writing competence at all!
The greenhouse effect could be called the green banana effect with just as much justification. The supposed planet heating ability of CO2 has never been demonstrated.
A cylinder of high pressure CO2, O2, or N2 cannot be differentiated by temperature. The CO2 heats nothing.
Studies of highly elevated CO2 levels in submarines show precisely no heating effects due to CO2.
If the core of the Earth is 6000 K, and the surrounding environment is 4K, the surface will be at a temperature between the two. If the surface was initially molten, it has cooled. At present, based on measurements of heat loss at depths below the influence of the Sun, the temperature of the surface in the absence of an external heat source has been calculated at around 30 – 40 K.
Adding radiation from the Sun, present surface temperatures are as expected. No miraculous CO2 heating necessary. As was the case when the surface was molten, or 500 K, or 300 K.
Anybody foolish enough to believe in the warming properties of 300 W/m2, shoukd plunge themselves into a tub of water just above freezing. Well over 300W/m2, but you will rapidly freeze to death, regardless.
CO2 heats nothing. Not even planets. Just like all matter, it can be heated. Withdraw the source of heat, it cools. All the way to absolute zero, in theory.
Foolish Warmists don’t even have a falsifiable hypothesis of the heating properties of CO2. Just paroxysms of deny, divert, and confuse, disguised with Cargo Cult Sciency words like greenhouse, back radiation, TOA, energy balance, and all the rest of the climatological nonsense.
An actual repeatable experiment would be helpful. Tyndall did quite a few, but climatologists are obviously too lazy to actually read what he wrote. No CO2 heating there!
CO2 heats nothing. The greenhouse effect is exactly the same as the greenbanana effect. Undefined, undemonstrated, and non existent.
Cheers.
“Studies of highly elevated CO2 levels in submarines show precisely no heating effects due to CO2.”
Cite one Mike or did you make that up? I thought so.
“the temperature of the surface in the absence of an external heat source has been calculated at around 30 – 40 K.”
Citation? I thought not.
“Adding radiation from the Sun, present surface temperatures are as expected”
Incorrect Mike, surface 288K is approx. 33K too high with just solar & geothermal input from measured data. Look it up, or ask for a cite.
“CO2 heats nothing.”
Tyndall added CO2 to his room and its steady state temperature went up more than 5F. CO2 heated something! He was surprised! Kept repeating, repeatable, got the same result; one should actually do the experiment & explain results Mike not just assert. But Mike is obviously too lazy to actually read what Tyndall wrote, citation supplied in earlier thread, easy to find. Look it up. Do the work Mike. Cite Tyndall’s own words.
Ball4,
Foolish Warmist.
You quote precisely nothing in rebuttal, as usual. You haven’t read Tyndall, obviously. You certainly can’t quote him.
CO2 heats nothing. Never has, never will.
Hand wave all you like. Foolish Warmist Cargo Cult Scientism in action. Faith over fact!
Cheers.
Mike says: “the temperature of the surface in the absence of an external heat source has been calculated at around 30 40 K.
Adding radiation from the Sun, present surface temperatures are as expected.”
Are you suggesting that you can add some ’30-40 K base temperature’ to the ‘255 K effective blackbody temperature’ to get the ‘288 K average temperature’? If so, you are badly mistaken. (If you want to learn why, we can go into more detail. The short answer is “T^4”.)
Tim,
Pretty much, except that only foolish Warmists talk about “adding temperatures”.
I didn’t, because it would be foolish.
However, maybe you think it requires as much energy to raise a body from 33K to 288K, as it does to raise it from 0K to 288K.
It doesn’t, of course, but some foolish Warmists don’t realise this. This is why they carry on with their bizarre and pointless calculations resulting in a surface temperature of 255K. If you start with a body at 0K, this may be correct.
As an example, the heat required to heat 1 gm of water from 274K to 374K is greater than that required to heat 1 gm of water from 300K to 374K. (Assuming no losses, blah, blah, blah.)
No adding of temperatures required. Just basic calorimetry. Another branch of science too mysterious for foolish Warmists to understand.
CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
CO2 heated Tyndall’s room, Mike won’t accept simple testing. And yes, Mike did imply to add temperatures. Tim’s call out is correct.
Mike, you are replacing one misconception with a new misconception.
The key factor is not the total heat, Q, to change the temperature of some mass of material, but rather the heat RATE, dQ/dt required to keep some surface area at a given temperature in a specific set of circumstance. For example, to hold a square meter of blackbody in empty space at 255 K requires an input of about 240 Joules each second (closer to 239.75 W/m^2 if you want to be precise) because the surface will radiate away that quickly to the 2.7 K background of empty space.
Similarly, to maintain your hypothetical “sunless world” at 40 K only requires about 0.15 W/m^2 (which is provided by geothermal heat flow out from the interior). Adding the 0.15 W/m^2 of geothermal to the 239.75 W/m^2 of solar energy would raise the temperature to about … wait for it … 255.04 K.
This effect that you hope will result in ~ 30 K ow warming instead provides about 0.04 K of warming!
(Your discussion of heat capacity would affect how much TIME it takes to reach the new temperature, but wil not affect the final steadystate results.)
Facts over Faith is better Mike. CO2 heated something. p. 32,33
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Ball4,
You’re getting there. If you read it again, you’ll notice Tyndall heated some gas. When heated, it emitted heat – of course! Later on –
“In both cases, however,the action is transient; the vapour soon loses the heat communicated to it, and soon gains the heat which it has lost, and matters then take their normal course.”
Clever chap, Tyndall. You can warm a gas. Remove the heat source, and it cools again. And vice versa.
I am glad to see you quoting Tyndall. A fact or two always helps.
CO2 heats nothing -( I suppose I should add for the benefit of somewhat dim and foolish Warmists) – of course assuming you haven’t previously heated the CO2 to above the temperature of the surrounding environment.
Foolish Warmists!
Cheers.
CO2 heated Tyndall’s room 5F+ not nothing. All by itself Mike.
Tyndall probably had on those “special” goggles….
“of course assuming you havent previously heated the CO2 to above the temperature of the surrounding environment.”
BINGO!
For the earth, the ‘surrounding environment’ is the 2.7 K background temperature of the universe. And since the CO2 HAS been heated above this temperature, it can — by your own logic — impact the temperature of the earth!
That, in a nutshell, IS the greenhouse effect, and you just rediscovered it! 🙂
It’s the Sun, stupid!
Huh, Tim?
That’s like saying “It’s income, stupid, not expenses, that determine profit/loss.” 🙂
Uh, Tim–“BINGO”!
You thought you had such a salient point. But, then the “It’s the Sun, stupid” phrase turned your “point” into a dead end.
That’s what happens to pseudoscience.
Don’t argue with me, geran, argue with MIke. He is the one who made that point. 🙂
Nice attempted obfuscation! You were arguing with Mike. My comment was arguing with you arguing with Mike.
But, I then pointed out you were arguing with yourself.
That’s why I stated: “That’s what happens to pseudoscience.”
In the case cited (5 degrees FAHR.blah blah) Tyndall’s thermometers were measuring the inside of his tube not the F******** room.
Thus: (my emphases)
“A thermo-electric couple was soldered to the external surface of the experimental TUBE and ITS ends connected with a galvanometer. When air was admitted, a deflection was produced, which showed that the air, on entering the vacuum [of the TUBE], was heated [by the pumping action]. On exhausting, the needle was also deflected, showing the inside of the TUBE was chilled. These are indeed KNOWN effects; but I was desirous to make myself perfectly SURE of them. I subsequently had the TUBE perforated and thermometers screwed into IT air-tight. On filling the TUBE the thermometric columns [bit you look at to see if you are sick] rose, on exhausting IT they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air [unnecessary, as already specified] to 5 (Degrees) FAHR.”
The size of the room is of no consequence, one can refer to the size of the test chamber as Tyndall’s room or the actual size of Prof. Tyndall’s lab room when he removed the apparatus and found the same results.
Except no heat source removal Mike, clever Tyndall added and removed the vapor (alcohol, ether).
Ball4,
If you read your linked material again, you will see why Tyndall wrote the words I quoted from your link.
Tyndall initially used boiling water as his heat source – repeatable and consistent.
You refuse to quote Tyndall, and just make up stuff as you go along, it would seem.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Mike, I quoted words from Tyndall directly from Tyndall paper, so you can easily find the rest in context.
The boiling water is Tyndall’s photon source, the flame from burning a fuel is the heat source for the boiling water. CO2 is NOT the Tyndall heat source, CO2 burns no fuel. CO2 heated Tyndall’s room through its extinction coefficient.
Mike Flynn is proven wrong by Tyndall’s long ago testing.
“Those who like myself have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermanous, will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects….”
Ball4,
And your point is?
Deny, divert, confuse – pretty standard fare, for a foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
The whole point of Tyndall’s testing proved Mike Flynn is wrong.
Ball4,
You confuse me, sirrah!
Are you trying to tell me that burning fuel creates heat? That CO2 can be warmed by heat?
I’m amazed! I thought foolish Warmists believed that CO2 had planet heating properties! Glad you agree that CO2 heats nothing.
I thought you were a foolish Warmist for a moment!
Cheers.
Not even a good try Mike, fact is CO2 alone heated Tyndall’s room more than 5F no matter all your denials. The test is replicable. No fuel was harmed by the CO2. Prof. Tyndall presumably paid his gas bill to boil his water.
Roy, did you ever take a stick and poke a hornet’s nest? ☺
Sensible for a change mp. Fastest 0-100 comments evah! From all the usual suspects.
As an ex-EE, I like to think of the GHGs adding attenuation (at certain wavelengths) to the atmosphere. (just talking about up to the tropopause, above that other things control). You can look up values for it in handbooks. In the analogy, temperature is like voltage. There has to be a constant (over a long time) energy flow out the top of the atmosphere (and presumably out to top of the troposphere) that matches the solar energy coming in so long term planetary temperature equilibrium is maintained. If GHGs are injected into the atmosphere to increase the IR attenuation on the way out, the ground has to get hotter to overcome the increased attenuation and maintain the proper energy flow out of the top of the tropopause. The attenuator likewise get hotter more so at the high power input end than at its lower power output end.
BTW: I think you can show that if the attenuation rate isnt too great, the temperature halfway up to tropopause has the meet the Stephan-Boltzmann criteria, but I havent been able find a reference or otherwise prove it to myself yet.
iimc,
Unfortunately, the surface has cooled considerably over the last four and a half billion years or so. No equilibrium there.
The ground gets warmer during the day, and cools during the night. The core continues to cool, being quite a bit hotter than its surroundings.
The surface doesn’t “have to do” anything to balance something else. It behaves like all other matter. Heats and cools.
Cheers.
You ignore evaporation, the standard AGW error.
jimc, as an ex-EE, you should realize that “adding attenuation” is parallel is different from “adding attenuation” in series.
jimc,
And of course, no matter how much attenuation you insert into the circuit, a capacitor eventually discharges through the attenuating [resistance]. Attenuation merely slows the rate of discharge, and does not raise the voltage across the capacitor.
Somewhat like the atmosphere slows the rate of temperature rise during the day, and slows the rate of fall during the night. In neither case does it raise the temperature of the surface.
I don’t like analogies much.
CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers
CO2 heated Tyndall’s room. Mike is simply wrong.
Ball4,
I await with bated breath the Ball4 CO2 room heater!
What nonsense – do you comprehend what you wrote? Maybe you are confused about the fact that the fire provides the heat, rather than the CO2 which results from burning of hydrocarbons.
Foolish Warmist fantasies!
Cheers.
Mike,
I’ll let you know how it works: I have placed an order for one.
Lewis
Lewis and Mike can make one from Tyndall’s lab notes. The apparatus is clearly described/annotated for the Tyndall model CO2 (et. al gas) room heater in the link I gave. Quite inexpensive actually. Both of you should replicate the actual testing. Reading is apparently too much of an effort.
Ball4,
Apparently the precise method of operation escapes you, as you haven’t actually managed to make one.
I’m sure any number of loonies will be glad to sell you the plans for a CO2 room heater, and a perpetual motion free energy generator to go with it.
Just post your bank account number and password, and all your troubles will be over. I guarantee it!
Would I lie to you?
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
I don’t need to MAKE a CO2 room heater Mike, Prof. Tyndall already did so, the apparatus is detailed in his report. If you think such an apparatus is needed on the market, you already have his plans, knock yourself out. The Mike Flynn CO2 room heater, coming soon. No greenhouses were harmed in the project.
I accept your post as absolute truth. However, I wonder whether global absolute atmospheric pressure varies. Global absolute pressure must change as a function of global temperature. Does global absolute pressure change as a function of a collapsing ionosphere at solar minimum, for instance?
As I have said elsewhere, those with the strongest eardrums will be the ones who will survive the catastrophic global warming.
Dr Roy
I recall you saying elsewhere that without the greenhouse effect DAY temperatures would be cooler, although you agree above that it reduces the daily temperature range.
We know that humid locations have cooler DAY temperatures than dry locations. For example, Singapore has an average humidity of 84%, average surrounding sea temperature of 29C but has a record high DAY temperature of only 36C. By comparison, Rottnest Island off Western Australia has a lower average humidity level of 62%, lower average sea temperature of 21C but has recorded above 40C temperatures in each of the 4 months December to March. Port Hedland Western Australia is situated on the coast and averages 137 days each year over 35C but has an average relative humidity level at 3pm of only 39%. Furnace Creek USA is said to have the lowest humidity levels in the USA but holds the record for the highest DAY temperature. I also note peak DAY temperatures seem to coincide with the lowest relative humidity level. (The moon, which has little atmosphere and no greenhouse effect, experiences DAYLIGHT temperatures above 100C – albeit 14 days of sunlight compared with average 12 hours for the earth).
Given that clouds and water vapour are the main components of the greenhouse effect it seems odd that peak DAY temperatures are lower when water vapour levels are high.
“How do we know there is downward IR radiation from the sky?
Because it can be measured. Instruments that are selectively sensitive to IR measure changes in temperature within the instrument in response to….”
By the Way Dr. Spencer, I am currently disputing these measurement of downwelling infrared irradiance, (or backradiation) by NOAA Climate monitoring. It has been going back and fourth for over two year. These measurements are a result of pyrgeometer incorrect calibration. They display virtually programmed back radiation as a result of incorrect calibration equation. As of now pyrgeometer manufacturer think the instrument should measure negative backradiaiton of -200 W per meter square at night. You got the message?
Greenhouse gas effect is not settled at all, backradiation does not exist. The measured one is just virtual.I will keep you posted.
Nabil, the experiments Planck ref.d in his paper(s) all used similar pyrgeometer apparatus (unique design, not commercially available back then c. late 1890s). You will need to point out to NOAA why the early experiments establishing Planck law and formula along with the subsequent confirming theory are also from incorrect equipment calibration.
Ball4,
Only foolish Warmists believe that air cannot emit EMR. Of course it does, otherwise you couldn’t measure its temperature, could you?
However, foolish Warmists don’t understand the difference between temperature, energy, and heat, do they?
Just lie down in an arid tropical desert at night, surface temperature below 0 C, and try and warm yourself in the >300 W/m2 pouring down from the heavens! Measure it using your pyrgeometer of choice. Ask NOAA why you’re feeling a bit chilly, if you can’t understand what’s happening.
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers,
No worry, I’ll just pull on an extra blanket or two Mike, the sun will come up in the morning.
NOAA instrumentation will tell me, and it will even tell me when a cloud passes by in the dark night adding some LWIR on top of my blanket kicking up air T from 0C even though the cloud is at a colder temperature than the surface. Prof. Tyndall started teaching how that happens, you would be better off not to deny his results. Name calling is not much of a defense.
Hey Cabbage Head! You want to play King Pseudoscience, so this is for you.
The “Gassers” use the term “ERL”. (That’s “effective radiating level”, so you don’t have to look it up.)
So,
1) What is the current height of the ERL?
2) What is the surface area of the ERL?
3) What is the temperature of the ERL?
(Hilarious.)
1) Where Tambient=Ts-Te
2) Fn(1))
3) Ts-Te
Actually one of the more thoughtful geran posts. My compliments. Enjoy some red cabbage for dinner tonight geran.
Like I said, “hilarious”.
You run from your own pseudoscience.
(I would too.)
Run away? No, geran, that is not the answer you seek, better to improve, lifelong learning is a better way. Try it. Enjoy your dinner. Try not to think of the red cabbage beaming green band light at your lying eyes, in the dark.
I never knew cabbage heads could be so hilarious.
Ball4,
Blankets? I thought CO2 was all the blanket foolish Warmists needed! You’d be even warmer when it snows – all that cloud raising the temperature.
Of course foolish Warmists couldn’t believe that – CO2 back radiation is raising the temperature by 33C. Another 33C from H2O would make the temperature far too hot – 66C!
Oh well, you could always use your magic CO2 room warmer instead of actual blankets, I suppose.
It appears your CO2 heating doesn’t actually work, except in your foolish Warmist fantasies.
Foolish Warmists.
Cheers.
Incorrect Mike, CO2 only accounts for a few degrees of Earth Ts-Te = 33K (or 33C). It would be the thin blanket I used, the H2O would be the thicker, goose down, expensive blanket I used.
Unheated CO2 heated Prof. Tyndall’s room.
“You will need to point out to NOAA why the early experiments establishing Planck law and formula along with the subsequent confirming theory are also from incorrect equipment calibration.”
Ball4,
We are in the 21st century and have at our disposal satellites and all kind of sophisticated technology. We should be able to measure backradiation at surface. I understand it can be calculated. But does it really reach the surface? The answer is no. No one has ever measured it. Theory is one thing and measurement is another. Measurement is the truth.
Take a look at the earth’s energy budget diagram that NASA or IPCC use as a result of assuming that backradiation reaches the surface. You have 345 w/m2 of solar energy from the sun coming to surface. You also have 342 w/m2 coming from greenhouse gases to surface. In essence the diagram shows that we have two suns when in fact we have only one sun. This is how energy is created by the greenhouse gas effect. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and should be discarded.
Nabil, no energy is created (Nabil term) by the greenhouse gas effect at all. GHE = Ts – Te.
During daytime two broadband sources illuminate the surface, sun and atm. At night time, only the atm. meaningfully illuminates the surface in IR (the moon and stars, not so much). So, yes, there are two IR sources for a planet with atm. both need to be included in the surface energy gain vs. energy loss balances.
The sun source is collimated, the atm. source is diffuse. The sun radiates from a small part of the daytime sky and the atm. from 0 to 180 which makes their global, annual energy numbers about equal for Earth. If the sun also radiated from 0 to 180, the numbers would not be so equal.
CH states GHE = Ts Te, but upthread, he stated that the temperature of the ERL was also (Ts Te).
He believes the GHE and ERL are the same!
(They don’t even know their own pseudoscience!)
Good catch geran, I was so impressed with your sudden lucidness I went too fast, need to improve, replace with this:
1) Where Tambient=Te
2) Fn(1))
3) Te
Still wrong, CH.
You keep saying, people are wrong, geran, but never supply your own calculations, except Arrhenius’ equation, which you cribbed from somewhere. As Monty Python would say, “argument isn’t just the automatic nay-saying of anything the other person says.”
If you can throw off the habit of deflecting to anyone else, what’s the formula you would give in answer to your own question above?
(No copy-paste, no linkee – your own calcs, please)
barry, you’re often so confused it’s hard to follow what you are rambling on about.
After a long attempted insult, quoting Monte Python, you ask: “…whats the formula you would give in answer to your own question above?”
What is the exact quoted question you are referring to?
Ball4,
I do not know who you are since you’re hiding behind a screen name. There is no logic in what you say, and in hiding you can say whatever you want to. Apparently you are just a climate activist and not a climate scientist. No one can reason with activists and am not going to waste my time with you.
Neither Nabil, just a poster occasionally with time to discuss, learn more about science. If there really is NO logic, Nabil should be easily able to point out error without wasting significant time.
Wise decision.
Dr. Roy, you have studied weather and climate. You have not studied the levels of physics required to understand Earth’s atmosphere and energy budget. So you can be excused for minor slips in topics such as thermodynamics, heat transfer, gas laws, quantum physics, etc.
So, here’s some weather/climate that should be more in your field. The recent major El Nino is over. We watched as the ocean heat moved across the globe and into the atmosphere. Currently, that heat is moving out of the atmosphere to space, as seen by the drop in troposphere temps. Why can’t the atmosphere “trap” all that heat?
Very good point. An anology might be a 100,000 capacity football stadium with 100 exit turnstiles. If 2 of those gates are kept shut at the end of the game it would take about 2’/, longer to empty the place – NOT the population of the stadium permanently increased by 2,000. The ghg theory relies upon this wrong assumption whilst ignoring that the additional heat for atmosphere GW (as opposed to the far larger 93’/, ocean warming) would be the additional ocean heat content (OHC) disapating into the atmosphere as normal. The increased OHC the result in increased UV due to the reduced atmospheric H2O and cloud mass.
Conor,
Seven billion people all producing as much heat as possible, both directly and indirectly, helps to raise temperatures no end, I suspect, compared with a couple of hundred years ago.
Foolish CO2 Warmists!
Cheers.
The problem is not that the 7,000,000,000 humans have affected the hydrosphere by reducing it by 290 times our affect upon CO2 (-10,000 km3 of H20: Destouni and Jaramillio 2015)- the problem is the scientists and politicians trying to ignore the real science. Here the UK govt closing its climate department is the first major crack in the wall – more will follow.
Conor – your football game in play is steady state your 100,000 people remain in the stadium. Turn off the game, the people start to exit, just like turning off the sun – the 33K added atm. warmth will then exit also.
Exactly – unless there is some other agent at play. In the planetary case the oceans absorbtion of additional UV due to the reduced atmospheric H2O and cloud mass allows for the slow release of heat into the atmosphere provides for the effect mistaken for ghg warming.
There are no tags on energy to know the source Conor, can’t even tell if mistaken or not. Wavelength analysis (UV, SW, LW)does afford some clues about energy flow sources in and out. Reasonable analysis can be done.
BALL4 UV and SW are the same thing. UV being direct sunlight which penetrates the ocean surface losing about 47’/, of its energy per meter of depth. This means that the ocean absorbes 90’/, of the solar energy applied to it. LW aka IR only affects the ocean skin layer ie the top 1 to 0.00001 of the ocean surface, thus near irrelevant. Reduce the equitorial cloud mass and H2O content causes the oceans to warm up. This event is called GW. GW has no other cause.
BALL4
Read my post further down. I had accused the parliamentary energy and climate change committee secretariat of fraud (sections 2 & 3 2006 fraud act) so the science committee reviewed it and found that the ocean warming event due to SW was valid.
Conor, unfortunately the site is not handling posts as pasted unless type directly into the text box, it is rendering them so that I can’t understand your meaning well enough to form a comment reply.
“Seven billion people all producing as much heat as possible” compared to just under 1 billion 200 years ago.
Mass increase of humans in 200 years = 480 million tonnes
Mass increase of atmo CO2 last year = 9 billion tonnes
Mass increase of atmo CO2 in 200 yrs = 750 billion tonnes
Purely in terms of mass (no basis for a proper calculation of heat changes), anthro atmos CO2 increase is 1500 times greater than human pop increase over 200 years. Just to compare on that metric.
Atmospheric loss per annum is 50,000 tonnes, for the nit-pickers, so total atmos mass increase over last 200 years is about… 750 billion tonnes.
Foolish Warmist.
Where do you think all the “anthro” CO2 came from? Unicorns? Do you understand what “anthro” means?
You might enlighten us as to how you produce CO2 without burning stuff, and creating heat.
Magic, perhaps?
Foolish Warmism in action.
Cheers.
Of course the CO2 came from humans burning stuff (though a fraction of the increase is from anthro land-use changes and a tiny amount from warmer surface temperatures). But if you think Earth warmed by nearly 1C over the last 100 years due to anthro thermal emissions, you really are out to lunch.
geran,
Yep. After four and a half billion years of the atmosphere trapping heat, the surface temperature seems to have dropped several thousand Kelvins.
Woe, woe, thrice woe! How can this be?
Foolish Warmists! Much faith, few (or no) facts.
Cheers.
The unusually large drop in temperature in a short time (Recent months) is what interest me,because supposedly there is a 50% back radiation effect that should have showed up,unless the drop was much larger than that isn’t being recorded…….
Surely we have at least a ballpark number on how much energy left the ocean waters since early 2015,compare it to how much of the energy left the planets atmosphere to space,in the same time frame.The RATE of energy loss in such a time span would help clarify the difference on how it left the system?
geran says: July 31, 2016 at 4:54 AM
“Dr. Roy, you have studied weather and climate. You have not studied the levels of physics required to understand Earths atmosphere and energy budget. So you can be excused for minor slips in topics such as thermodynamics, heat transfer, gas laws, quantum physics, etc.”
Geran,
Why make yourself into an incomplete irrelevant AH?
Dr. Spencer likely has more education and experience in your expressed topics than you will ever get. You are the incomplete insult to all the levels of the physical sciences! Why not ask your Mommy to show ‘you’ how to tie your own shoes? Has she completely given up on you? Sorry mom, not your fault, except you chose daddy!
WOW, Will!
Has your prescription for meds ran out? I’d call your doctor first thing in the morning. Hope you make it through the night okay.
Maybe some people simply should read. A good start at the very beginning might be for example:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
And some of them are so incredibly boring with these stupid, redundant and respectless “foolish Warmist” injuries.
Why don’t they feel that?
Bindidon,
SOD gives the wondrous back radiation (pointlessly meaningless climatological weasel words) as being around 300 W/m2.
Jump into a bath of cold water mixed with ice. Over 300 W/m2. How warm do you feel?
Foolish Warmists – either gullible or delusional, I know not which!
Bringing fantasies to a fact fight is pretty silly.
Cheers.
The specific heat capacity of your bath water is about 4000 jkg’C soooooo 150 litres at 300w for 15 mins = 0.45’C temp increase plus body temp would just add an extra nothing to the bathing experience.
The elephant in the room might be highlighted by Destouni and Jaramillo’s 2015 paper concluding that we humans have reduced the atmospherice H2O 290 times more than we have increased the CO2. Add to this is that 93’/, of the additional GW heat is in the oceans, with a near 50’/, bias to the Atlantic, despite it containing only 23’/, of the planets water. Inturn the Atlantic warming event is concentrated in the region which might be described as the ebola coast. This fact can be laid bare by scrutinising the temperature of the various ocean surface currents. This ocean warming conforms to a net reduction in the AEW cloud mass allowing more UV to penetrat to the ocean – no other event can explain this. Hidden behind Brexit and the new cabinet was the euthenasia of the UKs climate dept. So why is the UK govt not afraid of CC and GW anymore? Perhaps because they have been forced to look at the hydrosphere????? This is not mere conjecture since the parliamentary science and technology select committee secretariat had already reviewed this perspective and concluded it was valid. Look closely at AEWs and view their precursors, particularly Rowell 2003. You will find that all the jigsaw pieces fall into place easily.
Roy,
As I predicted, some people are incapable of listening or learning. Nothing penetrates their thick skulls.
Isn’t it amazing how the usual suspects keep showing off their ignorance.
They seem to wear it as a badge of honour.
“no dr”, you have just described yourself so well. All you need to do is mention your solid adherence to pseudoscience, and you’ve got it all.
Amazing.
And this from a person who can’t even produce a falsifiable hypothesis explaining the supposed planet heating abilities of CO2!
Just thousands of unsubstantiated assertions backed by vigorous hand waving, and nothing else.
Foolish Warmists! Cargo Cult Scientism at its pathetic worst. A ragtag motley collection of second raters, by and large. We’ll all be boiled, fried, grilled and baked – unless we grovel at the feet of the priests of the Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism, seeking forgiveness.
Pardon me while I have a good laugh at the balding bearded bumbling buffoons.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
When you finally have an “Aha” moment and you grasp what Roy Spencer has been saying what will you think of all your posts at that time?
Maybe you should slow down on your certainty over things you do not understand and spend a little time trying to figure out what is being said and not mindlessly holding on to some idea that has not been stated (that Carbon Dioxide is directly warming anything, not sure what scientist has said this but you repeat it as if they had).
It seems you do not understand the concept of equilibrium or reject it completely. You keep bringing up the Earth’s surface billions of years ago as it it had significance. Strong evidence suggests the Earth’s surface is not still cooling from the initial state. That cooling took place eons ago, the surface is at a dynamic equilibrium with the Sun at this time and it might fluctuate 8 or so C or thousands of years but stays in a certain range in equilibrium.
When you wake up from your dream state and start to think again (your posts appear to be stuck in some form of static loop) here is what the GHE actually is saying. It is not saying the Carbon Dioxide is directly heating the Earth’s surface (as you believe this is what is being said but it is not). Carbon Dioxide redirects some IR back to the surface which would not have been redirected if the gas was not in the atmosphere. The surface will absorb most of this radiant energy and not cool at the rate it would without CO2 present. Because the surface is always receiving an input of solar energy (energy is being added to the Earth’s system) you will reach a higher surface equilibrium temperature with GHG present than if there were none. The GHG WILL NOT directly heat the Surface but will allow a higher equilibrium temperature to be maintained.
Poor Norm, he just can’t understand his mistakes. His pseudoscience has him building a wall of ice around his coffee cup to keep it warm (slow the cooling)!
Hilarious.
No, that ice wall will increase the cooling geran. Better to use more insulation to slow the cooling. Like an atm.
WHOA there, CH! Are you now saying Norm’s pseudoscience is WRONG?
geran,
It is pointless but I will attempt it anyway.
If you had a source of energy adding heat to your coffee continuously. The heat source is a constant amount of energy input to the coffee.
Question for you: If you had the heater and coffee in outer space with no surrounding it would reach a certain equilibrium temperature, correct? So everything else being the same, if you surrounded the same system with ice would the coffee be warmer?
No, it is geran that doesn’t understand even the basics. Through proper study geran can add to understanding, reduce limitations.
Norm, if I can interpret your poorly worded scenario and question, then the answers are “yes” and “no”.
Now, you answer my question.
If the energy leaves the system, but the energy does not leave the system, is the system getting warmer or cooler?
(Hilarious!)
geran
It is as I expected from your answers. So in answer two (cup with heater surrounded by ice) you said this cup would not get warmer. Based upon what physics do you derive this answer?
Norm, from where you are starting, you would need about 4-5 semesters of college math (calculus, vector geometry, and vector calculus) to be able to progress to a meaningful physics text, such as this one:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002531.html
Best of luck.
Since 93’/, of GW is happening in the oceans the means of this event have to be examined. The current emissions theory does not do it, yet the warmer ocean heating the atmosphere does. Stop mincing with hocus pocus and consentrate on real science.
Norman says, July 31, 2016 at 8:29 AM:
But Norman, again you are describing the REAL insulating effect of an atmosphere on a solar-heated planetary surface. The real effect comes from the MASS of the atmosphere. Because it is the mass of the atmosphere that allows it to warm at all. And it’s the fact that the atmosphere is nearly as warm as the surface itself (space, after all, most certainly isn’t) that makes it a good insulator.
If we were to remove all molecules from our atmosphere except the CO2 ones, the “back radiation” they would theoretically send back down to the surface could not possibly force Earth’s mean T_s to become higher than its T_e in space. You need mass. You need molecules to collide at a certain rate. A certain total density/pressure of the air resting on top of the solar-heated surface that can ‘hold’ the heat released from the surface close to it rather than letting it escape straight into the vacuum of space. That’s what the mass of an atmosphere does. And it would happen with or without the atmosphere being able to absorb IR from the surface. What it needs is the ability to EMIT its excess heat to space in the form of IR.
NORMAN
The GW event is 93’/, in the oceans (twice biased towards the Atlantic ) . Thus the science of ocean warming is the main factor here. The weaker IR only affects the top few microns of ocean surface. The strong UV penetrates to a depth mostly 7.8 meters plus. COO effect is irrelevant.
that Carbon Dioxide is directly warming anything, not sure what scientist has said this but you repeat it as if they had
No one here has ever said that, and plenty (including me) have stated they do not believe this rubbish – stated it to Mike. Doesn’t matter how many times we say CO2 is not a direct heat source, Mike continues to argue as if any of us have.
Which should recommend how seriously to take his musings.
As Dr. Spencer emphasized Manabe and Strickler (1964) confirmed by computer modeling how the gravity effect, that the atmospheric temperature decreases with altitude, and the greenhouse gases work together for the greenhouse effect. They continued this work in the seminal paper Manabe and Wetherald (1967) where they calculated the climate sensitivity for doubling of CO2 to around 2 K. They clearly demonstrated how increased content of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the average altitude of IR radiation from Earth to space and that this causes the 2 K temperature increase at the surface of the Earth.
This combined effect of gravity and greenhouse gases in textbooks is usually called “radiative-convective” thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere. In two books I have read, Murry Salby’s advanced textbook “Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics” (1996) and Raymond Pierrehumbert’s textbook “Principles of Planetary Climate” (2011), the term “radiative-convective equilibrium” is used for this combination of the gravity effect and the effect of greenhouse gases to form the greenhouse effect.
Test
My view is that the issue concerns the contribution of CO2 to the GHE. If you closely examine the radiative properties of water vapor and clouds compared to CO2, it becomes apparent that the radiative properties of that gas are redundant to those of clouds and wv. Surface radiation is thermalized by clouds and water vapor in the same wavelengths as by CO2.
Even more amazing.
The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is of course the central issue. My view is that increased CO2 content in the atmosphere will result in an increased surface temperature of Earth. I have found the present understanding of this in climate science rateher convincing. The problem is that the uncertainties of how sensitive the climate system is to increased CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases is too much. There is a big lack in understanding how much the temperature increase we may expect for a doubling of the CO2 content and what are the real risks of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.
I think that the following Conversation on Climate Change between professors Kerry Emanuel and John Christy is very valuable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY
Test
Test
Yep, there are problems with the site.
Pehr Bjornbom,
Thanks for your response. Hard facts of physics: water is opaque to LWIR. For example, the 15 micron band (CO2) is absorbed within four microns of the ocean surface. The AGW hypothesis fails when confronted with solid radiative physics.
mpainter, the energy balances of Dr. Spencer in top post include the physics of LWIR absorbed by water near surface as you note; he has posted up tests with water several inches deep.
I’m curious what AGW hypothesis fails to do so. Not even sure what you define as AGW.
What I have found by studying climate science is that the hypothesis that increased CO2 will increase the surface temperature is rather well supported by solid radiation physics. We seems to have contradicting understanding of this issue.
Since GW is 93’/, a marine event, with warmer oceans heating the atmosphere, coo IR is irrelevant.
If you don’t think for yourself, you are at the mercy of AGW advocacy. Study the radiative physics of water and see for yourself.
Good advice mpainter, you can start by (re) reading the top post and the tests Dr. Spencer posted of the LWIR effects on free to evaporate water temperature several inches deep.
MPAINTER.
While stronger solar UV penetrates predominantly to 7.8m plus.
It doesn’t matter that IR is absorbed in the four first micrometers, or milimeters or nanometers. The ocean is constantly cooling, i.e. losing heat through evaporation – or, put other way, ocean heat is constantly spent evaporating the water in the surface.
If there is an increase in heat (IR) reaching the ocean’s surface, then that additional energy DISPLACES part of the ocean’s energy content that would otherwise have been lost to the atmosphere through evaporation.
The reason you are not correct is quite simple: the extra energy accelerates evaporation. But there is also the Knudsen boundary and this also plays a role. Your concept of DISPLACES is none that I am familiar with in any principle of thermodynamics.
” Pehr Bjornbom says:
July 31, 2016 at 9:58 AM
The contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect is of course the central issue. My view is that increased CO2 content in the atmosphere will result in an increased surface temperature of Earth. I have found the present understanding of this in climate science rather convincing. The problem is that the uncertainties of how sensitive the climate system is to increased CO2 and other well-mixed greenhouse gases is too much. There is a big lack in understanding how much the temperature increase we may expect for a doubling of the CO2 content and what are the real risks of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere.”
Well the assumption is we currently have a high level of CO2.
But during the last 10,000 years there has been warmer periods
and they would have lower levels of CO2.
There is no evidence that surface air temperature becomes hotter during the day. One could say that straw man argument, instead what is mean CO2 causing warming is increasing the average temperature. So an average of days
could warmer vs a day becoming warmer [hotter]. Or hottest
day temperature record was set in 1913- in Death Valley California. Though this record is based upon certain rules
of how air temperature is taken. Or a heated car with windows rolled up could exceed this highest temperature.
So rules of white box 5 feet above the ground, etc.
So can’t say 1913 was hottest day ever, just hottest day measured following certain rules of measuring air temperature, but main point is since then we have measured a warmer day air temperature anywhere on Earth which is warmer.
This isn’t a argument just lead in, so we had periods of warming during the present interglacial period which have
had higher average temperatures and higher global temperatures. And have evidence of large area near polar region which had a large forests which now, only remain as frozen tree stumps. Of course we have evident of past interglacial period with higher sea levels and warmer oceans than we have presently.
Nor is the science advanced enough to allow us to predict when we will return to more common periods of glacial periods which are about 10 degrees cooler on average than
our current average temperature which is thought to be around 15 C. So if we begun to descend into a glacial period tomorrow, it would not disagree with what we suppose is possible- though certainly unlikely and would be a surprise- sort of like space aliens coming to Earth.
Or space aliens coming to Earth in the next 1000 years.
Not sure what odds comparison of Glacial period returning within 1000 years as compared to space alien arriving, but I say we have about the same amount “information” to support either guess. Or some people think our CO2 enrichment may delay or even cancel a glacial period from occurring, and other think space aliens are impossible. But said point is we have no way of knowing or making a relatively educated guess.
Another aspect is no one can say when a doubling of CO2
would cause warming- immediately or requiring centuries.
Which not to say, no one has various ideas about when the doubling of CO2 would causes warming. Or many say it’s already too late- the added CO2 will cause warming in future
without any addition in current levels.
Anyways since beginning of 21 century, at time I became interested in topic, there has been a barely measurable increase, and expect it to continue for next couple decades, and some think with the slow down of solar activity
we entering a cooling period- like around 1970’s.
But suppose we had a lot of warming- say within couple decades- or we buy into the nuttier ideas.
What would 5 C increase or average global temperature of 20 C, look like?
Again there is little agreement about this, one thing certain is humans have live for short period with such warm conditions. Animals in general have lived for millions of years with such a warmer planet.
Now a lot of idiots think the tropics would get warmer, as many don’t know the magical “hot spot” is non show.
In terms of history the tropics remain fairly stable in terms of it’s average temperature. Or during a glacial period with 10 degree cooler average global temperature, the tropics didn’t get 10 degree cooler. Basically it’s in latitudes more poleward than 40 degree latitude which get warmer or cooler. So increase of average global temperature to 20 C, would probably increase US average temperature of
around 13 C to higher average than say 15 C. Which basically means- winters are warmer. Canada the second largest country in world, would go from around average of 0 C to 10 C or warmer maybe warmer- summers on average warmer
and again winters much warmer. And Russian about same as Canada. So Canadians most live within 100 miles of US border, and they would extend to 1000 miles the US border, but much beyond 1000 miles it’s probably still too cold for comfort or farming. The regions with frozen tree stump would again allow trees to grow, and evenually if warming last long yet, tree could grow even further pole wards.
Now when we have a few year of heavy snowfall during winter
this happened when the winters were warmer than normal. Or air can get too cold to hold moisture for it to snow. So
it’s possible with warmer winters one could get more snowfall- get more snow and have it melt quickly. And get more snow on mountain elevations and not melt very quickly.
This also is possible in regard to much colder polar caps- could increase polar ice caps. But probably get polar sea ice melting during summer- so get arctic with ice free summer.
MPAINTER
The human effect upon atmospheric H2O is 290 times more than we affect coo. Cloud effect is BIG too. So you are spot on. : )
The idea has ALWAYS been that a small increase in CO2, a really insignificant one, will nonetheless cause enough of an increase in water vapor that it will raise temperature.
This belief ignores the fact that water vapor induces a number of feedbacks, many of them negative, and thus the process, which those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, is unstable and creates a runaway warming trend, is actually strongly self-limiting due to strong negative feedback mechanisms. This is demonstrated by the fact that we’ve gone from 270 ppmv to 400+ppmv atmospheric CO2 and yet we do not see runaway warming – in fact what we see is no statistically significant warming for about 20 years and in fact less warming during the time when there was MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than we saw when there was less.
I am not disputing the fact that CO2 interacts with specific IR radiation in the ways claimed, only that many aspects of theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have been proven wrong, particularly by observation since the MOST IMPORTANT things they predict, the ones being used to demand major and damaging policy changes that in fact will not have the claimed intended effect anyway, routinely fail to come true.
It is no surprise that, before the Paris Climate Conference, some major players admitted up front they were not intent on seeking any actual limits on CO2, rather this was about creating new revenue streams and wealth transfers.
Dr. Spencer wrote:
“This is the most direct proof of the greenhouse effect I can think of. After all, what is the greenhouse effect? It is downward IR radiation from the sky causing the surface temperature to increase, compared to if that downward radiation didnt exist. Thats exactly what happens within the handheld IR thermometer, and it is going on everywhere on Earth, all the time.”
Let’s parse out the important part:
“…downward IR radiation from the sky causing the surface temperature to increase…”
It doesn’t take too much twisting to interpret that as:
…downward IR radiation from the sky warms the surface…
What’s missing is HOW does downward IR radiation from the sky cause the surface temperature to increase? The answer is the sun. The downward IR radiation cancels out similar upward radiation which results in a net reduction of radiation energy out to space. Meanwhile (at 5800 K) the sun’s rate of warming isn’t diminished and will continue to warm the surface up until the increase in shorter wavelength IR radiation makes up the difference.
Steve Case
Wrong. 93’/, of GW is in the oceans which are penetrated by direct UV. Variability in this factor determines gmt. IR is near irrelevant.
There’s a group in Germany claiming the GHE does not work in much of Antarctica because the surface is colder than the stratosphere. In fact they say additional CO2 leads to (slight) surface cooling and posit this could be a reason why East Antarctica is the only place in the world not warming.
http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/edocs/00104190-1.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
They are now apparently going more in-depth and researching where exactly CO2 has this effect. Unfortunately I cannot find the actual PDF or presentation for this abstract.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016EGUGA..18.4004S
It’d be great news, but are they right? It’s very weird that their paper has caused almost no discussion. The explanation also seems impossibly simple – most of the times someone claims everybody else ‘missed’ something basic, that someone is wrong.
AZC
They are wrong. The AEW cloud mass reduction is predominantly in the northern hemisphere, thus the ocean currents take this additional OHC towards the Arctic, not its aunty.
In fact they say additional CO2 leads to (slight) surface cooling
A familiar analogy:
You use a blanket to stay warm because it slows body cooling and your metabolism just like the sun keeps churning out the heat and so you stay warmer than if the blanket were removed.
Using the same analogy in the Antarctica claim:
Putting a blanket over a corpse would make the dead body get colder than if the blanket were removed. I don’t buy it. It’s a great yarn, but somehow an increase in CO2 would need to result in an increase the rate of cooling.
The corpse analogy – again. The Earth, of course, receives energy from the sun, so a live body is the proper analogy. There is a constant source of heat energy.
The Earth is not like a corpse. However, if the sun heats up a corpse and you throw a blanket over it, the cadaver will cool more slowly at night than a corpse without a blanket.
A better, if imperfect, analogy.
Hello Barry, nice to hear from you.
The German group in the post above is quoted to say, “… additional CO2 leads to (slight) surface cooling …”
I said in reply, “somehow an increase in CO2 would need to … increase the rate of cooling.”
You said, “throw a blanket over it, the cadaver will cool more slowly at night than a corpse without a blanket.”
There’s a difference in sign between “cool more slowly” and “… increase the rate of cooling …”
So, I don’t know what your point is. Putting a blanket over a tub of ice water isn’t going to make it freeze, and an increase in CO2 over Antarctica isn’t going to make it colder.
Hi old mate.
Increased CO2 in the atmos slows the rate at which the surface cools radiatively. Dunno what the German group is talking about.
By analogy, old cars tend to overheat on hot days more than cold days, even though the ambient air is much cooler than the engine on any day. The rate of heat loss from engines is slower on warmer days.
Rate of heat loss from the surface of the skin (live body) is slowed if covered in material. That’s why we feel warmer. If material accelerated heat loss, we’d feel colder.
I figure Dr Spencer knows what he’s talking about, and am still somewhat surprised that other AGW ‘skeptics’ think he’s wrong.
Net flow is from hot to cold. That’s the Second Law. Second Law doesn’t deal with discrete radiative transfer. People get the idea that there’s a magic shield preventing radiation emitted from the cooler object striking the hotter object. But there isn’t. All that happens is that the radiative emission from the hot object is more intense, so that the net flow is hotter to colder, even though radiation is emitted from both and absorbed by both. Raise the temperature of the cooler object, it emits more intensely, and the hotter object warms slightly. Net flux is still from hotter object to cooler.
Anyone believing differently has never owned an old car with an engine that overheats.
barry says: August 1, 2016 at 8:23 AM :
Raise the temperature of the cooler object, it emits more intensely, and the hotter object warms slightly. Net flux is still from hotter object to cooler.
NO!
The only way the hotter object will warm even ever so slightly is if something warms it. In the case of the Earth’s surface it’s the sun and in the case of you and your bedding, it’s your metabolism. Back radiation from the stratosphere at well below freezing does slow the rate of cooling, but it doesn’t warm anything.
And in the case of your old car over heating on a hot day, it’s the internal combustion going in the cylinders that does the heating. The air on a hot day just slows the cooling process.
So you’re saying CO2 is a solid thing like a blanket that blocks the loss of heat due to forming a physical, solid barrier?
The idea of CO2 as any sort of solid barrier that “traps” heat is a non-starter.
“Its very weird that their paper has caused almost no discussion.”
No, actually I find that ANY works that tend to chip away at theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism tend to get quickly ignored by the true believers and unless someone like you is successful at bringing it to the attention of the larger community the effect is as you say: “almost no discussion”.
This is also true, though, when a paper really isn’t thought to be significant, either because it really isn’t or because nobody realizes it is yet.
Dear Roy or other.
Could you give an answer to the case that a large part of the ground was suddenly raised in temperature so that it emitted 5W/m2 more LW radiation (around 1K higher temperature).
What change would be seen at TOA, and how would/could it develop over time? (all others equal more or less).
I find this site interesting regarding all sorts of radiation measured from ground: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/
I have also crossed words with Claes Johnson, and it was a hard time. Anyway i had to read up, and learned more about thermal radiation and how effective it is to transfer energy.
GW is 93’/, in the oceans, thus ground radiation in this context is minor. Vegetation can provide 10’/, albedo. Desert 35’/,. Both of which, Inc transpiration from plants all make this IR ground feedback of little effect in the big picture.
One more fact that gets ignored by the AGW proponents: the surface cools evaporatively. Sea surface energy loss is partitioned at evaporation = 60%, radiation = 30%, and conduction = 10%. Your energy budget diagrams show that radiative loss at the sea surface to be about five times evaporative loss. Whew!
You are right that only 30% of the heat loss from the surface is due to IR radiation. The remaining 70% of the outgoing heat transfer from the surface is through latent and sensible heat. However, the heat transfer is gradually shifting to more radiative with increasing altitude. At the radiation altitude, where radiation goes from the atmosphere to space all the heat transfer has shifted to radiative.
As I have explained previously the effect of increased CO2 is an increase of the radiation altitude but the radiation temperature at this altitude will be unchanged. Due to the gravity effect the surface temperature must increase due to this increased radiation altitude caused by increased CO2 content in the atmosphere. This is well understood by climate science after the paper by Manabe and Wetherald (1967) explained how this combination of the gravity effect and the effect of greenhouse gases works (radiative-convective equilibrium).
Manabe and Wetherald based their conclusions on an assumption that relative humidity did not change.
However, in the real world, observations showed a decline in relative humidity during the recent warming spell.
Could you explain that discrepancy please?
Manabe and Wetherald made their calculations assuming that the specific humidity was constant in one case and that the relative humidity was constant in the other case. In the first case the climate sensitivity was what you get without the so-called water vapor feedback, around 1 K for doubling of CO2, in the other case there was obviously a water vapor feedback and they got a climate sensitivity of little more than 2 K.
However, their climate sensitivity figures are not what is most important with their paper but that is their way of thinking about the combination of the gravity effect and the effect of greenhouse gases to form the greenhouse effect. This was a major advance in understanding of how adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases can increase the surface temperature of our planet.
Other climate scientists have continued to work on the basis of their achievement and tried to get a better understanding of how sensitive the climate system is to addition of greenhouse gases. Many results have been reported on climate sensitivity and on various types of feedbacks.
However, as I emphasized before, there is still a big lack of understanding of what determines climate sensitivity and climate science cannot today tell us with much certainty if a large addition of CO2 to our atmosphere will cause a small temperature increase with small problems, a medium temperature increase causing more serious problems or a large temperature increase that could lead to serious catastrophes.
Pehr Bjornbom says, July 31, 2016 at 1:35 PM:
The problem is that this ‘effect’ has never actually been observed in the real world. It is solely – still today – a model result, a speculative conjecture. Illustrated here:
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
If, as claimed, Earth’s Z_e rises with an increase in atmospheric CO2, but not Earth’s T_e, then this should correspond to a rise in T_s (and, by extension, tropospheric temps (most of the OLR comes from the troposphere, after all, not the surface) with NO rise in OLR at the ToA.
So what have we observed over the last 30+ years? According to ERBE+CERES, ISCCP FD, HIRS …
The OLR at the ToA went up when tropospheric temps went up, from 1985 to 1999, and stayed flat when tropospheric temps stayed flat (2000-2014).
So how did the radiative imbalance at the ToA originate? It can’t have been from a reduction in OLR (heat OUT), because that has gone up rather than down during the overall warming. No, it’s from an increase in ASR (heat IN, from the Sun). Occurring between the late 80s and about 2000.
This is all very clear from the available data.
There is no “enhanced greenhouse effect” anywhere to be seen. Even as both the CO2 and H2O content in the troposphere has apparently gone up considerably over the last 30 years. The warming is caused by the Sun+the ocean.
Kristian, this work adds the observation you seek.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Nope.
Why?
Because of what I pointed out in my comment just above yours.
Then what Kristian pointed out in the comment just above mine does not agree with detailed in situ observations of nature. There must be something wrong in Kristian’s comment.
There is no “enhanced GHE ” shown in any dataset.
mpainter, There is an enhanced GHE shown in the dataset I linked. This is from direct observation of the natural system.
Ball4 says, August 1, 2016 at 2:03 PM:
No, there isn’t. Because the idea of “an enhanced GHE” isn’t about the radiation in the CO2-active bands alone. It’s about the total spectrum. And as I pointed out in my first comment, total OLR at the ToA hasn’t gone down. It’s gone up. It went up in step with tropospheric temps when they rose between 1985 and 1999 (ERBE) and went flat when tropospheric temps went flat between 2000 and 2014 (CERES). And so it’s clear that total OLR at the ToA is simply a radiative effect of primarily tropospheric temps.
The positive radiative imbalance at the ToA was caused by an increase in ASR (heat IN), not by a reduction in OLR (heat OUT). The OLR rather worked against this positive imbalance by itself increasing. As a response to the warming caused by the increase in ASR.
Also check out what the CERES data says about the radiative cooling ability (‘net LW’) of Earth’s global surface from 2000 to 2015. Was it weakened? As would be expected from an enhancing “GHE”. Or was it strengthened?
Hint: It went from about -52.5 W/m^2 in 2000 to about -54 W/m^2 in 2015.
The CERES EBAF Ed2.8 Surface dataset is specifically validated against ARM sites (including the ones used in your linked study).
Kristian, the CO2 bands are the ones of interest for enhanced GHE. The point is not the other datasets you discuss, the point is that there is now a published dataset wherein the eGHE has actually been observed in the real world & at 2 sites. No longer just model and lab work.
Ok, Kristian got me interested enough to pull the latest paper from CERES PI Loeb.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/3/182
Kristian: “It cant have been from a reduction in OLR (heat OUT), because that has gone up rather than down during the overall warming.”
CERES PI Loeb: “outgoing longwave radiation from CERES Terra and Aqua as well as from AIRS for (a) daytime and (b) daytime minus nighttime. The data span from January 2003December 2014 and cover 30S30N”…has gone down.
See Fig. 7. and table 4. Diff. instrument ranges Daytime LW flux down -0.73 to -0.89 W/m^2 per decade. Daytime-nighttime down -0.19 to -0.33 per decade
How does Kristian square up two opposite statements right off the bat??
Ball4 says, August 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM:
Of course it isn’t. It’s no use ‘holding back’ more energy within a tiny portion of the full spectrum if this doesn’t lead to an OVERALL reduction in transmission (over the spectrum as a whole). The only parameter of significance, then, to see whether warming might be due to an “enhanced GHE” or not is TOTAL All-Sky OLR at the ToA. If CO2 can’t effectuate a reduction in this, it means it’s overridden by other factors. Simple as that.
Ball4 says, August 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM:
Of course OLR went down over that particular period. Because so did tropospheric temps:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trend.png
Here’s OLR vs TLT (tropical) from 1985 till today:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/uahv6-tlt-trop-x.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/hirs-vs-uahv6-b.png
Kristian, my reply went into dustbin. What does UAH show vs. RSS?
UAHv6 TLT vs. CERES OLR:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/uahv6-tlt-trop-vs-olr-ceres.png
RSSv3.3 TLT vs. CERES OLR:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/rssv3-3-tlt-trop-vs-olr-ceres.png
Neither of those is CERES OLR from January 2003 December 2014 and cover 30S30N which went down Kristian.
You just need show UAH with slope computed for Jan. 2003 to Dec. 2014 all by itself, we already have the CERES OLR.
Ah, you mean the UAH version used by WfT? v5.6? Which had clear flaws in it and which was corrected by Christy and Spencer accordingly? No, sorry, I don’t use flawed datasets.
BTW, check out UAHv5.6 against ERBE OLR between 1985 and 1999. You will find it surprising to see that v5.6 is trending lower than both RSSv3.3 and the OLR over this period of time. Why? Because UAHv5.6 is a flawed dataset.
My longer dustbinned post went thru that Kristian. I mean UAH v6.0 beta5 shown by Dr. Spencer 8/1 post. My mark 1 eyeball computes warming consistent with CERES OLR period. This may not hold up. Temp series are too big a time sink, I do not go there.
One does not even have to get through the abstract of the actual work before it is stated that the “greenhouse forcing” is ATTRIBUTED to CO2. Yes, an effect was allegedly measured – though we do not know how dedicated to actually finding this particular result, or ATTRIBUTING it to CO2, those doing the measuring were before they started doing the measuring and how much their desire to reach a specific result impacted their methods, findings and conclusions.
Sadly, the closer we look at any “proof” that humans are the primary source of any observed changes, the less honest that “proof” tends to be.
The world is warming. I say that’s a good thing.
CO2 may be playing a bit part in that warming (with the bulk of any warming, widely admitted, attributable to water vapor, not CO2). But “evidence” about CO2 causing any significant (and certainly any catstrophic) warming seems to typically turn out to have equal parts of wishful thinking and fabrication upon close examination.
Bob Roberts says, August 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM:
No. Water is causing the main part of the warming of the troposphere, through an excess transfer of latent heat from the surface, but it is not what caused the warming of the surface, thus of the original warming. That’s the Sun. The observational data is clear on this (ERBS, ISCCP FD). Between the late 80s and about 2000, absorbed solar radiation (ASR, solar input, solar “heat”) increased significantly, principally in the tropics. This increase caused warming, and the warming troposphere in turn caused an increase in OLR (Earth’s heat loss to space), in step with the temperature rise. When the tropospheric warming stopped around 2002, the rise in OLR at the ToA also stopped rising.
IOW, no “enhanced GHE” as a cause of warming to be observed in the real Earth system. Only in models. The Sun (through changes in cloud cover) is the evident cause behind the warming …
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/toafluxesfdvserbs_zps3489ddec.png
Latest CERES daytime and daytime-nighttime OLR data paper does show a recent decrease in OLR as noted; this is consistent with UAH v6.0 beta 5 posted 8/1 showing a consistent temperature increase in the same time period. This doesn’t allow determination of the contribution from CO2, H20 and other surface Tmedian forcings.
The recent paper on eGHE does show CO2 band contributed in recent periods thus there are clues those bands have forced a Tmedian rise from CO2 to move total exitance to slightly less efficient wavelengths thus deepening, widening the notch.
Ball4 says, August 3, 2016 at 6:23 AM:
This is utter BS, Ball4, and you know it. So why do you keep on touting BS? You know you don’t have anything. And still you keep on typing …
You refer to some paper discussing some data. Why not go straight to the actual source of all such relevant data instead? Here it is:
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/order_data.php
This is where you get “the latest data”, Ball4.
And as I’ve shown you before, here is CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA OLR vs. UAHv6 TLT, 20N-20S (tropics), from March 2000 to January 2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/uahv6-tlt-trop-vs-olr-ceres.png
To boot, here’s CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA OLR vs. RSSv3.3 TLT, 20N-20S, 03/2000-01/2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/rssv3-3-tlt-trop-vs-olr-ceres.png
‘Your’ selected latitude band was 30N-30S. Well, I’ve shown you 20N-20S, and here’s the global picture:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/uahv6-vs-ceres-olr-gl.png
Everyone with eyes in their heads will be able to quickly verify from this that TLT anomalies have not gone up due to a parallel drop in OLR from 2000 to 2016. The two parameters are rather tightly connected, the tropospheric temps being the cause, the OLR being the effect.
Kristian craftily shifts the time period to 2000 to 2016. Won’t work. Especially using raw CERES data known to be unbalanced far more than nature.
For the latest time period available as shown by the CERES PI Earth OLR declined and the 8/1 UAH v6.0 Beta 5 product shows an increase. Everyone with eyes in their heads will be able to quickly verify from this that TLT anomalies have gone up due to a parallel drop in OLR from 2003 to 2014, the latest time period for which the CERES team has reported.
Not sure why Kristian chooses to ignore the latest available reduced data products. Trying to improve knowledge means no ignoring proper data Kristian.
LOL.
Look, the data is right there, Ball4. And I’ve shown them to you and everyone here. Just click on the links. Start at the top. There’s no hiding from the data. If you don’t want to look at it, fine with me. But it won’t make it go away. And still arguing against it as if it didn’t exist only makes you look like a fool.
No you go away instead, and pester someone else. Once more I’ve had it with your nonsense. Troll.
Ball4 insists on not allowing me to NOT cherrypick, as he blatantly prefers to do, a sign he knows he doesn’t have a case.
He MUST have us look at the 01/2003-12/2014 period for the 30N-30S band ONLY, because therein – and only there – lies the TRUTH of the matter, apparently, and NOTHING else counts. No other period, no other latitude band.
So see here what he tries to hide. Here’s his specified period, UAHv6 (30N-30S) vs. CERES OLR (30N-30S):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-uahv6.png
Oh, look, the OLR goes down! AAAH, the “enhanced GHE” right there!! Absolute proof it exists!
But wait, the tropospheric temp ALSO goes down. In fact, what happens if we simply extend the data to its proper end points, 03/2000-03/2016, for the exact same latitude band:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-2000-2016-uahv6.png
The OLR no longer goes down overall. There is simply a slump in the data around the mid-series La Nias. As there is in the TLT data as well.
OK, so Ball4’s temporal cherrypick made it seem as if the OLR did something it didn’t actually do. And his suggestion the UAHv6 data somehow went up over the same period also ended up wrong. It basically tracked the OLR data, only noise and ENSO-induced cloud effects separating them.
What about Ball4’s spatial cherrypick, then? 30N-30S is not the entire globe, after all. What about the global picture? Across the entire span of the CERES OLR data:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/uahv6-tlt-90-90.png
Any sign of a gradual enhancement of the “GHE” causing tropospheric temps to rise? Not really …
Any sign of the OLR simply tagging along with the TLT, rather being its radiative effect? Oh yes.
Kristian, when you get to the cold, hard science the emotion will drain from your posting. I did not cherry pick a dang thing, I looked up the latest paper on the CERES OLR subject from the PI website and compared its OLR results to the comparable period mark 1 eyeball T dataset well known in these parts UAH v. 6.0 Beta 5 posted 8/1.
Kristian picked another T dataset RSS from among many others, picked another time frame, & apparently used raw CERES data uncorrected for known issues as laid out by the CERES team even though Kristian writes: “I don’t use flawed datasets.” If true, Kristian needs to point out how he dealt with each of the issues listed by CERES Team in Kristian’s OLR charts:
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed2.8_DQS.pdf
Haha, you don’t give up, do you, Ball4.
Here’s Fig.7a) from your linked paper:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/3/182/htm
… with my figure from the comment above:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/tlt-30-30-uahv6.png
… (minus the UAHv6 TLT time series) superimposed:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png
The black curve, Ed2.8, the blue and red curves, Ed.4 (apparently). As already noted, yes, OLR goes down across this particular period, but so does TLT, and if you extend the picture 1) to 2000-2016 (rather than 2003-2014), and 2) to global (rather than 30N-30S), there is no discrepancy of any signficance to be seen between the OLR and the TLT data. The former simply follows the latter.
You have nothing, Ball4. Now stop this obstinate stupidity of yours.
Ok, Kristian agrees with CERES PI Loeb, OLR goes down in this particular time period Loeb used.
Kristian then writes 4:13am the black curve is UAH v.6 Beta5 +30/-30. Kristian has done some post-processing to pull this info out of the 8/1 chart shown by Dr. Spencer +85/-85 on which I used my mark 1 eyeball.
If Kristian would let his emotions simmer down, there is some interesting stuff to discuss here. Look at the grid line for 2010 on Kristian’s black chart vs. Dr. Spencer’s 8/1 post chart. Kristian’s processed data at that point show 0.0 anomaly and Dr. Spencer’s near max. at +0.5. Huge difference. Makes the difference in eyeball readings maybe. Understanding that delta would be cold, hard progress Kristian.
Kristian – In your post processing of UAH v6.0 Beta 5 from 8/1 where you reduced the coverage from +85/-85 to +30/-30 for Tmedian anomaly in the period to compare to Loeb’s paper, did you also perform the same operation on the baseline data 1981-2010?
Ball4 says:
Does any physical earthling here care at all of what the BOT Trick sputters?
Cirrus radiates at 15 micron wavelength, the same as CO2, at or above the so-called radiating level. Another fact that AGW proponents never mention. The indoctrination (cannot be called education) in AGW science is full of such omissions.
Never? No. Actually Dr. Spencer tested the results of cirrus LWIR on surface water temperature found from passing cirrus bands overnight.
Do you deliberately misconstrue or does your brain twitch as you strive for comprehension?
Neither mpainter. Read the top post again. Read Prof. Tyndall. With comprehension. You will do just fine.
One more fact that gets ignored by the AGW proponents: the surface cools evaporatively
It doesn’t get ignored, but crazy people say it does. This type also says that clouds are ignored. That volcanoes (dimming) is ignored. That the role of the sun is ignored. The GCR is ignored. That convention is ignored. Or that water vapour is ignored. None of it is true. I cannot comprehend the kind of mind that argues researchers overlook these components. ‘Ignorant’ is the most obvious adjective. ‘Wilfully’ often seems an appropriate adverb.
“Convention” – typo: convection.
To reduce matters to the simplest, Roy reckons in his head post that Earth’s surface temperature is raised from 255K to 288K by downward IR.
In an above comment Roy points to Saudia Arabia as an example of how the surface temperature rises due to that nation having a location beneath descending adiabatically warming air so that the surface warming above 255K is a result of convectively available potential energy (not heat) being converted to kinetic energy (heat)during the descent.
The cause of the surface heat in Saudi Arabia is one or the other, it cannot be both.
Which does Roy choose and why?
“WEATHER WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT”
Strange. You don’t need greenhouse gases to get convection. Let the sun shine on a white and a black surface and the resulting temperature difference of the air (even without green gases) above both will create convection. And so weather.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/convection
Convection is the circular motion that happens when warmer air or liquid which has faster moving molecules, making it less dense rises, while the cooler air or liquid drops down.
Wim Rst says, July 31, 2016 at 2:23 PM:
Well, yes you do. At dynamic equilibrium, you do. But NOT because of their warming (energy absorbing/capturing) properties, but specifically because of their cooling (energy emitting/releasing) properties.
The funny thing is that you need for the atmosphere to cool radiatively to space in order to have convective/advective circulation (turbulent mixing) in the bulk atmosphere at dynamic equilibrium. Otherwise it would end up isothermal and significantly warmer on average than with such radiative cooling.
So this isn’t really the so-called “greenhouse effect”. It’s just the atmosphere (and the Earth system) shedding its heat to space via radiation.
By more emission on one place than elsewhere there will always be cooler places at the surface. So there will always be cool air at the surface too, that can replace the elsewhere heated air. Perhaps the convection is a magnitude less than in a system with greenhouse gases, but convection will exist. And so weather.
I agree that the weather will be different, perhaps very different. But it goes too far to say that no weather will exist.
Wim, Yes, as an atm. IR active constituents are reduced, the surface would still be a fluid heated from below in a gravity field thus generating convection.
So with more atmospheric IR active constituents the surface becomes hotter and with less atmospheric IR active constituents the surface becomes hotter. Very logical…..
No, Wim, the surface equilibrium Tmedian reduces as the IR active constituents reduce.
Kristian, I understand that on Earth scale cooling by greenhouse gases plays an important role for convection and that the diminishing or augmenting of greenhouse gases (inclusive H2O) changes the strength of the convection processes on Earth.
Being consequent, one can say that more greenhouse gases mean more cooling at the outside of the atmosphere and so will lead to more convection. Which anyway will lead to more mixing (vertical and horizontal) of the cold and the warm.
(Convection also has a horizontal part: the air that is attracted at surface level there where other air rises. Wind will be enhanced. Because of that ocean currents will change. And the horizontal distribution of heat content / energy will change) A very dynamic and – I think – chaotic process with lots of elements playing a part in it. Far from understood – science is not settled at all)
Wim Rost says, August 1, 2016 at 4:35 AM:
Uhm, both yes and no. If you put more H2O into the atmosphere you will most likely get a more vigorous atmospheric circulation. But this won’t for the most part have anything to do with its radiative properties. More WV in the air column simply promotes convection by 1) being lighter than air, expanding it, making it rise, and 2) releasing latent heat of vaporization upon condensing, also expanding the air (through heating it) and making it rise.
Kristian says: August 1, 2016 at 4:54 AM
“Uhm, both yes and no. If you put more H2O into the atmosphere you will most likely get a more vigorous atmospheric circulation. But this wont for the most part have anything to do with its radiative properties.”
WR:
Kristian, about H2O: “this wont for the most part have anything to do with its radiative properties”. First, I would like to know which part.
I would also like to know whether the energy that is transported upwards, will effect radiation in an indirect (!) way. For example, I read about a recent extension of the Hadley Cells. As the level of the troposphere is higher in the tropics, energy is transported closer to the place where it can be emitted to space: the mesosphere and stratosphere. More upward and in latitude extended Hadley cells might improve the outward emitting. I think.
Secondly, as Roy Spencer states: “addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is supposed to warm the surface, but cool the stratosphere and mesosphere”. In general this must stimulate convection, the more when the lower layers warmed up also. And stronger convection will transport energy closer to the level where it can/will be emitted. At least to the upward fringe of the H2O blanket or above this level as in case of tropical thunderstorms. Till above the level where H2O captures and sends back most of the surface level long wave radiation.
Those two processes (the cooling of the higher atmosphere and a strenghed upward energy transport) together might be of decisive importance in mitigating/stabilising the Earth’ temperature. And if not decisive, substantial. Worth to know.
Any information on this subject is welcome.
Wim Rost says, August 1, 2016 at 6:39 AM:
What do you mean? Which part that does involve the radiative properties? That would be the absorp tion and emission of IR. But any extra cooling from this would just be an effect of extra prior heating (a warmer troposphere emits more OLR to space). It is very unlikely (if you don’t buy into the whole AGW tripe) that Earth would warm or cool as a direct result of changes in its heat OUTPUT. All we can ever observe in the Earth system points to OLR being a radiative RESPONSE only to warming or cooling. And that warming/cooling would come from changes in Earth’s heat INPUT, from the Sun. Like we have now. Global ASR (absorbed solar radiation, TSI minus albedo) went considerably up between the late 80s and cirka 2000, and after that has pretty much stabilised at a slightly higher level again, although still significantly lower than in the 80s. This is all due to changes in (principally tropical) cloud cover during the 90s. At the same time, OLR went up in step with tropospheric temps, that is, it came as a direct radiative EFFECT of the temperature rise (caused by the increase in solar input).
No one seems to want to touch this simple observational fact, even though it’s clearly evident from the data (ERBE+CERES, ISCCP FD, HIRS):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/toafluxesfdvserbs_zps3489ddec.png
Again, the Hadley cells only expand when they warm. And so any extra cooling comes from extra prior heating.
Kristian, thank you very much for your remarks at August 1, 2016 at 9:58 AM.
Having seen that you was taking part in the discussion at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/28/precipitable-water-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-2269644 , I think you don’t mind when I put your last comments there too. They fit well in the discussion about convection.
How much convection happens on the moon?
Is there convection in the stratosphere? That has an atmosphere.
I will start by saying that radiation from gases of Earth’s
atmosphere is not warming nor preventing things from cooling.
Clouds are not gases. Clouds droplets of liquid and/or small particles of solids. In contrast clouds unlike gases are preventing cooling and reflecting radiation back to the earth surface.
In terms of Earth’s temperature the most significant factor is the oceans which cover most of the earth surface.
The ocean’s are transparent to the visible light from Sunlight. About 1/2 of the energy from the sun is visible light. The other large portion of sunlight is shortwave IR which less transparent in regard to Earth’s ocean.
If one is talking about relatively thin layer of the Ocean, a inch or a foot depth, most of the energy of the sun- visible
light and shortwave IR- is largely transparent to this radiant energy.
Roughly most of earth surface is ocean, most of sunlight reaching the ocean passes thru the top foot layer of the ocean.
The oceans are quite different than land surface- on the land, it is not transparent to sunlight- all sunlight is absorbed or reflected within the top inch of the of ground.
And heated top surface of the land can conduct heat below this surface and requires days of the energy of the sunlight to warm the top 1 foot of it’s surface.
Or with Ocean below a foot depth the energy of sunlight instantly reaches it which is unlike the non-transparent ground. And unlike the land surface, after the sun’s energy
reaches below it’s surface, it prevented from conducting the heat back to the surface in same time periods as it can
on land surface. Or simple terms, with the ocean the sunlight’s energy is trapped below the surface. A cold ocean can keep the energy of the sun for centuries. Or it can takes centuries for a cold ocean to warm up.
A cold ocean is sort of like uncharged battery and an immense amount of sunlight energy can be “charged up” or cold ocean can warmed up after centuries of sunlight.
Land also can also store energy from the sun. In farming in regions further away from the equator, the top soil which is cooled during the winter, can take weeks to warm up enough to allow plants to grow- or soil temperature is important factor of when one plants crops. So on seasonal basis the top soil warms up and then cools down and this occurring within top 1 foot below the surface.
The temperature of the ocean controls Earth average temperature whereas the land temperature [top 1 foot] does not have much affect upon global average temperature which is only partial due to the land surface being a small portion of the Earth’s surface area.
Or were the sun to be turned off, the earth ocean would continue to keep earth somewhat warm, whereas the land would not do this by much.
Likewise the atmosphere would keep the world warm for very long were the sun not to shine on Earth- within days the atmosphere would start to freeze out- cooling the top layer of ground fairly rapidly- whereas it’s affect less upon the ocean- it would “drain” the heat of the ocean and thereby kept atmosphere above it from freezing out within days.
The Earth’s ocean is mainly heated in region near the tropics, and the heat of ocean is transported pole ward.
Europe is warmed by Gulf stream and Europe would be about 10 degree cooler without the ocean waters warmed near tropics being transported via the Gulf stream.
Or since Gulf stream was discovered [Franklin wrote about it
centuries ago] people have known the ocean warmth keeps
European continent warmer. This of course occurs else where
but Gulf stream is more famous or more commonly known about.
Or few question that ocean heat warms large portions of the world. And ocean water is also not a gas.
So it’s a “everyone knows” that the ocean and clouds can prevent cooling- or has a warming effect.
And “everyone knows” that ocean hold vast amounts of CO2, and were ocean to warm, the warmed ocean water can no longer hold as much CO2- like a soda pop.
The warm to entire ocean require thousands of years, and to cool the entire ocean requires thousands of years. Though the top 100 meter of the ocean [a small fraction of ocean with average depth of about 4000 meter] can warmed within centuries and can have circulation pattern [El Nino, etc] which occur in yearly timescale- and have global effects upon air temperature and weather in general. Or because of the longer duration effects affect the Earth’s climate.
As for the atmosphere, it’s energy is the kinetic energy of
it’s gases. Or temperature of any gas is known to be related
to the average velocity of it’s molecules. Gas temperature is amount mass of gas molecules in cubic volume. So sea level has about 1.2 kg of air per cubic meter. And essential
the energy or velocity of these gases [what makes or defines them as warm] is not increased or decreased by radiant energy. Radiant energy does not increase there velocity, nor does radiant energy emitted decrease their volocity. Or if you compress gas into a tank- increase mass
of gases per volume area- the air temperature increases, and
gases don’t cool by radiating this increased gas temperature, rather the warmer gas heats the container and the container. That gases don’t radiate or lose heat is part of the assumption of the ideal gas laws. Or kinetic energy is not radiant energy.
Which is not disputing that certain gases can absorb and re-emit portions of spectrum of radiant energy- and one can measure temperature of gas by the spectrum of electromagnetic spectrum it emits.
The Greenhouse effect theory is based in idea that portions IR radiation from the earth warmed surface is absorbed and is emitted back to the warmed surface, thereby prevents the surface from cooling as quickly as it would without the greenhouse gases- or delays heat from the sun from leaving
Earth’s surface.
But as I said the ocean itself delays heat from leaving earth- for decades, and land also absorbs heat, delaying the sun’s energy from leaving Earth.
The model used by the greenhouse effect ignores any heat “trapped” by Earth surface by imagining the impossible of
an “ideal blackbody” and claims/asserts that only greenhouse
gases can prevent a planet from cooling as fast as an ideal blackbody [a mythical item] would cool.
So it’s premise is based on idea that only greenhouse gases
can slow the loss of heat. And to reminds you again, clouds
and ocean are not gases.
Convection is the circular motion that happens when warmer air or liquid which has faster moving molecules, making it less dense rises, while the cooler air or liquid drops down.
And what happens when the cooler air is heated as long as the surface is hotter than the cooler air.
At some time all the air is heated by the hot surface and will stay up, because no new air is colder than the hot surface.
I agree that weather depends on the air to cool by radiation.
It is not just air, it is also clouds, that have to get rid of a lot of condensation heat to stay alive and eventually release rain.
Can someone point me to a paper describing this supposed Tyndall experiment where the temperature of a room went up after adding CO2? There is no reason why that should happen, since (1) the floor and ceiling can be assumed to be at the same temperature, and (2) the small vertical extent (say 3 meters) of even pure CO2 would have an unmeasureable effect, even outside…I’ve computed this before.
Dr. Spencer, I guess this comes from Tyndall’s famous paper from 1861:
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
I guess that the information has been distorted and in fact refers to Tyndall’s demonstration of heat radiation from gases. This is reported in paragraph 9, Radiation of Heat by Gases.
Tyndall found that CO2, carbon monoxide CO, nitrous oxide N2O and ethylene (olefiant gas) C2H4 could radiate heat but not O2, N2 and H2. He detected increased heat radiation from adding of those gases to the off gas flow from a burner by using a thermopile sensor. I understand this so that when a heat radiating gas was added to the off gas flow from the burner it was heated and more heat was radiated from the gas flow from the burner than without the heat radiating gas. But with gases like O2 and N2 there was no increased heat radiation because those gases cannot radiate heat.
So the heat radiation gases in principle heated the room but obvious with negligible increase of temperature of the whole room. But perhaps a person standing close to the burner could feel the effect and it could obviously be detected with Tyndall’s thermopile sensor.
Well CO2 becomes CO2 by CO combining with O2. This is chemical reaction which produces heat. Also CO, starts as C
and oxygen added. Or put something [metal] over candle flame
and you will get black soot. [instead carbon combining with O2
it combines with itself- and metal not hot enough for O2 to react with cooled Carbon, with liberated from hydrocarbon burning with oxygen below it- H violently combining with O to make water].
Peter,
“The radiation from air, it will be remembered, was neutralized by the large Leslie’s cube, and hence . . . ” – Tyndall.
Tyndall definitely did not say that nitrogen, oxygen, and so on cannot radiate heat. He went to great lengths to neutralise its radiation.
Most people cannot be bothered to comprehend what Tyndall wrote. Especially foolish Warmists!
Cheers.
Dr. Spencer, Pehrs link is correct.
The room is Prof. Tyndall’s experimental chamber.
“On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 (degrees) FAHR.”
Ball4,
You will notice that Tyndall referred to the tube being filled with air, not CO2.
Maybe you have misunderstood the Tyndall paper. I agree his terminology and phraseology is somewhat confusing at times. Also, unless you understand the brilliance of his experimental rigour, it is easy to misunderstand his results. When Tyndall talks about a deflection of his instrument, one must understand his instrument setup. I suspect that that foolish Warmists may have interpreted Tyndall’s results incorrectly, due to unfamiliarity with the construction and use of his equipment.
Sorry. Still no heating from unheated CO2.
As Tyndall demonstrated, gases can be heated. As your link shows, Tyndall had no trouble heating air, and noting that it cooled as it radiated its heat away. He showed that different gases had different specific heats, and possessed differing opacities to EMR of varying wavelengths.
His results have been verified by modern experiments, in general. He himself modified some procedures and conclusions in later publications.
Foolish Warmists can, and often do, leap to premature and incorrect conclusions, due to lack of scientific comprehension.
Cheers.
“Still no heating from unheated CO2.”
Prof. Tyndall’s surprise at finding his 3 independent instruments indicating heating from unheated CO2, he started doubting his rock salt end cap windows. Took them off and cleaned them. No difference. Then he took them off all together, just squirted gas into the open tube. Still found heating from unheated CO2.
Then he removed the tube all together! Just squirted the gas into the room and STILL detected heating from unheated CO2 Mike.
Your denying Prof. Tyndall’s results do a disservice to the remarkable findings that astonished even him at that time.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Then he removed the tube all together! Just squirted the gas into the room and STILL detected heating from unheated CO2 Mike.”
Only in your fantasies. Foolish Warmist. No CO2 heating. No greenhouse (or even greenbanana) effect.
Woeful Wayward Warmist!
Cheers.
Ummmm…Mike, see the bottom p. 9 and mid page 10 Tyndall: “the tube was now taken away…” your greenbanana effect was still indicated by the needle.
Ball4,
You may have overlooked the fact of two carefully balanced heat sources. Disturbing the balance results in a reading.
Still no CO2 heating. Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
I did not miss the two boiling water vessels Mike, both marked C in the apparatus description.
Ball4,
Excellent! And making any changes after the galvanometer has been nulled, results in a deflection.
Still no CO2 heating! Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Any needle deflection indicates your green banana effect Mike, H2 was lowest.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“H2 was lowest.”
More unintelligible pseudo-scientific Foolish Warmist gibberish.
Lowest what? H2 from whence? What the heck are you talking about? Is this some secret Warmist Cargo Cult Scientism jargon?
I assume you are trying to express yourself in English, but if so, you’re not making a terribly good fist of it.
Still no CO2 heating by unheated CO2.
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Lowest needle deflection for H2 Mike. Unheated CO2 heated Prof. Tyndall’s room.
Ball4 says:
July 31, 2016 at 4:29 AM
Lewis and Mike can make one from Tyndalls lab notes. The apparatus is clearly described/annotated for the Tyndall model CO2 (et. al gas) room heater in the link I gave. Quite inexpensive actually. Both of you should replicate the actual testing. Reading is apparently too much of an effort.
Ball4 says:
July 30, 2016 at 9:32 PM
CO2 warmed Tyndalls room Mike, tests are good learning tools for you, try em.
Ball4 says:
July 31, 2016 at 7:11 AM
I dont need to MAKE a CO2 room heater Mike, Prof. Tyndall already did so, the apparatus is detailed in his report. If you think such an apparatus is needed on the market, you already have his plans, knock yourself out. The Mike Flynn CO2 room heater, coming soon. No greenhouses were harmed in the project.
Keep digging.
Ball4 says:
July 30, 2016 at 8:35 PM
Facts over Faith is better Mike. CO2 heated something. p. 32,33
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf
Roy,
In your Figure 3, why did you
1) lie in the caption (Lundquits is only NH extratropical only, but you claimed it as the entire NH), and
2) only include ONE regional study, when global reconstructions are available (Marcott et al 2013; PAGES 2k 2013), and many NH-entire reconstrucions?
http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/FFP-Global-Temperature-booklet-July-2016-PDF.pdf
The Marcott reconstruction only has a resolution of 200-300 years so for the last millenium it’s probably not a good choice. As for Pages, there were huge revisions after publication but the authors (negligently) failed to update the charts, or that’s the last I heard.
https://climateaudit.org/2014/10/28/warmest-since-uh-the-medieval-warm-period/
So the choice was either using a chart that was known to be outdated and wrong, or making a new chart (which would take considerably more work and may only serve to bring accusations of fraud upon the person making the new chart).
@Roy…”temperature goes up when energy gain exceeds energy loss”
Far too general, Roy. When electrical energy increases, temperature does not increase. When chemical energy increases, temperature does not increase. Temperature only increases when thermal energy increases.
Thermal energy is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. Atoms bound in a lattice vibrate and that vibration produces work. Work and heat are equivalent therefore internal atomic vibrations are thermal energy.
The 2nd law applies only to thermal energy and to no other form of energy. It cannot be applied to a theorized net balance of IR energies. The basis of the 2nd law is that heat can only be transferred between warmer and cooler bodies without compensation. That means heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.
If you add energy, say from a flame, to one end of a bar of iron atoms, the heat energy from the flame will be transferred to the atoms in the bar causing the atoms at the end of the bar to vibrate more rapidly. That increase in motion is an increase in heat measured by the human parameter of temperature.
The heat added at the end of the bar will transfer down the bar between atoms via valence electrons in the same way electric charge is transferred.
In the atmosphere, the average heat in the atmosphere, which Hansen tried to peg around +15C, is a measure of the kinetic energy of all atoms in the atmosphere. 99% of those atoms are nitrogen and oxygen and only 1% are GHGs. Of that 1%, only 0.04% is CO2.
So, you’re claiming that atoms/molecules comprising 1% of the atmosphere are responsible for raising the mean temperature of the Earth from -19C to +15C.
Let’s compare that to a real greenhouse. If you have a greenhouse with 100 panes of glass, you’d need to remove 99 panes to get the equivalent of the 1% of the atmosphere comprised of GHGs.
It makes no scientific sense that the 99% represented by N2 and O2 have made no contribution. It’s also plain that solar energy has heated the atmosphere through heating the surface and the solar energy stored in the surface has heated N2 and O2 via conduction and convection.
“In the atmosphere, the average heat in the atmosphere….”
There is no such thing as “heat” residing anywhere.
Heat is the transfer of energy. Period.
“So, youre claiming that atoms/molecules comprising 1% of the atmosphere are responsible for raising the mean temperature of the Earth from -19C to +15C.”
Heat gains and losses — transfers of energy — thermalize. All atmospheric constituents gain/lose energy until they return to equilibrium.
At equilibrium, the average kinetic energy of all atmospheric molecules is greater/lesser than before.
If you took out the atmosphere’s greenhouse gases, ALL atmospheric molecules would have less kinetic energy after equilibrium.
That’s the greenhouse effect.
@David Appell…”Heat is the transfer of energy. Period”.
Which energy are you talking about?
If I devise a simple circuit with a resistor in series with a battery, you are claiming that energy transferred from the battery to the resistor is heat.
Sorry, it’s electrical energy. Heat will rise in the resistor due to electrons colliding with atoms in the resistor. The resistor heats because the atoms in the resistor begin vibrating harder due to the collisions.
If you don’t believe that, grab a hot 2 watt resistor with significant current running through it.
Heat is kinetic energy. However, there are various forms of kinetic energy and one needs to be specific. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.
Picked at random:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat
“A measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter, expressed in terms of units or degrees designated on a standard scale”.
The degrees to which they refer are relative to arbitrary reference points based on the freezing point and boiling point of water. Temperature was invented by humans, heat is a real phenomenon.
Gordon, at 9:16pm you tell us heat is kinetic energy then at 9:02pm you tell us radiative heat transfer is about increases and decreases in energy. So, accordingly, radiative kinetic energy transfer is about increases and decreases in energy.
Then you say at 9:02pm heat (thermal energy) does not flow between bodies via IR.
I spot some huge confusion here Gordon. You will need to clarify to properly challenge Dr. Spencer in the top post, so far your challenge is incomprehensible failure.
@Ball4…”Gordon, at 9:16pm you tell us heat is kinetic energy then at 9:02pm you tell us radiative heat transfer is about increases and decreases in energy. So, accordingly, radiative kinetic energy transfer is about increases and decreases in energy”.
You are quoting me entirely out of context, a good device in itself if you are trolling.
I said heat is the kinetic energy of atoms.
Heat is related to the valence electrons in atoms changing energy levels. Here we are talking about the energy within an atom.
You have to understand that energy is a generic term that can apply to various forms of energy and that kinetic energy can be applied to different forms of energy as well.
I stated clearly in which contexts my energy references were intended and you omitted the contexts. Speaking of energy in generic terms is meaningless. You must provide a context in which the energy exists.
Is it energy in a mechanical system, in a chemical reaction, in a nuclear reactor, in a battery, or what? I made it clear that I am talking about the energy associated with valence electrons in an atom and the mechanical vibrational states of atoms bound in a lattice.
Now we are told by Gordon heat is kinetic energy. Next we are told by Gordon heat is related to the valence electrons in atoms changing energy levels. Accordingly, kinetic energy is related to the valence electrons in atoms changing energy levels.
This kind of confusion will not be useful in building any case against Dr. Spencer’s top post Gordon. No such confusion exists in the top post. You will only able to mount a case with clear, test based, unconfused 1st principle physics Gordon. Ala Feynman.
@David Appell….another article from the same site on kinetic energy and it’s relationship to temperature/heat.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1c.cfm
“It makes no scientific sense that the 99% represented by N2 and O2 have made no contribution.”
Which is why no one claims this to be true.
Before the introduction of GHGs, atmospheric constituents like N2 and O2 have a certain average kinetic energy. The atmo temperature is their average. (Locally, of course.)
Afterward the introduction of GHGs, they have a higher one.
“Of that 1%, only 0.04% is CO2.”
No, CO2 is 0.04% of all atmospheric constituents, by number, not just of the non-N2 and non-O2 constituents.
@David Appell…Of that 1%, only 0.04% is CO2.
No, CO2 is 0.04% of all atmospheric constituents, by number, not just of the non-N2 and non-O2 constituents”.
That’s what I meant, sorry if I did not make that clear.
All CO2 is 4% of all GHGs and 0.04% of the atmosphere.
According to your view, the atmosphere only acts to provide thermal inertia and infrared radiation plays little or no part in affecting the surface temperature.
Then why is the surface generally warmer at night in the presence of clouds than without?
Where does the (on average) 333 Watts per meter squared of infrared radiation we receive at the surface come from?
And where does it go ?
( and don’t tell me that it is reflected because it comes from a cooler source !)
doctor no says:
“According to your view, the atmosphere only acts to provide thermal inertia and infrared radiation plays little or no part in affecting the surface temperature.”
You don’t say who this is directed to…. but if it’s to me, you’re wrong, that’s not my view.
David,
No,it is directed to gordon robertson
@doctor no…”Where does the (on average) 333 Watts per meter squared of infrared radiation we receive at the surface come from?”
Apparently it has disappeared.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/whatever-happened-to-back-radiation-part-ii/
The 334 watts back-radiation was proposed by the early Kiehle-Trenberth budget based on reasoning and guestimates. There is no hard and fast theory in physics to cover this pseudoscience.
How is it physically possible for all the radiation emitted from the surface to be collected by GHGs representing 1% of the atmosphere and back-radiated with the same amount of IR that was radiated?
@Dr no…”Then why is the surface generally warmer at night in the presence of clouds than without?”
I would guess that has something to do with the absence of direct solar radiation during the night. In some parts of the world, in summer, when the horizon rises to block out the Sun, the surface can drop below 0C.
I would imagine that clouds, which are modeled as small lakes, could be warmer than the surface for a while. Please don’t confuse the water droplets in clouds with water vapour that is a GHG. If you point an IR meter into a cloudless sky, where GHG water vapour is found, you can get temperatures of -50 C. If you point it at a cloud, the temp can rise to around 0C.
“According to your view, the atmosphere only acts to provide thermal inertia and infrared radiation plays little or no part in affecting the surface temperature”.
No…I admit that out-going IR serves to cool the surface. When the valence electrons in surface atoms drop to a lower energy level, they emit IR, which represents that cooling. What I don’t agree with is that IR from a cooler atmosphere can rewarm the surface to a level it was warmed by solar radiation, and according to some alarmists, raise the surface temperature beyond that level.
The 33C representing greenhouse warming is based on a theoretical model with no atmosphere and no oceans.
Let’s not forget as well that hot air rises. A massive amount of heat is transported physically in atoms of nitrogen and oxygen via convection.
In a real greenhouse, those atoms of N2 and O2 are physically blocked by the glass, preventing convection that would cool the greenhouse. There is no such mechanism in the atmosphere to block convection, so why should the atmosphere warm due to a greenhouse effect?
Gordon Robertson says:
>> @Dr noThen why is the surface generally warmer at night in the presence of clouds than without? <<
"I would guess that has something to do with the absence of direct solar radiation during the night."
No guessing — observational evidence only.
Let's see yours.
“no dr” queries: “And where does it go ?
( and dont tell me that it is reflected because it comes from a cooler source !)”
Okay, how about just “it is reflected”.
(Short and sweet.)
@Roy…”But what if the cooler plate is 200 deg. C cooler than the warm plate, rather than only 10 deg. C cooler? Can we agree that the net flow of IR radiation will be even larger? If so, that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer objectbecause energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature”.
Roy…please!!!…stop this thought experiment-based pseudo-science. What you have claimed above is not based on science, it’s a thought experiment that contradicts the thermodynamics proposed by Clausius.
This was settled circa 1850 when Clausius wrote his treatise on heat, coined the term entropy, and devised the 2nd law. Heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body, without compensation, and all the thought experiments and logic in the world wont change that.
Heat transfer has nothing to do with IR flow per se, IR is nothing more than the energy transport agent IN ONE DIRECTION. IR is emitted by an atom’s valence electrons when they drop to a lower energy level, at a certain intensity and frequency. That same electron cannot be raised to a higher energy level by the IR emitted by an atom in a cooler body.
As IR it is electromagnetic energy and not thermal energy. You cannot talk about a net energy flow and apply it to heat transfer because no thermal energy flows between bodies.
Radiative heat transfer is about increases and decreases of energy in the atomic valence bands in the relative bodies. It can only take place between a warmer body and a cooler body without compensation.
Heat (thermal energy) does not FLOW between bodies via IR. Heat remains in the respective bodies, increasing and decreasing as the valence electrons rise and drop in energy. The energy transferred is electromagnetic energy and only in one direction.
The emission of IR by a warmer body can cause the valence electrons in a cooler atom to rise to a higher energy level, thus warming them, but the opposite is not generally true. In other words, IR from a cooler body is not accepted by the valence electrons in a warmer body therefore net IR flow is a meaningless term.
You are making the same mistake as alarmists, confusing electromagnetic energy (IR) with thermal energy. They have little or nothing in common.
“Heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body, without compensation….”
THis is just so ridiculous, it is, literally stupid. (Sorry, but it is.)
All objects emit radiation.
Do you think that radiation does a U-turn just as it’s about to strike a cooler object?
Or a warmer object?
Do you really think that heat emitted by the Earth in the direction of the Sun does not fall into the Sun?
What does it do then, in your opinion? Does it do a U-turn and come back to us?
@David Appell…”Do you really think that heat emitted by the Earth in the direction of the Sun does not fall into the Sun?”
The plasma on the Sun is comprised of extremely hot protons and electrons. Do you think that IR radiated from a surface with an average temperature of 15C would have any affect on that cauldron?
I don’t know how IR is affected by charge but the tremendous electrical field around the Sun would likely blow it away like you’d blow out a candle.
I realize that none of us around here are experts but I think we need to use some common sense at times when it comes to the radiative theories presented by alarmist scientists. We also need to observe facts in science.
Thermodynamics has been established for a long time, going back before 1850 when Clausius established basic thermodynamics principles. If you read his work from back then, which is valid today, he states emphatically that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation.
That means it does not matter that IR is radiated both ways between a warmer and cooler body. It means simply that IR from the cooler body has no effect on the warmer body.
In his work, he says nothing about IR. In those days IR was referred to as heat rays but Clausius still claimed that heat transfer via radiation was exactly the same as heat transfer by conduction or convection.
What Roy is talking about in this article is a principle unknown in physics. There is no such thing as a net energy balance as applied to heat transfer. Heat transfer is governed by the 2nd law and you cannot get around that using thought-experiments and fanciful theories that sum IR.
It doesn’t matter if IR from the Earth’s surface reaches the Sun, it will have no effect whatsoever due to the massive temperature difference.
“Do you think that IR radiated from a surface with an average temperature of 15C would have any affect on that cauldron?”
Now you’ve changed the question.
But the answer is yes — the energy of the IR radiation changes the energy content of what absorbs it.
@David Appell…Heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body, without compensation.
THis is just so ridiculous, it is, literally stupid. (Sorry, but it is.)”
My quote is essentially a direct quote from the work of Clausius in which he developed the 2nd law and entropy.
You are thoroughly confused about the difference between heat and IR. I am not trying to be unkind but please try to sort this out for yourself.
To aid yourself, think of heat transfer in a piece of steel. Where is the radiation (IR).
If you work that out, do you agree that heat can only be transferred from the hot end of a bar of steel to the cool end? Is that universally true in a bar of steel? If so, what’s different with heat transfer through the atmosphere?
The 2nd law governs this it it basically states that heat can only be transferred from a warmer region/object to a cooler region/object.
If you want to transfer heat the other way, from cold to hot, you need compensation. You need to supply external power, a compressor, a refrigerant, a condenser, and an evapourator. By such means you can extract heat from a refrigerator, exchanging it with the air in the room, but you cannot do that naturally.
Confusing the 2nd law with laws applying to IR will lead to climate alarm.
“My quote is essentially a direct quote from the work of Clausius in which he developed the 2nd law and entropy.”
No, it is not.
That statement is for ADIABATIC CHANGES ONLY.
Please read again with this understanding.
@David Appell…”No, it is not.
That statement is for ADIABATIC CHANGES ONLY.
Please read again with this understanding.”
Once again, think heat transfer inside a bar of steel where adiabatic change has nothing to do with anything. You’re hung up on radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere where adiabatic processes exist.
I have read Clausius over and over. Not once does he refer to an adiabatic process with respect to heat transfer. He does a lot of work with heat engine theory but only to establish the basis of heat transfer. Once that is established he makes general statements that apply to heat under any conditions.
You have not read Clausius carefully.
By “compensation” he means the addition or subtraction of heat — that is, a non adiabatic situation.
“You are thoroughly confused about the difference between heat and IR. I am not trying to be unkind but please try to sort this out for yourself…. To aid yourself, think of heat transfer in a piece of steel. Where is the radiation (IR).”
No one says ALL heat changes are due to IR.
Heat transfers are changes in energy. Period.
Sometimes that is via IR, but that is hardly the only way energy is transferred.
Gordon, you are using a weak understanding of thermodynamics and misapplying it all over the place.
And hence coming up with absurd conclusions.
@David Appell..”Heat transfers are changes in energy. Period”.
Once again, changes in what energy? You have not specified the energy.
Heat is the kinetic energy in atoms in motion. If the atoms are bound in a lattice, as in steel, the atoms vibrate in place and that vibration is heat (and work). If the atoms are free to move, as in gases and liquids, the KE associated with the motion of atoms is heat.
Heat transfers are changes in thermal energy but heat is associated with matter in the form of atoms.
No atoms, no heat. It’s that simple. IR has no atoms associated with it other than the atoms that emitted it as EM. Once emitted, the IR is not associated with an atom. Before it’s emitted, it’s not EM.
“The 2nd law governs this it it basically states that heat can only be transferred from a warmer region/object to a cooler region/object.”
Wrong.
You are simply wrong. OK?
And you aren’t thinking clearly. For example, do you really think radiation emitted by the Earth in the direction of the Sun does not impact the Sun?
Here is a correct statement of the Clausius formulation of the SLOT:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
You are ignoring everything after the first comma.
The Earth is NOT an adiabatic system, because energy from the Sun is pouring into it all the time, and the same amount is not leaving.
If you need more, read Pierrehumbert’s 2011 article in Physics Today, and the paragraph on the last page that begins
“The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system….”
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
@David Appell…”Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time..
You have just quoted exactly what I said. The only difference is that I replaced “…some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time” with “compensation”.
If you read Clausius directly he does the same. Compensation means “some other change”.
If you read him more deeply he explains compensation using heat engine theory. You cannot extract heat from a cooler body and transfer it to a warmer body unless, at the same time, you replace the heat extracted from the cooler body”.
That’s what they do in a refrigerator. A refrigerant is highly compressed by a compressor driven by external power. The compressed refrigerant is now liquid and goes through a condenser where it releases heat to the atmosphere. Then it goes through an evaporator where it expands and draws heat from a compartment that needs cooling.
After the evapourator it is expanded and in gaseous form.
You can’t do anything like that in the atmosphere therefore the first part of your statement applies: heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body.
Actually, he stated, heat can never pass from a colder body to a warmer body on its own, implying that compensation is required.
You’re still reading it all wrong, Gordon, and your conclusion is still all wrong.
Stop avoiding this question: what happens to the radiation the Earth emits in the direction of the Sun? Where does it go?
@David Appell…”Stop avoiding this question: what happens to the radiation the Earth emits in the direction of the Sun? Where does it go?”
I don’t know, do you, other than in a hypothetical argument? Do you know of any scientist who has measured it and gone to the Sun to check his theories directly?
I said it doesn’t matter what happens to it since Clausius has already made it clear that IR from a cooler body has no effect on the temperature of a warmer body.
Bohr did address that, claiming that IR could only be absorbed by valence electrons if it had the required frequency and intensity. Apparently, IR from a cooler body lacks the frequency or intensity to be absorbed by the electrons in a warmer body.
What happens to the IR. It likely passes through or bounces off. Then again, to get into that you’d need to be an expert quantum theory and Feynman diagrams. We did not cover that in engineering since neither are required to build bridges or design an electrical circuit.
Think about light frequencies. Suppose you put a green filter in front of a beam of white light. The green EM frequencies disappear. Where do they go?
No one has a clue what happens at atomic levels.
“Do you know of any scientist who has measured it and gone to the Sun to check his theories directly?”
Are you unable to think of ANY situation where radiation from a colder object — whatever it is — approaches a warmer object — say, your eyes?
“I said it doesnt matter what happens to it since Clausius has already made it clear that IR from a cooler body has no effect on the temperature of a warmer body.”
And you’re still wrong, because you ignore what comes after the comma.
“Bohr did address that, claiming that IR could only be absorbed by valence electrons if it had the required frequency and intensity. Apparently, IR from a cooler body lacks the frequency or intensity to be absorbed by the electrons in a warmer body.”
No, Bohr didn’t say that. Bohr was interested in atomic physics — atomic transitions of the order of an Angstrom — which is a wavelength about 10,000 times smaller than IR.
IR transitions relative to climate are important for the vibrational ad rotational bands of triatomic molecules (and some more complicated), not for atoms or diatomic molecules.
“What happens to the IR. It likely passes through or bounces off.”
What is the observational evidence for that?
“Then again, to get into that youd need to be an expert quantum theory and Feynman diagrams.”
I’ve calculated scores of Feynman diagrams. I have never, ever seen a Feynman rule that depends on the temperature of the emitting or absorbing body.
Show me where I’m wrong on that.
David Appell,
Pierrehumbert (from your link) –
“Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
As is the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, insulation does not increase the temperature of a cooling body, such as the Earth, or a corpse.
No amount of planetary insulation has prevented the Earth from cooling during the last four and a half billion years, has it?
One foolish Warmist depending on another foolish Wsrmist to come up with a demonstrably irrelevant conclusion! Amazing!
No CO2 heating – none. Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Mike F wrote:
“Unfortunately, insulation does not increase the temperature of a cooling body, such as the Earth, or a corpse.”
Then why do you wear a coat when it’s cold outside?
Why do you insulate your house?
geran
“Norm, from where you are starting, you would need about 4-5 semesters of college math (calculus, vector geometry, and vector calculus) to be able to progress to a meaningful physics text, such as this one:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-EHEP002531.html
Best of luck.”
geran thanks for the advice but it does not seem necessary to demonstrate how the process described above works.
Rather than a hot cup of coffee we can make it simpler and just have a heated ball. The situation is that we supply enough energy in case 1 (no surrounding objects in free space say at 3 K) to maintain a temperature of 100 C or 373.15 K.
geran,
rather then spend 4-5 semesters of college math the solution is much easier than this and really does not require a high level math comprehension.
Here is a more direct physics text book that deals with just the topic of heat transfer.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv131.pdf
In Chapter 1 of this book (mind you it is a college level textbook on science…you can choose to reject the contents, up to you).
Please scroll to equation 1.32, For a sphere in space the view factor is one as it will also be if the sphere is surrounded by a larger sphere of ice. For reference scroll to Chapter 10 page 544.
Before going on, does this make sense to you? Am I clear and articulating the topic in a manner you are able to follow it?
The latest UAH TLT figure should be out very soon. Been following all the major temp records monthly through the latest Nino and its relaxation.
Most interesting question for me (as a weather watcher) is whether a stable la Nina will form this year, and if so, how long it lasts into next year (and possibly the next).
July may mark the first month of the year at la Nina values. A full-blown la Nina is marked as a 3-month or 5-month block of sustained la Nina values (< -0.5C NINO3.4 SSTs is one metric), so we won't know if a la Nina has formed until the end of Sept at the earliest.
Apologies – above post was meant to start a new thread.
Norman,
Thanks for the link.
The author’s treatment is quite good, up until the point where he compares the atmosphere to a pane of glass, and appears completely confused about heating within a physical greenhouse.
Another misguided foolish Warmist. I cannot copy and paste for some reason. I leave it to you to find the completely contrary statements the author makes in different places.
Actually, I rather like the author pointing out that the radiation from CO2 and H2O resulting from a high temperature hydrogen flame is relatively small, compared with a candle burning at much lower temperature.
I both agree and disagree with his statement.
And still, unheated CO2 heats nothing warmer than itself.
Cheers.
Mike, you were shown incorrect by experiment, unheated CO2 heated Prof. Tyndall’s room.
@geran…”Here is a more direct physics text book that deals with just the topic of heat transfer.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv131.pdf
Thanks for the link but I’d tend to treat that text with a pinch of salt. I know it comes from MIT, and that MIT has a huge reputation for engineering, but the author has the engineer’s disease and a whole load of arrogance.
The engineer’s disease refers to engineers force-learning equations and being utterly unable to explain the reality behind them. When I studied engineering we got no theory whatsoever, we did nothing but solve problems using equations.
On my first lecture in electrical engineering, the prof wrote an equation on the board and told us it was an amplifier. For the rest of the course all we talked about was math. One guy was in third year before he got it that the L in L di/dt was an inductor, a coil of wire.
I have met graduate electrical engineers who cannot explain the reality behind a circuit. On one summer job, while I was studying engineering, a newly graduated electrical engineer gave me a circuit to wire. The output transistors were backwards. I knew that because I’d worked as a technician for years before returning to study engineering.
He wasn’t even embarrassed when I pointed it out. He gave me a pencil and paper and told me to mark down anything else I noticed. I listed more than a dozen major errors.
Not all engineer’s are like that although the Dean of Engineering, during a preliminary, introductory lecture admitted to blowing up a small power station. He showed us slides of it.
When I opened my engineering text on physics, nothing was explained. Time was not covered although it was in every equation I got. I doubt if time is covered in any science course, at any level, it is assumed.
It was not till I graduated and began reading on time that I met one of my physics profs in a Safeway. I put it to him that time did not seem to exist. He stated adamantly that time did not exist, that humans had invented it to keep tract of change.
The author of this text completely ignores Clausius, the father of the 2nd law, other than a passing comment on him. The comment was, “See…Clausius agrees with me”. In the index, he lists Cervantes and Don Quixote, but not Clausius.
He arrogantly claims that thermal transfer is not adequately covered by thermodynamics then goes on to describe his take on it. He refers to heat flow and thermal radiation although neither exist. He refers to the Sun emitting heat as EM.
There is no heat in EM, nor is there colour. He completely messes up the theory of heat transfer claiming heat travels through the air to warm your body. That is nonsense. He has joined the club in which scientists fail to understand the difference between IR, which is EM, and heat.
Heat is related to atoms. No atoms, no heat. Your body warms because it has atoms in the skin and IR can cause the kinetic energy in the atoms to rise, raising the heat level in your skin. Heat cannot flow through the air it is inextricably tied to the atom.
Unless the atom moves through the air, as in a gas, heat can go nowhere. It can travel atom to atom in a solid but in the case of a solid radiating, the heat remains in the solid. The IR it produces can travel to a cooler solid and raise it’s temperature when absorbed.
In the chapter on radiation, he makes incredible assumptions. The equations he applies apply to blackbodies.
Boltzmann, Kircheoff, et al apply to bodies at very high temperatures.
The case in our atmosphere, where a relatively cool surface is radiating IR and warming GHGs in the atmosphere cannot be calculated using Boltzmann at al. As Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out in their paper about falsifying the greenhouse theory, the equations used to calculate the 33 degrees of warming claimed are bogus.
When he talks about GHGs, he talks about molecules vibrating, as if there is a magical quality about a molecule that an atom does not possess. For anyone confused about it, a molecule is one or more atoms bonded together by either covalent or ionic bonding. Both forms of bonding involved electrons.
Atoms vibrate just for the heck of it. No one knows why. If you bond two atoms, they will vibrate, but IR is absorbed by the electrons in the valence shells where the bonding takes place.
The author of the book skims over that, suggesting to me he has learned the equations and not the theory.
He made a reference to entropy and T being undefined for an irreversible process. That’s not what Clausius implied, and he invented entropy.
Clausius stated that entropy is the integral over a process of the infinitesimal changes in heat, Q, into or out of a body, at the temperature T, at which the infinitesimal change takes place. If the process is reversible, the entropy is zero. It it is irreversible, the entropy is +ve. He said nothing about either being undefined at any stage.
I am afraid we are in trouble in science, with ego-tripper scientists taking original works and perverting them through a regurgitation of mathematics without understanding the reality. If you read Clausius or Planck, they explained things in words as well as the math. Today, you get nothing but bs.
Gordon, Boltzmann and Kirchoff did their experimental work at room temperature (as did Prof. Tyndall) so their results apply to Earth atm. temperatures too. You are incorrectly dismissing their lab work. It is you in trouble with the science.
@Ball4…”Boltzmann and Kirchoff did their experimental work at room temperature (as did Prof. Tyndall)…”
And did their work contradict the 2nd law, that heat can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation?
Don’t think so.
Therefore, their equations do not apply to the direction of heat transfer. Their equations apply to IR flow, which is electromagnetic energy. I am not arguing that IR flows both ways between bodies of different temperatures I am arguing that any heat transferred is in one direction only, unless compensation is supplied to alter that.
I have seen nothing from Boltzmann et al to explain what happens to IR radiated from a cooler body to a warmer body. The closest I have come to an explanation is from Bohr, who explained that IR MUST have a specific intensity and frequency to be absorbed by an atom at a higher energy level.
Gordon writes heat is kinetic energy. Accordingly, Gordon asks did their work contradict the 2nd law, that kinetic energy can only be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body without compensation? Gordon doesn’t think so.
Gordon thinks wrongly according to Boltzmann.
Boltzmann showed us that kinetic energy can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation and there is no violation of 2LOT. His work in the kinetic theory produced the distribution of particle velocities (or vibrations in solids) showing a slower moving particle in a hotter body can receive added KE from a faster moving particle in a cooler body. Thus developed the notion that 2LOT is at best a macro statement. Same with EMR radiated cooler object to warmer, as discussed by Dr. Planck.
“I am afraid we are in trouble in science, with ego-tripper scientists taking original works and perverting them through a regurgitation of mathematics without understanding the reality.”
This is exactly my complaint with regards to those who make unsupported claims regarding human contribution to observed changes and the contribution of CO2 (versus water vapor) to the misnamed “greenhouse” effect.
Your link
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv131.pdf
also makes a lot of questionable assumptions/attributions in the section on “The atmospheric greenhouse effect and global warming” (page 591 of PDF, numbered 579 at the top of the page). Amusingly this section begins right under a paragraph that explains why the atmosphere does NOT function like a greenhouse, why calling it the “greenhouse” effect is incorrect and why doing so ensures that many errors in thought and expression will be made as a result.
It is refreshing to see the authors seem to realize or suggest that much of the attribution of global warming to CO2 alone is deeply flawed (page 592 of the PDF, numbered 580 at top of page) and they also point out that the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature are coincident but stop short of trying to claim a cause-and-effect relationship or to claim which is the cause and which the effect in such a relationship, at least at that point (I am commenting as I continue to read).
Sadly, on page 593, numbered 581, they break their objectivity and reveal themselves to be at least at some level full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, also believers in the alleged “consensus” in favor of same. Their mention of predicted warming is one of the most alarming I’ve seen. They suggest the high end of predicted warming could approach 6 degrees K.
They go on to detail the problems with a belief that solar power is the answer but then seem to suggest they believe that nonetheless. I suggest that solar power, at it’s current state of maturity, is not yet the answer, though there is some hope that we can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels FOR ENERGY, not for other products dependent on them, if we further refine the processes and materials we currently use to capture and convert solar energy. But even so other than by building large scale orbiting solar collection platforms along with the infrastructure required to bring the resulting energy to market, I don’t see solar becoming a really viable substitute for fossil fuel energy, only a method of augmenting fossil fuel generation during periods when solar energy is available. And the production of solar energy collection technologies, along with their implementation, have adverse environmental consequences also.
geran
Here goes a waste of effort but some on this blog may find the information useful. I am really hoping Mike Flynn checks it up as well as Kristian.
geran did you find equation 1.32 of the textbook in the link above?
Qnet=(Area of sphere)(view factor)(Stefan-Boltzmann constant)(T1^4-T2^4)
Area I will use is 1 meter square sphere
view factor is 1
Stefan-Boltzmann constant is 5.67×10^-8 Watts/m^2-K
In the first case (free space) The sphere is maintained by a heat source to 100 C (373.15 K) and it radiates away to a 3 K space.
Using the equation given:
Qnet=(1)(1)(5.67×10^-8)(373.15^4-3^4)
Note: this assumes a black body approximation but you can put in an emissivity value. Since it would be the same in both cases of different temperature is will change the net watts of the calculation but will not effect the outcome in each case. To simplify the calculation I will leave it as a 1 but you can put in any emissivity factor you like for your own calculations.
@Norman…”Here goes a waste of effort but some on this blog may find the information useful”.
Norman…I have nothing against you so please don’t take this personally. Please make it clear that you are talking about infrared radiation and not heat. You cannot apply the 2nd law to Boltzmann et all because Boltzmann is about EM and generally applies to stars at temperatures of millions of degrees C.
If you have two stars close together, both have independent sources of heat. Both transmit humungous quantities of EM. The calculations in Boltzmann, Kircheoff, Planck, etc., are not just about IR, they are about an entire spectrum of EM (a theoretical blackbody) that would affect any nitrogen and oxygen nearby.
If you had such a heat source close to the Earth, before it burned off our atmosphere it would heat nitrogen and oxygen as well as CO2 and water vapour.
N2 and O2 will warm if they get the right frequency and intensity of radiation. It’s just that the low level IR emitted from the surface lacks the frequency and intensity to affect N2 and O2.
The AGW theory proposes that low level IR from the Earth’s surface can be treated as a significant warming agent for GHGs. If the EM field only affects GHGs and not N2 and O2, then Boltzmann does not apply.
Another thing, the AGW is about a model in which one surface (the Earth’s surface) independently radiates against and warms another surface, GHGS in the atmosphere which are dependent. It is hypothesized that the atmosphere then acts as a body to back-radiation sufficient IR to the surface to raise it’s temperature beyond the level it is warmed by solar energy.
Can you see what’s wrong with that? You cannot use one body to warm another and have the warmed body back-radiate energy to raise the temperature of the warming surface. That’s called perpetual motion and it’s why the 2nd law was invented.
Gordon, Prof. Tyndall’s linked testing showed you are incorrect, the low level EM field in his room affected the temperature of N2 and O2 as detected by his instrumentation. Boltzmann later showed how his stuff did apply by further low level EM testing.
And still much confusion about power, energy, heat, temperature, and quantum electrodynamics.
No heating from unheated CO2. In the absence of an external energy source, CO2 will continuously lose energy, eventually reaching absolute zero. Assigning magical properties cannot overcome physics as is currently understood.
The unbounded but misplaced passionate beliefs of foolish Warmists cannot overcome reality.
Unheated CO2 heats nothing.
So sad, too bad!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“No heating from unheated CO2.”
You are still completely ignorant on this particular topic, and clearly have not learned a single thing.
That’s correct David, Mike Flynn is the foolish poster since unheated CO2 heated Prof. Tyndall’s room making Mike’s writing incorrect by experimental results.
In the absence of an external energy source, CO2 will continuously lose energy
Fictional scenario. In the real universe the primary energy source for atmospheric radiation is the sun.
(Corpses don’t have an energy source. Live bodies do. Thus live bodies, not corpses are more appropriate for any analogy on energy flux for the Earth.)
You’re still trying to argue as if someone has said CO2 is a source of energy. Your above is but an iteration of that straw man.
barry,
Just as a matter of interest, CO2 has no more internal energy source than does a corpse. One may heat a corpse or CO2. Without the heat, cooling results.
You are correct in that the Sun heats the Earth’s surface – during the day. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Sad but true.
Foolish Warmism meets fact. Foolish Warmism loses.
Cheers.
Just as a matter of interest, CO2 has no more internal energy source than does a corpse.
Here you are making the same argument again as if someone has said the opposite. We agreed on this weeks ago. No one else has said differently. I have to wonder what is wrong. Why do you continually repeat this straw man apropos of absolutely nothing contrary claimed here? Why the brain loop in the face of no opposition to the idea that CO2 is not itself an energy source?
barry,
I really would like to know the answer to your question. Mike Flynn continues to declare Carbon Dioxide is not a heat source and so far to date I do not know who would be saying it is. Wish he would clarify the source of his complaints.
Norm, you need to learn the pseudoscience you espouse.
The bogus Arrhenius CO2 equation yields “Watts/square meter”, every second. See if you can figure out the energy units.
Then multiply the result by 510 trillion.
I sure hate always busting your pseudoscience with science….
(Re-post)
The latest UAH TLT figure should be out very soon. Been following all the major temp records monthly through the latest Nino and its relaxation.
Most interesting question for me (as a weather watcher) is whether a stable la Nina will form this year, and if so, how long it lasts into next year (and possibly the next).
July may mark the first month of the year at la Nina values. A full-blown la Nina is marked as a 3-month or 5-month block of sustained la Nina values (< -0.5C NINO3.4 SSTs is one metric), so we won't know if a la Nina has formed until the end of Sept at the earliest.
geran
In free space the sphere is emitting a net of 1099 joules/sec.
Therefore it needs a constant supply of 1099 joules/sec of new energy to maintain a temperature of 100 C.
Now what happens if you surround the sphere in ice that is maintained at a temperature of 0 C or 273.15 K?
Do the math yourself and it may give you an “Aha” moment and you will finally see what the GHE is all about and it will make complete sense to you. Unless you do the math yourself and follow the logic it probably will have little overall effect on your thought process.
Qnet=(1)(1)(5.67^10-8)(373.15^4-273.15^4)
calculating it out….
Qnet=(5.67^10=8)(19,388,034,498-5,566,789,756)
Qnet=(5.67^10-8)(13,821,244,742)
Qnet=783.7 Watts
With the ice sphere surrounding the heated sphere, the net loss of energy from the inner sphere has dropped from case 1 of 1099 Watts to 783.7 Watts.
The condition stated in the example way up was that the energy added to the first sphere is constant regardless of the outside environment. So the inner sphere is still generating energy at the rate of 1099 joules/sec but is only losing 783.7 joules/sec. This means the inner sphere is gaining energy and will continue to heat up until it is once again emitting energy at the same rate its internal energy supply of 1099 joules/second.
So what will be the new equilibrium temperature of the inner sphere surrounded by ice?
geran
The answer to the question can be derived using equation 1.32 of the linked textbook.
The inner sphere will continue to heat until its outgoing energy is equal to 1099 watts (1099 joules/second which is identical to the energy being added to it).
1099 Watts/(5.67^10=8)=(T1^4-T2^4)
19,382,716,049 = T1^4-T2^4
T2 is ice maintained at 0 C or 272.15 K so
19,382,716,049+5,566,789,756=T1^4
24,949,505,805 = T1^4 T1=397.43 K or now 124.28 C
The surrounding ice results in an increased temperature of the inner sphere by 24.28 C.
The new equilibrium temperature of the inner sphere surrounded by ice must raise to this temperature to get rid of the 1099 joules/sec being added to it.
NOTE: The ice is not warming the inner sphere, but the inner sphere will reach a higher equilibrium temperature with ice over free space.
Kristian
If you look at my math and consult this textbook link.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahttv131.pdf
Look at equation 1.32 in Chapter 1 of this textbook.
If the atmosphere was hotter than the surface the GHE would be worse.
You can take this equation and have an outer concentric sphere at a higher temperature than an internally generating inner sphere (no atmosphere needed to see what is going on)
The situation I described to geran was have a 1 square meter sphere with an internal energy source that will maintain 100 C in free space.
If you assume a blackbody for ease (but put in another number for emissivity if you like like 0.94).
To maintain 100 C you can find the inner sphere needs to add energy at the rate of 1099 joules/sec to match the same loss of 1099 joules/sec from its surface. Only way it can maintain a constant temperature you would agree.
If you make the outer sphere 100 C hotter or 200 C (473.15 K) but the inner sphere is still generating 1099 joules/sec I find in order to reach an equilibrium temperature the inner sphere would have to increase temperature…
1099/5.67^10-8=19,382,716,049
T2 is at 473.15 K so initially it will add energy to the inner sphere but its temperature will be maintained at 473.15 K regardless of the inner sphere temperature.
473.15^4=50,118,189,941
19,382,716,049+50,118,189,941=69,500,905,990
New equilibrium temperature of an inner sphere generating 1099 joules/second surrounded by a 200 C outer sphere would now be=513.45 K or 240.3 C.
In free space the inner sphere generating 1099 joules/second will reach an equilibrium temperature of 100 C
Surrounded by ice it will go up to 124.28 C
Surrounded by a 200 C outer shell it will continue to rise in temperature until it is at 240.3 C.
Use the equation and try the math out yourself. It will help you understand the GHE.
Hehe, Norman, I do understand the “GHE”. It is the massive atmosphere insulating the solar-heated surface, thus raising its average temperature, by 1) being able to warm (space isn’t), and 2) weighing down on the surface (space doesn’t), thus restricting the heat loss from the surface at a certain temperature, forcing it to rise. This is a MASSIVE effect (it is the MASS that holds the energy close to the surface) using the radiative properties of the atmosphere as an enabling tool.
Hi Kristian. How is your massive effect different from the adiabatic lapse rate? Or does adiabatics quantify your effect?
The adiabatic lapse rate is simply the temperature falloff rate inside a rising packet of air, determined solely by Earth’s gravity and the heat capacity of the air (+ the release of latent heat of vaporization if there is condensation going on). That’s not “my massive effect”. “My massive effect” is just what I stated: 1) the atmosphere having a mass, thus being able to warm via heat transfer from the surface (and the Sun) (space isn’t), and 2) the atmosphere having a mass, thus weighing down on the surface (expressed by air pressure) (space doesn’t). Both of these properties naturally restrict heat loss from the surface at a given temperature. It also has another massive effect: spreading the heat globally and cutting down temperature amplitudes.
Kristian, I agree with all your comments except the assertion that radiative gases are needed as an enabling tool.
If there were no radiative gases convection would simply adjust to return enough kinetic energy to the surface to enable the surface to radiate out as much as comes in.
Another interesting link – thanks!
Mike Flynn
You did not like the textbook link I posted for geran.
Here is another.
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf
Go to page 21 of this link and you find the same equation as 1.32.
It will be the same regardless of what textbook you look at. This equation is established (based upon empirical evidence) science for radiation transfer. You can reject it but then consider rejecting all science you don’t like.
If you use this equation as I have done above, you will come to understand, correctly, what the GHE is and what it is not. It is not about Carbon dioxide warming directly the Earth’s surface or cold objects heating warmer ones. It is about equilibrium temperatures that develop based upon surroundings.
I do not think anyone argues against your points. You are correct that without input of energy the planet would cool to near absolute zero regardless of atmosphere composition. You are correct that a cold object does not increase the temperature of a hotter object. You are correct in stating that Carbon Dioxide does not warm the surface. You are incorrect in your understanding of what the GHE means. Working through the equation will establish the correct understanding. Not sure there is any other way to understand it than by going through it. I think you neglect, in you posts, that the Earth is always receiving a continuous energy input from the Sun. Live long and prosper. Hope you figure it out, I think you might!
Norman,
The GHE does not exist. It is a misnomer due to foolish Warmists not understanding basic radiative physics.
Consider this. The dark side of the Earth can be considered as receiving no insolation. Assuming the inverse of the assumptions you made for a sunlit surface. Assume 4 K for the environment.
The surface cools, as it loses energy to the environment. The atmosphere provides little impediment, albeit slightly slowing the rate at which the surface cools.
The fact is that the Earth’s surface has cooled some 5000 K or so in the last four and a half billion years ago. This seems to be fact. No heating. Cooling. Basic physics. Neither energy from the Sun, nor internally generated heat, nor any other energy sources, have managed to maintain the initial surface temperature, let alone increase it.
For some reason, the CO2 heating meme has developed into a mass delusion – infectious psychosis might be an apt description.
There is no “equilibrium temperature”. The Earth has cooled, and will continue to do so as long as the interior remains hotter than the surface. Heat inexorably flows from hot to cold, until the Earth beyond the Sun’s influence becomes isothermal.
As to the Sun’s input, I might point out that only half the Earth is receiving energy at any time. At night, it loses all that energy, plus a little bit more of its own. Hence four and a half billion years of cooling. Apply your formulas to the Earth, using its measured rate of internal heat loss. Calculate back to the initial surface temperature – assume 5500 K. You should get twenty to forty million years, which is obviously wrong.
Panic not. Neither Lord Kelvin nor Fourier factored in radioactivity, either. Four and a half billion years seems about right, in practice.
Cheers.
The problem with your geologic (4.5 billion year) rebuttal is that you are factoring nothing else but CO2. As no one claims CO2 is the only driver for surface temps, it’s yet another straw man.
Ie, the sun is significantly cooler now than it was 4.5 billion years ago. Oceans have formed, albedo has changed, massive tectonic rearrangement, composition of the atmosphere is wildly different etc etc.
All these things have an influence on surface temps. All planets have cooled since the solar system formed. But their recent equilibrium temps are different for different reasons. Venus’ median surface temp is hotter than Mercury’s for example, despite being further away from the sun and despite having a much higher albedo. Reason: pressure and CO2.
barry,
I merely point out that the Earth appears to have cooled, including all factors. All. And, because the interior is hotter than the surface, it is still cooling. Physics.
There is no equilibrium temperature. Foolish Warmism.
Cheers.
I would argue that over short timescales only there is the appearance of equilibrium but this quickly vanishes once one looks at any longer timescales – at that point one sees that change is the only constant.
At that point one has to make a value judgement – which is better, a warmer Earth or a colder Earth? To help with this judgement let’s look at how the temperature fluctuations have been since the Earth first gained a fluid envelope and, more importantly, once the current arrangement of continents, ocean basins and other physical features reached it’s approximately present state.
All in all things are pretty good, I would say.
As good as they’ve ever been – except maybe a little better when it was warmer. IN other words, global warming is good! I hope we are causing some! I doubt it, not any relevant, significant, measurable amount – but if we are we should try to make more! The Earth is not yet at it’s optimum temperature and you seem to understand that it’s natural tendency is to LOSE heat, not gain it. And when it LOSES heat we get ice ages, which are when the most bad things happen.
Could you address the point?
Under the same rubric you’ve been laying out, the sun has no influence on the surface temp of the Earth: Earth got cooler over the 4.5 billion years that the sun got hotter.
Please explain the physics on this.
Actually those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism claim CO2 is the CONTROLLING factor and the only one that matters, the dominant factor. And the one they claim is our most pressing current issue as it is driving us to certain doom and destruction – all nonsense, of course.
“no one claims CO2 is the only driver for surface temps” – no, but as noted they claim it’s the only one that really matters.
“Venus median surface temp is hotter than Mercurys for example, despite being further away from the sun and despite having a much higher albedo. Reason: pressure and CO2.”
You left out a few things. Clouds. Simply having an atmosphere. Size of the planet. Probable internal heating source. And perhaps additional solar (non-irrandiace) heating effects we haven’t really managed to understand yet.
I once heard variations in the solar wind can influence varying compression/expansion of the atmosphere. Do you think that compression/expansion plays any role in any sort of heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere, surface or oceans in any way? Did it play a role in a faster decay of Skylab’s orbit such that Skylab wound up re-entering well before it was originally expected to do so?
Benson & Compton (1983), Living and working in space : a history of Skylab, p. 362.
“Sunspot Activity Threat to Skylab Predicted,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, 19 Dec. 1977, p. 18.
R. Jeffery Smith, “The Skylab Is Falling and Sunspots Are Behind It,” Science, 7 Apr. 1979, p. 28.
barry says: August 1, 2016 at 12:52 AM:
Venus median surface temp is hotter than Mercurys for example, despite being further away from the sun and despite having a much higher albedo. Reason: pressure and CO2.
“And CO2.” Really? Mars has an atmosphere that just like Venus is 95% CO2 and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice!
Mars surface total pressure a bit lower than Venus Steve, thinner clouds too.
Ball4 said at 9:01 AM
Mars surface total pressure a bit lower than Venus Steve, thinner clouds too.
Thanks for the reply, yes a whole lot of other things besides pressure and CO2 affect the final temperature measured six feet above the ground and averaged across the entire surface of a planet.
Your argument is analogous to saying that the sun has zero influence on the surface temp of the Earth. The sun has become hotter over 4.5 billion years while the earth cooled over the same time. Therefore the sun plays no part in the surface temp of the earth. If it does have an influence, it must be inverse to its output over time. The warmer the sun, the cooler the planet…
Insane argumentation, eh?
Comparing current surface temps with temps when the planet was formed is silly. We don’t have massive collisions, a molten surface or anything like the same conditions now that the earth faced then.
Apples to apples comparisons for the current configuration of the earth extend as far back as a few million years, not 4.5 billion. Solar output, tectonic and atmospheric configuration haven’t changed much over that length of time.
barry,
Maybe you could forget your analogies, and stick to facts. Demolish your own strawman arguments, if you wish.
The Earth has cooled since its creation. That’s the longest time series available. Foolish Warmists reject inconvenient facts, and cherry pick periods they prefer.
I’m not interested in your cherry picking. I just point out that the Earth has cooled. Nothing has managed to stop it. If you wish to claim that it has stopped cooling, and is heating up again, a falsifiable hypothesis to explain this might be scientific.
Just waving your hands and saying “the science is settled – it’s CO2” doesn’t quite fill the bill.
Until then, just more foolish Wild and Woolly Warmism. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
The Earth has cooled since its formation while the sun got hotter. Under your rubric this means that the sun has zero influence on Earth’s surface temperature.
Explains the physics behind that, please.
Straw man argument. He’s just pointing out that the Earth’s long term natural tendency is to cool. And that we probably should be more concerned with cooling than warming, as, when you think about it, the Earth is still BELOW what a reasonable person might refer to as it’s “optimum” temperature.
I think the general line of argument here is foolish, but so is your injection of a straw man argument like:
“the sun has zero influence on Earths surface temperature.”
You are the only one saying that. He never said it.
“Your argument is analogous to saying that the sun has zero influence on the surface temp of the Earth. ”
That’s your INCORRECT interpretation of it.
Actually there have been a lot of geologic changes in the past 50,000 years alone and certainly over timescales of millions, so your statement that
“Solar output, tectonic and atmospheric configuration havent changed much over that length of time” does not seem to me to be very reasonable. A lot has changed over even 1 million years. A lot has changed over the last 20,000 years. The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the Quaternary glaciation occurring during the last 100,000 years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago. So the Earth has warmed considerably compared to where it was during the period that ended roughly 12,000 years ago, hasn’t it?
Sea level continued to rise following the peak of continental glaciation during the last ice age (Wisconsin age, about 15,000 years ago) when sea level was as much as 350 to 400 feet (~120 meters) lower than present levels. Gee, I guess the current sea level changes aren’t necessarily so unprecedented after all!
Woolly mammoths wandered the planet for about 250,000 years and vanished from Siberia by about 10,000 years ago.
And there were probably cave men who blamed anthropogenic global warming and proposed a huge carbon tax as a result, right?
Not sure I can agree with
“The GHE does not exist.”
You are correct when you say “It is a misnomer”
But if there were no tendency for our atmosphere to slow the loss of heat from the surface (the misnamed “greenhouse effect”) our night temperatures would drop a lot lower a lot quicker.
It is clear that some of our atmospheric gasses do act to SLOW the loss of heat once the heating source is no longer active – i.e. when we’re talking about a part of the Earth rotating into the shadow, away from the sun.
A more dramatic example of a similar effect is when a particular type of low clouds tends to even more significantly delay the loss of heat, versus how quickly the heat is lost when you’re in a dry, cloudless desert. Maybe you haven’t been down in the humid area near an ocean with a thick marine layer overhead one evening and in a dry, cloudless desert (at essentially the same elevation) as the sun sets the next so you haven’t noticed the extreme difference – I have.
Both the atmosphere and the oceans display forms of “thermal equilibrium” over short time scales though I agree over the longest time scales the tendency of the Earth is to lose heat. Obviously.
Interesting link… Gaziantep? Nevertheless, interesting. Thanks.
“EXAMPLE: Think of two identical, solid plates at the same temperature facing each other.
Hopefully we can all agree that there will be no net flow of IR energy between them, because they are both emitting IR at the same intensity.
Now imagine one plate is 10 deg. C cooler than the otherthere will be a net flow of IR radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plate, right?
But what if the cooler plate is 200 deg. C cooler than the warm plate, rather than only 10 deg. C cooler? Can we agree that the net flow of IR radiation will be even larger?
If so, that means that the IR radiation from the cool plate to the warm plate affects the net flow of IR energy between the two plates, right? So, the colder object does
effect the energy budget (and thus temperature) of the warmer objectbecause energy LOSS is just as important as energy gain when determining temperature.”
The 200 K cooler plate, emits a different blackbody spectrum- the energized material has Plank curve which is different than the 200 K warmer body. Or 200 K warmer plate is emitting more of certain specific wavelengths which is shared spectrum and probably emitting a spectrum of “light” which cooler object is not emitting.
Or because there is difference the 200 K cooler plate can gain energy. The 200 K warmer plate doesn’t emit more radiation.
And amount energy the warmer plate loses depends upon the different specific heat or masses of the plates- or one has the assumption that plates are same type material and
equal mass.
Also What unclear whether any of plates being heated- having energy added [or if energy is added to system- or have plates been heated and then stopped being heated].
A cooler object radiates less watts- Blackbody at 100 K emits 5.67 watts and 300 K emits 459 Watt per square meter. Or in real world colder object loses less energy so in sense it’s easier to warm it up as compared to warming 300 K object.
But if somehow controlling this heat loss- it doesn’t warm up quicker.
Or if had equal amounts of H2 gas, one part is 100 K and other part is 300 K once mixed both gases will be 200 K- but difference of temperature does not make the transfer/share their energy quicker. Or I use mixing gas because it is less complicated. Or one could also
mix two portion of liquid of different temperatures. Or two portions of sand of different temperatures and mix them. Or if mix two portion of anything the same temperature one does
not get increase of temperature [or decrease].
Now the difference of transfer of heat via conduction is increased- one gets more energy transferred but if material is thinner one also gets increase of heat transfer- one one
dealing the property of material to conduct heat. So if plate were diamond with high conductivity vs steel [a poor metal in terms of it’s heat conductivity] it affects how much heat is transferred.
gbaikie,
Foolish Warmists often throw irrelevancies into the ring, in an attempt to deny, divert, and confuse.
If both plates are suspended in free space, they will both eventually drop to absolute zero, unless provided with an infinite power supply capable of maintaining the plates at any desired temperature.
Foolish Warmist “thought experiments” are invariably poorly constructed, inexact, ill defined, and graphically demonstrate the worst aspects of Cargo Cult Scientism.
No wonder they have difficulty trying to describe their so called “greenhouse effect” now that they are reluctantly forced to admit it has no relation to the operation of a real greenhouse.
I wonder what’s next. Magic? Not reciting enough secret Warmist Manntras? What absolute rubbish!
Have fun!
Cheers.
Mike, you are incorrect, there is no difficulty trying to describe the GHE & the operation of a farmer’s greenhouse really is related to planetary GHE. No convection gets out of either.
The magic only comes from Mike Flynn forced to deal with real experiments.
— Ball4 says:
August 1, 2016 at 9:01 AM
Mike, you are incorrect, there is no difficulty trying to describe the GHE & the operation of a farmers greenhouse really is related to planetary GHE. No convection gets out of either.–
That’s true but neither effect is caused by greenhouse gases.
And farmer’s greenhouse has a limit to how warm it can become- one make the farmer’s greenhouse warmer and retain it’s heat during the night by further reducing convectional losses- using double pane windows for example. But it will not lower convectional losses as much as vacuum of space.
Also the larger the greenhouse the less hot one can make become during the day, but it retain it’s heat better if larger. Small greenhouses can retain the heat longer by increasing the amount of thermal mass is heated in the greenhouse- one can do this by putting barrels of water in greenhouse [water has high specific heat- therefore higher thermal mass vs it’s volume as other material] as it retains more heat in greenhouse during the night.
Greenhouses in places like England [not very sunny] used heaters to also prevent their tropical plants from dying in the winter months. Greenhouse are also humid environments and plants needed less water- but this higher humidity [greenhouse gas] does not increase their temperature- but to
a human it feels warmer.
And generally more CO2 pumped into a greenhouse increases yields because CO2 is not pollution, it’s plant food!
Good for the biosphere, good for humans.
As are warmer temperatures, generally.
Neither energy from the Sun, nor internally generated heat, nor any other energy sources, have managed to maintain the initial surface temperature, let alone increase it.
Ice ages/interglacials don’t exist? The earth wasn’t 5C cooler 20k years ago?
barry,
With which part of my statement are you disagreeing? Or are you just lurching into a paroxysm of foolish Warmist deny, divert and confuse, because I am correct, but you don’t like it?
Irrelevancies such as localised cooling followed by restoration of previous temperatures are about as silly as claiming global cooling as a cloud passes overhead, and then claiming global warming after them cloud passes.
Foolish Warmist Cargo Cult Scientism. If I have erred in fact, I would appreciate correction, of course. Erecting and then demolishing your own arguments doesn’t change observed fact.
No CO2 heating. Thermometers react to being heated, not by being surrounded by CO2.
Cheers.
Irrelevancies such as localised cooling followed by restoration of previous temperatures are about as silly as claiming global cooling as a cloud passes overhead, and then claiming global warming after them cloud passes.
The point is temporal, not geopgraphic. See above.
barry,
Another foolish Warmist attempt to deny, divert and confuse. Demolish you own strawman arguments if you wish.
I repeat – with which part of my statement do you disagree? Have I erred in fact?
Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
Mike,
I admire your persistence.
People here have bombarded you with science yet, like all old engineers, you continue to stick to your “common sense” arguments.
Of course you are completely wrong, but good on you for having a go.
“no dr”, you don’t like science, and now you don’t like “common sense”. I guess all that’s left for you is comedy.
Oh, you’re already there!
You are ignoring what he’s saying, perhaps deliberately so.
When the Earth first formed, according to every theory I’ve seen, anyway, it was a hot molten ball of accumulating stuff and perhaps even as it initially cooled there was a great impact with a large object that caused the moon to form and more heat was produced, re-melting (and even vaporizing) part of the Earth then. This extremely hot state is what he’s referring to. Not sure why. Maybe to show that the Earth has always been LOSING heat in the long run? Which may or may not really be worth mentioning here – will have to see if anyone is going anywhere sensible mentioning or trying to deny it.
SO far though, you don’t seem to understand what he’s saying – the Earth supposedly started out hot enough to be completely molten and the more volatile chemicals (i.e. water) didn’t exist as such as a result. This is the “initial surface temperature” he’s talking about, I would guess.
He may be alluding to the proven fact that the natural tendency of the Earth is to lose heat and we might be smarter to stop thinking things that warm it are bad. Because they aren’t. Obviously. Well a giant impact maybe – and I heard one might be coming – in a hundred years, or maybe 300, or something. I think we all might be dead then so it won’t matter to us – but if we don’t stop wasting time, effort and money on “global warming” there will be less chance our descendants will be ready to divert the potentially impacting object.
O/T
I write here just because the other thread had been closed.
@Ball4
—
I supposed that you were imagining the darkroom enlightened of green light coming from the cabbage photons.
And that is correct according to the Planck formula, and the Fig. 1 measurements of an actual cabbage spectrum in the visible WL bands.
—
If you were arguing that the cabbage emits less than all other colors green photons in the darkroom, but still emits them, I agree.
Instead if you were arguing that the darkroom will look green IMHO you are wrong.
The darkroom should look slightly red instead, which is the complementary color of green. That’s because it is not a black body, and for that very same fig 1 it has a slightly less propension to absorb (and consequently to emit) green photons than photons on the other visible WL.
By the way, we probably can never instrumentally detect any color indeed, because with that little photons it’s highly improbable that they could interfere each other to discriminate their WL.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, in the dark room all our lying eyes can see is darkness, you know per geran. A spectrometer pointed at the cabbage in the closet illuminated by BB radiation field can record its light from the green bands, the red bands, so forth, but as geran correctly points out, these are not visible in the closet.
Since our brains produce the colors our lying eyes see, it is purely philo. discussion to debate the color of cabbage in a dark closet. It won’t be red as you write, it won’t be green either, all our brains produce is darkness in dark enough conditions – for any object.
In the last thread Mike used the word ‘light’ to describe infrared radiation. I countered that ‘light’ refers to visible light, and that he meant electromagnetic radiation. However, he was right. Some physicists do use the term ‘light’ to refer to radiation wavelengths other than the visible. With that in mind, Ball4 is not wrong, except in the eyes of someone who believes that the term ‘light’ only refers to the visible spectrum.
I can understand why some might limit the definition of the word “light” to the visible portions of the EM spectrum – but some animals can “see” beyond our range and so for them “light” would include other areas too, which is why I can understand others would include other ranges in the definition.
Agreeing with your sentence:
“Ball4 is not wrong, except in the eyes of someone who believes that the term light only refers to the visible spectrum.”
Generally, radiation at any point on the EM spectrum could be referred to as light and we’ve shown this by building detectors that “see” and “record” it.
Hi Ball4.
Maybe I can’t express correctly my thought in English.
Anyways, you were the one that first wrote about colors.
I’m fully aware that with that flux there is no way to see anything, it was obvious for me that we were writing about a philosophical point of view.
My point was that if you were arguing that a cabbage emits photons so that (imagining) they made it visible, it surely didn’t look of the same color it looks when it is illuminated by a white light, but its complementary one.
Said that, if you were not writing about a philosophical point of view, I really don’t understand why you were referring to the precise 550 nm green band in the post that triggered this discussion.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Don’t think I was first on colors Massimo, responded to someone else, and not with philo. discussion only science. Likely was pointing out the cabbage really was glowing at 550nm in the visible bands in the dark closet despite being not visible.
Hi Ball4.
Sorry, I probably missed that post.
I apologize for that.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Our rods can detect a SINGLE photon of EM in the “visible” spectrum, but not our cones. Which is why our night-vision (sans effective cones) has a different quality from our day-vision.
Hi Dave,
AFIK our scotopic vision (that B7W vision due to high sensitive rods only) ranges from 10^-3 cd/m^2 to 10^-6 cd/m^2.
I don’t believe this means that we can really see so little photons indeed.
Have a great day.
Massimo
We CAN “detect” one photon. That has been demonstrated. That is not the same as being able to “see,” which involves the processing of many incident photons to build up a picture.
Our peripheral vision causes us to leap away from the slightest detected danger, without being able to identify the danger. Indeed, the neural circuits involved are actually quite distinct from the ones we deliberately use. I am sure you have had the experience, while driving, of finding you have braked hard without the slightest conscious awareness of why. Part of you is driving “on automatic”. That brain circuit actually goes through the “optic lobes” which are the optic lobes of FISH anatomy and are not the more recently evolved optical processing areas at the back of the cortex.
Hi Nigel,
yes I fully agree with you.
It was exactly what I would write, I can’t write it better.
Some years ago I read a book from Dr Vilayanur Ramachandran from UC San Diego (IMHO a real great neurologist, probably the best in visual psychophysics) where he discussed the subconscious multi-plane vision and he used exactly your example of the formerly believed instinctive brake during drive a car.
Do you read the same book?
Have a great day.
Massimo
The atmosphere does not accumulate energy and the earth’s temperature is maintained at a constant level thanks to the oceans.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-293.22,-84.36,300
And here we have the proof.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection.jpg
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/normalise
Sorry.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/atmosphere/rad_budget.html#ABS
ren says: “The atmosphere does not accumulate energy and the earths temperature is maintained at a constant level thanks to the oceans.”
Hey all you wordy pseudoscientists! See how “ren” addresses the issue so succinctly.
No bombast. No self-promotion. No put-downs. No phony physics. “Just the facts, Ma’am”!
A mish-mash of graphs demonstrating nothing much.
The atmosphere does not accumulate energy and the earths temperature is maintained at a constant level thanks to the oceans.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-293.22,-84.36,300
For a start, what is that graph a measure of? There’s only one right answer. (Hint – those aren’t ocean currents)
Well… they do sometimes call the atmosphere “an ocean of air” so in that respect they ARE ocean of air currents…
Although the statement, “the earths temperature is maintained at a constant level thanks to the oceans” is a bit of an oversimplification. Basically true, perhaps.
And the statement, “The atmosphere does not accumulate energy”, while not necessarily 100% true, it seems to up to a point, largely due to water vapor it seems, but then once rates of accumulation and loss balance it seems to vary around a point that is influenced by a complex set of factors, most of them much more significant than either 270 ppmv or 400 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed ENSO and other similar oceanic influences suggest that the idea that the atmosphere is a key determinant is incorrect – the oceans dominate.
I hate it when I get interrupted and skip a part of a sentence I’m writing…. never mind, you figure out what I meant. You’re smart!
Well Norm, you rejected my recommended course of study that would bring you up to speed. Probably, in about 8-10 years, even you would be able to “speak” physics, just a little.
But, in true adherence to pseudoscience, you reject any approach to learning. You prefer to stick with your own statement:
“…I do have a chemistry degree [BA] but have not taken any statistics classes or advanced physics. I usually can understand concepts. I have not taken a college course in thermodynamics…”
Norm “believes” he can understand concepts, yet claims “the energy leaves the system, but the energy does NOT leave the system”.
Hilarious!
Hmmm…detected: Bombast. Self-promotion. Put-downs. Phony physics.
Observe your Just the facts, Maam!” next post geran.
Just keep your “special” goggles on!
Why does Jupiter radiate more energy than it receives from the sun? I say the answer is —- ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE.
More accurately David – the consumption of atm. pressure. The atm. at Jupiter is thought to contract in proportion. More details upcoming from Juno.
Hi Ball4,
isn’t that what it happen here at Earth during night?
I meam, during the day our atmosphere expands a little and reduces a little the Tmax, while during the night it contracts under gravity force and keeps the Tmin a little higher than it was without atmosphere.
Am I right?
Have a great day.
Massimo
On Jupiter the atm. PE is consumed as it contracts, transforming mgh into KE radiated out; Earth atm. oscillates around the same mean mgh.
Can find the various planet out/in ratios here:
http://pds-atmospheres.nmsu.edu/education_and_outreach/encyclopedia/heat_balance.htm
I agree, my question was intended to be:
isn’t that one of the reasons that we have a lower Tmax and a higher Tmin than those predicted by a simple radiative balance?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Tmax, Tmin. seem way more related to LOD Massimo, other effects are smaller, need to show some calculations or a link explaining the work already done. In the past, Dr. Spencer posted some demo. spreadsheets along these lines – to play with.
I agree, the faster is the rotational speed, the lower will be Tmax-Tmin of course.
Anyways I wonder if someone had ever evaluated the effective incidence of atmospheric daily expansion and nightly compression on the temperature extremes.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Wow: no ‘greenhouse’ gases = no weather!
Remembering that the chief ‘greenhouse’ gas is water vapour…
Its absence would mean – at the very least – no rain!
doesn’t it rain methane on Titan?
Well, I always take an umbrella. I also wear extra underpants as the temperature is minus 180 C.
“…rain methane…”
Well, actually, really, literally, honestly, obviously, like…I dunno.
Well methane is a greenhouse gas however weather includes more than precipitation, like wind, cloudiness (maybe nitrogen clouds on Pluto). Ultimately pressure trumps greenhouse gases in such a statement as without x there is no y. Without pressure (hence an atmosphere made up of any gas) there is no weather. South is right about pressure and Roy has more thinking to do.
I guess the concept that a parcel of air that was heated in a high desert that moves down through a mountain pass towards sea level and heats more as it goes was just a myth and Santa Ana winds aren’t real after all.
Darn it, I do love it when they’re blowing (it’s a dry heat!), but I guess it was just a figment of my imagination? Maybe I need to see a shrink?
“heats… as it goes”
It is not internal work. The atmosphere surrounding the parcel does work on it to compress it, simply because there is not sufficient time for mixing. In other words, the surrounding atmosphere is cooled in proportion to the work. Then, as mixing does occur eventually, all the heat is spread around again.
Likewise, it is quite wrong to attribute the cold of the upper atmosphere to “it has all risen up and cooled”. While rising, the air does work on the upper air and takes on the characteristics of the air already there – which work is soon degraded to heat. If there were a “lid” the extra energy brought from below would be spread around. However, energy is radiated away to space as part of the complicated cooling processes of nature. It is this continuous radiation which “explains” the cold upper atmosphere – NOT “adiabatic cooling”.
The gravitational potential energy gained by parcels rising is counterbalanced by losses in parcels falling – so that is not really much of an issue.
Related point: if you have a gas at 30 C in a compartment and you open a window into another – evacuated – compartment the gas will expand to fill it and yet the temperature of the rarefied gas in both compartments will still be 30 C.
Spontaneous adiabatic expansion of an ideal* gas is not cooling of the gas unless it is opposed.
*Joule and others did experiments which clarified how deviations from the “ideal” assumption must modify the theory.
Dave, the parcel used for DALR 9.8 LR derivation is descending/ascending slow enough to always maintain its pressure and temperature the same as its surroundings (hydrostatic, adiabatic). No pressure differential thus no work on it. No work by virtue of a temperature difference either.
The parcel cools on ascension totally by constituent KE reducing, constituent PE increasing. Energy is conserved.
“…maybe nitrogen clouds on Pluto…”
To the extent that “clouds” connotes “visible liquid” – No.
It is doubtful there is any liquid nitrogen on Pluto.
The thin atmosphere, mostly of nitrogen, is thought to be a gas formed by sublimation from the solid nitrogen on the surface. The present atmosphere will probably collapse, eventually, because the dwarf planet is receding from the Sun, and will be getting even colder for many years (our years, that is). The solar irradiance varies by a factor of roughly 2.5 during a Pluto year, since the distance from the Sun varies between 4.4 and 7.4 billion km.
It now appears that foolish Warmists accept that CO2 heats nothing.
The consensus seems to be, as per Pierrehumbert, Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.
This view would be consistent with physics and observation. The Moon shows the extremes of temperature which occur in the absence of atmosphere.
The fact that Earth temperatures drop at night shows that the insulating effect is minor. On the other hand, the insulating effect prevents the surface from getting extremely hot during the day.
CO2 has no heating effect whatever. Objects heated during the day by the Sun, do not retain that heat overnight. They cool.
No greenhouse effect. Complete nonsense.
Cheers.
This is Mike Flynn proven wrong by experiment yet again.
Prof. Tyndall experiments linked: Unheated CO2 has a heating effect, his thermo-electric pile needle, thermometer and thermo-electric couple all indicated a warming effect from unheated CO2 and ALL the other gases tested. The lowest warming effect from H2.
Mike’s green banana effect exists in nature. Most others call it the planet GHE=Ts-Te, all measured Mike.
Nonsense.
Where does “unheated CO2” get the heat energy you seem to be claiming it gives off from, then?
Is this another case of “spontaneous generation” or is it your idea of a perpetual motion machine?
Either way, you’re wrong.
Unheated ANYTHING does not give off heat. Because it doesn’t have any heat to give off. You just admitted it is unheated. Heat doesn’t spontaneously pop into things from nowhere.
Bob, read Prof. Tyndall’s linked paper. It is an easy read. He was as surprised (astonished!) as you. Same process for unheated CO2 to raise his room temperature as nature employs in earth lower atm., at representative pressures & temperatures & densities.
Especially puzzle out the apparatus on the last page to settle your questions. Hint: the water (C) is boiling. Turned out the apparatus was only needed for details.
CO2 has no heating effect. To claim otherwise indicates a complete misunderstanding of what is going on, as does any claim that humans are a dominant factor in global climate change.
I’ve tried to explain how the fact that temperatures drop not only at night, but with the seasons, blows some aspects of the “global warming” theory out of the water. They just don’t get it.
But the claim is there’s a slow accumulation of heat as the atmosphere retains more and more – yet they cannot show us where that heat is accumulating in the atmosphere. They said the surface temperature would rise catastrophically and it has not.
Now their excuse is that the monster is hiding under the bed, or rather under the seas.
And there might be a grain of truth that when the world warms, normally and naturally, as it emerges from a period of colder temperatures, of minor or major glaciation, it does so by a warming of the oceans first. Then as the oceans warm, according to Henry’s Law, CO2 becomes less soluble and we would tend to see, over time, a resulting increase in atmospheric CO2… which we are indeed seeing! And the only question is whether that oceanic trend is the dominant one, or is the human trend greater?
Darn I did it again. I should have added that what they mistake for a “heating effect” of CO2 is actually a redirection of some of the heat that is naturally escaping from the oceans, surface and atmosphere towards space. I do not mean to imply I don’t accept that IR travelling outward does not sometimes manage to excite CO2 molecules and thus get delayed – and sometimes gets re-radiated in a direction other than further upward.
But the point was that some seem to think CO2 is a source of heat itself rather than just a way some heat gets temporarily delayed and redirected during it’s inevitable loss to space.
This explains why, with increased CO2, we might see a slight warming trend that is most obvious at higher latitudes (observed) and we might see nights tend to stay a bit warmer and not be as deadly to both plants and animals (observed) particularly in the winter, when it’s cold (observed).
Both of these, mind you, are (to me, anyway) examples of POSITIVE changes. Things we should be glad are happening. Not scary, good. Examples of how more of the Earth is becoming MORE HABITABLE, easier & better for plants and animals to live in.
Then there’s the “CO2 is not pollution, it’s fertilizer” argument proved by the observed greening of the biosphere, including the deserts, when some predicted they would brown and expand.
Finally, as I mentioned before, so I’ll keep it brief, it makes much more sense that the oceans are driving atmospheric trends than the idea the atmosphere is driving oceanic trends. And humans aren’t a primary source of oceanic carbon, no matter what some try to say to the contrary. It just isn’t so.
Bob, others in this thread are also searching without success for someone who thinks CO2 is a “source of heat itself”, you write to have found this someone. Please point him or her out using their own words. Thank you.
Ball4, the Arrhenius CO2 equation yields units of “Watts/square meter”. See if you and Norm can figure out how much heat energy that is.
That used to be a fair amount of heat geran, but no longer, it is zero now as the long searched for heat was never found to actually exist in nature separate from a form of energy. You are free to define something that doesn’t exist in any way you want as no one can prove you false by testing for something that doesn’t exist. Knock yourself out.
Ball4 just “denied” his own pseudoscience!
He stays sooooo confused.
Bob Roberts: “They just don’t get it.”
AMEN!
I suspect, without looking into it, that there may have been some “heating” introduced into the gasses mentioned in the response to your post when said gasses were pumped into a chamber to be tested and, as the pressure was raised, magic heat came out!
Of course we know why, but someone who has not taken basic physics does not.
Also, interestingly enough, proves how a thicker atmosphere might be hotter than a thinner one – or one way, at least.
Prof. Tyndall was careful to achieve steady state after any possible compression heating had dissipated. His experiment with out the apparatus got the same answer with obviously no compression heating.
Hi Mike,
Long ago I tried to establish a conversation with you because it seemed we basically agreed but still needed to compare notes (for lack of a better description of such a conversation.) And based upon what I read here, it stills seems we generally agree. I have basically stopped participating here.
May 29 I was directed to the PSI blogsite from a different site and I made some comments related to an article which had been published there which appealed to the ‘editor’ and I was asked to submit articles for the PSI site. And it seems that many who disagree with your science have been banned from that site, so while it is a blog site, there are very few comments to disrupt a good conversation.
My latest article is: http://principia-scientific.org/feynmans-blunder-part-1/
Please check it out.
Have a good day,
Te is not a measurement, it is a non-physical calculation.
Saturna – Multi-annualized Te is measured by calibrated radiometers on multiple satellites. Key word: measured. Quite physical. Te is also obtained on the ground and probes for other ss bodies. Well understood. Routine.
Sorry, I took your Te as the ‘effective emission temperature’ calculated as Te = f(measured solar irradiance). Te calculated using the solar energy impinging a disc the diameter of Earth then redistributed over the surface of a sphere the size of Earth has been shown to be a non-physical calculated value by Rubincom (2004) and by Volokin & ReLlez (2014). What does you Te represent?
Te is the annualized, global brightness temperature of a planet from space as measured by calibrated radiometers.
When I said Te obtained on the ground I meant radio telescopes looking e.g. at moon, Venus so forth. Those also have now had confirming probe radiometer data, along with sparse thermometers for both.
Sorry, but when I read the papers on this it was clear there was a lot of estimation and attribution that rendered the measurements rather useless with respect to proving CO2 was doing anything spectacular or signfiicant AND even if you don’t accept that, it still doesn’t prove humans are driving CO2 trends, nor is this explained by any of the propaganda and talking points at the sites that are usually given to claim otherwise.
Plus who says the Earth has even reached an optimum temperature – all the signs I see indicate that more CO2 and higher temperatures are good for the biosphere and probably good for the human species as well.
Bob, the better papers put in their confidence intervals (CI) to give some added info. on whether the results are reading signal vs. noise.
Bob, Ball4 uses erroneous “science” to try to prove “an unheated gas” can heat. He tries to violate the laws of physics, while covering his agenda with “He [Tyndall] was as surprised (astonished!) as you.”
IOW, yeah, the laws of physics were violated, so what, it was “astonishing”.
(It’s called “pseudoscience”, and Ball4 is an expert at it.)
While it is unfortunate they call it a “Greenhouse” effect, because it functions NOTHING like a greenhouse and calling it that leads to all sorts of false conclusions, not only by the uneducated but by those who talk about “layers” that “trap” heat, etc.
Not saying CLOUD LAYERS don’t play a role in redirecting heat, mind you, but misnamed “greenhouse” gasses don’t form layers and don’t “trap” heat. This whole idea that a carbon dioxide molecule plays a bigger role than it does because it is “long lived” is one example of how the idea of “trapping” is used to further mislead.
Anyway, I know what they MEAN when they say “greenhouse effect”, it is true that there are molecules which delay the loss of heat to space, primarily water vapor, CO2 not so much but it can and it does do some of that.
My problem comes in when one claims that CO2, at 270 ppmv, has any significant effect and is made worse when someone claims that a change from 270 ppmv to 400 ppmv is going to make a measurable difference. I just don’t see it. Not when water vapor, the REAL heavy lifter in the so-called “greenhouse gas” stable is so much more common and is involved in both the transfer, retention and dissipation of heat on such a larger scale, obviously.
Another problem I have is the idea that the atmosphere drives oceanic trends when the evidence suggests the opposite is largely the case.
My understanding of the pressure issue is simple and can be explained when you compare Mars and Venus. Both have atmospheres dominated by CO2. The atmosphere of Venus is dense and as a result it has a much higher capacity to retain heat and is much hotter (The average temperature of Venus is 462 degrees Celsius). Mars has a much less dense atmosphere and cannot retain heat (The average temperature of Mars is -65 Celsius) even though it’s atmosphere is also largely CO2. What reasons, other than relative density of the atmospheres, accounts for this fact?
I’m not saying I don’t know at least part of the answer, mind you, just not trying to influence any answers. What factors, in order of importance, cause the differences in Mars and Venus average and range of surface/atmospheric temperatures?
And mind you the temperatures given above are from random sources – if you feel you have better estimates or measurements, feel free to provide them!
One correction – strike the word “both” in my fourth paragraph, last sentence. I was going to mention 2 things, changed it to 3, forgot to take that word out. Oh well, I make mistakes too.
Bob, I like much of what you write. Let me offer a few further thoughts.
“Not when water vapor, the REAL heavy lifter in the so-called greenhouse gas stable is so much more common and is involved in both the transfer, retention and dissipation of heat on such a larger scale, obviously.”
There is one “scale” where water is not dominant — the vertical scale near the top of the troposphere. In this realm (which is very important to the overall energy balance of the planet) there is very little water, and here CO2 becomes dominant.
“What factors, in order of importance, cause the differences in Mars and Venus average and range of surface/atmospheric temperatures?”
It is hard to rank in terms of importance since they are clearly interdependent. But I might try ranking some ideas in terms of building up an understanding (from a physicist’s perspective).
0) Geometry, algebra, some calculus, etc. These are the tools needed before even starting.
1) Sunlight (and albedo). Clearly this is the starting point for all understanding of heat absorbed by a planet.
2) Thermal radiation (and emissivity). Just as sunlight dominates the incoming energy, thermal radiation dominate4s outgoing energy.
3) Presence of Greenhouse Gases (and clouds). These interact with IR, absorbing thermal radiation (from the surface in particular) and also emitting thermal radiation (from the “top of the atmosphere” to space). It turns out that all planets & moons with an atmosphere have GHG’s so all should have some sort of GHE.
4) Height of the atmosphere. Atmospheres develop natural lapse rates. The taller the atmosphere, the greater the temperature difference from top to bottom. The upshot is that the top tends to be cooler and the bottom warmer.
5) The specific composition of the atmosphere. Only after understanding all of the above can you start to look at the details of the effects of increasing or decreasing specific components.
After this, there are many details to consider — biological and astronomical and meteorological and oceanographical (and others I am sure). Many complex feedbacks impact the climate and the sensitivity to CO2 concentration.
In this ranking, that fact that I put (4) before (5) might surprise some. It is the great HEIGHT of the atmosphere on Venus that makes it so hellishly hot, not the 95% CO2 concentration. Removing half the CO2 and replacing it with N2 to lower the concentration would have a relatively minor cooling effect on the surface temperature; removing half the CO2 to reduce the height would have a much more dramatic effect.
See Tim, here you are “teaching” pseudoscience again, but you won’t “teach” the mathematical proof of the Arrhenius CO2 equation.
1) What specifically do you disagree with?
2) Its all in his paper. Read it.
1) I disagree with ALL pseudoscience.
2) You don’t want to “teach” us, all of a sudden? (Hilarious!)
Lets have some empirical data. Take the UAH satellite lower tropospheric temperature data provided by Dr. Spencer for the Tropics compared to the CO2 concentration data for the Mauna Loa Observatory provided by the Scripps Institute for the period November 1978 to January 2016.
Generalised linear regression, which takes into account the usual auto-correlation within natural time series, shows that the correlation coefficient between the 12 month running average for the temperature relative to the annual increment in the CO2 concentration was 0.49 with zero probability that the correlation was zero.
The same method applied to the relationship between the annual increment in the temperature and the second derivative of the CO2 concentration gave a correlation coefficient of 0.27 with negligible probability that the correlation was zero.
The correlations are clearly evident in simple graphs of the variables against a time scale. (The annual increments are necessary to remove the seasonal effects whose amplitude dominates the series) Mathematically these results are simply expressed by the differential equation:
d(CO2)/dt = A * Temperature + B
where A and B are constants and which on differentiation with respect to time, gives:
d2(CO2)/dt2 = A * d(Temperature)/dt
That is, the average temperature controls the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2.
As a consequence of this relationship, generalised linear regression between the annual increments of each of the temperature and CO2 concentration gave a correlation coefficient of 0.07 with a 17% probability that the correlation was zero. Applying cross-correlation gave a maximum of 0.45 with zero probability that the correlation was zero for the rate of change in CO2 concentration lagging the rate of change in temperature by seven months. That is, CO2 cannot be causing the temperature change but the reverse appears to be feasible.
There is no sign of a greenhouse effect in this 37 year data sequence.
Similar results have been indicated by a study of 29 other CO2 recording stations extended from the Alert in Northeast Canada to the South Pole but only by applying ordinary linear regression.
Bevan, given there are about 9 other independent anthropogenic forcings by a like amount of compounds and one other natural forcing, it is no wonder at all that you find low correlation to a single forcing found in Prof. Tyndall’s lab.
Ball4, of course there are many factors that affect the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration. However as the probabilities of zero correlation are negligible, the results show that the relationship is substantial. This means that there cannot be a greenhouse effect of CO2 causing temperature change because, if this was so, together with the rate of change of CO2 concentration being set by the temperature, there would be a positive feedback loop and the oceans would have evaporated long ago. That is, there would be no carbon/water based life on this Earth as we know it.
The probabilities of zero correlation surface TMedian to CO2 ppm are not negligible in any way Bevan. The other 9+ forcings plus natural cycles in their observed ranges could with very high probability force near zero correlation with CO2. The effects of CO2 on surface Tmedian & atm. opacity are well known, starting with Prof. Tyndall’s experiments.
Along with what Ball4 said, there is also a large biological feedback to consider. Global temperature tend to peak during the norther hemisphere summer, when plants are busy taking up CO2. In the norther winter, the plants die and decay, releasing CO2.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/olr_sfct.png
So within any year, CO2 will indeed tend to have a negative correlation with temperature (which would at least partially mask any long-term trends. You might try looking at each month separately. So for example, is there a trend in the January temperature with the January CO2 levels for those 37 years? Then to the other 11 months one at a time. It would be interesting to see what results you get when analyzed that way.
Tim Folkerts, as I said in my comment of August 2, 2016 at 3:13 AM, I have taken the dominant season variation into account by using annual increments, that is, the value of month M, year Y, less the value of month M, year(Y-1) in order to form the time series for analysis. However the analysis is only a formality as the conclusions are plain to see simply by plotting and visually comparing the time series. In particular the correspondence between the rate of change of CO2 concentration and the temperature is revealed by the coincident maxima at the peak of each El Nino event. Naturally the maximum for the rate of change in temperature must precede the temperature maximum so it always precedes the maxima in the corresponding rate of change of CO2 concentration.
There are almost 400 sites listed on the Internet site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. The data contained therein could be compared to the satellite temperature data to clarify the importance of the greenhouse effect but there appears to be an aversion by the IPCC to such a study.
I agree with most of what you have written in this post Dr. Spencer, but I have problems with a few statements, and I quote:
“So, cold objects can actually make warm objects even warmer still!”
In my opinion, not if you only considers the two plates you use as an EXAMPLE. However, as you also write, the colder plate affects the “energy LOSS” of the warmer plate, i.e. the cooling rate of the warmer plate.
Now, if you have a constant energy transmitting heat source (e.g. an electrical heater or the sun) heating the warmer plate, then the temperature of the warmer plate will increase because the colder plate reduces the cooling rate of the warmer plate. So the radiation from the cold plate does not directly heat the warmer plate, but only indirectly if there is a heat source in the system (a third object).
All objects with a temperature emit infrared radiation (IR), so why doesn’t the radiation from the cold to the warm heat the warm? Because the radiation from the cold towards the warm is annihilated by the opposite warm radiation with the same frequencies, and thus also reducing the effective cooling radiation from the warm object. The cold plate acts as insulation.
In the sun – atmosphere – earth system, the atm is the colder plate, acting as insulation, and if the insulation effect increases, the earth’s temperature will go up.
I accept Tyndall’s conclusion that CO2 is a heat trapping gas, absorbing some IR and converting this to heat of the CO2 molecule and surroundings. But, why isn’t CO2 used in windows? Tests have showed that CO2 isn’t so efficient after all. Some more CO2 in the atm should make the atm warmer. This “hot spot” has not been observed. A warmer atm should reduce the cooling rate from the earth surface, and thus cause global warming/AGW.
But hellooooo, what is the insulation effect of 100 ppm more CO2 in the atm since before the industrial age, or the 15 ppm observed as “man-made”?
100 ppm more CO2 will be as increasing the insulation of a house by 100 ppm more thickness of mineral wool, and this will be impossible to detect. Also you, Dr. Spencer, has tried to measure the effect of increased CO2 in the atm, and according to your book “The Great Global Warming Blunder”, you have not been able to detect any effect of CO2 on global temperature.
The effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to the other processes that determine the global temp. (sun, gravity, atm composition, convection etc.). Forget AGW. It is the largest scientific scandal of history (larger than the Piltdown man).
I also don’t like the term “greenhouse effect” since the atm is anything but a convection blocking greenhouse. I would prefer the term “atmospheric effect”, including the gravity effect etc. However, CO2 makes the earth green, so may be it can be some truth in it.
Unfortunately some funny quote and other signs appear in my text, but I cannot correct this.
P.Tuvnes, this site has some strange rules that make cutting and pasting a reply problematic, I’ve been just typing sound bites into the text box with more success. You ask why isn’t CO2 used in window panes. Couple reasons are given on the internet, testing shows 1) CO2 increases conductive energy transfer over argon and 2) argon is much more viscous reducing convective energy transfer between the panes.
No atm. convection allowed to surrounding space just like a farmer’s greenhouse allows no convection to its surroundings.
“But, why isn’t CO2 used in windows?”
The insulating effect of CO2 is only noticeable when
1) you have a thick layer of CO2 (many meters in the atmosphere or many cm of pure CO2. (otherwise the CO2 is not opaque enough to stop much IR).
2) the temperature difference is large between the hot and cold sides.
For the earth both of these are true (several km thick and ~ 300K vs 3K). For a window, neither is especially true.
“100 ppm more CO2 will be as increasing the insulation of a house by 100 ppm more thickness of mineral wool”
Actually, it would be more like increasing the thickness from 300 mm to 400 mm in your analogy, which would be quite noticeable. (it is actually more complex than that, so we can’t get TOO quantitative — it is just an analogy after all.)
“The effect of CO2 is miniscule compared to the other processes ”
It is certainly small, and that is one of the key challenges in the current scientific debates — just how big is the climate sensitivity to CO2? At the same time, CO2 is one factor that people have a large impact on (we can’t change the sun or the earth’s orbit), which makes it especially fascinating (and especially open to political and economic debate as well!).
” I would prefer the term ‘atmospheric effect’ “
That would be fine, too. It does have the drawback of being so generic (eg I could say “airplanes fly because of an ‘atmospheric effect’ “). Lots of things are poorly named (catgut, ten gallon hats, Panama hats … ) but at some point you are stuck with the historical names.
Tim Folkerts says, August 2, 2016 at 11:00 AM:
Not true.
i) When you make the air layer thicker, all you do is reduce any radiative effects on heat transfer (thus, indirectly, on surface temperature), pretty soon to naught, by letting convection become operative. Quotes from the following study:
http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/29389.pdf
“For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use of infrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue, convection effects will begin to take effect and negate the positive impact of going to larger gap widths.”
“In fact, air outperforms SF6 [a much stronger IR absorber than CO2] at gapwidths greater than 9 mm in a vertical window and the benefits from infrared absorp tion by SF6 have been negated by the magnitude of the convection.”
ii) On Mars, the atmospheric CO2 content (much, much larger than on Earth, even in absolute amount) cannot do anything to raise the planet’s T_s above its T_e. Even though the column of air containing the CO2 is many tens of kilometres thick.
Kristian, I was considering the *radiative* insulating effects. Certainly convection and conduction will also become important. And they are also notoriously tough to calculate.
For radiation, your link confirms my basic conclusion:
“For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use of infrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue,”
vs
“The insulating effect of CO2 is only noticeable when
you have a thick layer of CO2″
So good IR insulation does requite thicker layers.
**************************
Mars does indeed have a more interesting atmosphere than I initially posited. Thanks for pointing me in this direction. 🙂
The troposphere extends upward for quite a large distance, but with a very small lapse rate. I should have said something more like “the height times the lapse rate” as the important factor.
************************
“the atmospheric CO2 … cannot do anything to raise the planets T_s above its T_e”
This is only part of the story. A real planet will have a lower average temperature (T_s) than the effective BB temperature due to uneven heating and uneven temperatures. So we would expect T_s to be well BELOW T_e on Mars. The fact that T_s is actually a bit ABOVE T_e suggests the GHE does have an effect.
(This effect exists on earth, but the temperature variations are less extreme here, so the T_s should be closer to T_e).
Also, CO2 is only a small part of the GHE — even on earth. The dearth of H20 & Clouds on Mars mean that the GHE on Mars should indeed be much less noticeable than on earth.
*************************************
Thanks for this interesting discussion, delving deeper into the science. 🙂
Tim Folkerts says:
T_s on Mars is not above its T_e. That’s just what has always been assumed simply from the fact that the atmosphere contains a lot of CO2 (so it must warm some from “back radiation”, right?). There is, however, no real-world empirical evidence of the normally claimed ~5K global “GHE”. It is just stated.
In fact, satellite measurements suggest a T_s on Mars significantly lower than its T_e (calculated from avg TSI minus avg global albedo).
The T_s can be estimated from global satellite measurements spanning from the late 90s till today (TES, IRTM, MCS) and is (somewhat furtively) provided in at least two available papers.
First theres Fenton et al., 2007, comparing IRTM and TES:
http://depts.washington.edu/marsweb/papers/PDFs/Fenton-etal-2007-warming-albedo-changes.pdf
Then theres Bandfield et al., 2013, comparing TES and MCS:
http://faculty.washington.edu/joshband/publications/bandfield_mcs_tes.pdf
The relevant tables and figures:
# Fenton, Table 1.
# Bandfield, Table 2, Figure 6.
The T_s of Mars appears to be, based on these estimates (and, in the latter case, extending them all the way to the poles), to be around 202-204K. If so, then 7-9K lower than the planets T_e in space (~211K) …
The definition of a “radiative GHE”, Folkerts, is simply T_s > T_e.
The ‘problem’ of the Martian atmosphere is not that it contains too little CO2. It’s that it contains too little overall MASS.
You notice the pattern? The Moon has no real atmosphere, thus exhibiting huge temperature swings, both temporally and spatially. And so, as a result, its T_s is much lower than its T_e. Mars does have a massive atmosphere, but it’s very thin, and the planet thus still experiences pretty large temperature swings (although definitely not as large as the Moon). As an apparent result, T_s on Mars is still a bit (but not much) lower than its T_e. Earth has an atmosphere with a fair amount of mass, much thicker than that of Mars, and its spatio-temporal temperature swings is much depressed as a result. Earth’s T_s is also a bit higher than its T_e. Titan is within the same ballpark as Earth (from having a thicker (but not much thicker) atmosphere, but a much lower lapse rate). Its T_s is a bit higher than its T_e, but not much. Venus, on the other hand, has a hugely massive atmosphere, its surface temperature swings close to zero as a result. And its T_s is much, much higher than its T_e.
The atmospheric mass (pressure/density) seems to ‘force’ a planet’s “ERL” upward, from ‘below’ the surface to high above it.
Kristian, I don’t really disagree with anything your say here.
I got temperatures from a NASA webpage that listed T_s 5-10 K warmer than T_e, but that could be wrong; T_s might be a little cooler. In any case, it seems we both agree that the atmosphere has some warming effect.
I agree that the mass itself plays a role. Mass creates “thermal inertia” to even out temperature swings. The mass of the atmosphere (and oceans) also allows convection to carry energy from warmer areas to cooler areas, which further reduces variations. By themselves, these could do no more than bring T_s UP TOWARD T_e.
I see no physics that would explain mass itself raising T_s ABOVE T_e. To get above T_e we need something to change the outgoing thermal radiation, eg GHGs at a high enough altitude to be significantly cooler than the surface. So the key factor is ALTITUDE here (with some definite dependence of the concentrations of the GHGs as well).
You say that atmospheric mass “seems to force”. Do you think that mass alone without GHGs could force temperatures higher than T_e? If so, what physic do you invoke?
Hi Tim,
I don’t know what is Kristian thought, but my point is that if the molecules have been fired in the sky by heat transfer at the surface, that very same energy energy falls back all down later for being re-fired up against the gravitational force.
Shouldn’t be this a mechanism very similar to the supposed GHGe just more efficient because it involves all the atmospheric molecules and is not quantized by the number of molecules?
Have a great day.
Masimo
Massimo, individual molecules travel only tiny distances from their thermally generated motion — typically microns — before colliding with other molecules (Google “mean free path”). Atmospheric turbulence and convection of air parcels are what transport air large vertical distances.
Tim Folkerts says, August 3, 2016 at 3:33 PM:
“In any case, it seems we both agree that the atmosphere has some warming effect.”
That’s quite obvious. You only need to compare Earth’s T_s with the Moon’s.
“I agree that the mass itself plays a role. Mass creates thermal inertia to even out temperature swings. The mass of the atmosphere (and oceans) also allows convection to carry energy from warmer areas to cooler areas, which further reduces variations. By themselves, these could do no more than bring T_s UP TOWARD T_e.”
True.
“I see no physics that would explain mass itself raising T_s ABOVE T_e.”
Just as the radiative properties of gaseous molecules are also not able – all by themselves – to raise a planet’s T_s above its T_e. No, both mass and radiative properties are needed.
“To get above T_e we need something to change the outgoing thermal radiation, eg GHGs at a high enough altitude to be significantly cooler than the surface.”
Yes, but then we also need an air column above the solar-heated surface that can have such a “high enough altitude” in the first place. We also need that altitude to be cooler on average than the surface. IOW, we need mass. A certain gas density/pressure (molecular interaction). And we need fluid dynamics.
“So the key factor is ALTITUDE here (with some definite dependence of the concentrations of the GHGs as well).”
No. There is no dependence on the CONCENTRATION/CONTENT of IR-active constituents in an atmosphere. An atmosphere definitely needs to be IR active (although it’s evidently not enough) for a planet’s T_s to become higher than its T_e. It also needs to be IR active to be able to adequately rid itself of its absorbed energy from the surface (radiatively AND non-radiatively transferred) and directly from the Sun. But once it’s IR active, there is no dependence on the degree of activity. Because then the atmosphere has become stably convectively operative. And all that matters from then on is atmospheric MASS and SOLAR INPUT (TSI and global albedo).
“You say that atmospheric mass seems to force. Do you think that mass alone without GHGs could force temperatures higher than T_e?”
No. Just like “GHGs” alone could also not force T_s higher than T_e. You need both.
* * *
So I say: There IS a “GHE”. But it’s ultimately massively caused. The radiative properties are simply a tool. A means to an end. And there definitely ISN’T an “anthropogenically enhanced GHE” (AGW). It cannot happen.
“And there definitely ISNT an anthropogenically enhanced GHE (AGW). It cannot happen.”
The eGHE has now been measured at two sites as pointed out to Kristian, his argument no longer is cold, hard valid fact. IR active gas experimentally modulates Ts (not Te) as does LWIR in the real world, IR active constituents are not just an on/off switch.
Its been a while since I last visited Dr Roys blog. I always believed that Dr Roys middle initial stood for Wind-up and I love it when so many people chip in so many ideas about the mysteries of the GHE. There does appear to be definition of this effect, if you believe Wikipedia. It starts with the neat theory put together by Stefan-Boltzmann. A perfect black sphere made of a perfect conductor at Earths orbit around the sun should have a temperature of about 279 degrees Kelvin. Nobody seems to question this so lets take it as a given. Now, lets suppose we made one of these super balls about the size of Earth and we let it spin like the Earth. It would still have a temperature of 279K. Now lets coat the big super ball with a couple of meters of water. What would then be the temperature of the super ball? Pretty much of all the suns energy arriving at the watery surface would be absorbed by the water coating. So, less energy would get to the super ball. Its temperature would fall. Agreed? Now lets switch the water for a similar surface layer of carbon dioxide. Ah! Shout the AGWs. Now this will warm the super ball, obviously. Their argument is along the lines that some of the incoming energy from the sun is absorbed on the way in but carbon dioxide is a good insulator and traps heat of the way out, which leads to a warmer super ball. I just stopped to re-read the above as I pour a cup coffee from my flask I filled this morning. The coffee is colder than it was when I filled the flask. The vacuum in the flask wall has let more heat radiate out than Id like. Hey! Ive a brilliant idea. I should fill the vacuum space of my flask with carbon dioxide. Its a good insulator and the magic photon back-heating property may even add extra heat my coffee during the day. Hands up all those who think I should patent the CO2 flask?
Peter, hand down. Prof. Tyndall’s tests show the vacuum in your production flask is even better at slowing the effects of conductive/radiative energy transfer to your room temperature sink than your proposed CO2 filled flask which will cost more to produce. There will not be sufficient continuing marketability to your invention once its test results become known (i.e. go viral). You might be able to mislead some bankers to fund your project (I’ve seen this actually happen!) but the consumers will quickly find out and flock to your competition.
“Pretty much of all the suns energy arriving at the watery surface would be absorbed by the water coating. So, less energy would get to the super ball. Its temperature would fall. Agreed?”
I agree with the things before. If you treat the water as *reflecting* some of the energy, then the surface would cool. If you treat the energy as being absorbed by the water, then the water’s surface would still be 279K; deeper layers would be at least this warm. (Depending on the details of how and where the energy is absorbed, the solid surface under the water would be much WARMER than 279K — for example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond )
“Hands up all those who think I should patent the CO2 flask?”
There are several shortcomings with this analogy that make it inapplicable for comparison with how CO2 helps keep the earth warm. To basically repeat my comment from earlier …
The insulating effect of CO2 is only noticeable when
1) you have a thick layer of CO2 (many meters in the atmosphere or many cm of pure CO2. (otherwise the CO2 is not opaque enough to stop much IR).
2) the temperature difference is large between the hot and cold sides.
For the earth both of these are true (several km thick and ~ 300K vs 3K). For a thermos flask, neither is especially true.
Plus if you have a choice of material, there are materials that are FAR better at absorbing IR than CO2 (or reflecting IR; that works too). It turns out that when high-performance insulation is needed, multiple layers of IR-blocking materials are indeed used! (http://www.dunmore.com/products/cryogenic-insulation.html)
Tim, just a couple of things you might want to reflect on.
1. I have a swimming pool and when the circulation pump is off the lower layers of water are always cooler than the upper layers.
2. The more CO2 that’s pumped into the vacuum part of the flask, the less efficient the flask will be as a means of storing heat.
3. A couple of meters of cryogenic insulation instead of water or CO2 around my super ball would over time freeze the brass monkeys off it.
” If you treat the water as *reflecting* some of the energy, then the surface would cool. If you treat the energy as being absorbed by the water, then the waters surface would still be 279K; deeper layers would be at least this warm.”
On Earth the oceans and other water reflect very little sunlight of entire amount of sunlight.
Since it doesn’t have atmosphere- therefore more sunlight reaches the surface when sun is low above the horizon- the water will reflect more than earth’s water reflects.
As for water absorbing sunlight. If had swimming pool [6 feet deep] with black bottom the sun light warms the bottoms and bottoms warms the water. Warmed water rises to surface. And one has warm pool. If pool bottom was reflective or white it
would absorb less energy of sunlight- pool would be cooler as compared to black bottom.
If pool was 100 meter deep, the color of bottom would not matter and most of sunlight would absorbed by the water- have similar temperature at the surface as 6 foot pool.
And temperature of all pools water surface temperature is controlled by it’s evaporation.
Peter, I think we are getting into some more subtle effects here. Effects that would require more care in stating the exact condition. For example …
1) I suspect that at night, the surface gets cooler — and we are discussing averages here.
Then there are details related to your perfect thermal conductor. This would force the bottom of the water on your planet to be the same temperature everywhere, too. (This is very different from the ocean current on earth that result in a cold ocean bottom).
2) First, the vacuum flask has very reflective (ie low emissivity) metal walls already, which drastically reduces thermal radiation to begin with. Adding IR emitters inside would have little effect on the IR transmission between the wall — even with a large gap filledwith lots of GHG. (Earth’s surface and outer space have very high emissivities, so they are very different).
Second, adding gas allows conduction, so this effect opposes any reductions due to IR.
3) Even super-insulation allows SOME heat transfer. If the outer layer of the insulation is warmer than the inner layer, heat will naturally flow INWARD until every thing is equalized. (We would have to now stipulate some layer of thermal conductor over the whole surface, since alloying variations in temperature from equator to pole or day to night would lower the average temperature due to the T^4 nature of radiation).
Or think of it this way. If the inside happened to start out warmer than the surface, how could it ever possibly cool below the temperature of the insulation around it?
***************
Thanks for an interesting discussion!
Tim, OK final points from me.
The S-B starting point for an explanation of GHE is not my idea. It is presented as peer reviewed theory in the Wikipedia definition of GHE. How using proper physics you get to a real world surface temperature of Earth is in my opinion where the wheels fall of the Wikipedia GHE band-wagon. The surface temperature of Earth a function of the properties of water (99.6 percent of the total hydrosphere and atmosphere), then we need to think about the effects of the 0.4 percent in the main gases above the surface of the Earth and the problem for AGWs and GHE theory is – CO2 is only about 0.00015 percent of the total hydrosphere and atmosphere of Earth. Do you really believe the special powers of two CO2 molecules in every million of the total hydrosphere and atmosphere is going to raise global temperatures any time soon?
“Do you really believe the special powers of two CO2 molecules in every million of the total hydrosphere and atmosphere is going to raise global temperatures any time soon?”
1) No one claims that the temperature of the total hydrosphere and atmosphere is going to rise soon. The oceans would take long periods of time to show large changes.
2) Yes, I do “believe” in science (no “special powers” needed). A space blanket is tiny fraction of the mass of a person, but makes a huge different for keeping warm. A layer of paint is a tiny fraction of the mass of the object it goes on, but makes a huge difference in the temperature. Why should it be so surprising that CO2 making up a small fraction of the atmosphere can have a significant impact?
Intuition can be a dangerous starting point for drawing scientific conclusions.
“Now lets coat the big super ball with a couple of meters of water. What would then be the temperature of the super ball? Pretty much of all the suns energy arriving at the watery surface would be absorbed by the water coating. So, less energy would get to the super ball. Its temperature would fall. Agreed? ”
Nope.
The super ball in vacuum is the best refrigerator for a vacuum
but covering with water has completely destroyed it’s ability to radiate heat.
As for water absorbing all sunlight, sunlight passes thru 2 meter of water- most of IR [shortwave IR] will not, but most of visible light and UV light will pass thru a couple maters of water.
Other than not having salt in the water, you basically creating a planet of one huge solar pond. Since it’s not a solar pond, the water will all evaporate, so you have atmosphere of 2 meters of water. The mass of our atmosphere is equal to 10 meters of water- so it’s has 1/5th of 1 atm of pressure. Water boils at 0.3 bars 69.13 C and density at sea level of 0.191 kg per cubic meter:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html
One could breathe with a oxygen mask on the surface of super ball- and the sky would be blue.
And sunlight would be stronger than on Earth.
The refrigerator quality of super ball is impaired by the cold steam atmosphere- or it’s not completely wreaked as would be with it covered with water.
Basically the super ball would prevent any ice to form any where on the planet. And would roughly guess it would have
uniform temperature of about 10 C of surface of super ball.
No clouds. And not 69.13 C anywhere.
Oh that is strange so going to be water- which wrecks the refrigerator. So water going to boil and/or evaporate at tropics, and water vapor will go pole ward where water is cooler- and this temperature difference might make clouds.
So water at tropics will be about 50 degree on average and air pressure will be less than .3 bars on average, but in tropics during day it might be higher than .3 bars.
And basically boiling will occur due to variation of pressure with change like the weather changes on earth- there will be wind. Heck of a thing probably a average global temperature of about 40 C. And you will get hurricanes. Probably dangerous to be in tropics and will lack enough pressure to breath in places outside tropics.
gbaikie, I think most of your objections can be mitigated by assuming some thin sheet of transparent plastic over the water to seal it in place. It is a thought experiment, and I think the sealed surface is more in keeping with the original intent.
” Tim Folkerts says:
August 2, 2016 at 9:14 PM
gbaikie, I think most of your objections can be mitigated by assuming some thin sheet of transparent plastic over the water to seal it in place. It is a thought experiment, and I think the sealed surface is more in keeping with the original intent.”
That’s interesting point, but it’s wrong.
Because a thin sheet of plastic can not seal water in a
vacuum. Though thin sheet plastic within structurally stronger frame could work. Say piano wire encased in thicker plastic which tapers to thinner plastic.
To have water at 26 C one needs something which can withstand about 1/2 psi of force. So in square foot of 144 square inches it has to withstand 72 lbs of force. Or 3 by 3 feet square: 648 lbs of force. So grid of 3 by 3 plastic with piano wire which then attached to posts to a foundation which weighed 700 lb could be strong enough to seal 26 C water.
Of course on Earth one has 10 tons of air above 1 square meter.
Dr. Spencer,
You have the patience of Job to keep on explaining your points in the face of so much ignorance and hysteria. I’ve read your posts often but have refrained from replying but I’ve decided today is the day to break my silence.
I respect your unenviable position of not giving in to the unproven models and political/fashionable motivation of the AGW crowd but also trying to deep so called “deniers” from spouting the worst pseudoscience. Thank you for your efforts.
If I may, it seems that many of your readers are confusing the various interactions of light and matter. Perhaps you would like to make a post explaining the differences between atomic translations, rotations, vibrations, and electronic excitations. Several readers seem to be confusing the electronic excitations from visible light and vibrations from mid-IR. To a chemist, the idea that something could emit in the IR due to vibrational relaxation and that that very same photon could be absorbed by a molecule of a body at higher temperature is simple and intuitive. That said, after reading many of the comments to this post, I’m not sure that I have the faith in your readership that you seem to maintain.
Keep up the good work.
(comments not going through)
test
test
“Yes, I agree with Dou that if you take a parcel of air at a certain temperature and compress it (increase its pressure), its temperature will rise”
Roy, you’re giving him too much credit. He’s not even half right. Your statement assumes the temperature of air is the sum of two parts: 1) heating due to energy balance, and 2) heating due to air pressure. This is true for air in a container but not for air in the atmosphere.
Air in a container is quasi adiabatic where the container acts as an imperfect heat insulator. In adiabatic process, pressure changes affect both temperature and density.
Air in the atmosphere is isothermal without the sun’s heat. The temperature gradient depends only on the energy balance. Turn off the sun and the atmosphere will have uniform temperature. There will still be pressure and density gradients following Boyle’s law:
P V = k or P/D = k
where D is density
Why uniform temperature? The temperature of gases depends on molecular speed. Without energy input, no change in speed. Density depends on number of molecules and gravity. Near Earth’s surface, gravity is stronger. Pressure depends on molecular speed and number of collisions. Speed is constant but high density gives more collisions. That’s why pressure is directly proportional to density. Despite more collisions, average molecular speed is constant (temperature constant) due to conservation of linear momentum
I present here a thought experiment, that you can check with calculations, to show the difference between air in container vs. air in atmosphere
Consider air in a container with the following mass, pressure, volume and temperature:
m = 1 kg
P1 = 1 bar
V1 = 1 m^3
T1 = 300 K
1) Change in temperature due to change in energy balance = dTe
Put the container under a flame to impart the air with heat energy Q = 100 KJ. Specific heat of air at constant pressure = Cp = 1 KJ/kg-K
dTe = Q / (m Cp) = 100 K
T2 = T1 + dTe = 400 K
Charles’ law
V1/T1 = V2/T2
Solving for V2
V2 = V1 T2/T1 = 1.33 m^3
2) Change in temperature due to change in pressure = dTp
Double the air pressure in the container
P1 = P2 = 1 bar
P3 = 2 bars
Gay-Lussac’s law
P2/T2 = P3/T3
Solving for T3
T3 = T2 P3/P2 = 800 K
dTp = T3 – T2 = 400 K
Now this is the important equation
T3 – T1 = dTe + dTp
It means the overall change in temperature is the sum of two components: dTe and dTp
This is the crucial point: For air in the atmosphere, the above equation is not true. Instead, the equation is like this
T3 – T1 = dTe = dTp
Where T1 is air temperature at some altitude above sea level, and T3 is air temperature at sea level. You can check this by doing two calculations for (T3 – T1). First calculation is an energy balance (dTe) and second calculation is from the ideal gas law (dTp)
You will find that dTe = dTp and when you add the two, they exceed the observed air temperature difference (T3 – T1). It means that the cause of the temperature differential is one of the two components, not both.
I will explain this using causation diagrams (arrow points the direction of causation)
Causation diagram of air in container:
energy balance >> temperature <> temperature >> pressure << density
Energy balance determines temperature. Density and temperature determine pressure
The confusion arises when Dragon Slayers reverse the causation
Reverse causation diagram
temperature << pressure << density
Note the reverse causation between pressure and temperature. This is misleading because you can calculate the correct temperature without doing an energy balance by just using empirical pressure data. It makes people think the ideal gas law determines the temperature. But pressure is the outcome of an energy balance because you need temperature to determine pressure
The diagrams did not come out right. Here it is again
Causation diagram of air in container:
energy balance >> temperature <> temperature >> pressure << density
Reverse causation diagram
temperature << pressure << density
Air in container
energy balance >> temperature <> temperature >> pressure << density
Reverse causation
temperature << pressure << density
Air in container
energy balance > temperature temperature > pressure < density
Reverse causation
temperature < pressure < density
(arrow is direction of causation)
“Air in the atmosphere is isothermal without the suns heat. The temperature gradient depends only on the energy balance. Turn off the sun and the atmosphere will have uniform temperature.”
I think you mean if both solar and geothermal energies are turned off, and Earth’s surface and atmosphere have reached equilibrium, then there would be no temperature gradient. And, that is an important point!
Hi geran,
IMHO it become isothermal (after that the planet radiated all the energy), just because the atmosphere collapses to the ground.
Until there is energy that warm from the below, I think the gradient should be there anyways because of gravity.
As wrote in my previous message, shouldn’t be the gravity force considered the container which hold the atmosphere attached to the planet?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo, your point is valid also. I guess there is no way to prove one way or the other. Gasses confuse us because of their ability to no longer be “gasses”
☺
Hi geran,
I agree, being an EE I’m very confused about what the temperature of gases is it indeed.
In a physics book, long time ago I read that the only way to apply the SB to gases was framing them in a container, otherwise the resulted radiation wasn’t no way the temperature of the gases at all.
Said that, I think to the thermosphere, where the very rarified gases temperature as molecular KE can rise up to 2500C, but the temperature measured by a thermometer is fairly below 0*C.
It’s obvious, the energy radiated to the outer space by the thermometer probe is much more than the energy absorbed by the very few molecules per units of time that impinge on it.
This leads me to think that the temperature of gases measured with conventional thermometers could be altered by the pressure.
I’m honestly very glad to haven’t had almost nothing to do with gases temperature in my professional career.
Have a great day.
Massimo
“Im honestly very glad to havent had almost nothing to do with gases temperature in my professional career.”
Haha, me too Massimo. Rocket nozzle temperature/thermo engineers have my deepest respect. The first Saturn 5 F-1 those Rocketdyne engineers built, worked. Awesome accomplishment. Before hand calculators and IBM360, w/slide rules!!
Hi Ball4,
“Haha, me too Massimo. Rocket nozzle temperature/thermo engineers have my deepest respect. The first Saturn 5 F-1 those Rocketdyne engineers built, worked. Awesome accomplishment. Before hand calculators and IBM360, w/slide rules!!”
This is the very same consideration that I do at least once a month, arguing with some who get crazy with last cell phone or tablet.
Despite I grew up in the PC era and those times I was fascinated of the myriads of wonderful things that those machines could do for our civilization, I must admit that I couldn’t imagine that they leaded to a general intellectual impoverishment as it happened.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Hi Dr.Strangelove.
Couldn’t the gravity force be considered the container which hold the atmosphere attached to the planet?
IMHO it could be considered an elastic container. So the results wouldn’t be the same of a rigid container, but I’m still convinced that part of the thermal gradient should be due to gravity (when the Sun warms the ground of course).
Have a great day.
Massimo
Yes the gravity holds the atmosphere but it is not like a container because gravity has no solid surface. No thermal gradient due to gravity because it does not increase or decrease molecular speed. The molecules move in random directions not just down towards the center of the Earth.
This example will clarify the issue. In a diesel engine, compression heats the air inside the cylinder. Why does increase in pressure leads to increase in temperature? But not true for air in the atmosphere.
To increase pressure, the piston moves up compressing the air. The air molecules collide with the piston and the pistons slows down a bit because of this. The molecules and piston obey the conservation of linear momentum:
Mm dVm = Mp dVp
dVm/dVp = Mp/Mm
where Mm = mass of molecule, dVm = increase in velocity of molecule, Mp = mass of piston, dVp = decrease in velocity of piston
Since Mp is very much greater than Mm, dVm is enormous. The huge increase in molecular velocity causes the increase in temperature. This is not true for air in the atmosphere because there is no giant piston in the atmosphere that collides with air molecules.
I know how thermal engine works, but I don’t understand why should molecules of gas considered not affected by gravitational acceleration.
I know that per the air parcels formalism the air mass movement is considered adiabatic, and surely it is correct for the purpose of establish the dynamic of the atmosphere.
What I argue is that at 0K all the molecules collapse to the ground because the only reason they stand up in the atmospghere is the KE they received from somewhere (mostly from the same ground irradiated by the Sun). The more Ke the higher the atmosphere.
Shouldn’t that means that it must exist a thermal lapse rate?
How could the higher molecules don’t escape to the outer space if they don’t reduce their speed?
I know that the bulk movement of molecules is not thermal, but IMHO it’s because of the very low speed of the bulk movements (that is that speed compared to the molecular speed is irrelevant) that they are not thermal, not because they are not directionally randomized.
Of course these