I thought it would be a useful followup to post a simple time-dependent energy balance model (spreadsheet attached) to demonstrate how infrared radiative flows affect the Earth’s surface temperature and atmospheric temperature. (I might have done this before…it sounds familiar).
The model is the simplest I could come up with to demonstrate how an atmosphere that absorbs and emits IR radiation ends up warming the surface, and itself as well, while maintaining an atmospheric temperature below that of the surface.
Here are the basic energy fluxes included in the model. The illustration is just schematic.
The energy input from the sun is fixed at an assumed 240 Watts per sq. meter. The radiative fluxes use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (sigma T^^4), where T is either the surface or atmospheric temperature. Surface emissivity is assumed to be 1 (changing it to 0.95 or less make no difference to the conclusions, only the details).
You can adjust the IR absorptivity of the model in the spreadsheet, which is just a multiplier on the radiative flux coming from the atmosphere, and the radiative flux coming up from the surface and being absorbed by the atmosphere.
The model is initialized at absolute zero Kelvin, and heat capacities are prescribed so you can see the temperature changing over time as the model goes toward energy equilibrium. The heat capacity of the surface and atmosphere are assumed to be the same, equivalent to 1 meter of water for simplicity (the atmosphere is really more like 2 m of water effective heat capacity).
Using “0” for the atmospheric absorptivity leads to a surface temperature of 255 K, and zero atmospheric temperature (the model is radiative only, no convection, no conduction, so without any atmospheric absorption of radiation, the atmosphere cannot warm):
Then, to see how this “no-atmosphere” earth changes with an atmosphere that absorbs and emits IR, an IR absorptivity of 0.8 gives a surface temperature close to 290 K, and an atmospheric temperature of about 244 K.
If the model had dozens of atmospheric layers all interacting, it would produce much higher surface temperatures, and much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere, producing a strongly super-adiabatic temperature profile (Manabe and Strickler, 1964). This is what causes atmospheric convection, which provides a net transport of heat from the surface to the middle and upper troposphere (not contained in this radiation-only model).
Again, this is an EXTREMELY simplified model of the effect of radiative flows on the global climate system. It is only meant to demonstrate the most basic components of the atmospheric “greenhouse effect”, which act to:
1) make the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be, and
2) keep the atmosphere cooler than the surface (since the atmosphere cools radiatively to deep space, but partially “blocks” the surface from cooling to space).
UPDATE: Based upon a few comments, it might be useful to point out:
1) the final equilibrium temperature does not depend upon the initial temperature assumed at the beginning of the model integration, it can be 0 K, 100 K, or 1,000 K.
2) the final equilibrium temperature does not depend upon the assumed heat capacities of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere…those just change how much time it takes for equilibrium to be reached.
Oh, now you’ve gone and done it! Introduced transient as well as steady-state conditions. Heads are going to explode around here!
I’m waiting for the claims that the quantitative, simple model is SOOOO unrealistic that it can’t be useful. Yet, their qualitative hand waving with words is supposed to be more accurate.
We can find a lunar surface and an Earth surface which is 70 C.
70 C on average over 100,000 square km area for both Moon and Earth. So something like desert on Earth which is 316 km square.
Or time of day at lunar equator or a higher latitude at noon.
So you are in middle of this 316 km square and going up in elevation
of both locations and measuring the amount energy looking down which going pass you and going upward towards the space.
So measure at 1000 meter elevation and then 2000 meters, and so on.
Is there difference between Earth and the Moon at 1000 meter elevation?
I imagine there is difference. Earth surface is losing energy due to convection and Moon isn’t as one example. And there are other factors which could make difference.
But assuming a baseline at 1000 meter, it what manner does it alter
as you increase in elevation?
Or 2 km, 3km, 4 km, etc anything exciting happen? Is the growing trend of something exciting happening?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
“I have no idea what you are talking about.”
Well the ocean and land surface is suppose to cool slower
due to radiant effects of greenhouse gases.
So anything warmer than air temperature should cool quicker
as compared to cooling in a vacuum.
So if had large rock which was 50 C and air temperature cooler than 50 C, then the rock apparently should cool slower on Earth because of the GHE.
And, so, how much slower?
So say Earth sky at night is say +200 K and Moon sky is 2 K.
Obviously if object temperature is close to air temperature there is not much cooling, so in comparison of difference between the Earth and the Moon the object needs to be warmer than the air temperature- and how much is the difference suppose to be.
Or take a sealed 55 gallon barrel of water, put on the lunar surface, how long before 50 C water cools to 30 C.
Does it cool twice as fast, 3 times as fast, 1/2 as fast, or what?
Or do we agree that if the air temperature is -30 C, then a 50 C barrel will cool a lot faster compared to 30 C air temperature.
So what would air temperature on Earth would it need to be, to equal the cooling rate of 50 C barrel of water on the Moon?
The model is somewhat much oversimplified,since the temperature that everyone refers to as ‘the surface temperature’ and goes all nuclear about when discussion touches climate change topics, is not the actual surface temperature of the earth, but rather the temperature of the boundary layer of air (something like 2 metres above surface, i am sure know it). And we all kinow while those are certainly correlated they are not identical. I myself observed many tomes during the sunny days how ground surface temperature can be much higher or lower than the air temperature. While the model certainly useful to demonstrate what greenhouse effect is all about, that very variable that everyone goes coocoo about is MISSING from the model! It needs to be put back in, and then because the model creates some temperature *discontinuity* at the surface, you must put in some non-radiative heat transfer as well, even if convection is not included.
How do you add metreKelvin to Kelvin ?
These aren’t even equations !
Roy’s adding Kelvin to Kelvin in the proper way.
The only thing screwy is that the unit labels did not show up correctly, showing as “W/m” instead of “W/m^2”. It’s tough to get superscripts to show up properly in Excel.
It should have been totally obvious from context.
Ed Bo says – mistakenly by the way.
“Roys adding Kelvin to Kelvin in the proper way.
The only thing screwy is that the unit labels did not show up correctly, showing as W/m instead of W/m^2. Its tough to get superscripts to show up properly in Excel.
It should have been totally obvious from context.”
OK Ed – let’s see.
From both the current spreadsheet and one sent to me years ago we have – both of which are ostensibly the same only some slight changes in terms to protect the innocent:-
Temperature of surface :-
B12 = B11 + ($C$1 – C12 + $C$4*0.0000000567*E12*E12*E12*E12)$C$2/$C$3
Temperature of atmosphere :-
E12 = E11 + (D11 – F11 – G11)$C$2/$C$3
Let’s evaluate the B12 expression – simple inspection shows the atmosphere temperature calculation will evaluate the same way.
Here goes :-
B11 is Kelvin.
$C$1 is constant 240 W/m2
C12 is variable with units of W/m2 emitted flux by surface.
*$C$4*0.0000000567*E12*E12*E12*E12 is also variable with units of W/m2.
Hence the expression in brackets evaluates to W/m2 !
$C$2 is seconds as stated explicitly
$C$3 is – direct quote – J per deg. per cu. metre of water (or 50 % odf atmosphere depth)
So lets see how we go – again direct quote from the spreadsheet
B12 = B11 + ($C$1 – C12 + $C$4*0.0000000567*E12*E12*E12*E12)$C$2/$C$3
K = K + (W/m2)*seconds*1/J/(m3.K)
K = K + (W/m2)*seconds*K*m3/ J
K = K + (W/m2)*seconds*K*m3/W*seconds
W cancels, seconds cancel and we are left with
K = K + K*m
Exactly as I said – no mistaking anything about context.
As 2 “equations” are dimensionally inconsistent AND their evaluated values are input to other “equations” NONE of the “equations” are correct.
What do you mean “The only thing screwy is that the unit labels did not show up correctly, showing as W/m instead of W/m^2. Its tough to get superscripts to show up properly in Excel.”
Firstly it is child’s play to properly format Excel spreadsheets – the 2013 version sort of has this right – still the same dimension problem though !
“It should have been totally obvious from context.”
Ed – the ONLY thing that is OBVIOUS is that YOU didn’t actually examine the spreadsheet !
Din’t Kelvinmetre used to make refrigerators ?
Sorry slight mistake in
B12 = B11 + ($C$1 C12 + $C$4*0.0000000567*E12*E12*E12*E12)$C$2/$C$3
Should obviously be E11 not E12 – doesn’t matter though – the analysis is the same as E11 and E12 are temperatures in K.
If you had bothered to read Roy’s description of what he was calculating, you would have seen that he was using the top 1 meter of water.
So you’re upset that he didn’t put a “divide by 1” in every cell?
If he had wanted to use the top 10 meters, he would have needed to divide by 10, but here there was no point. Excel calculations don’t care about units.
Have you ever done this kind of calculation before????
I can’t seem to reply to Ed Bo’s last comment so I’ll do it here.
No Ed I couldn’t give a tinkers cuss about”a divide by 1 in every cell?”
That is simply one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard !
I’ll say it again – the equations as written are dimensionally inconsistent!!!!
B12 = B11 + ($C$1 – C11 + $C$4*0.0000000567*E11*E11*E11*E11)$C$2/$C$3
I fixed the little subscript problem here but it makes no difference.
This expression evaluates to Kelvin (B11) + Kelvin.Metre.
The temperature calculation for the atmosphere is:-
E12 = E11 + (D11 – F11 – G11)$C$2/$C$3.
Again, this expression evaluates to Kelvin (B11) + Kelvin.Metre.
Let’s see it again
E11 has units of Kelvin.
D11, F11 and G11 all have units of W/m2.
$C$2 has units of seconds.
$c$3 has units of Joule/(Kelvin.m3) = Watt.second/Kelvin.m3
Evaluate E12 = E11 + (D11 – F11 – G11)$C$2/$C$3
and we have Kelvin + (W/m2)*seconds*Kelvin*m3/Watt.seconds
The seconds cancel, the Watts cancel and the expression evaluates to E12 = Kelvin + Kelvin.metre
It is even worse if one uses the standard definition for heat capacity units of J/K.
Then it becomes
E12 = Kelvin + Kelvin/m2
Ed – What does the “top 1 metre of water” and “divide by 1 in every cell” have to do with anything ?
Roy wrote the equations and they are INCORRECT because they fail to maintain consistent units !
Ed smugly asks “Have you ever done this kind of calculation before????”
(He seems unable (unwilling) to admit the problem.)
NO – I have obviously never performed this type of calculation because it isn’t a valid calculation !
Let me explain it to you with a mechanics example showing how wrong this “type of calculation” is-
Force and bending moment are obviously “linked”. Force has units of newtons, N, and bending moment has units of newton metres N.m.
There isn’t an engineer on Earth that would add these two quantities.
N + N.m = gibberish
K + K.m = gibberish
Get it ?
If this happened in engineering no multi story building would stand.
I saw clearly several years ago – August 2 2013 if you want the actual date was when it was sent to me – how these equations were crafted to provide the desired result. I saw immediately the dimensional problem.
I have simply analyzed the equations as presented in the spreadsheets and applied all the units from the equations as written – I haven’t changed them in any way !!!!
Young and Freedman states in chapter 1.4
“An equation must always be dimensionally consistent. You cant add apples and automobiles; two terms may be added or equated only if they have the same units.”
Ed Bo says – “Excel calculations dont care about units.”
Obviously neither does he !
I have programmed many equations into computer programs and it was always MY responsibility to ensure I COMPLIED with “An equation must always be dimensionally consistent.”
The computer or Excel doesn’t care – or even “know” about units – it will generate any sort of gibberish you tell it to !
BUT if units ARE NOT consistent THEN the expressions written ARE NOT equations.
1. The 2 temperature calculation expressions as written are NOT “equations”.
2. The results of these calculations are used as input variables into all the rest of the equations and because of this NONE of them are “equations” either !
This is indisputable for these equations AS WRITTEN and no amount of “qualitative hand waving with words” on your part changes this simple reality !
Rosco:
Add a cell “C5” to the spreadsheet with a label in “A5” that states “Depth of water (m)”. Put a value of 1.0 in cell C5.
Now add a “/$c$5” to the end of the equation in each cell of Columns B and E in the main table, starting with the 2nd row (Row 11 of the spreadsheet).
Now your nitpicking concern is gone, and guess what — the result is exactly the same!!!
If you increase the depth value to 2.0 meters, the time of the transitory response doubles, but the steady-state solution is the same.
Dr. Spencer is obviously used to students who are capable enough to understand that a “divide by 1” operation is not necessary to do explicitly.
The fact that you could not understand this when it was explicitly pointed out to you does not argue well for you.
Thanks Ed – I just wanted to get you to say that explicitly.
So we have a cube of water – 1 metre x 1 metre x 1 metre with a heat capacity of 4184000 J per deg. per cu. metre.
Somehow we multiply this whatever it is ? by one of its sides and transform the units to 4184000 J per deg. per square metre.
I think this is simply contrived to give the result you want.
But let’s leave that to one side for the moment and consider this.
On August 2 2013 I was sent the almost identical spreadsheet explaining the Steel Greenhouse Effect – the one with a steel sphere and shell radiating against each other in deep zero K space.
There is no metre depth of water in this case, the sphere and shell capacity are the same 4180000 J m-3 K-1 and both spreadsheets produce the same results. Dimensional analysis of the Steel Greenhouse spreadsheet shows the result of Kelvin + Kelvin.Metre.
I find the results contrived in both cases.
As usual I accept we will never agree so that is my final word on this topic.
Rosco:
Huh? You no longer have the excuse of a plausible misunderstanding, missing one step in Dr. Spencer’s logic.
I showed explicitly how to make the units come out right, and you still can’t get it.
The 4814000 J / m^3 / K is right out of science and engineering tables for water (although usually given as 4.184 kJ / kg / K) — if you had any actual experience in working with these values you would have seen that immediately.
What on earth is contrived about this? This is very standard introductory undergraduate material?
I suppose anything that delays transmittance of energy direction space would have had an effect of rising temperatures in the atmosphere and at the surface. Blankets delay loosing energy and so we ourselves (or the Earth’surface) warm below the blanket. A blanket is enough to get the effect of real warming.
Hi Wim,
“Blankets delay loosing energy and so we ourselves (or the Earthsurface) warm below the blanket.”
You are the heat source and your surface temperature might be a little below 98.6F and with a blanket you, not the blanket will warm your surface temperature up to 98.6 and if you put on too heavy a blanket will begin to overheat as your internals continue produce waste heat involved in your body consuming fuel to drive the body functions which keep you alive.
The Earth’s surface has no significant internal source of energy which heats its surface as it, the surface, begins to cool even before sunset.
Have a good day, Jerry
Good morning Jerry, thank you!
“The Earths surface has no significant internal source of energy which heats its surface as it, the surface, begins to cool even before sunset.”
Energy (from the sun, radiation) makes molecules move more: their temperature rises. During nighttime soils are loosing part of the daytime heat. 70% Of the Earth’ surface is ocean. The heat content of water is enormous if compared to atmosphere and soils. So seventy percent of the surface can easily continue emitting during the night and in the same time advect energy to other places 24/7, by wind and currents. Al that [land and ocean] heat content is the surface’ significant internal source of energy used for emission. Also during the night.
Wim Rost says:
“I suppose anything that delays transmittance of energy direction space would have had an effect of rising temperatures in the atmosphere and at the surface.”
Greenhouse gases don’t delay the transmittance of outgoing energy, they redirect some of it.
But this is what is observed, reduction trend of the outgoing radiation to outer space, Loeb et al. (2016). If radiation to outer space decreases, then surface warms up.
Greenhouse gases dont delay the transmittance of outgoing energy, they redirect some of it.
David, when a cloud receives radiation, its temperature rises. Water molecules which are brought in a more energetic state – even when it is only during a split second – will collide with air molecules that dont loose energy that quickly. The air molecules are heated up by the (temporary) more energetic water molecules. Clouds water molecules themselves will heat up as well, the temperature of the whole cloud goes up. Loosing that heat takes time. That is the delay the proces of loosing heat to space gets.
This process happens everywhere where there is water vapour and water (drops, ice) in the air. Where there are more water molecules, the air column is heated up more than elsewhere. This will result in (extra) convection.
(The first sentence above is from David. Someway the system makes disappear the quotation marks)
Nabil: Yes, there’s a reduction of radiation to space, but not because it’s “delayed.” It’s because some of it gets redirected downward.
On a microscopic level it does redirect it, but macroscopically what is observed as a result of it is the effective slowing-down of the energy flow to the outer space. It is a different way to word things. It redirects radiation, it slow down/screens net energy flow.
If you wish to cool off under the blanket, just put your foot out to the side of the bed and let the warm air escape through convection.
I looked through the spreadsheet — it all looks good.
When I first saw that “wiggle” in the surface temperature graph I thought there must be something wrong, but no, that is the right solution. As the atmosphere warms, it gives a brief boost to the rate the surface warms.
It can be fun to try other weird things, like set the initial temperature to 400 K and then watch things cool back toward the same final results.
(I might nitpick the units listed for the heat capacity, but that doesn’t affect the value of the spreadsheet).
I would think of it like this for what it is worth first there is the earths surface which if there was no atmosphere would cool to space and if we took temperature measurements at regular intervals during the night we would see an exponential cooling curve as the surface cooled less as it got cooler if we did the same with the atmosphere we would get the same cooling curve during the night but if we add them together then we will have the same cooling curve but it will be shifted to the right because there is more energy. The surface cooling curve may be less steep than the atmosphere cooling curve for reasons stated by the greenhouse effect but where are we on the cooling curve on the steep part or the flat part. How warm are we relative to space?
Spencer,
True: If you somehow managed to turn the atmosphere into a completely non-participating medium (you wouldn’t, though), then there would be no apparent atmospheric “DWLWIR” to the surface, no matter how hot the atmosphere itself happened to be.
However, you would get the EXACT same result if the atmosphere had an effective absorp tivity/emissivity equal to 1, but a temperature no higher than space (2.7K). The surface would then still receive a ‘flux’ from its surroundings worth of 0.000003 W/m^2, effectively zero.
IOW, the effect of the “DWLWIR” on the surface radiant heat loss is indisputable, but its final temperature effect on the surface as a result of this isn’t. As long as the magnitude of the “DWLWIR” is itself a direct radiative effect of the final temperature.
It appears pretty circular arguing that without the apparent 345 W/m^2 down from the atmosphere to the surface, the surface would cool considerably, because then it couldn’t radiate 398 W/m^2, as if the 345 W/m^2 worth of “DWLWIR” somehow directly and all by itself CAUSED the surface to warm by 57K, from 232K (from a radiative equilibrium with the Sun alone) to 289K. After all, in purely radiative terms, it makes no difference to the surface whether the atmosphere radiates at 2.7K or at 279.3K. The surface radiative heat loss could easily be 53 W/m^2 in both cases, only at a T_avg of 175K in the former case (53W/m^2 – 0W/m^2) and 289K in the latter (398W/m^2 – 345W/m^2). So what is it, then, that enables the temperature to rise from 175 to 289K? Or even above 0 K? Naturally, it’s the ability of the surface and of the atmosphere to absorb energy transferred to them as heat, to ‘thermalise’ it before it escapes back out again, and to thus store it up within in the form of molecular kinetic energy. That’s how matter acquires ‘temperature’ …
IOW, the 345 W/m^2 apparent DWLWIR from the atmosphere is merely a radiative EFFECT of what happens to be the steady-state atmospheric temperature. It’s not what you would call a (partial) CAUSE of the surface temperature. It reduces the surface radiant heat loss, yes, but we cannot tell how this alone affects the surface temperature. Because there are other (NON-radiative) heat losses at play as well … How is the TOTAL surface heat loss affected?
You need BOTH mass AND radiative properties to enable the atmosphere to create a thermal effect on the solar-heated surface. It is just as plainly obvious that you need the atmosphere to have a TEMPERATURE as you need it to RADIATE in order for it to be able to make a difference to the surface heat budget (and thus potentially its temperature).
However, you DON’T need radiative properties for the atmosphere to warm. You only need radiative properties for the atmosphere to cool. But you’re right, you do need radiative properties to maintain stable circulation within the bulk atmosphere. Once you have stable atmospheric circulation established, though, then you cannot change sfc T_avg by simply changing the “degree” of atmospheric IR activity.
Empirical observations from the real Earth system verify this point, that making the atmosphere *more* radiatively active (that is, from one positive (non-zero) level to a more positive one, NOT from the zero level to a non-zero one) does not thereby make the surface T_avg any higher.
All the same, most people simply seem to assume it will, almost by default. Based on simplified radiative theory and models alone. Like MODTRAN. Which is strange indeed, considering how easily available the empirical evidence actually is.
Here’s the “Net Total Flux” (net SW in (radiant heat gain/Q_in) minus net LW out (radiant heat loss/Q_out)) for two tropical/subtropical regions in Africa, one semi-arid and one humid (CERES EBAF Ed2.8 sfc).
Firstly, the Sahara-Sahel (semi-arid, 20-14N, 15W-36E):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/net-flux-sahara-sahel-sfc.png
Secondly, the Congo (humid, 5N-6S, 10-27E):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/net-flux-the-congo-sfc.png
It is evident from these plots that the surface net radiant heat (Q_rad in – Q_rad out) is *much* more positive in the humid Congo than in the semi-arid Sahara-Sahel. In fact, the Congo has a net radiant heat surplus over that of the Sahara-Sahel of about 50 W/m^2 (or +65%) at the surface.
Furthermore, we know from CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA data that the radiative imbalance (SW in minus LW out) at the top of the atmosphere is vastly different for the two regions in question: While the Sahara-Sahel imbalance is negative by 12.3 W/m^2 (more radiant heat OUT than IN), the Congo imbalance is strongly positive, by 62.7 W/m^2 (more radiant heat IN than OUT), a total difference in favour of the Congo of [12.3+62.7=] 75 W/m^2!
We also know that the Congo on average absorbs just as much solar heat (‘net SW’) at the surface as the Sahara-Sahel:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/congo-net-sw-sfc.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sahara-sahel-net-sw-sfc.png
So how come the surface T_avg in the Congo is STILL lower than in the Sahara-Sahel by several degrees (~2.5K, adjusted for altitude) …!?
This SO obviously contradicts any general assumption (the “MODTRAN logic”) that if you only increase the atmospheric “DWLWIR” to the surface, thus reducing the surface (and the ToA) radiant heat loss (‘net LW’), then the surface T_avg has to go up, as if by physical necessity.
It is NOT a physical necessity! Real-world observations tell us it isn’t.
What part of the total system is it, then, once the atmosphere has become radiatively active, that will routinely baffle (as in ‘negate’) any further RADIATIVE attempt at producing extra warming? Yup: ‘Atmospheric circulation.’
still twisting yourself into a pretzel I see, Kristian.
At least you now recognize that the atmosphere must be able to cool radiatively.
So, now go try to appreciate that anything that emits IR must also absorb IR (Kirchoffs Law). It’s a consequence of energy conservation.
Hi Dr. Spencer,
I use to agee with Kristian here.
Why don’t you consider the continuous exchange of energy at the surface interface due to the kinetic energy needed to keep the whole atmosphere up there?
Isn’t that energy continuously transferred to the atmospheric molecules by conduction and wholly returned back by gravity in the same way?
What is the difference between the energy-work-energy conversion needed for keeping the whole atmosphere up and the energy-work-energy conversion needed to bend the CO2 molecules?
Except for the fact that in the first case the whole energy is returned back to the ground and in the second one only half is returned back, I don’t see any difference between them.
The buoyancy of air parcels is only a formalism needed to easily analyze the atmospheric dynamics. There are empty spaces between molecules instead. Empty spaces that must be maintained against gravity to avoid the atmospheric collapse to the ground, the only “driver” I see for that work is the surface temperature.
If back radiation warms the ground (which I would agree), why shouldn’t the continuous molecular fall down due to gravity don’t warm the ground?
Note that I’m not telling that the gravity force is warming the ground, is the molecular vertical run up and down that does it. Exactly as it happen when we throw up a rock and it fall back to the ground, its KE is finally returned to the ground as heat (let me ignore any deformation to the ground that could involve structural tensions).
Where am I wrong?
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo:
The earth does not need to expend any energy to “keep the atmosphere up” any more than your chair needs to expend any energy to “keep your body up”. Does your chair require a power source to hold you up?
Hi Ed.
You missed one detail:
my chair is a solid not a gas!
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo:
The earth’s surface is a solid (or liquid), not a gas! I maintain my point!
And a transparent atmosphere (no GHGs) could not lose any energy to space, so the surface would not need to expend any energy to maintain the atmosphere’s temperature.
Hi Ed.
Really?!?
So gases are not affected by gravity?
Do you really believe that the molecules stand there up in the sky against the gravity force without any energy flow?
No matter if the net flow is zero, but the flow must be there otherwise all the sky falls down, and it’s not Chicken Little’s physics, it’s Newton’s one.
I can’t remember where I found it, but a long time ago I read that Maxwell himself computed the statistical maximum height a molecule of gas can reach for a known ground temperature.
The value for 0K was zero meters of course (atmosphere collapsed).
This means that the temperature at ground is the source of energy that keeps the molecule up there indeed.
I repeat, the buoyancy of parcels is a good formalism for the analyses of the slow motion dynamics of the atmosphere, and I’m not here arguing that it doesn’t work in that context, but the air parcels don’t exist indeed. There are just myriads of molecules that would fall down every moment that are pushed up again by other myriads of molecules below them that are fired up by the ground temperature.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo:
What is your point? You admit the net energy exchange between ground and the bottom of the atmosphere is zero.
The net radiative energy exchange between surface and atmosphere is generally not zero.
Hi Ed.
My point is that even if the net exchange is zero, it doesn’t mean that there is no energy (heat) fluxes at the ground interface (in my opinion there is indeed).
So, if the 50% back radiation is eligible for adding temperature by GHGe to the simple SB calculated one, why shouldn’t that 100% “back-heat” eligible too? (allow me the neologism).
That’s my fundamental question, do you get it?
Take care that I’m just an electronic engineer. So, I could be plain wrong, but I would like someone explain me why I should be wrong.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Massimo:
You must distinguish between momentum transfer across a boundary, which if the boundary is inside the atmosphere means there is wind, and [kinetic] energy transfer across a boundary, which creates heat transfer.
Which are you asking about?
Hi Ed,
I’m a little confused by your last message.
I was writing about the KE exchange at the surface/atmosphere interface.
My point is that the net exchange is zero at steady state, but there is a continuous energy flow in both the directions (in and out from the surface), that keeps the atmosphere up as a function of the current ground temperature.
So, why is not accounted that 100% back energy for compute the about +30K offset respect to the simply SB computed surface temperature, while the 50% back radiation is accounted for it?
Where is the difference?
The heat flow is simply completely returned back, while the radiative flow is not, IMHO it’s anyways energy in movement.
Don’t you agree?
I apologize, I’m Italian and I know that I’ve lot of problem with my English.
Have a great day.
Massimo
No, the KE exchange at the surface isn’t zero. There is a net wind-induced torque on the Earth at the surface, much larger in mountainous regions, including friction-induced dissipation of the kinetic energy of the wind at the surface.
Hi Dr.Spencer,
I’m still arguing about a theoretical underlying process in a idealized GHGs free atmosphere.
I’m just not able to realize why the GHGe is accounted for the abt +30K ground temperature offset respect to the SB computed temperature, because returns 50% of the ground radiation.
While the zero net (or almost zero, it doesn’t matter in this context), heat exchange at ground interface that keeps up the atmosphere seems to be not accounted in that offset.
As far you know, someone ever accounted for this?
Thank you for considering this message.
Have a great day.
Massimo
Ed Bo says –
“And a transparent atmosphere (no GHGs) could not lose any energy to space, so the surface would not need to expend any energy to maintain the atmospheres temperature.”
If this is true – it must be as Ed says so – then exactly how does the 99% of the atmosphere that isn’t GHGs ever lose energy to space ?
Imagine the atmospheric temperature above the Lut desert where the surface temperature has been recorded at over 70.7 degrees C during the day despite an almost total lack of water vapour !
Unless you believe that 99% of the atmosphere NEVER absorbs thermal energy and hence never changes temperature THEN Ed Bo is CATEGORICALLY STATING greenhouse gases COOL the otherwise basically IR and shortwave transparent atmosphere !
Who in their right mind actually believes that non greenhouse gases DO NOT absorb thermal energy ?
EVEN IF, despite the fact it is basically impossible, only IR emitted by the surface transfers ALL heated surface energy to GHGs which then transfer it by collisions with the vastly greater numbers of non GHG molecules there is still energy transfer to non GHGs !
Ed Bo is advocating that O2, N2 and Ar are heat trapping gases – “a transparent atmosphere (no GHGs) could not lose any energy to space” – the very definition of GHGs.
Meant to add – IF 99% of the atmosphere has to rely on an average 2 – 3 % of water vapour, 0.04% C)2 and tiny traces of other IR active gases to emit energy to space then no wonder the atmosphere retains thermodynamic energy !
98+% of O2 and N2 at temperatures up to 45 degrees C over a substantial proportion of the globe completely unable to ever cool down !
Less than a few percent of molecular collisions will be with GHGs – no wonder it was the hottest year evah !
You are kidding aren’t you.
GHGs trap “heat” yet the rest of the transparent atmosphere – which only a fool would claim does not absorb thermal energy as -remember – a transparent atmosphere (no GHGs) could not lose any energy to space .
“If this is true it must be as Ed says so then exactly how does the 99% of the atmosphere that isnt GHGs ever lose energy to space ?”
1) The GHG moloecules lose energy to space and cool off.
2) The nearby non-GHG molecules collide with the GHG moleclues, causing the cool GHG molecules to warm a little and causing the warm non-GHG molecules to cool a little.
3) Go back to step 1.
(Having trouble posting, so am splitting this up.)
Rosco:
You ask: “exactly how does the 99% of the atmosphere that isnt GHGs ever lose energy to space ?”
It cools by transferring KE to the 1% through collisions (conduction) and the 1% can transfer energy to space by radiation (but keep in mind that the 1% is just as likely to transfer energy downward).
You ask: “Who in their right mind actually believes that non greenhouse gases DO NOT absorb thermal energy ? EVEN IF, despite the fact it is basically impossible, only IR emitted by the surface transfers ALL heated surface energy to GHGs which then transfer it by collisions with the vastly greater numbers of non GHG molecules there is still energy transfer to non GHGs !”
The non-GHGs do not absorb energy from IR directly, but they do absorb energy from the GHGs that have absorbed this energy through collisions (conduction). A GHG excited by absorbing an IR photon is a million times more like to transfer this energy to another molecule through a collision than it is to re-radiate a photon before a collision.
(Won’t let me post 2nd half — will have to try later)
“…anything that emits IR must also absorb IR…” Does this apply to oxygen and nitrogen which comprise 99% of the atmosphere?
Both O2 and N2 barely absorb any IR, and barely emit any IR.
Ed Bo says:
August 30, 2016 at 11:47 PM
Both O2 and N2 barely absorb any IR, and barely emit any IR.
WR: Ed Bo, do you know HOW MUCH O2 and N2 absorb in real Earth conditions if compared to H2O and CO2?
Ed Bo,
CO2 absorbs about 1000 times more IR than O2/N2. However, CO2 is only about 4 parts per 10000.
So 4 parts of CO2 absorb about 4000 units of IR.
The other 9960 parts of O2/N2 absorb about 10,000 units.
CO2 absorbs about 40% of the IR in a sample of dry air.
Please let me know if you have any facts to the contrary.
Cheers.
Oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb nor emit in the mid-infrared or far-infrared. Nothing at all, zero, zilch. They do not emit 1000 times less that CO2 (where did that silly claim come from?) They emit absolutely nothing, zero. And this is the region where the Earth is emitting its infrared radiation. So oxygen and nitrogen play no part in the greenhouse effect.
See
http://vplapps.astro.washington.edu/vplselectmicro.php
….this is an interactive tool to display the spectra of various gases at various wavelengths
N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, except for a brief time when their molecules collide.
IR absorbing molecules all have three or more atoms — it’s the vibrational and rotational energy states whose transitions are in the IR part of the spectrum.
Ed Bo says –
“Both O2 and N2 barely absorb any IR, and barely emit any IR.”
OK so what do both O2 and N2 emit when their molecules are at 35 degrees C ?
MikeB: your link is showing plots of line intensity, this is not irradiance from the ideal Planck curve for O2. Nor is it measured extinction coefficient of each species.
Plug into the Planck law a wavelength you know like 10micron, and a temperature you know like 288K and find an ideal non-zero irradiance of O2 (or any object). Do it across the spectrum and find the Planck curve at a T.
Then use the measured mass extinction coefficient for each O2,N2, the change in total pressure, the mass mixing ratio of the species to find the change in optical depth of an atm. over that pressure change in hydrostatic equilibrium. This will take finding a good ref., probably a visit to the library, but you sound up to it.
Rosco:
You ask: “OK so what do both O2 and N2 emit when their molecules are at 35 degrees C ?”
Virtually nothing! They can transfer energy to and from molecules that can emit and absorb significantly at this temperature.
This is well-understood spectroscopy, demonstrated in repeatable laboratory experiments for the last century or so.
yes, it does…they both emit a very tiny amount of IR, and so they must absorb a tiny amount of IR.
Just read up on Kirchoffs Law.
No Mike Flynn is wrong, Quadrupolar N2 emission is not 1000 times smaller than dipolar CO2 emission but 1000 ^2 = 1000 000 times smaller. The factor is (wavelength/Bohr radius)^2. The square is because we’re talking about electromagnetic energy not field amplitude.
MikeB
Wrong and one may ask where did your silly claim come from, instead. Which University taught you that kind of physics ?
Of course N2 emits or absorbs IR at its rotation vibration frequencies !
Its just that for symmetry reasons the always much stronger electric dipole interaction with radiation field is forbidden. What’s left is then the higher order quadrupolar (and magnetic dipole for O2) interaction term that is typically a factor ( Bohr radius / wavelength) = 10^4 smaller.
From a simple physical point of view vibrating CO2 (except symmetric stretching mode) behaves as a tiny oscillating dipole antenna because of the differently polarized atoms whereas symmetric N2 in vibration can only behave like a tiny oscillating quadrupole i.e. two opposite oscillating dipoles formed on both sides of the symmetry plane of the molecule by an N nucleus and its distorted electron cloud towards the molecular bond direction.
If both dipoles were located exactly at the same place there would be strictly zero emission as their respective fields would cancel. Yet they are not and so there is a very small but non zero residual emission.
OK, lphagruis, it is necessary to read what I said. I said that O2 and N2 do not emit in the mid-infrared or far-infrared; not that they didnt emit anywhere in the spectrum..
I also gave a reference t an interactive online tool.
http://vplapps.astro.washington.edu/vplselectmicro.php
Try it out. Neither gas, oxygen or nitrogen, emits (or absorbs – Kirchoffs Law) at wavelengths greater than 8 microns. Oxygen will of course emit in the visible and in the microwave region, but that is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect.
Notice also, oxygen emission in the near-infrared (7 microns) is millions of times weaker that CO2.
Use the tool, try it out and learn something.
I read the discussion, but because I am not skilled in these things, I cannot count what I have to count. So I want to repeat my question from before:
HOW MUCH [energy] O2 and N2 absorb in real Earth conditions if compared to H2O and CO2?
Anyone who can give the exact answer?
the total absorption by O2 and N2 over all wavelengths is so small that it can be ignored…it probably falls in the error bounds on estimates of absorption by water vapor.
In physics computations it is useful to know what things can be safely ignored, even when they are non-zero.
Such as relativistic effects when driving a car.
Well MikeB the N2 vibration mode is at about 4 micrometers as the (non dipolar allowed) symmetric stretching mode of C02, actually.
Not sure what you meant by mid-infrared, as IR begins at 0.8 micrometers !
Admittedly soil or ocean don’t emit much at these shorter wavelengths at 300 K
In fact there was an error and should have read;:
Well MikeB the N2 vibration mode is at about 4 micrometers as is the strongest dipole allowed asymmetric stretching mode of C02, actually !!!
Moreover O2 also emits at similar levels (10^10 times smaller than above strongest CO2 mode) in the 6-7 micrometer range !!!
So your statement that N2 and O2 emit “absolutely nothing all all, zero zilch” in the very range of CO2 emission is utterly wrong, as I pointed out initially.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, August 30, 2016 at 3:48 PM:
No, just trying to make you appreciate how your way of viewing this subject is way too simplified and WAAAY too stuck on the radiation. You don’t wanna. I get that. Is that why you go out of your way here to ‘prove’ just ONE part of a thermal effect? You’re missing a bigger picture, Spencer …
Mars, Venus, Titan. Humid tropic vs. arid tropics. OLR over the last 30+ years.
The atmosphere functions as an insulating layer on the solar-heated surface because it is warmer (and heavier) than space.
The radiation is but a tool in all this. Not itself the cause. The “DWLWIR” is an apparent temperature EFFECT, not a temperature CAUSE. The atmosphere’s MASS is the cause. The hammer vs. the man wielding it.
Say what!? I’ve specifically been pointing this out all along. I think you might have me confused with someone else.
I do. You seem not to have read at all what I write.
if you admit that DWIR exists, then we don’t have any fundamental disagreement. I agree DWIR can be thought of as an “effect”, because the energy it contains is originally from the sun.
But it DOES exist.
And it DOES increase the surface temperature of the Earth, as the model demonstrates.
And atmospheric “MASS” does not create temperature. There has to be energy input from something to give mass a temperature. Statements like your’s about “mass” causing things suggest to me you have never taken a basic physics course.
Where is your quantitative time-dependent model that produces, based upon well-established physics equations, terrestrial temperatures when initialized from any temperature you like, as I have done here?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, August 31, 2016 at 8:24 AM:
Our fundamental disagreement, Spencer, is that you think the atmospheric thermal effect is a radiative effect, that the atmosphere simply warms the surface some more by radiating down on it, while I say the atmospheric thermal effect on the solar-heated surface ultimately arises as a result of the atmosphere’s mass. The physical mass of the atmosphere allows it to warm beyond the background ‘temperature’ of space, and it allows it to weigh down on the surface, something the vacuum of space could never do. Strongly limiting the total surface heat loss at any given temperature. That’s how it insulates the surface.
You seem unwilling to admit, even to consider, this simple circumstance.
No. It’s a simple apparent radiative effect of atmospheric TEMPERATURE. If the atmosphere were able to absorb IR, but incapable of thermalising it and holding on to it in order to actually WARM from it, then its radiative properties wouldn’t matter at all.
Mathematically it exists. As an APPARENT radiative effect of atmospheric temperature it exists. But it does NOT exist as a distinct macroscopic radiant power flux (W/m^2) to the surface, thermodynamically independent of the “UWLWIR” from the surface, and rather equivalent to the solar flux, that you can treat as a regular ‘heat flux’ (without ever *calling* it that, of course) whenever it suits your story. That is, that you can place on the radiative INPUT side of the surface budget to somehow “cause” the surface temperature associated with its radiative OUTPUT (the “UWLWIR”). Use the “DWLWIR” term all you want. But bear in mind that it will always be an integrated part of the surface radiant heat LOSS (DWLWIR minus UWLWIR). What it does is reduce the surface radiant heat LOSS. And that’s it. It DOESN’T increase the surface energy GAIN. Mathematically, yes. Physically, thermodynamically? No.
Stick with the “reduced radiant heat loss” thing, and you’ll be fine. “Extra heating by back radiation”, however, is nonsense physics, and will ONLY create and perpetuate confusion. I think that most of your (and the IPCC’s) critics object to what you’re saying because you tend to portray – intentionally or not – the “GHE” as an “extra heating by back radiation” effect, NOT as a “less radiant cooling” effect. The two are fundamentally different, thermodynamically.
No, it doesn’t. It enables the surface of the Earth to equilibrate at a higher T_avg than the lunar surface, but the reason why it ends up higher is because the atmosphere has a mass, and thus is able to i) warm (space isn’t), and to ii) weigh down on the surface (space doesn’t).
Spencer, IR radiation also does not “create temperature”. But atmospheric mass allows the atmosphere to gain a temperature, from absorbing energy, thermalising it and holding on to it. And it also makes sure the atmosphere (as long as it’s subjected to gravity) has a weight, a pressure and a density, and a resistance to change.
Er, yes. Just like there has to be an energy input from something to make the atmosphere radiate.
That’s because you ‘misunderstands’ my statements about atmospheric mass, Spencer. You think I’m just another one of those nutcases who think that mass (or matter, rather) itself creates energy whenever it’s compressed. I’m not. You should rather read what I actually write.
So how would you go about determining the surface T_avg of Earth without knowing it (or any other altitude-specific temps) already? You’re only back-engineering. You know of course that a simple pyrgeometer couldn’t possibly derive the “DWLWIR” if it didn’t first know the temperature of its own sensor …
All mass radiates Kristian. Any mass radiates at all temperatures and at all frequencies all the time, that cannot be a difference between you and anyone promoting a radiative effect, they are joined at the hip. Untwist your pretzel, use Occam’s razor to make your points readable.
“You know of course that a simple pyrgeometer couldnt possibly derive the DWLWIR if it didnt first know the temperature of its own sensor ”
Just like a mercury thermometer could not possibly derive the temperature if it didn’t first know the expansion of a pool of mercury.
Kristian
I have been doing research on your Sahara-Sahel vs Congo argument.
I believe (I could be wrong in my understanding of your words, it seems I get them wrong from what you intended) you are making the claim that the Congo receives more Net radiation than the Sahara yet is cooler so that would appear to negate a radiative GHE.
I think what you have with your locations is more complex than just radiation alone. I believe Toneb explained it to you on another thread.
Here is the situation:
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Hadley-Cell-Helps-Along-our-Summer-Heat-387365211.html
The Equator has a high amount of convection going on (all the clouds and rain) rising air. This removes a large amount of heat from the surface of that location while at 30 N you have this air sinking. I believe Toneb said it creates a high pressure cap that limits convection at these locations so they get much hotter.
If you look the air above the Sahara is sinking on average.
That is why you can’t disprove a GHE by using such examples because other large factors are in play.
Also (I could be wrong so correct me if that is the case).
http://www.bitsofscience.org/wordpress-3.0.1/wordpress/images/2015/09/climate-system-general-circulation-jet-streams.jpg
From this link it looks like the Equator heating much move large amounts of air up against the gravity field. This process will require work so energy that could have been used in warming the air temperature is instead used as work no heat so it could suppress the temperatures in that fashion.
Roy Spence has a PHD in meteorology, I believe he would know what is going on with your observations.
I think it is the Hadley cell that explains what is going on with the temperatures and it does not mean water vapor is cooling the surface. If you had no water vapor the circulation would still remove more energy from the Equator’s surface than at the location the air sinks.
Norman says, August 30, 2016 at 10:21 PM:
I’m not CLAIMING this, Norman. I am SHOWING it. I’m POINTING IT OUT for people to see. I’m not making this stuff up. It’s right there in the available data.
Norman, it appears you confuse what happens in the REAL WORLD with what the “radiative GHE” hypothesis postulates about warming mechanisms.
I’m specifically pointing out how real-world NON-radiative processes within the Earth system readily override the purely radiative ones when it comes to changes in surface T_avg. Are you telling me you don’t see this?
You’re only confirming that what I point out is correct, Norman.
Kristian
The point I am trying to make in my posts to you is that yes the other heat removing processes are important for specific regional differences but both the Congo and Sahara would be much colder than without GHE going on. It is true the convection and evaporation losses from the surface are much higher at the equator than other locations, but if you removed the 405 W/m^2 DWIR the region would be cooler.
I no longer believe the GHE is of a 33 C value. I look at the way they calculate it and they use a high albedo for Earth. Without the clouds and ice the Earth would not have this high of albedo, If you removed water from its surface so it was more like a lunar surface you would have an albedo closer to 0.12 instead of the 0.3 they use.
I am not sure we disagree on much except radiant energy fluxes.
Norman, the natural 33C is the difference between Earth brightness temperature Te 255K and the thermometer field Ts 288K. It changes a bit with small changes in each of those observations.
The 33C difference can also be calculated with atm. emissivity 0.8 and 0.0 as in the top post analysis. That would be with current albedo 0.3. Any other albedo changes the balance and the 33C will then become something else based on the new choice of albedo.
Norman says, August 31, 2016 at 5:26 AM:
I won’t let you get away this easily, Norman. You have specifically stated that you disagree with my argument that the DEGREE of atmospheric IR activity doesn’t matter to surface T_avg, once the atmosphere is radiatively active (at some, at any level above zero) and atmospheric ciculation thus becomes operative and stable. This whole excercise (the Sahara-Sahel vs. the Congo) is to show you – through simple empirical observations – that I’m right and you’re wrong. I could also point to other celestial bodies in the solar system, like Mars, Venus and Titan, to get a global view, and thus show you the exact same thing. Also, I could refer you to OLR data over the last 30+ years from Earth showing how there has been absolutely NO “enhancement” of any “radiative GHE” as defined, despite the significant increase over the same period in the atmospheric content of both CO2 and water vapour. In fact, I already have. But you tend to ignore these things and just go on with your bubble ideas of how the world SHOULD work.
Norman, the 405 W/m^2 of apparent DWLWIR in the equatorial region are a radiative EFFECT of the equatorial air being as warm as it is. It doesn’t thereby tell you what CAUSED that temperature to be as high as it is. You refuse to get this simple argument. I don’t know why. A child would.
The only relevant radiative variables in the surface budget is the INCOMING radiant heat (‘net SW’, from the Sun) and the OUTGOING radiant heat (‘net LW’, from the surface). All you can say is that the apparent DWLWIR from the atmosphere to the surface reduces the outgoing radiant heat from the surface *more* in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel. And yet this DOESN’T make the surface T_avg in the former any higher than in the latter region. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true.
I fear we still have some way to go. You need to open up, acknowledge and understand different perspectives from your own on certain things. Like how an atmosphere’s bulk mass works and is necessary to warm a planetary surface.
It is hopeless discussing subjects such as this with people who absolutely refuse to concede even the simplest and most obvious points, who refuse to even TRY to understand what their opponents are actually saying, who basically just ignore it, summarily dismiss it (without even reading), or conveniently ‘misunderstand’ it, while at the same time simply rehashing over and over again the same old talking points, as if their opponents hadn’t heard them a thousand times already …
Ball4
The change in Albedo is my point. The Moon’s albedo is 0.12. Mars is listed as 0.25 Earth at 0.31.
A lot of the Earth’s higher albedo is because of the effects of water vapor, clouds reflecting sunlight, snow and ice which have high albedo’s.
I did research and the ocean basins are mostly basalt like the moon. If the Earth had no GHG it could have no water so it would be mostly basalt with higher emissivity sand in some regions but the bulk would be dark absorbing basalt. The albedo would almost certainly below 0.31 and hence the equilibrium temperature with a higher solar flux would be more.
I do not understand why they would keep the albedo the same if they removed GHG from the system (water vapor which needs water to exist). I think they should try and figure out a more correct albedo without any GHG in the system and then see what type of equilibrium temperature such an Earth would attain. Almost certainly above the 255 K figure so far used to demonstrate our GHE.
Kristian
It seems you post very similar things to many different posters including Dr. Spencer. Your standing complaint is people misunderstand you.
Here is but one sample: YOU: “It is hopeless discussing subjects such as this with people who absolutely refuse to concede even the simplest and most obvious points, who refuse to even TRY to understand what their opponents are actually saying, who basically just ignore it, summarily dismiss it (without even reading), or conveniently misunderstand it, while at the same time simply rehashing over and over again the same old talking points, as if their opponents hadnt heard them a thousand times already ”
You must not be making yourself clear enough. It would not just be me so the flaw in communication would be on your end.
Here is one very confusing statement you make:
ME: “It is true the convection and evaporation losses from the surface are much higher at the equator than other locations, but if you removed the 405 W/m^2 DWIR the region would be cooler.
YOU: “Norman, the 405 W/m^2 of apparent DWLWIR in the equatorial region are a radiative EFFECT of the equatorial air being as warm as it is. It doesnt thereby tell you what CAUSED that temperature to be as high as it is. You refuse to get this simple argument. I dont know why. A child would.
I do not see a logical connection or bridge between the two statements. My statement was that if you removed the DWIR the area would be cooler than with it….then you talk about it is an effect of the air being warmer? What sense does that make to my statement. I really cannot follow the flow of your arguments and how they connect. I think others fail at it as well.
If you had no GHG the mass of the atmosphere would help not at all in keeping the surface warm. If it had 5 times its current mass how will it stop radiation from leaving the surface and moving on to outer space…energy lost forever.
That is why I can’t follow your thought process. My statement is about removing the DWIR from the system and then you come up with that the DWIR is an effect, what does that have to do with my point?
Remove DWIR from the Sahara and what do you get? Look up at Roy’s simulation. It will show you. Even if you do not use two-way IR fluxes just the one, LW leaving Earth’s surface. With a radiating atmosphere the energy leaving the Earth’s surface NET is far less than it would be without DWIR.
Now are you making a claim in your statements that the concentrations of GHG is not important? That is what it seems like to me but I can’t be sure since you will tell me I am not understanding what you are saying. Can you answer that one? You don’t have to but it would be nice so I can try to understand what you are attempting to say.
“I do not understand why they would keep the albedo the same..”
Simply so it matches today’s Te 255K brightness temperature. Any other albedo results in different Te.
The moon surface is blasted to smithereens and Earth’s with atm. at 1bar is not, much larger particle size. The albedo of the moon is affected by the small particle size, 50% is 10-100 micron diameter powder which is in the IR range. About 10-20% of the powder is around 10micron diameter right in the wavelength of interest so diffraction rears its ugly head and straight Planck law is no longer applicable to either surface emissivity or albedo. Regolith testing over the spectrum is necessary to find lunar albedo and surface emissivity properties.
Norman says, August 31, 2016 at 7:49 PM:
Spencer misunderstands because he has this seeming preconception about me being one of the “mass creates energy” dolts. And so he doesn’t really bother to read what I write, at least not with particular care. Folkerts knows quite well what I’m saying, but he doesn’t really like the implications of some of the things I point out, and so he “pretends” to misunderstand, in order to avoid having to respond directly to them. Most other people who ‘misunderstand’ my argument are basically warmist trolls in different guises. I’m not sure where you fit in, though, since I don’t consider you a ‘warmist troll’.
It should be pretty clear what I’m saying, Norman. It’s not very complicated, after all. If you WANT to understand, you WILL understand. I’m sorry, but I see no sign of you actually wanting to understand what I’m saying, Norman. You seem pretty comfortable inside your bubble. As do most other people commenting here …
That’s because you (apparently) didn’t read the paragraph above the one you’re quoting, where I explained how the Sahara-Sahel vs. the Congo exercise intended to demonstrate that there’s absolutely no reason to assume that you will increase the surface T_avg by simply making the atmospheric column on top of it *more* opaque to outgoing IR. IOW, you’re not arguing about the issue at hand. You’re arguing about something that we already agree on, that the surface T_avg would be significantly lower (but importantly NOT the bulk atmosphere T_avg, it would be significantly higher) if the atmosphere were basically a non-participating medium (completely IR inactive). However, even with an IR active atmosphere, it is the fact that the atmosphere is able to WARM substantially beyond space that effectively makes it an insulative layer on the solar-heated surface. The radiation is but a tool, a means to an end. And so, if the atmosphere were IR active, but had the same temperature as space (2.7K), that is, it could hold no internal KE, then its radiative properties would make no difference. The surface could then easily shed a RADIANT heat flux worth of 53 W/m^2, even at a T_avg of 175K [53-0 W/m^2], just like it does in our current case, at 289K [398-345 W/m^2].
So it’s not the size of the “back radiation flux” itself that determines the steady-state T_avg of the surface. It’s the steady-state T_avg that determines the size of the “back radiation flux”.
As I’ve told you multiple times now, Norman, you would benefit from stepping out of your bubble and enable yourself to see this subject from a different angle, basically from the opposite end.
You just start with the steady-state 405 W/m^2, but you have no clue how we got to this steady state in the first place. What actually caused the temps to rise until we got there?
You consistently see this from the point of view where the apparent 405 W/m^2 of atmospheric ‘radiant flux’ to the surface is somehow – in collaboration with the solar heat flux – what’s CAUSING the surface temperature to be as high as it is. It’s not. It’s the other way around.
Stop with the kicking at open doors, Norman! We’re done with this particular part of the discussion. You have very clearly stated that you don’t agree with me on the PROGRESSIVE “GHE”, the one where you continuously increase the surface T_avg by increasing the DEGREE of atmospheric IR activity. I say (and show) there is no such connection. And THAT’S what this is all about. THAT’S what the Sahara-Sahel vs. the Congo thing is all about.
Can you please try to address this issue from now on, Norman.
Er, yes, Norman. That is what I am claiming. And that claim is what I back up with empirical evidence. Looking at the Congo vs. the Sahara-Sahel. Looking at the radiative fluxes at the ToA over the last 30+ years. Looking at Venus, Mars and Titan. All pointing to the same thing: The DEGREE of atmospheric IR activity doesn’t matter to sfc T_avg. Only atmospheric mass and solar input does. Because as soon as the atmosphere is IR active, atmospheric circulation becomes operative and stable.
Kristian
I would not say I agree with you on this point:
YOU “Youre arguing about something that we already agree on, that the surface T_avg would be significantly lower (but importantly NOT the bulk atmosphere T_avg, it would be significantly higher) if the atmosphere were basically a non-participating medium (completely IR inactive).”
Have I missed your explanation of why the bulk atmosphere would be warmer if the T_avg surface where cooler? Even if the atmosphere could only cool by conduction it could not reach a temperature higher than the surface since that is its only source of heat.
On this Point: YOU: “So its not the size of the back radiation flux itself that determines the steady-state T_avg of the surface. Its the steady-state T_avg that determines the size of the back radiation flux.”
It is both, they influence each other. Look at Roy’s simulation and you will see (as he has removed all other heat transfer mechanisms) that radiation alone can warm an absorbing atmosphere and by doing so a warmed atmosphere will in return elevate the equilibrium T_avg surface to a higher temperature than in a system without such an IR active atmosphere. Also his simulation shows that concentration of GHG is hugely significant in setting a new equilibrium temperature. Change the emissivity and you see the equilibrium temperature will drop. His 0.8 number he uses is based upon the current concentrations of GHG. If you remove the GHG the emissivity will drop and so does the equilibrium temperature. Try it, I did and it certainly does. GHG concentration is what sets the radiation equilibrium temperature.
Kristian
After establishing some points with your post I will move on to your Congo vs Sahara debate.
All your study demonstrates is the complexity of H2O in the climate system and why they have such a hard time getting models to run nearly identical results.
Water and some effects it will have on Climate Change.
In liquid form it is a very good IR absorber and emitter, listed as around 0.95. Also a very good absorber of SW radiation with very low albedo.
IR emissivity chart:
http://www.optotherm.com/emiss-table.htm
For albedo:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Albedo-e_hg.svg/800px-Albedo-e_hg.svg.png
So depending on what form it is in water can have a tremendous impact on the climate system and there is no easy way to figure out all its various effects if the system changes.
Kristian
A point you made on your blog:
“Furthermore, we already know from the main post that the radiative imbalance (SW in minus LW out) at the ToA over our two regions is vastly different: While the Sahara-Sahel imbalance is negative by 12.3 W/m^2 (more radiant heat OUT than IN), the Congo imbalance is strongly positive, by 62.7 W/m^2 (more radiant heat IN than OUT), a total difference in favour of the Congo of [12.3+62.7=] 75 W/m^2!”
So you have much more radiative energy into the Congo than the Sahara-Sahel. Yet the Congo is cooler. The next step is to go to the nonradiative heat transfer processes.
It is as I stated water is a complex variable in a climate system because it has effects which oppose each other. Pure water vapor in the air would only lead to a warmer equilibrium temperature for the T_avg surface by radiation alone. Even as it stands it still plays a huge role in the climate system keeping the equilibrium tempearture of the surface higher than it would be without it.
Let us look more closely at your study.
First link. Global evapotransporation rates.
http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/sites/ntsg.umt.edu/files/imce/GMAO_CMGalbedo_0.05deg_GEO-th.png
If the image links correctly you can see the Congo has a much much more evapotranspiration than the Sahara.
Link to sight with graph:
http://www.ntsg.umt.edu/project/mod16
Note: enough links for one post, I will continue with the next post.
Kristian
Continuing the line of logic. I am establishing loss of surface energy by process of evapotranspiration.
If the graph links. Sahara-Sahel has such small evapotransiration it is listed as zero effect (might have some in rainy season but not enough to effect the yearly amount).
On the graph the Congo is 1250-1500 mm/year.
If you divide by 365 you get the mm/day
3.42 mm/day- 4.11 mm/day
Here is a link that allows you to convert this number into MJ/m^2-day which will then allow you to convert to W/m^2 since a Watt is a joule/second.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0490e/x0490e04.htm
Table 1 of this link gives you a value that 1 mm/day evapotranspiration is equivalent to 2.45 MJ/m^2-day
Now you can use the number above for the Congo evapotranspiration rate to find the Joules/m^2-day value
8,379,000 J/m^2-day to 10,069,500 J/m^2-day
divide these by 24 then 3600 to Joules/sec-m^2 or W/m^2
96.98 Watts/m^2 to 116.54 Watts/m^2
So you have the Congo which loses energy via evapotranspiration at the rates above while the Sahara-Sahel loses none by this process.
Above you have that the Congo has a net positive of 75 W/m^2 over the Sahara using just radiation balance.
So if you add the evapotranspiration loss to the positive radiation balance of the Congo you end up with a net energy surface loss (compared to the Sahara) of
-21.98 W/m^2 to -41.54 W/m^2
So is it any wonder that the Congo ends up being cooler than the Sahara? But without the Backradiation of both places they would both be much cooler than they are now.
Water is both a cooling and warming effect. The GHE is still stronger than the other effects. The GHG in the Congo send 405 W/m^2 back to the surface without this energy hitting the surface the T_avg surface would be much cooler.
Kristain
Conclusion
Your Congo vs Sahara study in no way demonstrates that GHE is not significant for keeping the surface temperature at a higher equilibrium temperature. It also does not prove your backward thinking that GHE is an effect not a cause.
Reality suggests it is both. The DWIR allows the surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature under the condition of a constant incoming flux of energy. The higher equilibrium temperature of the surface allows a higher equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere to be maintained (as seen in Roy’s simulation if you play with it a bit). It is both a cause and effect.
Nothing in your posts has proven the GHE is wrong in the current description, nor have you come close to proving that the amount of GHG in the atmosphere is not crucial to determining GHE. I will agree you have to have some atmospheric mass to hold energy so that the GHG have a supply of internal energy that allows a continuous emission of energy.
I am not sure if these posts will convince you of anything. I think I did demonstrate you Congo-Sahara conclusions are not valid in proving your points.
Kristain
Points from your blog:
“This leads us to the conclusion that, while there is no reason to believe that the outgoing LW effect of having H2O in the atmosphere will raise the temperature, the combined (reflecting/absorbing) H2O effect on incoming solar (both SW and LW) is definitely going to cool the surface.
This conclusion appears to be quite solidly backed up by this posts (admittedly quick and superficial) empirical analysis. More H2O in the atmospheric column will make the surface cooler. There are no empirical observations from the real Earth system supporting the notion of a net radiative surface warming effect of having H2O in the atmosphere above. The net effect is most certainly cooling”
I disagree with your conclusions and your statements. You have a 405 DWIR in the wet area. If you changed nothing else but removed it from they system the temperature would plummet. H2O definitely has warming effect. It also has cooling effects as well.
Also Sahara’s DWIR of 375 W/m^2 is still 92$ of the Congo’s 405 W/m^2 DWIR. Both have significant DWIR that is greatly reducing the surface radiant energy loss.
Norman,
It seems you really need to have this fed to you with the tiniest of spoons.
Let’s go back to our hypothetical planet. In the initial steady state, there is no atmosphere on top of its global surface, and so the global surface has simply equilibrated with the average radiant heat input (ASR, net SW) from the planet’s mother star, meaning, its average radiant heat output (OLR, net LW) is equal to it. In our particular case, let’s now say that the average ASR value is 296 W/m^2, and so, in the steady state, this is also the average OLR value: 296 W/m^2 IN = 296 W/m^2 OUT. This state is ideally attained at the point where the planet’s global surface T_avg has reached ~269 K. (This, of course, relies specifically on two purely hypothetical conditions to abide: The surface is 1) a blackbody, and 2) isothermal.)
We now place a massive – and very much radiatively active! – atmosphere on top of this equilibrated planetary surface. Now, just as the surface before it could be considered to start its original journey toward its original steady state temperature (269 K) from a hypothetical initial temperature around absolute zero (or 2.7 K, rather), so could the atmosphere. We simply want to see what happens as energy accumulates inside this massive atmosphere, gradually warming it.
So to begin with, before any energy has managed to be transferred as heat from the surface to this new atmosphere, the surface radiant heat loss is: q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) -> σ (269^4 – 2.7^4) -> 296 W/m^2, IOW just what it was before the atmosphere was placed on top of it. And remember now, this is a fully radiatively active atmosphere – it is able to absorb and emit EM radiation. The only problem is that it’s still too cold.
But what happens as this atmosphere now absorbs more and more energy from the surface (and from the local sun), thermalising it and gradually warming from it? Its temperature rises beyond that of space itself. And as a simple consequence of this, the atmosphere is now turned into an insulative layer, basically interposing a thermal barrier between the solar-heated surface and the absolute coldness of space.
As the atmosphere warms, its apparent DWLWIR to the surface increases. But the atmosphere warms, not from apparent, thermally generated ‘radiant fluxes’, but from the absorbed and thermalised energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun. And what happens when the surrounding temperature of a constantly heated object/surface all of a sudden increases? The temperature difference between the object/surface and its surroundings is reduced. And what does this lead to? It leads to a reduction in the rate of “heat loss” from the object/surface in question. This is true whether the mode of heat transfer happens to be ‘radiative’, ‘conductive’ or ‘convective’. And so, if we assume that the rate of incoming heat to the object/surface remains unchanged, then energy will accumulate (because Q_in > Q_out) and the object/surface will necessarily warm as a result, until its heat balance is restored (Q_in = Q_out). And what happens when the surface temperature rises as a consequence of this process? Its apparent UWLWIR increases. Which makes the (radiant) heat loss rate (DWLWIR minus UWLWIR) of the surface go up again. And so the surface radiant heat loss rate itself could theoretically stay constant during the entire warming process towards the new steady state temperature. It would be 296 W/m^2 in the initial state (296W/m^2 – 0W/m^2, 269 vs. 2.7 K), and it could be 296 W/m^2 in the final (steady) state also (say 398W/m^2 – 102W/m^2, 289 vs. 206 K).
The thing, though, is that once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface, then the whole surface situation changes. Moving towards the new steady state, the atmosphere will 1) make the planet’s albedo increase substantially, and 2) absorb for itself a significant portion of the incoming heat input from the sun, so that it never manages to reach the actual surface at the bottom. This will reduce the average ASR at the surface from the original no-atmo value of 296 W/m^2 to a final +atmo value of a mere 165 W/m^2. Which would mean that about 44 % (!) of the original solar heat absorbed by the global surface is now somehow made unavailable to it by the very presence of the radiatively active atmosphere resting on top of it, either reflecting it back out to space or absorbing it for itself, before it could ever reach the surface.
This situation alone would reduce the potential steady-state surface radiant heat loss from 296 to a maximum of 165 W/m^2. But would it thereby necessarily change the surface T_avg also? No. Because the heat loss (the net LW) is only constrained by the temperature DIFFERENCE between the surface and the atmosphere, not by the individual temperature of the surface and/or the atmosphere. So we could go from 296 minus 0 W/m^2 (net LW: 296 W/m^2) in the initial steady state (at 269 vs. 2.7 K), to 296 minus a potential 131 W/m^2 (net LW: 165 W/m^2) in the final steady state (at 269 vs. 219 K).
However, it doesn’t end there. You see, more things change at the surface once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface than just the total heat balance (moving from Q_in(296W/m^2)=Q_out(296W/m^2) to Q_in(165W/m^2)=Q_out(165W/m^2)). The surface heat budget after all also stops being a purely radiative one. And this fact is an extremely important fact to appreciate, because it has obvious implications for the surface radiant heat loss, which used to make up 100 % of the total. It won’t anymore. It will naturally have to make room for other losses, NON-radiative ones. IOW: It will, by physical necessity, become significantly smaller.
And so this really changes the whole narrative. The surface radiant heat loss ISN’T reduced because of a rise in the effective atmospheric temperature leading to a rise in apparent atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface. It is simply reduced because there is less ‘need’ for it, because other heat loss mechanisms than the radiative one are also now contributing to the total.
So you see, the absolute magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss is thoroughly constrained first by the heat INPUT to the surface (the ASR), then by the (effectiveness of the) other heat loss mechanisms at work. It can’t be determined simply according to some perceived atmospheric level of IR opacity.
In the end, we might have a situation where, after having emplaced a massive atmosphere around our hypothetical planet, the surface steady state corresponds to a Q_in = Q_out of only 165=165 W/m^2 (rather than one of 296=296 W/m^2), where the radiant part is further reduced to, say, 53 W/m^2. And so we’re left with the following inescapable apparent DWLWIR-UWLWIR relationship: 398 – 345 W/m^2 (net LW: 53 W/m^2), at 289 (T_sfc) vs. 279 K (T_atm). But this doesn’t tell us anything about how we got from a surface T_avg of 269 to one of 289 K. All it tells us is that 1) the surface steady-state T_avg happens to be 289 K, and that 2) the surface steady-state radiant heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^2. 289 K -> 398 W/m^2, and 398 – 53 = 345 W/m^2. This is exactly how a pyrgeometer would compute the apparent “sky radiation” (DWLWIR). But it tells us nothing about why the radiant heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^w, nor why the surface T_avg happens to be 289 K. Remember how, when we first placed the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface, the heat input to the surface from the sun was 296 W/m^2, and there were no other heat loss mechanisms in operation except the radiative one. Moreover, the no-(or pre-)atmo steady state surface temperature was 269 K (296W/m^2 IN = 296W/m^2 OUT), and this was also the initial situation as the massive, radiatively active atmosphere (at 2.7 K) was placed around the planet – the DWLWIR was practically zero, because the atmosphere was too cold. Then several things happened: i) the atmosphere started warming (from absorbing energy transferred to it as heat), ii) the heat input to the surface was reduced, and iii) other heat loss mechanisms besides the radiative one became available and operative as the system still grew warmer (a result of the warming atmosphere). And so, from the initial to the final steady state, we went from a surface net LW (radiant heat loss) shedding 296 W/m^2 to one at a mere 53 W/m^2. Meaning, we went from a temperature difference of [269-2.7=] ~266 K between the surface and the APPARENT “effective atmospheric level of downward radiation” to one of [289-279=] 10 degrees. Does this mean that the atmosphere somehow got immensely more opaque to surface IR, lowering the effective level of “sky radiation” to the surface by this huge amount, during the journey from t_i to t_f? No, of course it doesn’t. Here’s what happened in between: i) the atmosphere got warmer, meaning, the temperature difference between the surface and the layers of air above it grew steadily smaller; ii) the overall heat input to the surface from the sun, the ASR (net SW), grew steadily smaller, and so the surface target output value naturally decreased with it; iii) the radiative share of the total surface heat output dropped from its initial 100 %, because of NON-radiative heat loss mechanisms growing to prominence …
To conclude:
1)
The increase in DWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the atmosphere warming. When the atmosphere warms beyond space, from absorbing, thermalising and storing up energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings decreases, and so its total heat loss is naturally reduced. This forces the surface to warm so as to restore its heat balance (the heat input is assumed constant). Yes, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inert, it (or the main portion of it) will eventually be thermodynamically disconnected from the surface, and so space can still be considered the surface’s only significant cold reservoir. But as soon as you make the atmosphere radiatively active, you will connect it thermally with the surface, and so now the atmospheric temperature will directly affect the total heat loss from the surface, which will be greatly reduced at any given surface T_avg relative to the former situation, once the atmospheric T_avg rises above the ‘temperature’ of space. You might fool yourself into thinking that it is in fact the increase in the apparent atmospheric DWLWIR itself that forces the surface temperature to rise in this situation. But it’s not. The absolute TEMPERATURE rise is the CAUSE. The DWLWIR is but a TOOL enabling the atmospheric temperature to connect with the surface temperature in the first place. When the atmospheric temperature rises in this situation, it will then simply be able to affect the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected with the surface, and so it effectively replaces space as the surface’s thermal surroundings, meaning that, as it warms, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down (this couldn’t happen with only the vacuum of space around, since a vacuum cannot warm). And as the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down, there will be a decrease in both radiant, conductive and evaporative/convective heat loss from the surface. Forcing a surface temperature rise.
The increase in DWLWIR is simply one expression of this decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings, thus of the reduction in surface heat loss.
2)
The steady-state magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss is to a certain extent simply a function of the steady-state magnitude of the non-radiant heat losses (conduction and evaporation/convection), which will inevitably start ‘eating into’ the radiant portion of the total as soon as a massive atmosphere is in place on top of a solar-heated planetary surface. At some point along the continuum – from 100 to 0 % – a balance will be struck. It simply depends on how effective the radiant vs. the non-radiant losses are at ridding the surface of energy at some particular temperature. This will vary from place to place on the same planet, as it will from planet to planet. The relationship between this steady-state ratio of heat losses and the steady-state surface temperature, though, is apparently not a straightforward (linear) one. The total heat loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel and in the Congo are about the same, but the radiant portion of the total is much larger in the Sahara-Sahel (~100 out of 175 W/m^2) than it is in the Congo (~50 out of 175 W/m^2). This circumstance, however, doesn’t translate at all into a lower surface T_avg in the former region. You can’t just say that a region with a more effective (larger) surface radiant heat loss will necessarily end up having a lower T_avg than one where the radiant heat loss is much smaller. In fact, the surface T_avg is higher in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo by a significant amount.
So how come the radiant heat loss in the Congo is only ~50 W/m^2 and around twice that in the Sahara-Sahel? Atmospheric humidity and clouds. Yes. But also evaporative heat loss and deep moist convection. The two are intimately connected.
* * *
I will also post this at the bottom of the comment thread.
Norman wrote:
“I do not understand why they would keep the albedo the same if they removed GHG from the system (water vapor which needs water to exist)….Almost certainly above the 255 K figure so far used to demonstrate our GHE.”
I think everyone understand this. The calculation you’re referring to, that gives the 255 K, is just a simple zero-dimensional energy balance model. The resulting temperature, 255 K, is just for that simple model. The 30 C number for the greenhouse effect is just a simple estimate.
People who learn this basic model should be taught this, and not to take it as the final say. It’s just an approximation, just a heuristic demonstration of energy balance.
However, you might be interested in this paper by Lacis et al, where they took all noncondensing GHGs out of the atmosphere and ran a climate model to see the resulting cooling. They get about 35 C.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf
David Appell
The item in the article you linked to I am not sure of. The reason the globe cools so much is because the water supposedly turns to ice increasing albedo and a bunch more clouds form. But remember clouds are the strongest of all GHE agents with a full spectrum of IR radiating in all directions so although they would cut back on solar input, they would also act to minimize radiation loss. But the other point is why would cloud cover go up? Does the cold Antarctic or Arctic have more clouds as the temperature drops?
This article claims cloud cover actually warms a winter Arctic.
“Clouds play a central role in regulating the energy balance of
the Earth, and because they are so heterogeneous, regionally
they help determine the character of weather and climate. At
the Arctic surface they tend to be warming most of the year,
shifting the surface heat budget up by 10 to 50 W m−2
from
autumn until spring, while in summer they tend to be slightly
cooling the surface”
From this article:
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:1517160:8/component/escidoc:1539280/acp-12-6667-2012.pdf
Also there are a lot less clouds in winter than summer in the Arctic so I am not sure why the model they are using increased the cloud cover so much (which shouldn’t lead to cooling anyway overall since half the globe is dark).
Also this: “Previous studies based on passive sensors and human
observers found a total cloud cover of up to 90-95 percent
in summer months and values around 50 percent in
winter, with sharp transition seasons in April and October
(Huschke, 1969; Schweiger and Key, 1992; Eastman and
Warren, 2010).”
Norman: Why don’t you write a rebuttal letter to SCIENCE and its editors, refuting Lacis et al., telling professional scientistgs they don’t know about clouds, instead of just posting whatever few thoughts come to you after a 5-minute glance of the paper?
From the paper:
“The results, summarized in Fig. 2, show unequivocally
that the radiative forcing by noncondensing
GHGs is essential to sustain the atmospheric
temperatures that are needed for significant levels
of water vapor and cloud feedback. Without this
noncondensable GHG forcing, the physics of this
model send the climate of Earth plunging rapidly
and irrevocably to an icebound state, though perhaps
not to total ocean freezeover”
David Appell
I thin this is the strong difference you and I would have in our approach to Climate Science. You will not question the output of a model but others will.
They are not really “my thoughts”. When I read that cloud cover would increase in a much colder world (and considerably according to the model) I did a Google search on cloud covert in the Arctic and it showed that as it cools clouds are reduced not increased. So I have strong questions about the Climate model presented.
Here is an older Roy Spencer blog post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/
I look at the output of climate models and they are all over the place. They really are not a hard science, too many variables at play. Why would I accept this climate model as a “truth” because it appears in a science publication. I read those all the time in Scientific American. They are what they are. A possibility but in this one it goes against observed patterns so I question it a little more.
David Appell
Forgive my typing skills, they seem to get worse as I age.
“thin” = “think”
“cloud covert” = “cloud cover”
I should start rereading posts before submitting them and make corrections then. Sorry for the slop I see it a lot in my posts and will have to slow down a bit.
yes, you have explained it pretty well, Norman. Downwelling IR is just one portion of the surface energy budget, and as you say, energy export from the moist, deep-convective zones to the subsidence zones must also be taken into account.
Another excellent post by Roy.
Readers here should know that, in general, this topic is covered in first-year university courses on climate science. You may be interested in enrolling?
For those who have a distrust of climate science, basic engineering thermodynamics and heat transfer courses should suffice. Learn to define control volumes and control masses rigorously, then keep careful track of energy transfers into and out of these.
Most of the confusions shown here would be alleviated by learning how to do these basic tasks properly.
The problem with engineers is that they are not scientists – no matter how hard they try.
Stick to building bridges.
It is commonly said that the steam engine did more for the science than the science did for the steam engine!
Most of the thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics knowledge used in climate science was taken from engineering knowledge…
Stick to building steam engines then.
Yes, it is *interesting* how many “engineers” make their misconceptions of what happens in climate physics known on various (usual suspects) Blogs.
PS: I studied engineering to degree level before joining the UKMO.
Most of the people posting ridiculous nonsense here have science backgrounds, not engineering…
Dr No,
The general rule of thumb is an architect is a civil engineer who failed the maths subjects.
A mechanical engineer builds the bombs and the civil engineer builds the targets.
cheers
Thank God for that – Climate Scientist designed structures would be failing all over the globe.
The chair resists collapse because it is solid and it’s hard to deform.
The atmosphere is not a solid and yes of course if the individual molecules lost their kinetic energy they would collapse back to the surface.
maybe a high school physics text would be helpful …
Thanks David,
I responded to Ed above just because I didn’t read your right message here before.
Have a great day.
Massimo
David:
The earth’s surface resists collapse also — it is not a gas either! Without GHGs, the atmosphere cannot lose any energy to space, so the surface does not need to transfer any energy to the atmosphere (net) to maintain its temperature.
Hi Ed.
Do you really believe that once heated by the ground the GHGs free atmosphere can’t be cooled by the same ground which is in contact?
Note that, if you admit that by night that atmosphere cools anyways, you must admit that that atmosphere is continuously exchanging energy at the ground interface.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Dr. No
“A good scientist is a person with original ideas. A good engineer is a person who makes a design that works with as few original ideas as possible. There are no prima donnas in engineering.”
Freeman Dyson
There are exception to any rule.
Nabil,
/humour on
It’s not a rule if you find an exception.
/humour off
Cheers.
I do not want to go off topic, but what you are saying that the profession makes a person who he is. I disagree with this. People who seek the truth are born with this trait, they are true scientists. Look at the history, we have had priests with no formal education and brought to the world some of the greatest ideas.
Nabil,
I have a saying about the psychology of a similar issue.
I like to be right.
He needs to be right.
You see much of that here.
Dr. Spencer,
The time for atmospheric air to reach steady state from absolute zero is exactly 365 days, or one revolution of the earth around the sun. This number of days may be used to cross check or “calibrate” the model.
What???
Derivation or source, please!
It is my derivation based on an uninterrupted chain of justified physics and mathematics, a little bit lengthy.
“Scientists gain knowledge spending money. Engineers gain money spending knowledge.”
BTW, did you know your intriguing name is an anagram of
Ban Ads We Nil
or
A Bland Swine ? (no offence meant)
No Doctor No. No personal things.
wow. I’ll let others point out how silly this claim is. I think you’ve just given birth to a new field: “astrological physics”.
With respect, the surface has never been absolute zero – anywhere.
Absorbed solar at night is zero.
Maybe the model should average day conditions, model average night conditions, and average the resultant averages.
Over the last four and a half billion years, the result should agree with the observation that the surface has cooled.
When the atmosphere absorbs energy, it gets hotter. When it emits energy, it gets colder. If the surface is losing energy faster than the atmosphere, a low level inversion follows. This occurs even though the atmosphere is radiating more intensely than the surface, as it has a higher temperature.
Tyndall gave a good explanation of the process more than 150 years ago. I assume this is part of university level meteorology courses, but may not be obvious to non meteorologists.
Cheers.
“the surface has never been absolute zero anywhere”
OMG, Mike. The straw men just keep getting erected, don’t they?
You can initialize the model at any temperature you like, 0 K, 100 K, 1000 K…the final resulting equilibrium temperature will still be the same.
Seriously, dude, such objections are just a waste of everyone’s time.
Mike Flynn says:
“Over the last four and a half billion years, the result should agree with the observation that the surface has cooled.”
It hasn’t cooled over the last 150 years.
So what’s wrong with your theory?
I didn’t think Dr Spencer would put his foot in it again quite so soon when I said my goodbye’s, so it seems I have to add just this one brief comment.
Kristian is right – regions with more radiation from water vapor are cooler, as data from many regions confirms. You can’t expect water vapor to warm the surface and at the same time make the temperature gradient less steep, now can you?
As Kristian also says, radiation is not always thermalized. You can read why in the paper in which you will find this on page 167:
“a blackbody thus acts in a very simple way: it absorbs all radiation, emits absorbed frequencies below cut-off, and uses absorbed frequencies above cut-off to increase its temperature.”
The re-emission of “frequencies below cut-off” is the “pseudo scattering” we are telling you about.
See: http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
Kristian has also explained that the surface temperature is a function of atmospheric mass. Strictly speaking I now realize that it is in fact due to the force of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere and creating a stable temperature gradient, so this 2003 paper in the journal “Energy and Environment” is close to the mark, but not spot-on I admit:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
“Kristian is right regions with more radiation from water vapor are cooler, as data from many regions confirms. You cant expect water vapor to warm the surface and at the same time make the temperature gradient less steep, now can you?”
Err, you can my friend if you understood meteorology…..
And you plainly don’t.
Lumping one *effect* to make the whole Earth work by it’s principles, shows staggering ignorance of the science.
I’m afraid to say you are not alone on here.
“Kristian has also explained that the surface temperature is a function of atmospheric mass. Strictly speaking I now realize that it is in fact due to the force of gravity acting on the mass of the atmosphere and creating a stable temperature gradient”
Gravity does not create the LR.
In the atmosphere it is the movement of air up/down that does – modified by moist convection.
This is achieved via the addition of heat to the Earth’s surface.
Without that the atmosphere would become isothermal to the tropopause.
That happens in winter over Antarctica.
Gravity is not magic. It performs work on the atmosphere (air) just as your bicycle pump does when inflating a tyre. It compresses it and warms it. But it doesn’t forever stay warm – neither does gravity when compressing the atmosphere. It is a “one-shot event”.
TheColdSun says, August 31, 2016 at 12:50 AM:
That’s not what I said.
I absolutely have not. This is YOUR idea. Not mine.
No, it isn’t.
Roy says
“The radiative fluxes use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (sigma T^^4),”
This is fine for your present simplified model
However the pyrgeometer uses the same equation.
The pyrgeometer is the only officially recognised instrument for measuring downwelling LW radiation.(Nabil Swedan )
I have some concerns about that.
Consider the simplest case i.e. at nighttime.
The SB equation is acceptable for the surface up radiation which has a continuous spectrum
But the atmosphere down radiation spectrum is not continuous.
The ‘atmospheric window’ is good evidence that it is band or line spectrum.
So how can the SB equation give realistic results?
Some commentators say that really the equation used is known as Schwarzschilds Equation applied to each wavelength line by line.
However the pyrgeometer is not calibrated with the Schwarzschild Equation.
My main concern is that there seems to be a mismatch between the results of your month by 30 year satellite survey showing no accelerating global temperature and a simplistic expectation of such acceleration based on the CO2 atmospheric greenhouse theory.
The use of such a crude instrument as the pyrgeometer to base major worldwide economic changes seems more like climate religion than climate science.
Kristian’s points about a simplistic overemphasis of the radiative contribution also seems justified.
You are right that the atmosphere does not radiate like a blackbody across a continuous spectrum and, if you want to infer the temperature, you need to make some assumptions.
But the pyrgeometer is measuring the total energy coming down and needs to make no assumptions on temperature to determine the extent of back-radiation.
I do not know about the pyrgeometer being the only officially recognised instrument for measuring downwelling LW radiation; it sounds like nonsense, just like its source.
You can also measure back-radiation with a Fourier transform infrared spectrometer ( a much more expensive piece of equipment).This provides a spectral analysis of the down-welling radiation in terms of wavelength or frequency.
The following result is an example.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/longwave-downward-radiation-surface-evans.png
To understand the significance of this result it is necessary to know that CO2 emits radiation around a wavelength of 15 microns. We can see from the measured result that this where most of the back-radiation cones from. This is the unmistakable fingerprint of CO2 as a major component of back-radiation
Notice that there is no back-radiation from oxygen or nitrogen
Mike B
It seems that Nabil Swedan might be correct
https://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=irc
You say
“But the pyrgeometer is measuring the total energy coming down and needs to make no assumptions on temperature to determine the extent of back-radiation.”
If you look at the user handbook of for example
http://www.kippzonen.com/Download/32/CG-3-Manual
On page 33 it appears they are using atmospheric temperature and the SB equation.
It’s a pity that there seems to be no way of independently verifying pyrgeometer readings.
There is concern that the very large readings of downwelling flux may be overestimated.
This then combined by several other ’rounding up’ opportunities can cause undue alarm and despondency.
This in turn persuades governments to phase out fossil fuels at great cost and inconvenience.
The Eppley PIR instrument is the most widely used one for measuring downwelling IR from the sky.
My understanding is that DWIR cannot be measured directly, but as a residual. The instrument measures the NET IR flux, which impacts the surface temperature of a thermopile. They compute the upwelling flux based upon the instrument’s temperature and emissivity. The downwelling flux is then the difference between the two.
Small corrections are made for the IR-transparent dome, which is not 100% transparent…so the temperature of the dome is also monitored.
NO assumption regarding the temperature of the atmosphere is needed.
Over the years papers have been written about small corrections needed to the measurements, on order of 5%. But it’s hard to imagine something as large as 350 W/m2 or more being totally fictitious.
Others can correct me if I’m wrong about any of this.
“My understanding is that DWIR cannot be measured directly”
You are right Dr. Spencer, and this what pyrgeometers do: calculate DWIR.
We are humans. Science as far as I know begins with observations and calculations then follows. In the pyrgeometer case we acted as God instead and did exactly the opposite. We assume DWIR exists then calculated it. This is not science.
except that if you use a cooled detector, you will get much closer to a “direct” measure of DWIR, because the detector is emitting so little of it’s own energy.
Use liquid nitrogen, even better.
Use liquid helium, even better still.
And the DWIR would STILL be about the same magnitude.
The reason it isn’t measured so directly in practice is that it’s expensive.
And I’m sure there are many things in nuclear physics and other fields that can only be measured rather directly with expensive equipment.
Are these things not “science” either?
Only, in this case you are still not detecting “back radiation” from the cool sky to the warm surface, Spencer. You are detecting a radiant HEAT flux from a cool sky to a much, much colder, cryogenically cooled, detector.
Sigh. Sounds like we are back to arguing over whether a cold object emits IR in the direction of a warm object, then.
So….
Did we ever establish if you believe that the magnitude of IR flux from a warmer object (say 300k) to a colder object (say, 250K; assume both have emiss=1) depends on the temperature of both objects?
Can you please answer that question for me as a yes or no?
Roy:
Here’s another thing you don’t understand. Since we only have differential pressure measurements, there is no such thing as absolute pressure.
So if you tried to determine the supposed “absolute pressure” in your car tire by using a standard gauge, measuring the differential to the atmosphere, and adding to that value the value for a barometer (differential to [almost] vacuum), that would be completely wrong, conceptually!
(Need I say ?)
The “slash-sarc” (sarc off) didn’t come through at the end! Sorry!
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, August 31, 2016 at 12:17 PM:
No, Spencer. We’re back to the tired old “We know that DWLWIR exists because it has been measured directly a million times” argument. It is NOT measured directly, Spencer, and it never has been. Only temperatures and radiant HEAT fluxes are ever measured (as in ‘physically detected’) in radiative thermal processes. All else is merely assumed and computed.
How hard is this?
Are you being serious? OF COURSE the temperature of both objects matter. Do you think I’m Joe Postma!?
q/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
If T_c goes up and T_h remains unchanged, q/A will naturally go down.
All I’m pointing out is that you need to keep the two temperature terms on the right together at all times. You can’t put them on either side of the equal sign. Even if that’s possible mathematically. Because physically they’re inseparable. Inside the radiative heat transfer.
Kristian, “Because physically theyre inseparable. Inside the radiative heat transfer.”
This is where Kristian’s confusion over heat results in a false conclusion by Kristian.
q is not heat, Kristian, as it is not KE. As you agreed couple posts ago. The eqn. you write is in units of energy. What Kristian is describing is radiative energy transfer so the terms are associative (additive, 1LOT) so they can indeed be physically meaningful when moved to the opposite side of the eqn.
What is not physically possible and, I believe, Kristian’s intent to convey, is that the two energy flows cannot be separated to do anything useful by 2LOT as they are diffuse and incoherent, universe entropy would have to decrease in the separation to be useful so that separation of the two streams is not possible.
“The heat capacity of the surface and atmosphere are assumed to be the same, equivalent to 1 meter of water for simplicity (the atmosphere is really more like 2 m of water effective heat capacity).”
I doubt it make any difference what heat capacity, you plug in.
But curious why is it simpler. Air is 1 KJ there is 10 tons
of air per square meter, why is more complicated to use
10,000 KJ per square meter- or if like a 1/10th of it- 1000 KJ
per square meter.
But there is far more heat capacity than 10,000 KJ per square even if you just count the atmosphere- if include the latent heat of water
Also see no reason to start at absolute freezing, by merely being a planet prevents such temperatures.
Why not start at 100 K?
That way, it’s simpler as you could ignore all the latent heat connected to the atmospheric gas starting out as frozen, melting then the liquid boiling to become gas [which is really massive amount of heat needed].
But question does it make a difference in the simple model if
start with the heat capacity of atmosphere equal to 10 cm of water?
Or does it change if 2 or 3 meters of water?
Or other than shorten or lengthen the amount of days needed,
it should not make a different in the result of the model.
assumed heat capacity only affects how long it takes the system to reach a constant temperature.
You can initialize the model at any temperature you like 0K, 100K, 1000K. It still equilibrates at the same temperature.
Try it!
Oh, I didn’t know I could change the variables and I thought you said could only change the emission factor [which tried to change and it didn’t seem work for me- as I am not very adept with Excel, but also I can’t say made much effort at it].
Anyhow, I think heat capacity, the planet’s rotation rate, axis tilt, orbital eccentricity and gravity and transmission of sunlight thru meters of ocean water are important variables.
But to keep it simple, I also think the intensity of sunlight is
important- and averaging it with 240 watts, ignores this.
Or also to make simpler, an actual greenhouse and UHI in terms of night time temperatures are only about heat capacity.
Or are deserts at night only about the lack of heat capacity and the lack latent heat of water vapor.
Or contrary to common belief trees increase UHI- though they provide shade and moderate daytime high temperature in small locality- but in terms larger region and night time temperatures, they add to the average temperature.
Dr Spencer,
You are correct of course. As I say, 9996 parts of 02/N2 don’t need to emit much IR to exceed the amount emitted by 4 parts of CO2.
MikeB asked where the silly claim (that CO2 absorbs 1000 times more IR than O2/N2) comes from. John Tyndall, actually. I was a bit conservative. Tyndall’s experimental figure (at 1 psi) was 750 to 1.
Cheers.
Rerference please. I certainly do not see that in any of tyndalls work. And, if I missed it, what frequency is he talking about, becaise that ids the key.
MikeB
I agree with you. I would also like a reference to this experiment. If you go to the Hitran source it shows N2 emits about a trillion times weaker than CO2. If I read the Y-axis correctly and the difference in exponents.
MikeB,
When you have reread Tyndall’s “Heat – a mode of motion” 6th edition, if you can’t find the relevant table, let me know. As to wavelength, Tyndall used a copper plate heated to about 270 C for his heat source in that particular instance. He used a variety of heat sources at different times, ranging from boiling water to carbon arc emissions.
Setting all that aside, the atmosphere prevents roughly 30% of insolation from reaching the surface. If you choose to think that this due to CO2, nobody can stop you.
The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years. Dr Spencer doesn’t like hearing it repeated either. It’s true, nevertheless. Trying to convince yourself that the Earths surface is getting hotter, day by day, due to the interaction of sunlight and CO2 might take more and more effort as the century progresses.
More CO2 and warmer conditions would seem to create more plants. More plants mean more food. Warmists seem to be opposed to better conditions, but I can’t understand why.
Cheers.
“When you have reread Tyndalls … “
Why would you use such an old reference when new measurements with MUCH better equipment are available? That would be like using using Ole Rmer’s first measurement of the speed of light (2.2E8 m/s) rather than the modern value (2.9979E8 m/s).
“the atmosphere prevents roughly 30% of insolation from reaching the surface. If you choose to think that this due to CO2, nobody can stop you.”
Why would anyone choose to think this? Assuming you mean the ~ 30% after accounting for reflection, H2O absorbs the most, with both O3 and CO2 absorbing significant amounts.
“The Earth has been cooling for four and a half billion years. “
This is either irrelevant or it is wrong.
* If you are talking about the core and mantle, then yes they have been cooling for 4.5 billion years. But this is irrelevant to climate.
If you are talking about the atmosphere, you are wrong. The atmosphere has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled many times in the last 4.5 billion years. The multiple glacial periods in the last million years are obvious examples.
— Mike Flynn says:
August 31, 2016 at 6:59 AM
Dr Spencer,
You are correct of course. As I say, 9996 parts of 02/N2 dont need to emit much IR to exceed the amount emitted by 4 parts of CO2.–
I don’t think the O2, N2, or Argon emit much energy.
But also don’t think the gases of Co2, and etc emit much energy.
But do think the liquid droplets of mostly H20, and particles in the air would amount to very significant amount- far more than all the gases in atmosphere.
As a matter of interest, anyone who believes that thermal imaging devices reflect reality, might care to search for IR pictures of a Leslie cube. Manufacturers make emissivity assumptions based on averages. Temperature is not energy, and many people seem to be confused about the difference between the two.
Cheers.
IR imager manufacturers allow you to adjust the assumed emissivity of the object being measured (except in the cheapest instruments, where it’s fixed, probably around 0.95).
This is no secret, Mike.
And, it does not affect the conclusions I have made in my posts.
Dr Spencer:
It’s still all totally wrong I’m afraid. The Sun cannot heat the surface enough, nor can the back radiation or a combination of the two. No amount of “insulation” enables radiation to warm anything more than it could warm a blackbody in Space, and different fluxes of radiation cannot be combined, as you could easily show with a home experiment.
I will give it one more attempt to teach you what we physicists have been discussing for at least four or five years now. It is correct what we have deduced and it is supported by empirical evidence, as all science should be.
But firstly, I need to respond to your request on the previous post where you wrote: “And please do share with us the original NASA energy budget diagram that doesnt include downwelling IR radiation from the sky?”
Well that’s seen in this post which is worth reading:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/nasas-earth-energy-budget-contradicts.html
If a photon emitted by the atmosphere has the same frequency (and thus energy) as a photon that could be emitted by the warmer surface, then it will temporarily raise an electron through one or more quantum energy states in some surface molecule that is capable of emitting a photon with exactly the same energy.
This can be considered a resonating process, and that it how the surface distinguishes between radiation from the atmosphere (which does not penetrate the oceans) and strong overhead solar radiation on a clear day in summer which can indeed heat a small portion of Earth’s surface.
So the energy from the incident photon is temporarily stored as electron energy (not converted to thermal energy) and then the electron returns to its original state and, in so doing, emits a photon which is identical to the incident one. So the process looks like scattering and is thus called “pseudo scattering” by physicists. It slows the cooling of the surface (though only that by radiation) because that emitting molecule is occupied with the photon just received, and so does not have the capacity to emit a photon that used some of the thermal energy in the surface.
Now the above-linked NASA energy budget diagram does indeed have balanced energy, but the solar flux into the surface is the only flux that could raise the surface temperature. The problem was that it just was nowhere near enough to explain observed temperatures, and that is reality. They thought the missing energy must be coming from back radiation, but it had to be 324W/m^2 because all the other values were fairly well locked in. But a gas with average temperatures below zero in th eatmosphere just simply could not emit that much, and whatever it does emit downwards it should also emit upwards, but it is not shown as doing so. Surely you can see there is something seriously wrong in the IPCC diagram.
Whilst the atmospheric radiation is clearly overstated in the IPCC energy budget diagrams (and was not even shown in the NASA diagrams around 2010) it is irrelevant anyway in relation to the question as to why the surface temperature is what is observed. Only an understanding of how heat can be transferred INTO the surface by processes other than radiation will lead you to a correct understanding of the surface temperature and why it is not affected by radiation from carbon dioxide, that also being pseudo scattered.
Meteorologists know that this heat transfer into the surface can happen when there is a temperature inversion. By their own definition, an inversion occurs when the temperature gradient is less steep than normal, so the upper temperature can still be colder than the lower one.
You need to think about that process. What it implies is that heat transfer is only upwards when the temperature gradient is steeper than the equilibrium value (= the environmental lapse rate) and this heat transfer is downwards when it is less steep.
So entropy increases as heat transfers (via molecular collisions) occur downwards into the surface, thus warming the surface so as to correct the less-steep gradient and bring it back to the normal environmental lapse rate that is the equilibrium state with maximum entropy.
And therein lies your answer as to why you don’t need ANY of the 324W/m^2 overstated back radiation that is pseudo scattered anyway.
yes, I am in fact a PhD meteorologist, and I know that there is a downward component of transfer of heat when an inversion forms, due to turbulent mixing by even small wind currents.
But the fact that the inversion formed in the first place means there was a net UPWARD transfer of heat, by IR emission from the surface cooling at night. Mixing of air and downward transfer of sensible heat across the inversion occurs, as you say,…but it is SMALL because the inversion is still there!
I’d like to see a published paper describing this “pseudo scattered” radiation. Sounds very mystical.
And, again, you remain anonymous…even though it appears you authored a book? Wassup wit dat?
No, these are imperceptible downward heat transfers (via molecular collisions only) without necessarily exhibiting measureable net bulk air movement. There can be situations in the morning (for example) when the Sun can only warm the top of clouds or regions in the upper troposphere and the stratosphere. There can be situations where (soon after dawn) valleys are still in shade whilst the solar radiation may warm the tops of high mountains and thus the surrounding air. There may be only a reduction in the gradient from, say, 6 to 5 degrees per Km and it may not be noticed by meteorlogists. Where it is most apparent is in planets with high atmospheres that do not have much solar radiation reaching lower layers, and yet these lower layers still get warmed by this process and still exhibit temperature gradients based on the force of gravity divided by the mean specific heat of the gas.
Regarding “pseudo scattering” I’ve given you a link to the paper which discusses radiation being not thermalized when it is below a certain cut off frequency and being re-emitted. Regardless of what you call the process, it happens, and the Second Law would be violated if it didn’t.
once again, magical.
“Imperceptible heat transfers”, under special conditions at certain locations, and specific times of day, that suddenly remove the need for 300+ W/m2 energy flux.
Amazing.
So, show me the equations with numbers in a model that actually produce terrestrial temperatures using such magic.
(By the way, when the sun rises, even when its cloudy, the surface warms. It starts even before the sun peeks above the horizon. You can measure it, as I have done. It’s because there is still scattered sunlight reaching the surface…which is why you can see outside.)
There’s nothing magical about the process of thermal heat diffusion via molecular collisions: you could observe it in your lounge room. Molecules move at around 500 meters per second and can pass on kinetic energy via collisions: you must know that.
And no it’s not because of scattered sunlight reaching the surface, most of which would be at a small acute angle to the surface and virtually all of which would have insufficient flux to raise the existing temperature of the surface. Where the surface is 15C that flux would have to be over 500W/m^2 even if it were orthogonal to the surface. Otherwise, divide that by the sine of the angle made with the horizontal, and you might be needing over 1,000W/m^2.
What you have described about the surface warming even under thick and extensive cloud cover is a perfect example and evidence of what I am talking about. The warming of the tops of clouds can start this process, and thermal energy passes through the cloud by molecular collision (and some radiation between water molecules) and then continues on from the base of the cloud to the surface.
Surely you must know that the thermal conduction by air is extremely small, and the thermal collision you talk about occurs over EXTREMELY short distances…look up “mean free path”…Wikipedia gives 68 nanometers as the average for air at sea level pressure. As a result, totally still air can transfer very little heat through non-radiative processes. -Roy
FWIW, the time it takes for an isolated vibrationally excited CO2 molecule to emit a photon is a bit more than a second (measures). The time is takes for a vibrationally excited CO2 molecule to degrade vibrational to translational energy is a few microseconds (measured). It takes about 1000 collisions (measured_.
Very few (like one in a million) of CO2 molecules that absorb IR photons directly emit those photons.
TheColdSun:
“pseudo scattered”? There’s only one person who advocates this silly fiction. You’ve given yourself up!
so, has Dou6 C0++0n shown up again with yet ANOTHER fake identity??
Ed Bo
Yes it is HE, the Australian is back to visit.
This: “Theres nothing magical about the process of thermal heat diffusion via molecular collisions: you could observe it in your lounge room. Molecules move at around 500 meters per second and can pass on kinetic energy via collisions: you must know that.”
Is his h*e*a*t*c*r*e*e*p* in a disguised fashion. He has also frequently used 500 meters/sec as the molecular velocity in past posts.
OK, well he fooled me with the Cold Sun moniker. His Aussie IP address should have tipped me off. He skillfully avoided his usual ways of phrasing things. Well done, D0u6! -Roy
500 m/s is not a bad estimate. OTOH the time between collisions at atm pressure is about 10^(-10) sec so the mean free path is of the order of 5x 10(-8) m or 50 nm.
Thank you for your always interesting posts!
Even if oversimplified, how do you think your Fig. 1 with energy fluxes harmonize with NASA’s presentation: “The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earths surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
best regards; Ole
I use the widely-quoted value of absorbed solar flux of 240 W/m2 as an input. But I assume that is all absorbed at the surface, since I ignore the portion of it absorbed by the atmosphere.
I ignore evaporation and convection.
The thermal IR coming out the top of the model atmosphere ends up matching the assumed solar absorption, which it must in order for energy balance to be achieved.
The assumed IR absorptivity of 0.8 is probably a little less than it is in the real atmosphere. But you can adjust that in the model yourself to see what impact it has.
How to assure a debate win in the new university:
Professors tell students: Drop class if you dispute man-made climate change
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28825/
Hello dr spencer
It’s good to be back. Did you take a look at professor murray Sally’s films on youtube including his latest one which reduces climate sensitivity to only 0.03C at most! This is because the emissions we emit lack carbon 14 which is a lot thicker in density then carbon 12 and 13 which is what is admitted by today’s fossil fuels. Take a look at it while you can and shoot me an email via- [email protected] whether you agree with his statements or not. All in all can’t wait for your temperature update on the UAH! Look foward to speaking with you again soon
Sincerely
Climatechange4realz
Hi Dr. Spencer.
Is it possible to estimate climate sensitivity by using the amount of energy that hits the Earth in Summer vs. Winter and compare that to the average temperature in January vs July?
My understanding is the IPCC claims a doubling of CO2 will cause an increase of 2 wm^2, whereas the difference from Summer to Winter is 90 wm^2. I found online that in the Northern hemisphere the average temperature difference in Jan. vs. Jul. is 25.6F.
25.6/90= .284F for each wm^2
.284 x 2 wm^2 = .568F expected increase from a CO2 doubling.
This is pretty amateurish stuff, but it would nice if you or someone else could point out the flaws in my thinking. First off it doesn’t pass the smell test because the number is so much smaller than the scientists who actually study this come up with.
Cheers
That’s exactly what prof Murray salby said was the doubling temperature from atmospheric carbon 14!
No, because the the sun sees a different Earth during summer versus winter. In NH summer, the sun is farther away but sees mostly land, which warms up faster than ocean. In NH winter, the sun sees mostly ocean (the SH). So, the average surface temperature of the Earth is actually greater when there is less sunlight falling on it.
If the Earth was all ocean, or all land with uniform surface characteristics, then you might be able to get a decent climate sensitivity estimate.
Travis:
In addition to Roy Spencer’s points, I might add that the proposed estimate is naive for other reasons too: It neglects the considerable transfer of heat around the globe. Also, if you cycle a forcing at a frequency that is faster than some of the relaxation times of the system, you will get a reduced response relative to if you cycle it more slowly. (I.e., the oceans have a large heat capacity and hence it takes a while to cool or heat them!)
But perhaps the best test of your idea is this: If your were correct that the climate sensitivity could be estimated in this simple way and is really much lower than the IPCC believes, that means that all of these climate models that have these higher climate sensitivities would presumably have some ridiculously-large seasonal cycle that has no relationship to reality. However, this is not the case. In fact, the study that I know of that tried to constrain the climate sensitivity using the seasonal cycle found a sensitivity in the range of the IPCC estimates: “it is found that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (5% probability) to be either below 1.52 K or above about 56.5 K, with the best agreement found for sensitivities between 3 and 3.5 K” (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3865.1)
Sorry…There were some formatting problems when I cut and pasted that quote from the abstract of the paper. The lower and upper bounds were not 1.52 K and 56.5 K but rather 1.5-2 K and 5-6.5 K.
I don’t understand why my comment just sent a minute ago disappeared. Yesterday the same phenomenon.
Sent again, dropped again… What is this for? Was the reference to “HITRAN” a problem?
Bindidon
I couldn’t post HITRAN links on another thread. The site does not allow some links. If I make a long post with links I copy it before sending, then if it does not go I remove the links one at a time until I find the offender. I don’t think HITRAN links will post.
A trial:
– H2O: 4968 lines peaking at 0.065 cm-1 / cm
– CO2: 106,000 lines peaking at 0.0025 cm-1 / cm
– N2: 2 lines peaking at 6e-20 (!!!) cm-1 / cm
– O2: 0 lines
I don’t understand why so many messages lacking any problematic content (insult, refs to Do*ug Cot*ton etc) simply disappear after having been sent.
seems to be something about your lists of spectral lines that the spam filter doesn’t like. Nothing in my blacklist of terms is tripping it that I can find.
Are you selling spectral lines at cut-rate prices or something?
Of course I’m not, Mr Spencer.
The 4 links to jpeg files containing plots out of pdfs made by spectralcalc for CO2, H2O, N2 and O2 were eliminated first; that didn’t help.
No idea of why some comments pass and some don’t. I guess it is possibly due to a combination of characters.
But: should these last comments not have landed somewhere in a junk post directory at your site?
*
Many thanks anyway for this good, instructive sequence of articles about this problematic theme.
CO2 s ability to absorb and emit IR between 9.5 and 23.5 is about 4,000,000,000,000,000 higher than N2 s
If this comment is published, then I guess comments containing single quotes are automatically eliminated…
–CO2 s ability to absorb and emit IR between 9.5 and 23.5 is about 4,000,000,000,000,000 higher than N2 s–
At equal ppm how much more does water vapor as compared to CO2 absorb and emit IR between 9.5 and 23.5?
gbaikie
Looks like CO2 has H2O beaten in those wavelengths.
http://vplapps.astro.washington.edu/vplfig/fig.2067509622.png
But broaden the range:
http://vplapps.astro.washington.edu/vplfig/fig.2067509622.png
Sorry gbaikie
It posted identical graphs. I will try again.
This hopefully will post between 9.5 and 23.5. I am not sure what HITRAN units are I just was going for comparison amounts.
http://vplapps.astro.washington.edu/vplfig/fig.2067509622.png
At equal PPM Norman?
Cheers
Thank you sir.
Dr. Spencer,
You wrote :
“It is only meant to demonstrate the most basic components of the atmospheric “greenhouse effect”, which act to:
1) make the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be, and
2) warm the atmosphere, but still keep it cooler than the surface (since the atmosphere cools radiatively to deep space).”
1) is ok but “2) warm the atmosphere…” is clearly wrong because without greenhouse gases, the atmosphere could only be cooled by conduction at its base but could always be heated by thermals in warmer regions. Furthermore, GHGs are net emitters of IR, so they cool, not warm, the atmosphere.
yes, phi, you are correct, that was a mistake on my part. I have reworded the statement.
As I am not trained in this field (if you want your radar fixed I am your man) I do find it hard to keep up with what is being said.
My current understanding is as follows:
Electro magnetic energy in the form of visable light from the sun strikes the surface (ignoring albedo etc)and is absorbed. So it is now energy in the form of heat (kinetic energy??), the surface then releases this energy as infra red energy.Therefore at this point the net energy gain/loss at the surface is (theoretically zero).
The IR energy then bounces aroung amongst the ghg’s as it escapes to space, at this point I dont understand how “back radiation” can make the surface warmer because the surface would have cooled when the ir originally left it (does this make sense?)
Anyway moving on, the main emission layers are surface, cloud tops, water vapour and CO2. If you increase CO2 then you raise the height of the emission layer, when this happens it cools meaning less IR emitted and so in response the surface warms to allow it to emit more IR (keep energy balance as it was etc).
Is the above basically correct or am I missing something?
Regards
Craig
Test — Having trouble posting…
crakar24 – I have a long response that the site won’t let me post. I’ll try again later.
[For some reason, the spam filter seems to be catching this. I’ll try posting part of it…]
crakar24:
You’re pretty close! If you haven’t had formal background in thermo and heat transfer, it can be pretty confusing (witness many of the commenters here!).
You may find it easier to use some analogies. In formal systems analysis, there are “potential” variables and “flow” variables. In thermal systems, temperature is the potential variable, and heat flux is the flow variable.
In electrical systems, voltage is the potential variable, and current is the flow variable.
In fluid systems, pressure is the potential variable, and fluid flow is the flow variable.
For completely non-technical people, I like to use financial accounting, where your bank balance is the potential variable, and money income and outgo are the flow variables.
In a system at steady state, the incoming flow matches the outgoing flow, so the potential value is constant.
For a planet without an atmosphere or with transparent atmosphere, in the steady state, the infrared radiation output from the surface would have to match the shortwave radiation input from the sun. Such a planet would be much colder than the earth (as the moon is on average).
I’ll start with the financial analogy. You earn $240 a week, and you spend $240 a week — 12 purchases of $20 each. Your bank balance is constant week to week.
But now you start getting $5 in change or a rebate from each $20 purchase. Note that you only this money if you make a purchase, and it is always less than the purchase. But still, your bank balance is higher with you getting the change than without.
So the “back radiation” from the radiatively active gases works like the change from your purchases.
crakar24
Essentially correct. Just to fill in some detail. The energy loss from the surface is not just by radiation. The surface also loses heat by conduction/convection and evaporation. So, if there were no greenhouse gases, the surface would receive one energy input (from the Sun) and lose energy by radiation, convection and evaparotion. But the greenhouse gases enable the atmosphere to absorb part of the outgoing radiation and warm the atmosphere. The warm atmosphere emits its own radiation in turn and some of this is directed back to the surface. This back-radiation is an ADDITIONAL heat input! If there were no greenhouse gases it would not be there.
So the surface now has two heat inputs, from the Sun and from the atmosphere. Its temperature must therefore rise relative to the one input case. As it rises the heat losses from radiation, convection and evaporation will also rise The temperature will continue to rise until a new balance is found between the incoming radiation and the outgoing heat flows.
The alternative way to look at it is, as you say, extra CO2 raise the Effective Radiating Height to a cooler altitude. To maintain the lapse rate, the surface temperature has to rise.
MikeB,”This back-radiation is an ADDITIONAL heat input!”
That is incorrect, the source of much confusion causing so much trouble MikeB, this back-radiation is an ADDITIONAL absorbed ENERGY input!
Back or forward radiation is energy, not heat as radiation contains no KE.
“Back or forward radiation is energy, not heat as radiation contains no KE.”
Ball4, I was with you until here! Where did you get the notion that heat “contains KE”? When addressing Mike, you seemed to be using the strict thermodynamic sense of heat, Q, as the net energy transferred from hot to cold. But heat, Q, can no more “contain KE” than work, W, can “contain KE”.
Tim, my longer reply went to dustbin. Objects do not contain heat, they contain measurable KE. Radiation (EM) does not contain KE, so radiation does not contain heat. In science, heat is a relic, no corporeal existence anymore.
That didn’t improve the clarity.
“Objects do not contain heat, they contain measurable KE.”
Yes, exactly. Stop there. *NOTHING* “contains” heat, Q, in the modern sense of Q. Saying something “contains” heat makes no more sense than to say something “contains” work. No one would say “My hand contained some work, and then after I threw a ball, the ball contained some more work”.
Things “contain” internal energy, U. They could have PE or KE. They can’t contain Q.
Thus, “
Radiation (EM) does not contain KE, soradiation does not contain heat”. (I hope the formatting comes through). No qualification is needed.Thus “In science, heat is
a relic,a process that reduces the internal energy of one thing and increases the internal energy of a cooler thing; no corporeal existenceanymoreever.”So thermal radiation — the process of energy being transferred from the internal energy of warm objects to the internal energy of cool objects (via EM waves/photons) — is heat, Q.
Tim, my longer replies are not making it. Thermal radiation is not heat either nor is thermal radiation Q. The term thermal is short for (U) therm -odynamic intern-al energy, U is not EM radiation. U is the measurable KE of constituents of an object. Get rid of heat in any explanation and your clarity immediately improves. No need for heat, it really, really is just a relic, not even a process. KE transfers that’s all you ever need.
Q is U (KE) change by virtue of a temperature difference.
W is U (KE) change by work done to/output from
KE transfers by radiative, conductive, convective processes, heat should be left in the 1800s where it belongs. Even though Kristian twists himself in a pretzel to give heat some kind of corporeal existence, there is no success only confusion. The dictionary does so also, what humorous attempts are made – even by you. If heat doesn’t exist in an object as you admit, then heat cannot possibly transfer. KE exists, can transfer.
I agree that we are getting into more of a philosophical discussion, and that there are various ways to interpret “heat” and “work”. And that often these discussions turn out to be ineffective.
I would leave you with two thoughts.
1) since photons have no rest mass, then you could consider ALL their energy kinetic.
2) The heat capacity for a solid clearly shows that the internal energy consists of both the KE of the vibrating atoms AND the PE of “springs” that hold the atoms in place. As such, you can’t define U as merely the KE of the particles.
Tim, the discussion would only be pure philosophy if the misuse of the heat term did not cause faulty conclusions.
1) Come on Tim, you know photon energy is hf not mv^2.
2) I only mentioned U changes from Q,W. Total U change includes the change in many more terms chemical, nuclear, positional, rotational so forth, check out the whole Hamiltonian list. Of main importance to an atm. are Q,W.
Tim Folkerts says, September 1, 2016 at 3:54 PM:
Ok. So, since you’re seemingly “with” Ball4 concerning the postulated “back radiation flux” from the atmosphere to the surface being an “additional absorbed energy input” only: How come it gets to raise the equilibrium surface T by many tens of degrees, directly and all by itself, if it’s not really an additional absorbed “heat” input to the surface?
Because, Kristian, it’s really an additional absorbed “energy” input to the surface.
Craig, you have touched on the main points of the AGW hypothesis. These are in the main, gross over simplifications, even to the point of misconception.
Take for example the “effective radiating level”, or “ERL”. This is a hypothetical concoction that mistates reality. The atmosphere radiates to space from all levels, including the surface.
Also, clouds and water vapor radiate at the same wavelengths as CO2. This fact is utterly ignored by AGW proponents. There is no wavelength pertaining to CO2 that is not shared by atmospheric water. In short, radiation to space is not affected by addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, as its radiative properties are redundant to atmospheric water.
mpainter;
“Take for example the effective radiating level, or ERL. This is a hypothetical concoction that mistates reality. The atmosphere radiates to space from all levels, including the surface.”
When you view the Earth “answering” to space in the IR, the radiation observed appears to come from a range of emitting bodies, the bulk of which are above the surface. Averaging these effective height along with retrievable mean emissivities gives the most sensible answer to the other (most commonly) averaged number, temperature, which is often mistaken in energy balance equations for a surface temperature. The most accurate flux balancing required temperature appears to come from some point above the liquid or solid surface; the ERL. It’s just a sensible physical mean.
What’s wrong with that?
Sorry.
The first cyclone over Hawaii. Is approaching the second.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/south-shore-hawaii/weather-radar-r1h?play=1
— crakar24 says:
August 31, 2016 at 8:54 PM
As I am not trained in this field (if you want your radar fixed I am your man) I do find it hard to keep up with what is being said.
My current understanding is as follows:
Electro magnetic energy in the form of visable light from the sun strikes the surface (ignoring albedo etc)and is absorbed. So it is now energy in the form of heat (kinetic energy??), the surface then releases this energy as infra red energy.Therefore at this point the net energy gain/loss at the surface is (theoretically zero).
A surface emits a certain amount of energy depending on temperature of material.
Energy is either kinetic or potential energy. A charged battery is example of potential energy. Or a rock balanced on a hill is potential energy- because it can rolled down the hill- it rolling down a hill is kinetic energy. But perhaps in this context kinetic energy might refer to gas- the velocity of gas molecules is related to it’s temperature. Air around you is traveling at about 400 m/s, but going very short distance before it collides
another gas molecules or surface of liquid or solid. And the energy it transfer is “mechanical motion” like the rock rolling down a hill. All the energy of a gas is related to it’s mass and velocity. Gases are explained by ideal gas law, which assumes that “zillions”- a lot more than billion- are hitting each other and have an average velocity and they don’t lose energy in the collision with other gas molecules [there is no frictional loss involved with the collisions- but they transfer their kinetic energy- they gain and they lose in fractions of nanoseconds, but “zillions” of them would have average velocity- and room temperature air average velocity is faster than a bullet- or if a “zillion” air molecules have same combined mass as bullet, they have same energy as the bullet [actually more because velocity is faster]. Now when gas molecules hit a surface of solid or liquid, they are colliding material which is bonded together into some kind molecular structure, and molecular structure gain kinetic energy or give kinetic energy from gas molecules- depending on solid or liquid temperature as compared to average velocity of zillions of gas molecules. Or if gas is hot enough it can melt or evaporate the solid or liquid. Or if solid or liquid is cold enough it might condense the gas [make the gas into liquid or solid]
Anyway sunlight can be 1000 watts per square, and surface- say a rock might be at temperature that without the 1000 watts it emits say 10 watts per square meter [a cold rock- something like -150 C]. So when cold rock has this 1000 watts per square of sunlight warming it, rock, could reflect or absorb a certain amount of 1000 watts per second. So warms the surface and if surface is warmer beneath the surface of rock, the heat surface can conduct heat toward the interior of rock.
Lets say the rock reflects 100 of 1000 watts of sunlight- that 100 watts of energy not absorbed by the rock. So surface heats up and the higher the temperature of surface compare to temperature say 1 mm inside rock the more heat is conducted into the rock.
As rock warms it radiate more energy into such time as it’s radiating as much energy as the sunlight- so 900 watts is, a blackbody at 360 K radiate 952 watts per square. And because rock reflecting sunlight, it’s not blackbody. So once rock is about 360 K [around 85 C or 185 F] it can’t get warmer from the sunlight. Now if warming rock is in atmosphere, the gases will colliding with it, as rock warms up it heats the gases- or the heated rock has convection heat loss to the gases. Amount of convectional heat loss to the atmospheric gas also depends how big the difference is between rock and the air.
And when sunlight is no longer shining on the rock, the surface rock cools by conduction, and convectional lose. And then once surface is cooler than inside the the rock, the interior rock conducts heat to cooler surface. Etc
Thanks for your detailed response gbaikie, I kind of understand what you say about the rock but I have no idea how this explanation translates back to my original comment and are therefore still none the wiser as to whether my basic understanding of how GHG’s retain/trap heat in the atmosphere.
Regards
Craig
— crakar24 says:
September 1, 2016 at 5:15 PM
Thanks for your detailed response gbaikie, I kind of understand what you say about the rock but I have no idea how this explanation translates back to my original comment and are therefore still none the wiser as to whether my basic understanding of how GHGs retain/trap heat in the atmosphere.–
Well it getting long winded, but quick answer is there is no agreed upon answer, rather there are different ways it’s explained and understood.
It sort of like, how do get a unicorn? Some people have different opinions but quite few believe you get one.
Spencer thinks greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere and believe such a warmed atmosphere inhibits radiation from leaving the surface and getting to space.
Other believe the greenhouse gases heat the earth surface- that it’s more just matter of slowing the rate radiation leaves Earth.
I tend to think of it like engineer, how would you make a planet warmer.
The GHE theory explains how to warm the planet Mars. One adds greenhouse gases. That according to GHE theory is the only way that one could warm Mars.
Now, it seems to me that most believers of GHE theory think a greenhouse on the Moon would be hot during it’s long daylight hours. So to be clear a greenhouse lacking any greenhouse gases would be hot.
So if had a warm rock and placed it on my driveway, Spencer think the rock would cool faster if my driveway was on the Moon.
So night time, same temperature driveway, place a warm rock on it, and the moon rock cooler quicker.
Not sure how much quicker the Moon rock is suppose to cool- but pretty sure Spencer would say moon rock cools faster- but not sure all believers would agree.
Now I think most would agree that the bigger the rock [a rock with more thermal mass] the slower the entire rock cools.
I mostly like what gbaikie said, but a couple points bear a little more discussion, particularly “So once rock is about 360 K it cant get warmer from the sunlight. ”
This is a good answer for the given conditions — where the only energy loss is radiation to the cold 2.7K background of outer space.
* When conduction/convection/evaporation are included, the rock would of course be limited to a temperature below 360K.
* More importantly to this discussion, if the rock is radiating toward something that is warmer than 2.7K, then the rock could get WARMER than 360K!
The spreadsheet shows this. If you change the power in to 900W/m^2 and set the atmosphere clear (emissivity = 0), the surface does indeed get to ~ 360K. IF you then set the atmosphere back to 0.8, the surface warms to a little over 400K.
The combo of sunlight and atmosphere can warm the rock above 360K — even though the energy all ultimately came from the sun.
— Tim Folkerts says:
September 1, 2016 at 8:17 AM
I mostly like what gbaikie said, but a couple points bear a little more discussion, particularly So once rock is about 360 K it cant get warmer from the sunlight.
This is a good answer for the given conditions where the only energy loss is radiation to the cold 2.7K background of outer space.
* When conduction/convection/evaporation are included, the rock would of course be limited to a temperature below 360K.
* More importantly to this discussion, if the rock is radiating toward something that is warmer than 2.7K, then the rock could get WARMER than 360K! —
Hmm, I didn’t realize that it was that important.
It depends. The sun at certain distance has a not magnified highest temperature. Or also if magnified it has a highest temperature it can become- which is the temperature of the sun- at the sun.
So if star is 6000 K it it’s surface, then highest magnified temperature one could can get is 6000 K.
Unless you not measuring the sun’s temperature correctly- or you doing something which causes the sun’s temperature to increase.
Or highest temperature one can get from lightbulb is the temperature of the filament of the lightbulb- about 3200 K. You could do stuff which would increase the filament temperature- but as practical matter, humans can’t increase the temperature of the sun- or our current capability would require a lot of money to do this- as in, Bill Gates does not have enough money to effect the sun temperature by any significant amount.
So quite simply the sun energy does not increase with distance and at 150 million km from the sun it’s cooler than at 10 million Km from it.
Or we have no way to directly measure the temperature of the sun, but we can measure it’s temperature at distance and we know that energy is conserved.
And once you absorb the sun’s energy, you changed the sun’s energy- you converted the energy into IR rather than the blackbody spectrum- which includes X-rays, UV, visible light, and IR light. And practical level the sun is very hot- it’s temperature turns everything in to very hot plasma. Or there is reason lightbulb are limited to about 3200 K- and only emit small portion of their light into visible light.
And this is one reason why GHE doesn’t explain Venus.
“The sun at certain distance has a not magnified highest temperature. “
More specifically, you seem to be describing the highest temperature that non-magnified sunlight could cause for a blackbody radiating to the 2.7 K background of space. In other circumstances, non-magnified sunlight could cause much lower OR MUCH HIGHER temperatures.
For instance as a baseline, if 960 W/m^2 falls on a BB surface in the depth of space (and the “back” is well-insulated), the surface could get up to 360K — as you stated earlier.
If the surface reflected 90% of incoming light but was still a BB for IR light (emissivity = 1 for 4+ um; emissivity = 0.1 for 0-4 um) , the temperature would only reach ~ 200K. Conversely, if sunlight is absorbed but IR is not emirtted well ( (emissivity = 0.1 for 4+ um; emissivity = 1 for 0-4 um), the temperature could rise above 600K.
Or if the BB surface was in a room at 360K, the sunlight would further warm the surface to ~ 430K. Or if the BB surface was in a room at 430K, the sunlight would further warm the surface to ~ 475K.
The only theoretical limit for non-magnified sunlight is the temperature of the sun. Or put another way, no matter how far you go from the sun, the peak color is yellow because the photons themselves are still at 5700K = surface temp fo the sun.
–Or if the BB surface was in a room at 360K, the sunlight would further warm the surface to ~ 430K. Or if the BB surface was in a room at 430K, the sunlight would further warm the surface to ~ 475K. —
Should be easy to prove. Can’t fry eggs on sidewalk. Fry eggs in greenhouse using non magnified sunlight
If magnifying sunlight [using reflectors] one can easily fry eggs on sidewalk with sunlight- you could bake a cake. So that is not the issue.
I have thought about doing exactly that. Much like Dr Spencer’s last post, it would be a simple experiment using inexpensive stuff from a hardware store. If I have some extra time, I will have to do it.
I respect and understand Dr. Spencer’s position in defending the current understanding. I cannot think of one person who has not been right and wrong at the same time relative to the climate including me. It took me over 20 years to accept the fact that variation of small amount of carbon dioxide can change climates.
Dr. Spencer,
If I understood the two models’ assumptions, you are comparing a planet without an atmosphere (a=e=0) to a planet with an atmosphere containing IR-active gases. So the case of an atmosphere, but without IR-active gases, is bypassed. And the IR-active atmosphere is assumed to have no conduction or convection permitted.
I don’t doubt the surface would be warmer with IR-active gases than without. However, the cause of the difference would be due to Holder’s inequality. IOW, a more temperate climate is warmer than one which has more extreme temperatures.
It should be possible to modify your model to allow a portion of the energy flux to be attributed to conduction (and convection if input energy is not constant). The extreme case of 100% conduction is analogous to an atmosphere without IR-active gases. I don’t think there is a 0% conduction case unless there is a vacuum layer separating the surface from the atmosphere.
So you have presented further evidence that a planet with an atmosphere is warmer than one without. The question remains: how much warmer, if any, would a planet be with IR-active gases compared to a similar atmosphere without IR-active gases? More importantly, will an increase in IR-active gases above a critical concentration make the surface of a planet any warmer?
Chic,
I believe Spencer’s model is “zero-dimensional”, so Holder’s Inequality is irrelevant…There is just one surface temperature.
In the real world, I agree that an atmosphere without IR gases can raise the average temperature by virtue of making the temperature more uniform, i.e., it can change the average temperature T while not changing the average of T^4. But, you need an IR-active atmosphere to actually get what is observed on the real earth, which is temperatures at the surface that lead to IR emission far in excess of that which would be supported in the absence of a greenhouse effect. In particular, the average surface temperatures are about 33 K warmer than could be possible with any temperature distribution in the absence of an IR-active atmosphere (given the actual albedo, etc.).
“More importantly, will an increase in IR-active gases above a critical concentration make the surface of a planet any warmer?”
Well, there are two questions here:
(1) What is the effect on radiative balance of adding more greenhouse gases at current concentrations? That is a solved problem…Every serious scientist (including AGW skeptics like Dr. Spencer and Dr. Lindzen) agree that doubling CO2 produces a forcing of ~4 W/m^2. [And, there is no “critical concentration”…The effect of adding more IR-active gases does not saturate, although there are diminishing returns; in particular, the effect of CO2 is approximately logarithmic in concentration in the concentration regime we are in. This is why one talks about the effect of doubling CO2 rather than the effect of increasing CO2 by a certain additive amount.]
(2) How much warming will that lead to? That is a more difficult question, since it requires an understanding of the various feedbacks in the climate system and the resulting ultimate climate sensitivity. And, this is where most of the climate science community disagrees with the skeptics, with the latter saying the sensitivity is about 1.5 to 4.5 K for a CO2 doubling and the skeptics believing that something (usually a negative feedback from clouds) results in a lower value.
Chic, “how much warmer, if any, would a planet be with IR-active gases compared to a similar atmosphere without IR-active gases?”
The above spreadsheet allows the emissivity of Earth atm. to be increased above 0.0 which means adding IR active gases all the way up to current global 0.8 – so you can answer your own 2 questions as you raise atm. emissivity above 0.0.
Hmmm. About 33 degrees Celsius, it is an easy calculation
Very good, MikeB, now let’s see if Chic 10:15am can answer also.
Apparently not, as all my attempts to respond have failed.
OK, I’m good now. Hopefully my answer below will clear things up.
Except for that one. Sometimes comments are reduced to sound bites Chic, I’ve hired a good editor at times.
There must have been a problem with one of my paragraphs. I reworded it and it went thru fine.
MikeB,
The 33 degree calculation comes from a comparison of a planet with an IR-active atmosphere compared to one without. It is not so easy to calculate the difference between a planet with an IR-active atmosphere and a planet with the same atmosphere sans IR activity.
The spreadsheet only deals with radiation, not conduction or convection, and can only simulate the atmosphere of a planet with IR-active gases and compare it to one without an atmosphere.
Compares to one WITH 1bar atm. but no IR active gas at emissivity 0.0 which is not possible but close enough to N2,O2 atm. for government work.
Do you deny that some energy from the surface will be transferred to the 1bar atmosphere without IR-active gases? Emissivity of 0 does not prevent the inert atmosphere from warming. This makes a planet with an inert atmosphere warmer than one with no atmosphere.
Conduction updrafts exactly balance downdrafts, convection does not get to space at emissivity 0.0 or 0.8. Thus no net energy change due conduction/convection, no global Tmedian change.
Chic:
The only mode of energy transfer the earth or its atmosphere is radiation. So an atmosphere without radiatively active gases cannot transfer energy to space.
Any convection in such an atmosphere is simply moving energy around within the atmosphere. Such an atmosphere must transfer as much energy to the surface as it receives from the surface (on average over the long term).
Contrast that to the real atmosphere, which can radiate to space. Here, when the surface conducts energy to the bottom of the atmosphere, and this rises up to a great height where it can radiate more easily to space, the energy returned to the surface in the downward part of the convection cell is less than what the atmosphere absorbed.
So in our atmosphere, convection provides a net cooling effect to the surface. In a transparent atmosphere, it would not.
Although an inert atmosphere can’t radiate much at altitude, it will increase in temperature via conduction and convection. The increased thermal energy has no place to go. Therefore the average surface temperature will increase until an equilibrium is reached where the energy radiated to space matches the solar input. It won’t be as warm as an IR-active atmosphere, because extreme temperatures radiate more than moderate temperatures which radiate more than a uniform temperature the same as the average of the more extreme temperatures.
Chic, it doesn’t rain in space and no convection gets to space, thus they do not affect the overall system energy equilibrium. Their energy (LH & SH) is removed from, and returned to, the surface in equal emounts. Dr. Spencer could easily add them in and subtract them right out, there would be no difference in Tmedian in that simple program.
It seems you aren’t grasping my point. The inert atmosphere will warm by conduction. There will be some convection although not as much as there would be with help from IR-active gases. The surface temperature extremes will be greater on the inert atmosphere and therefore not as warm as the surface of a planet with an IR-active atmosphere, but still warmer than a planet without an atmosphere.
The surface temperature extremes will indeed increase as the sun will be stronger on the surface, but there is no energy created nor destroyed to change Tmedian 255K as calculated above.
SST is determined by insolation. Never is the sea surface in “equilibrium” radiatively. This meme is more AGW myth.
The above a response to B4.
Chic,
The average temperature of 288 K is ~33 K warmer than the Earth’s surface could possibly be with any temperature distribution if the atmosphere were not IR-active. I.e., 255 K is the upper bound for how warm the surface could be (given current albedo). Yes, it is true that the average could be colder (via Holder’s Inequality) if the distribution were uneven but it couldn’t be any warmer.
Joel, you repeat the error. This meme ignores the fact that SST is determined by insolation alone. The sea surface is not a black body, nor a gray body, nor does it ever achieve radiative equilibrium nor does it cool radiatively, in the main. The GHE makes no contribution to SST.
To write the sea surface does not cool by radiating is wrong mp, you exhibit the extreme shallowness of your accomplishment in this field. Try to do some work better understand the analysis in Dr. Spencer top post, the L&O surface measured 0.96 emissivity so rounded to 1.0 means the L&O surface does cool by radiation, & by conduction, convection.
B4, right, the sea surface cools radiatively. It cools mainly by evaporation, according to partition studies of its energy emissions. That was my intended meaning when I put ” nor does it cool radiatively, in the main.”
I have discussed this all in detail in previous threads. Sea surface cools mainly through evaporation, 60%. Radiative cooling is put at half that: 30%.
My point that SST is determined by insolation alone stands.
That would be 100% yet mp just partitioned 60/30 can’t even keep story straight comment to comment.
Did not consider you would need help on these concepts, B4.
What is it about partitioning that you don’t understand?
mpainter says: “This meme ignores the fact that SST is determined by insolation alone.”
This is rather bizarre! No temperature anywhere is determined by any one power input alone. Temperature is a response to ALL inputs as well as ALL outputs!
mp asks, “What is it about partitioning that you dont understand?”
Nothing. What I don’t understand is that mp writes repeatedly “SST is determined by insolation” that’s the 100%. Then “Sea surface cools mainly through evaporation, 60%”
1st grade arithmetic says that’s 160% determination and then…THEN mp writes: “Radiative cooling is put at half that: 30%.” so that’s 190% of SST determination.
Did you get held back at 1st grade mpainter? At least the published balances you nonsensically whine about can do accurate arithmetic.
In fact, it is generally admitted at RealClimate that back radiation makes no direct contribution to SST because of its opacity to LWIR. They put a different means of IR effect for warming the oceans. See the link provided by Toneb below. B4, Tim Folkerts, and others, get up to speed on the physics of the sea surface.
B4, I’m concerned that you have a type of dyslexia, or so it seems. Try reading it again, and strive for better comprehension.
Do not be concerned mpainter, do try to catch up with basic experimental science. And study up on arithmetic and percentages, try to make your 1st grade teacher proud.
Although I cannot take the time to read all comments here, it seems that no-one has convincingly explained how a nearly constant TOA stream of solar energy at a density, say, X W/m^2 can maintain a system-wide stream > X, without additional–non-existing–SOURCES of energy. And that violation of energy conservation is what makes the purely radiative explanation of GHE physically incredible. Clearly, being an intensive variable, temperature can vary widely in the real world without effecting planetary energy budgets. But that variation must be the result of other, non-radiative mechanisms.
BTW, it seems to escape many that it’s only the NET between the upwelling and downwelling LWIR that is constrained by the energy budget. ANY such pair of radiative intensities that produces the same net value will maintain the budget. Contrary to claims here, the surface intensity (gray body temperature)thus remains undetermined.
“ANY such pair of radiative intensities that produces the same net value will maintain the budget.”
The surface balance has to be consistent with Tmedian, sky. The one and only correct balance pair is set by measured Tmedian field, all other pairs are thus excluded. No energy is created in the balances, they are consistent with 1LOT and 2LOT as they match observations to a reasonable CI.
The necessary reliance upon empirical measurements only underscores my point about the inadequacy of the radiation-only model. BTW, it’s not the median but the time-average temperature values that are employed for that face-saving purpose.
An average need not exist sky, a median must exist. BTW, the radiation only model is not at all inadequate, confirms Tmedian easily enough and its use in RTM is very useful.
“And that violation of energy conservation is what makes the purely radiative explanation of GHE physically incredible.”
There is no violation of energy conservation. All models, whether they be simple models like Dr. Spencer’s or full-blown GCMs impose energy conservation. The fact that you think there is a violation of energy conservation is simply a statement that you lack the understanding and so you are making up artificial rules that you think energy conservation imposes when it doesn’t.
Your claim is akin to saying that it is impossible to create more aluminum products in a year than the amount that can be created from the raw ore that is mined. It ignores the fact that you can recycle aluminum. Recycling aluminum does not violate mass conservation.
Joel Shore, There’s no recycling of energy in a surface-atmosphere energy flux, anymore than in a cloud-atmosphere energy flux, or as in the atmospheric energy flux. Yours is a poor analogy, but typical of the sort of misconceptions engendered by the “back radiation absorbed by the surface” energy budget diagrams.
There is recycling of energy in both the surface-atmosphere and cloud-atmosphere energy flux. Saying there is none doesn’t make it so.
As for misconceptions, it is interesting that those who have a good background are the ones who you think have misconceptions while those with poorer backgrounds in physics are the ones who deny the greenhouse effect.
You cling to your misconceptions and justify them with a snarky dodge.
I wouldn’t have thought of “recycling” as an analogy, but it works quite well.
The surface generates “waste IR” energy that is discards off toward the “landfill” of outer space. Without any “recycling”, the current ~ 390 W/m^2 of waste IR energy would all simply disappear forever (leading to dramatic cooling). Instead, the atmosphere intercepts the waste stream and takes in most of the discarded waste energy for its own use (~ 350 W/m2 out of the total 390 W/m^2). Eventually, the atmosphere discards its energy in the form of its own “waste IR”. Some of the atmosphere’s waste IR goes off to space, but some of it heads back toward the surface, where it gets absorbed and added to the surface’s energy budget.
(In the real atmosphere this is complicated by other methods of “recycling” (convection, conduction, evaporation), but the basic idea still applies.)
More of the egregious AGW physics that purport a non-existent “radiative equilibrium” at the sea surface and which ignores the cumulative process of the ocean with regard to solar energy.
Tim:
I like your analogy! Mind if I steal it? I’ll add it to my “starting to get change/rebates on purchases when you have a steady income” financial analogy.
It’s amazing to me the number of people who don’t understand the implications of a “conserved quantity”, whether it is energy, mass, electric charge, or money.
Joel Shore et al.:
You miss my point. Of course there is thermal energy storage (“recycling”) in the climate system, mostly in the oceans. What I question, however, is the ability of the climate system to “maintain a SYSTEM-WIDE stream” of energy greater than that that provided by thermalized insolation. Of course it doesn’t, as the NET radiative heat transfer clearly shows. But that unmistakable physical fact is obscured by miscasting the unidirectional radiative flux intensities as heat transfers, instead of as inseperable components of the LOCAL temperature. The 390 watts/m^2 emitted at the surface doesn’t reduce otherwise.
“What I question, however, is the ability of the climate system to ‘maintain a SYSTEM-WIDE stream’ of energy greater than that that provided by thermalized insolation.”
So, in other words, even if we achieve 90% aluminum recycling, it is impossible to get more aluminum from recycling than the input of new aluminum made from bauxite each year?
“But that unmistakable physical fact is obscured by miscasting the unidirectional radiative flux intensities as heat transfers, instead of as inseperable components of the LOCAL temperature.”
I have no clue what that sentence actually means. Perhaps you need to actually do what Spencer (and other scientists) do and make real mathematical models rather than confusing sentences.
“The former is an energy flux governed strictly by energy conservation, whereas the latter is merely a localized intensive measure. Contrary to the paradigm currently taught to undergraduates, the two cannot be properly equated…”
As near as I can tell, it sounds like you are making Postma-like arguments where you get all confused about issues like expressing things in W/m^2, not understanding that an average intensity value in W/m^2 over an area, multiplied by that area, gives a power (and multiplied by a time gives an energy).
“nor can radiation be perpetually ‘recycled’ without losses to entropy”
I don’t even know what that means. Energy is not converted to entropy. (What is true from the Second Law is that you cannot completely convert all heat input into a heat engine into useful work because the fact that entropy cannot decrease means that a certain amount of the energy output must be in the form of heat. But, how you think that relates to what we are talking about here is not at all clear.)
Without grasp of the thermodynamic processes that are patently absent in the simplistic GHE paradigm, this discussion is going nowhere.
The units in which power flux densities are denominated is not at all the issue here; it’s the heat transfer mechanisms between surface and atmosphere, wherein the radiative exchange between those domains is but a minor net contributor in a process dominated in by moist convection.
While energy indeed can be stored internally in matter as heat, radiation propagates until it is absorbed, re-emitted or scattered. Plainly the outward LWIR radiative field in the atmosphere is far from homogeneous, reducing in intensity with altitude from the surface value to that found at TOA. The notion that it can be forever “recycled” to augment the power available for thermalizing the surface is a fallacy akin to a perpetuum mobile of the second kind.
“Unlike the sun and geothermal processes, the atmosphere produces no heat whatsoever.”
Wind energy.
Not that wind energy is viable.
The atmosphere produces heat when it’s air masses descend.
Atmosphere generates heat when condensable gases form into liquids
and solids- H20 gas mostly.
The latent heat of H20 is the most significant heating done by the atmosphere.
“While energy indeed can be stored internally in matter as heat”
The energy is stored internal to an object as kinetic energy sky, heat is only a measure of that KE.
“..radiation propagates until it is absorbed, re-emitted or scattered.”
Radiation propagates until it is absorbed sky, radiation continues to propagate when it is reflected or transmitted.
“The notion that it can be forever recycled..”
sky’s words only, not in atm. thermodynamics.
I haven’t believed in global warming since 2006, we have had less than an average summer this year in the UK. Don’t believe the lies of the establishment, as in BREXIT, we were fed statistical lies by all the major institutions, since Brexit our economy is starting to grow. Too many people have their snouts in the trough, making money out of AGW and useless energy production methods.
A description of the greenhouse effect based on backradiations is consistent with the notion of forcing. The problem is that this notion of forcing makes sense only with the assumption of the invariance of the thermal gradient. In this case, any imbalance (change of albedo as adding greenhouse gases, etc.) is recovered by translation of the thermal profile. This invariance hypothesis is at least strange and unfounded.
The purely radiative model is ineffective because, in the real atmosphere, greenhouse gases play mainly a different role, they constitute the heat sink for convection.
A change in the concentration of GHGs therefore necessarily affect convection and gradient.
phi: Like Stephen Wilde does, you’ve strung together a lot of physic-sy sounding words but that doesn’t get you past the basic facts: Convection et al. doesn’t occur in space so it can’t explain the “top of the atmosphere” energy balance (i.e., the energy balance between the Earth + atmosphere and the rest of the Universe). By conservation of energy, the Earth’s surface simply can’t be as warm as it is (and hence radiative as much as it does) unless some of that radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and hence doesn’t make it out into space.
As for convection: Convection does indeed reduce the radiative greenhouse effect (by about a factor of 2 in temperature, as I recall). If it were not for convection, then the Earth’s surface would be even warmer than it is. The reason why convection can only reduce and not eliminate the radiative greenhouse effect is that convection can only drive the atmospheric temperature profile (i.e., the lapse rate) down to the adiabatic lapse rate; it cannot drive it down to an isothermal profile (which is what is necessary to completely eliminate the greenhouse effect).
Just to add, the gradient (lapse rate) is essentially set by the adiabatic lapse rate. So, to a first approximation it remains constant as GHGs increase. [To a better approximation, the lapse rate is reduced a bit because the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is a decreasing function of the surface temperature. This reduction is the so-called “lapse rate feedback”, which is a negative feedback present in climate models. It does reduce, but does not eliminate, the effect of increasing GHG concentrations.]
SST is determined by insolation alone, not by GHE. Simple enough to see unless your views are rigidly locked on the AGW meme. I will help you understand, if you need help, Joel Shore.
No, both TSI and the GHE impact SST’s.
Simple enough to see unless your views are rigidly locked on the denialist GW meme.
And don’t give me the b****cks about IR only penetrating x microns…. same on land and so does all solar wavelengths there.
This of course if you even admit to the GHE existing in the first place.
“And dont give me the b****cks about IR only penetrating ons.”
###
Since you raised the topic, water is opaque to LWIR. The x microns for the 15 micron wavelength (CO2) IR is 4 microns maximum penetration.
The whole of the DWLWIR (back radiation) is absorbed at or within a few microns of the air/water interface and quickly returned to the atmosphere by evaporation or radiation.
To appreciate this one need only consider that water radiates to the atmosphere from its attenuation depths.
By these considerations we know that the incident energy of back radiation is not conveyed to depth.
“The whole of the DWLWIR (back radiation) is absorbed at or within a few microns of the air/water interface and quickly returned to the atmosphere by evaporation or radiation.”
Nope.
No thermodynamic process is 100% efficient.
And the conversion of LWIR by the surface microns of the oceans isn’t one either.
You neglect conduction and turbulent mixing.
Also, as I said. Land doesn’t allow penetration of any wavelength below the topmost molecules.
Doesn’t stop that from warming more proportionally with raised TSI.
And land doesn’t do mixing either.
By cooling the surface relative to the waters below then there is a greater conductive flux to the surface … hence greater cooling to the atmosphere.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/21/mechanisms-for-warming-of-the-oceans/
“One thing we can assert however, is that warming of the oceans by an increase in downwelling infrared radiation to the surface is an efficient process, and the initial rate of heat loss by the mixed layer is only slightly less than the magnitude of the imposed forcing. The average surface forcing due to increased CO2 over the past 55 years was roughly 0.4 W/m2. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that the upper mixed level of the ocean would have warmed by an input of roughly this amount over that time period. Experimental data on warming of the oceans indicate that over the past ~50 years, the average warming was due to a flux of about this magnitude.”
Also this from Roy….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body/
“If you claim that any additional IR (say, due to increasing carbon dioxide) is immediately lost by the water body through evaporation, how exactly does that occur? The surface doesnt know why it has the temperature it does, it will evaporate water based (partly) on surface temperature, and it does not distinguish where the heat comes from (solar radiation from above, mixing from below, IR from above, sensible heat flux across the air/water interface). To claim that any energy gain from IR is immediately lost by evaporation is just an assertion.”
And this …..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
Please see below for my response.
mp, “By these considerations we know that the incident energy of back radiation is not conveyed to depth.”
Last summer Dr. Spencer’s thermometers picked up the temperature difference from added night time cirrus down welling LW several inches deep in a small tub of water free to evaporate mpainter. So once again your study in this field is so lacking you cannot understand and learn from basic experiments.
B4, you neglect to describe results concerning which you have given ample proof since the experiment that you incompletely grasp.
I neglect something such as? Try to make your detail comment not so bizzare as usual mp.
mpainter says: SST is determined by insolation alone.
This is rather bizarre! No temperature anywhere is determined by any one power input alone. Temperature is a response to ALL inputs as well as ALL outputs!
Insolation alone as teh input (along with BB radiation for the output) would never get the SST above freezing!
Much of what mpainter writes is bizarre Tim, clearly mp has not accomplished enough study in this field.
If you put a little vinegar and oil on your comment, and some salt, it won’t taste so much like sawdust.
Tim, thanks for your response. You say:
“ALL inputs as well as ALL outputs!
Insolation alone as teh input (along with BB radiation for the output) would never get the SST above freezing!”
##
You fail to take into account the thermodynamics of the sea surface, meaning the upper 100 meters (the photic zone).
Specifically, you neglect to consider that solar energy is _cumulative_ in the oceans, particularly so in the tropics. SST is due to this cumulative effect. Indeed, upwelling sea water (meridional ocean overturning) begins at a temperature of about 4 C, and can reach a temperature of 22 C _before_ it reaches the surface. This is entirely due to insolation (and the accumulation of its energy in the subsurface). Your theory assumes a radiative equilibrium at the sea surface. There is no such thing in the tropics or subtropics, where the ocean accumulates solar energy, nor in the higher latitudes where oceans discharge their accumulated energy and finally reach 0 C, or close to that. Your science applies principles of equilibrium where there is none.
“You fail to take into account the thermodynamics of the sea surface, meaning the upper 100 meters (the photic zone).”
No, I don’t. Thermodynamics says objects warm and cool in response to ALL energy inputs and outputs
“Specifically, you neglect to consider that solar energy is _cumulative_ in the oceans, particularly so in the tropics.”
No, I didn’t neglect that. Energy is ALWAYS cumulative — conservation of energy requires that energies always be accounted for. You cumulatively add all inputs and cumulatively subtract all outputs.
“This is entirely due to insolation (and the accumulation of its energy in the subsurface).”
Still no.
“Your theory assumes a radiative equilibrium at the sea surface. “
No. I don’t assume that.
“Your science applies principles of equilibrium where there is none.”
No, your science is inventing energy that does not exist. In particular, with only insolation and without IR backradiation, there would be no 4 C upwelling ocean currents to begin with. If the downwelling IR was eliminated, the surface of the entire ocean would rapidly cool — way past the ability of insolation to keep anything warm. Other than perhaps small patches near the equator, the entire surface of oceans would freeze solid.
Your myth of “insolation only” warming is ONLY effective with backradiation ALREADY helping hold the entire surface of the earth warm.
Tim, LWIR is not an input to SST. Even the denizens of RealClimate agree to that.
mpainter asserts, “LWIR is not an input to SST”
Wrong again, mpainter, those “denizens” claim LWIR IS an input to the SST:
“When clouds are present, they emit more infrared energy towards the surface than does the clear sky.”
“The difference between the two is the net infrared forcing of the skin layer. If we can establish a relationship between the temperature difference across the skin layer and the net infrared forcing, then we will have demonstrated the mechanisms for greenhouse gas heating the upper ocean.
There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing.”
Which is what your “denizens” plotted, concluding Delta 0.1K SST for each delta 100 W/m^2 net LW.
I will let mpainter discover which two items are differenced. It will be educational for him.
Yes, those are part of the real world, following the same laws of thermodynamics.
And all you have is a fantasy world based on something you (mis)read on the internet years ago…
I am glad you showed us you tried that bizarre mixture mp, now try to write comments in compliance with 1LOT, 2LOT that are not so thoroughly bizarre.
B4 needs you Tim. Help him.
Tim is trying to help mpainter too, see Tim’s 6:10pm.
Tim, DWLWIR is not an input to SST, as water is opaque to LWIR. You seem to be having difficulty in grasping this principle.
mpainter is having difficulty grasping results from test that water free to evaporate is not opaque to LWIR, data demonstrates an increase in T over water not absorbing the same LWIR. Both Dr. Spencer testing and in situ testing came to that same answer which mpainter ignores.
The opacity of water to LWIR is shown by data obtained from lab measurements. This data is available over the web.
Ought to be easy for mpainter to find and show one then.
mpainter:
Downwelling solar radiation is not an input to rock temperature as rocks are opaque to solar radiation.
The energy in solar radiation absorbed in the top few microns of the rock is immediately lost to conduction/convection to the atmosphere, and to upwelling longwave infrared radiation from the rock.
That’s where your argument leads you!
Now I’m sure you will claim that water also has the ability to lose energy by evaporation as well, and that this transfer mechanism is at least as big as the other two combined.
But you have simply assumed (and certainly never demonstrated) that this additional “cooling mechanism” is exactly big enough to dissipate all of the input power so that there is no warming.
It’s easy to find videos of a LWIR laser boiling water, which you claim would be impossible.
Ed Bo, is the GHE a laser? Is water rocks?
Ed Bo, temperature gradient at sea surface means no heat is transmitted down from interface to subskin or below. You obviously lack any understanding of the physics of the sea surface, or you would not talk about rocks and lasers.
mpainter:
You argued that “DWLWIR is not an input to SST, as water is opaque to LWIR.”
I directly followed your logic using the directly analogous case of solar radiation and rocks, and found your conclusions did not hold in the real world.
I anticipated your argument about the extra cooling mechanism of evaporation for water, so I brought up the case of directly adding only LWIR radiation to the water surface. This added radiation is absorbed in the top few microns of the water’s surface.
Your analysis says this should just increase the rate of evaporation of the water, because “DWLWIR is not an input to SST”. (Your words, not mine!) But in the real world of actual experiment, this is not what happens at all!
So it is your turn to figure out why your analysis is so wrong. And it is you who does not understand the physics of heat transfer in water.
The skin layer is generally cooler than the water below, primarily because of the radiation and evaporation losses to the atmosphere. This causes thermal conduction (and sometimes convective overturning) from the warmer water below.
But since water is highly opaque to LWIR, all of the radiation to the atmosphere occurs from the top few microns. If there were no “back radiation” to compensate for most of this, the skin layer would be a lot cooler, and there would be more upward transfer from deeper layers, cooling them as well.
So the “back radiation” does lead to warmer water below, even if the net heat transfer is still largely from the deeper layers to the skin layer.
Ed Bo,
No more talk about rocks and lasers from you, so maybe you saw the ineptness of your analogy. I note that you agree that water is opaque to back radiation. I note you agree that the incident energy of back radiation is rapidly returned to the atmosphere. You are coming along quite well, Congradulations. Keep thinking about it, and maybe the light will blink on for you: SST is determined by insolation. DWLWIR makes no contribution to SST. The temperature gradient at the sea surface does not allow it. Physics, it’s called.
I note that you never have any actual counterarguments.
You just keep referring to something you happened to see on the interwebs a few years back but can’t really remember and can’t find (or I suspect you did find and realize it doesn’t back up what you’re saying now.) Pathetic.
I also note that you display absolutely no reading comprehension. I was going into more depth on my (completely appropriate) uses of the rock-in-sunlight and longwave-laser real-world examples, which absolutely demolish your silly theories.
“I note that you never have any actual counterarguments.”
###
My view: heat does not transfer against the temperature gradient of the skin and subskin of the sea surface.
You imagine to transfer heat to depth against that temperature gradient and warm the sea with back radiation.
And then you say to me:
“And it is you who does not understand the physics of heat transfer in water.”
Until you forget about rocks and lasers, you will be lost in the thickets and tangles of your mind.
“temperature gradient at sea surface means no heat is transmitted down from interface to subskin or below.”
Physical testing shows added KE from added incident LWIR is transmitted down into water free to evaporate so reality is otherwise mpainter. Temperatures 5+cm or so below the sea surface increase with increased incident LWIR in data you have been shown. Ignoring the testing isn’t going to make it go away mp. Just makes mp comments look silly as Ed writes.
mpainter: You say:
“My view: heat does not transfer against the temperature gradient of the skin and subskin of the sea surface.
You imagine to transfer heat to depth against that temperature gradient and warm the sea with back radiation.”
You missed the very basic point I made when I said:
“If there were no back radiation to compensate for most of this, the skin layer would be a lot cooler, and there would be more upward transfer from deeper layers, cooling them as well.
So the back radiation does lead to warmer water below, even if the net heat transfer is still largely from the deeper layers to the skin layer.”
This is a very important distinction missed by a lot of people who have never formally studied heat transfer and had to crunch through the differential equations of transfer. That is why I use simple analogous situations, because you obviously haven’t done these.
So another one:
You have a long metal bar, with one end in a fire and the other end in ice water, well insulated along the length. You have a thermocouple on the midpoint of the bar to measure its temperature there.
Now you put the cold end of the bar in boiling water instead of ice water. The boiling water is still far colder than the fire, of course.
What happens to the temperature at the middle of the bar? Your analysis. Your analysis says that it could not “transfer heat against the temperature gradient” and so the temperature here would not increase. Do you really believe that?
So now Ed Bo shifts ground from rocks and lasers to demonstrate his point of view. Metal bars now will clinch the argument.
The laws of thermodynamics are universal. mpainter doesn’t have the sophistication to understand that, so he certainly couldn’t follow the (common) differential equations underlying the proper analysis.
I copy my original comment at the top of the thread, the basis for subsequent comments:
mpainter says:
September 4, 2016 at 3:29 PM
Tim, DWLWIR is not an input to SST, as water is opaque to LWIR. You seem to be having difficulty in grasping this principle.
###
I stand on that. The physics and thermodynamics of the sea surface supports that view. Rocks, lasers, and metal bars notwithstanding.
I have definitively refuted every single aspect of your argument in detail, with specific real-world examples.
And you just go on believing that water follows different laws of thermodynamics than everything else.
Wow…just, wow!
“Specific real world examples” says Ed Bo.
I think this translates to rocks, lasers, and metal bars.
Yes, those are part of the real world, easily testable, following the same laws of thermodynamics.
And all you have is a fantasy world based on something you (mis)read on the internet years ago
Well Ed Bo, since you have offered your opinion, I will offer mine. The rock, laser, and metal bar analogies are rather inappropriate and miss by a wide margin. I find it curious that you deem them apt. Yours is the fantasy, imo.
To clarify, your rock, laser, metal bar analogies were inapt in their application to the physics of the sea surface.
Joel Shore,
Your first message does not concern at all what I said.
For the second:
“So, to a first approximation it remains constant as GHGs increase.”
It is perfectly bogus for low levels of greenhouse gases.
The radiative effect (not water vapor feedback) of GHG on convection is not at all included in the theory and models.
Have you any evidence that this approximation is eligible to properly assess the effect of increased CO2 levels on surface temperatures?
“The radiative effect (not water vapor feedback) of GHG on convection is not at all included in the theory and models.”
Sure it is…An increase in the lapse rate above the adiabatic lapse rate sparks convection that reduces the lapse rate back down to the adiabatic lapse rate. Your claim is nonsense. You just don’t like the fact that they are not getting the answer your ideology demands they get.
But, an increase in convection also decreases the ERL. Overall, it is a net negative feedback on temperature at the surface.
No…Why would it decrease the ERL? The increase in convection is what is necessary to prevent the lapse rate from becoming steeper … It doesn’t make the lapse rate less steep. (Except for the fact that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is a decreasing function of temperature and that negative feedback is already included in all the climate models.)
Joel Shore @ September 3, 2016 at 2:44 PM
“It doesnt make the lapse rate less steep.”
Missing the point. The temperature at the surface is the temperature at ERL plus the integrated lapse rate from there. If the ERL is lower, then the temperature at the surface decreases, because you have less distance over which to integrate the lapse rate before reaching the surface.
“Why would it decrease the ERL?”
Because heat is transferred to altitudes where it is free to radiate to space without having to overcome the obstacle of absorbing elements in the atmosphere.
Joel Shore,
“Sure it is”
No :
“As Ramanathan and Coakley pointed out in their 1978 paper, convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere but solving the equations for convection is a significant problem so the radiative convective approach is to use the known temperature profile in the lower atmosphere to solve the radiative transfer equations.”
[http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/]
phi: In other words, they assume that convection is infinitely fast and effective at reducing any super-adiabatic lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate. Assuming convection is infinitely fast at producing the heat transfer is not the same as ignoring it. Far from it.
It is not a question of speed. On the other hand, in subsidence, the gradient is not adiabatic but a compound of compression and radiative losses. And then still observed are temperature inversions in the troposphere, they have little to do with the adiabatic gradient. The hypothesis is interesting but not verified.
They don’t enforce an adiabatic gradient everywhere. If the gradient is less than the adiabatic lapse rate it is stable and only if it is greater than the adiabatic lapse rate is it unstable to convection that then reduces the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
And, it’s not a hypothesis that the adiabatic lapse rate is the stability boundary (i.e, that an atmosphere with a lapse rate less steep than the adiabatic lapse rate is stable to convection and an atmosphere with a lapse rate steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate is unstable to convection). That is basically the definition of the adiabatic lapse rate.
By the way, a quick look at the IPCC report suggests that my description of how convection is handled may be somewhat out of date. It sounds like it might be more sophisticated now, but I am not completely clear on the details.
There is, of course, a somewhat interesting recent history of claims that the mishandling of convection is what allows the greenhouse effect to persevere in the models: This claim was made by Nikolov and Zeller (https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/unified-theory-of-climate-nikolov-and-zeller/) in their misguided screed a few years ago where they showed how they could put convection into the basic radiative shell model and then the greenhouse effect went away.
The embarrassing mistake that they made, however, was to put in convection such that it drove the temperature of the Earth and the “atmospheric shell” to the same temperature (by their own description!!!), hence creating an isothermal atmosphere. They were apparently unaware that it was well-known that the lapse rate is vital to the greenhouse effect (e.g., a fact emphasized in Ray Pierrehumbert’s text). In fact, they ought to have noticed that if they simply enforced the condition that convection produces whatever heat flow is necessary to equalize the temperatures of the shell and the Earth then they would also have destroyed the greenhouse effect.
Hence, the survival of the greenhouse effect in the presence of convection occurs precisely because convection is only effective in driving the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate but no further, a fact that I think is somewhat under-appreciated when people start talking about convection and its importance.
I am not saying that the increase in CO2 levels has no effect on surface temperatures, but that we do not know how to calculate it.
The adaibatic lapse rate is roughly a stability limit but what matters for the radiative equilibrium is the average profile which has a radiative component and thus is directly dependent on the level of GHG.
The average gradient is not an invariant, any imbalance does not recover only by translation of the thermal profile, the notion of forcing is inadequate and the use of a parameterized convection on the basis of empirical values can not lead to satisfactory results.
Moreover, the gradient is only part of the story. It’s like using your car’s speedometer to tell you where you are. It can only tell you how far you’ve driven. But, to determine where you are, you also need information on where you started.
Joel is wandering into slayer territory. They posit that, since they can determine the adiabatic lapse rate based on gravity as g/cp, it is gravity that determines temperatures on the surface. But, that is not the whole story. It is a differential relationship that requires boundary conditions to be complete. And, the boundary conditions are dependent on atmospheric composition of radiating gases, as well as their dynamic convective state.
Bart,
There is no convection into space. A hypothesis that convection magically saves you has testable consequences, including that the upper parts of the troposphere would have to warm much more rapidly than the surface.
I don’t think there is any evidence of that. In fact, there is still considerable debate about whether or not the upper parts of the troposphere are warming more slowly than models predict or whether, within uncertainties, they are still consistent. I have seen noone claim that the warming is actually much greater than the models predict so that that lapse rate is decreasing considerably more than expected as the Earth warms.
“There is no convection into space.”
No sh%t?
“A hypothesis that convection magically saves you has testable consequences, including that the upper parts of the troposphere would have to warm much more rapidly than the surface.”
A hypothesis that convection has no impact could be said to magically doom us. Bringing up magic is an emotive mode of argument. It conveys no information beyond subjectively emphasizing your opinion.
There does not have to be an abrupt transition. Every incremental increase in elevation of energy bearing molecules brings them that much farther past the atmospheric filter, incrementally reducing the impedance of their emission to space. The total decrease in impedance is the integrated result across the entire atmospheric column.
Bart says, September 5, 2016 at 1:49 PM:
“Every incremental increase in elevation of energy bearing molecules brings them that much farther past the atmospheric filter, incrementally reducing the impedance of their emission to space. The total decrease in impedance is the integrated result across the entire atmospheric column.”
Yes, that is what’s being ignored here. The energy being somehow radiatively prevented from being emitted to space from one particular spot or level doesn’t thereby stay in that spot or at that level, as if “trapped”, creating excess warming. It is simply transported along, inside the bulk air itself, by atmospheric circulation, to be emitted to space ELSEWHERE:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
That’s how you get OLR charts like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/olr-trop.png
Much of that fiery red emission over the subtropics comes from energy brought there from the central tropics. So even if the OLR at the ToA is much lower around the equator, that doesn’t mean the energy is “trapped”. And it certainly doesn’t mean that it therefore causes the surface T_avg below to be higher in any way. In fact, the opposite is true. More H2O in the tropospheric column tends to make the surface T_avg below lower. For many reasons.
phi said
Nope, the notion of forcing has nothing to do with an “invariance of the thermal gradient”. Forcing is just a matter of imbalance in the TOA energy fluxes. It makes sense whatever the temperature gradient might ever do.
The so-called “invariance of the thermal gradient”, on the other hand, is the consequence of convective equilibrium always established in an atmosphere with enough GHG’s to make the troposphere unstable with respect to convection.
Now you’ve been told repeatedly before how silly your “physics” actually is in a French forum.
Good luck in your attempt to draw further attention to your fancy views about atmospheric thermodynamics.
Mon cher Tsih,
The notion of forcing is unknown in thermodynamics simply because a change in structure is not the same as energy input. You mingle heating and insulation. This confusion is of no consequence here only if we assume that the temperature gradient is an invariant.
Toneb,you say: “Nope.”
But you link below says “Yep”.
Perhaps you should study your links. Yours link below accepts the verifies my statement quoted by you.
It does this in order to present its arguments.
####
You say: “You neglect conduction and turbulent mixing.”
Nope. You neglected to read your link which made it explicit that heat was conducted from depth to the interface, _not_the_other_ way_.
Concerning turbulent mixing. Whether the turbulence? Wind? That cools. Wave? The ocean swell does not break the coherence of the “skin”. Unless there is a storm…but that’s wind.
Your claim of turbulent mixing is nothing but arm waving, I’m afraid.
Toneb, you speak of land surface in rebuttal of my statement that addresses the the physics of the sea surface. Why the confusion? The two are different, with different thermodynamics.
Your link to the Curry blog is a chain of bald assertions. I’m not impressed.
You need to explain how your second link and quote answers my comment, above. I see nothing in it that’s contrary to my statement.
Toneb, your link to RealClimate purports to show a temperature difference between the “skin” and the ocean “bulk” (5 cm depth) under IR forcing, showing a scatterplot from which they derive a result of 0.00002 per W/sq m temperature difference.
Not very impressive to a man of science. Particularly since the study gave no temperature data, no measurements data, did not described their procedures or methods (except inadequately), gave no rationale for their selection of 5 cm depth as “bulk”. Lots of unanswered questions.
Most notably, they gave no indication as to whether the skin had the higher temperature, or the “bulk”.
Also, the measurements were taken under cloudy conditions, which would have altered insolation and they wholly neglected to address this important effect, as they took both nighttime and daytime measurements (seemingly around the clock).
This is not what I call good science. Plus the result of 0.00002 C per W/sq m had no error bounds.
The graph says about 0.1K difference SST skin plotted against LW clear and cloudy sky mpainter at different local times, just the same as Dr. Spencer confirmed with his test at night with clear and added cirrus, maybe a little deeper calm water depth. Their M-AERI equipment is thoroughly described in published papers contrary to mp comment.
You are misconstruing facts to line up with your political views mpainter, there are other sites for politics. This site proprietor does real custom testing and basic analysis like top post.
B4, text clearly states that water temperature measurements were made under cloudy conditions for the IR effect. You need to strive for better comprehension. You missed by a mile.The scatterplot was derived from all cloudy measurements.
B4,:
“You are misconstruing facts to line up with your political views mpainter, there are other sites for politics. This site proprietor does real custom testing and basic analysis like top post.”
This accusation has no basis.You should retract that and apologize. I don’t think Dr. Spencer would appreciate your involving him in such a scurrility.
“The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy.”
Reading is good for you mp. And not scurrilous at all, Tim F. also points to mpainter bizarre repeated comments about SST from insolation only:
“No temperature anywhere is determined by any one power input alone. Temperature is a response to ALL inputs as well as ALL outputs!”
Read up on the 1LOT,2LOT atm. radiation science mpainter, as Dr. Spencer would advise, try to add to the discussion, not subtract as usual.
The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy.
You misunderstand once more B4. That refers only to the gradient between skin temperature and air temperature, under clouds and clear sky both.
Good grief.
Once again, the study clearly states that water temperature measurements were made under cloudy conditions. That was the whole purpose.
Good grief.
I really doubt that you have comprehended any of the study.
Good grief.
You are a scurrilous OOO. Adios. Please don’t respond to any of my comments in the future.
The first paragraph of my comment was in quotes, which dropped off.
Nope mp, it refers as “The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking.” Good grief. Try to quote the authors.
Nope mp, the study says: “we use the natural variations in clouds to modulate the incident infrared radiation at the sea surface” Good grief. Try to quote the authors not use your wording to suit your own purposes.
No doubt that mpainter has comprehended little of the study. Try to comprehend what Tim F. is trying to tell you also.
“Please dont respond..”
Making up your own rules won’t win on a blog, only in a knife fight mp, experimental science wins on this site. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
Ball4 says:
“Making up your own rules wont win on a blog, only in a knife fight mp, experimental science wins on this site. Dont bring a knife to a gunfight.”
He really did say that.
For once, mp pays attention. Keep it up!
You are verminous trash.
Insults are the last refuge of the incompetent.
(with apologies to Asimov)
No insult, but an observation.
“Toneb, your link to RealClimate purports to show a temperature difference between the skin and the ocean bulk (5 cm depth) under IR forcing, showing a scatterplot from which they derive a result of 0.00002 per W/sq m temperature difference.”
No it doesn’t purport anything.
It shows an actual set of observations done by the NZ research vessel Tangarova.
Here is the full paper for you to *study*.
BTW: Due to your latest nasty comment to Ball4 on the (current) bottom of this thread, I will no longer soil myself by conversing with you.
TaTa
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.10.024
BTW: you do wonderful service to the Denier community – keep it up.
Shows exactly the quality of the *arguments* to anyone who is worth educating.
FTA: “If the model had dozens of atmospheric layers all interacting, it would produce much higher surface temperatures, and much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere, producing a strongly super-adiabatic temperature profile (Manabe and Strickler, 1964). This is what causes atmospheric convection, which provides a net transport of heat from the surface to the middle and upper troposphere (not contained in this radiation-only model).”
Well, that’s the key, isn’t it? It indicates that convection provides a negative feedback. So, once you’ve gotten the atmosphere stirred up, it is no longer assured that an incremental increase in concentration of a particular greenhouse gas will produce a corresponding incremental increase in surface temperature of any significance.
And, that’s without even considering the negative feedback of cloud formation.
Bart,
The fact that convection reduces the greenhouse effect is old news…and, of course, you have to go back to 1964 (or probably earlier) to find radiation-only models used for anything other than basic illustrative purposes.
Yes, it is old news. But, that does not mean that it is well understood. It may be thought it is well understood, but the experiment is still running, and the results appear to indicate that the understanding was off.
Moreover, it is important because it is claimed that AGW is a simple application of well understood physics, and therefore assured. But, it is not assured, because there are viable physical avenues by which the radiative dynamics can be short circuited, and the overall effect becomes negligible.
Indeed.
“but the experiment is still running, and the results appear to indicate that the understanding was off.”
Not really… http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
“But, it is not assured, because there are viable physical avenues by which the radiative dynamics can be short circuited, and the overall effect becomes negligible.”
Nothing is assured in science. It is not assured that the next time I throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down. What is assured is that most of those who deny AGW do so for ideological reasons and will continue to do so and pretend that it is really for valid scientific reasons, which is why there will be continue to be a large gulf between what these people conclude from the evidence and what the respected scientific authorities (NAS, AAAS, AMS, AGU, …) conclude from the evidence.
Ah, so! The science is settled. Joel Shore proclaims it so and produces a list of approved “respected scientific authorities” which proves it.
Joel, I have learned that in climate science, its best not to believe in “infallibility”. That’s for religion, not science.
Well, Joel, the observational evidence from the real Earth system unequivocally shows us that the radiative imbalance at the ToA is not a result of an “enhanced GHE”, but by an increase in solar input (ASR). The warming is natural. An increase in atmospheric CO2 does not and cannot warm the real world. Source: The real world.
“It is not assured that the next time I throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down.”
The standard obfuscatory technique of comparing a tenuous hypothesis to a well established body of theory and observation to make it appear more credible. Meh.
I would bet my life that a ball thrown in the air, in the absence of any artificial intervention, will come back down. Would you bet your life that AGW will survive the test of time? If so, I would question your sanity.
“Not really”
Really. This link is blatant fudging. All it is, is shifting the baseline after the fact to appear to make the curves line up with one another somewhat. You can always do that. It is meaningless.
And, of course, the blatant fudging in GISTEMP that disappeared the “pause”.
Joel, I respect your intellect. We have interacted many times over the years, and you have often provided cogent insights. You sold me on the theory and reality of the “Ozone Hole”, and for that, I thank you.
But, anyone who buys these blatant misrepresentations is either a fool, a knave, or has sold out for what they believe is a greater good. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are the latter.
I would only ask that you engage in some introspection, and ask yourself if this debasement of science is really going to serve the greater good in the long run, and whether you should be supporting it? Faustian bargains never work out as you expect or hope.
Bart, interesting study from U of Bremen (December, 2015, Schmithusen, et al) of the negative (!) GHE of central Antarctica. You might be familiar with it. This region is high, 4 km, more or less, and the driest place on earth. Apparently the surface radiates to space. There is little or no lapse rate, and this can even be negative, that is, the surface colder than the stratosphere.
I learned from this study that CO2 emits to space from the stratosphere. This fact challenges the meme that CO2 has a cooling role in the upper troposphere (the so-called “effective radiating level”).
The study supports my view that cooling in the upper troposphere (emittance to space) is achieved by atmospheric water, not CO2. By this, the role of CO2 in the GHE is diminished to insignificance.
Postma’s at it again
http://principia-scientific.org/simple-time-dependent-model-refutes-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
I guess this is were most the bad science we read on Roy’s blog come from.
Postma: “Its not logically self-consistent, and it cant be self consistent because it isnt logically consistent with existence in the first place with the entry postulate that backradiation can cause further temperature increase than what the source initially provided.”
That is why his reasoning is flawed and he leads so many away from solid physics.
The source does not just one time provide energy. It is continuously adding energy and if you slow down the loss of energy the surface will reach a warmer equilibrium state than in a case without such a slow down of energy loss.
Really sad that Postma studied physics at some University and he is so poorly educated in understanding radiation transfer process.
— Norman says:
September 3, 2016 at 4:52 PM
Postmas at it again
http://principia-scientific.org/simple-time-dependent-model-refutes-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
I guess this is were most the bad science we read on Roys blog come from. —
I doubt many read Postma. He says:
“If you modify the Excel sheet to match that, then the final surface temperature is -47C! Why so cold?”
Which made me think, if answer was say 15 C, then is that what
is wanted?
Or what is the number one might be looking for if you imagining that some point in the atmosphere is your surface.
Not that these are important questions. Then I wondered, do they model for the actual surface of Earth.
Which reminded me, I once wondered what is the actual temperature of the surface of Earth. We do the surface air temperature [5 feet in the shade] but what about the surface temperature?
There is problems measuring the actual surface of Earth. One problem is, no one cares what it is. And other problem is the Earth ocean and land. The ocean surface temperature is roughly the same as 5 feet up in the shade of white box and the land is not. And one say that in terms of Earth average temperature of 15 C- the land temperature- whether surface air or ground, it’s is not important. All need for 15 C average global temperature is fact that tropical oceans are large portion of Earth and they are fairly warm all the time. Or ocean surface temperature is the 15 C average temperature for global surface air temperature- whatever difference that was the temperature of the ground on the land- it doesn’t change the number- or it’s still around 15 C.
Of course if you thought that GHE effect actually increases surface of the land [not surface land air temperature] you might want the actual surface of the land to be measured
Or if you were a farmer, the actual surface of the land, would be important- as determine when to plant crops in the early spring.
But if land temperatures made any difference- surface air or ground surface- then one could look at difference of surface air temperature vs ground surface temperatures. Or if Earth was covered by 70% land and 30% ocean, it would matter in terms of an average global temperature.
Or we have vast area of land which is 70 C [158 F] daytime high, and don’t have vast area of land with air temperature routinely reaching as high as 50 C [122 C].
Or again without getting complicated- ground is about 20 C warmer
than air surface temperature. So night and day average global increase of +10 C if measuring the ground vs air.
Of course if getting a bit complicated, a planet with 70% land is a world with a huge amount of deserts- and deserts are much cooler at night. Or Earth has somewhere around 30 million square km of desert- and 70% land world would easily have more than 150 million square km of desert. So 70% land world would not have average global temperature of 15 C + 10 C, instead it’s average global temperature would be about 0 C [or less]. Or if measured ground temperature it would be global average of about 5 C.
Or 70% land world would have most of tropics as land area- let’s say 70%. And so 70% of tropic would have 70C daytime temperature
ground temperature and 50 C surface air and more drier air than normal deserts on Earth. Night time average about 0 C- ground getting bit cooler than air- average air: 25 C, and average ground about 30 C.
And lacking an ocean which can warm rest of world, outside tropics has much lower average temperature.
Norman says, September 3, 2016 at 4:52 PM:
But Norman, you are specifically NOT reducing the energy loss from the surface in the ridiculous and counter-physical “back radiation” explanation of the so-called “GHE”. You are rather increasing the energy INPUT to the surface to directly raise its temperature, upon which the surface responds by increasing its energy loss.
That is a perfect description of an absolute temperature rise by “extra heating”, not by “insulation”.
You still don’t see this. It is not the EFFECT itself that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, only this particular attempt at EXPLAINING it … It clearly says that it is not the reduction in net LW that causes the temperature to rise. The net LW is only reduced as an effect of the ‘real’ cause, namely the increase in DWLWIR, just as the sfc temp increase (and consequently the increase in the sfc energy loss) is simply an effect of the ‘real’ cause, the increase in DWLWIR.
This is nonsense physics! The DWLWIR EXPLANATION of surface temperature rise is, not the insulation effect itself.
Kristian makes a telling point. Energy budget diagrams show “back radiation absorbed by the surface”. Thus enhanced GHE adds more “back radiation absorbed by the surface”. As Kristian says, this means heating through radiative energy added, not through heat retained through insulation or retarding effect.
Kristian to Norman, “you are specifically NOT reducing the energy loss from the surface in the ridiculous and counter-physical back radiation explanation of the so-called “GHE”.”
Yet that is exactly what Kristian does with his (- T_atm^4) term, specifically reducing the energy loss from the surface. This term is the all sky emission to surface which isn’t heating the surface (- T_atm^4 is emitted from a lower T) just adding energy (day and night). Only the sun is heating the surface (day).
—–
mpainter, “”back radiation absorbed by the surface”. As Kristian says, this means heating through radiative energy added”
No heating from – T_atm^4 term mpainter, this term just means radiative energy added (night and day) reducing sfc energy loss, only the sun is heating the surface (day).
Depart, verminous one
Ball4
Yes that is what is going on. DWIR adds energy to the Earth’s surface but not heat. They can’t see the two way flux so they attack it. It is the same effect but two way flux makes atomic sense since vibrating molecules on the Earth’s surface do not slow down or reduce their IR output (this would only occur if the temperature of the surface dropped). Heat flows one way, energy flows in many ways and it adds and subtracts from the total.
I read Postma’s page and none of them understand the process and I am amazed that Postma gets it wrong. I can understand the people who post on his blog that have no physics background and are thinking based on what they think is correct but Postma is a strange fellow.
Ball4:
You are debating with people who don’t know the difference between gross and net flows (exchanges) to be able to make change properly as a cashier.
Ed Bo says, September 4, 2016 at 11:48 AM:
No, apparently he’s debating people who DO know the difference between gross and net flows. That’s exactly why we point out how you should treat them and how you can’t treat them, thermodynamically. But it just won’t sink in, will it?
Kristian, the gross LW energy up from the surface is net of the LW energy down to the surface as your own eqn. shows. Very simple when incoherent photons do not interact. No heating, the sun does that. Now consider what happens Tmedian as the atm. opacity increases or decreases as shown in Dr. Spencer spreadsheet that does the net for you.
Norman, there you go again : “DWIR adds energy to the Earths surface but not heat.”
###
You imagine that back radiation can be absorbed without being absorbed. You are a wonder. Also, in the sense that heat is a property of matter, heat and kinetic energy are equivalent. Please, no stupid semantic arguments. I know some will define heat as a transfer process, but please do not quibble over semantics.
Norman, “I am amazed that Postma gets it wrong.”
I am not as he does no confirming experiments as does Dr. Spencer.
Also it is mpainter that imagines that back radiation can be absorbed without being absorbed not Norman.
—–
mpainter, “heat is a property of matter”
mp, per Clausius KE is a property of the constituents of matter, heat is the measure of their KE.
—–
John O’Sullivan: “Sophists are those who conjure with words to deceive and throw insults when out of their depth.”
Postma: “If you and your cohorts know these things, then you’re frauds and clandestine operatives. If you don’t know them, then you’re incompetent.”
Also note the title of Postma’s blog, “Climate of Sophistry”, you can get plenty of sophistry over there as they do no testing, just conjure with words.
test?
mpainter
Example:
A surface molecule absorbs a DWIR and starts to jiggle more which is picked up by the surrounding molecules and it would seem that the overall kinetic energy would go up so why doesn’t it? That is because for this one molecule that absorbed an IR photon and increased its local kinetic energy there were two molecules elsewhere on the surface that emitting photons (same time) and lost more kinetic energy than the surface gained by the one absorbed photon. With this process going on trillions plus times per second you have a net loss of energy to the cooler atmosphere.
But the more DWIR you have the less energy you lose from your surface. If the DWIR is equal to the surface UPIR (cloudy night) you lose no energy as the photon exchange is equal.
The point that Postma and his group never understand is the surface has another source of incoming energy.
So now you have a situation where you have the same one DWIR photon being absorbed by the surface and the two UPIR photons of similar energy. But now we add the solar input say of two additional DWSW photons to the surface (Photon energies would be all over the spectrum, I do know this but I am trying to get you to understand the basic concept). The surface is now receiving 3 photons worth of energy but only giving up two. What happens now, the kinetic energy of the surface overall is now warming since it is receiving more energy than it is losing. It will continue to warm until it emits the same number of photons it is receiving. It will warm to a temperature where the kinetic energy is high enough to emit 3 photons at the same rate it is receiving 3 photons. Equilibrium.
Not sure if you read this long post or understood my point. Hopefully you do and did. Take care.
Norman, I think I understand. You trying to say that back radiation is absorbed by the surface, but it doesn’t warm the surface.
Is this what you mean?
mpainter says, September 4, 2016 at 2:38 PM:
Yes. It is absorbed by the surface and thus makes the surface temperature higher. But it doesn’t warm the surface. LOL!
Kristian, your ( T_atm^4) is absorbed all night yet doesn’t make the surface warmer. Surface cools all night. Shown by NOAA ESRL.
mpainter
YOU: “Norman, I think I understand. You trying to say that back radiation is absorbed by the surface, but it doesnt warm the surface.
Is this what you mean?”
Yes to your question. It only makes sense with simultaneous activity. If you look only one way it will be most absurd.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cc97de65d7d.png
The link is the support of my position. The DWIR is less than the UWIR. The DWIR is reaching the surface and picked up by detector so it is a real energy flux. But it is less than the energy the surface is continuously emitting, so the surface will cool. It is losing joules at a greater rate than gaining them. The backradiation will allow less joules from leaving so if you have two cases, one with DWIR and one without, the one with DWIR will be be at a warmer equilibrium temperature (both are receiving the same input energy from an external source…with Earth that would be solar energy).
The CERES site also confirms all this information. The only way around is to make up a belief that the instruments are not detecting photons from the sky.
Norman says, September 4, 2016 at 3:58 PM:
Yes, you’re right. It would be most absurd. And yet, this is exactly how the IPCC portray the process. By pretending the two streams are independent and separate ‘fluxes’, thus placing the one on the INPUT side and the other on the OUTPUT side of the surface budget equation. As if the one caused the other one.
Again, it’s the “back radiation” EXPLANATION that is absurd, not the insulation EFFECT.
Kristian
I think one problem with our ongoing debate is your mind is not able to process multiple processes taking place at the same time. You have a serial mind with one event taking place at any time.
YOU wrote: “Yes. It is absorbed by the surface and thus makes the surface temperature higher. But it doesnt warm the surface. LOL!”
You are unable to grasp that the DWIR can be absorbed by the surface (primarily depends upon the surface material, some absorb IR better than others) yet not make the surface temperature higher or warm the surface. As the surface is gaining energy from the DWIR it is losing energy at a greater rate in the UPIR. Look at CERES data and it will show this to you at whatever location you want to examine. Dry Sahara, wet Congo, cold Antartica.
Kristian
YOU: “Yes, youre right. It would be most absurd. And yet, this is exactly how the IPCC portray the process. By pretending the two streams are independent and separate fluxes, thus placing the one on the INPUT side and the other on the OUTPUT side of the surface budget equation. As if the one caused the other one.
Again, its the back radiation EXPLANATION that is absurd, not the insulation EFFECT.”
Not absurd at all. I think you are way to hung up on Cause/Effect semantics. Roy Spencer clearly shows how both are cause and effect.
He starts his simulation at zero and lets it go from there. The Solar input warms the surface and it starts to weakly emit (in Roy’s simulation). The emission is absorbed by the GHG in the atmosphere which slowly warm (he has taken out all other mechanisms like convection, evaporation, conduction, clouds etc just to simplify the concept and show how the process can work…have you clicked on his simulation and played around with the variables?).
So now they are both causes of the temperature and effects. The warmed atmosphere weakly emits to the surface of which this small amount of energy is then absorbed by the surface. The surface always being warmer than the atmosphere will always be emitting radiant energy at a greater rate than it receives from warming atmosphere. But nothing is cooling at this early stage because the surface is receiving a continuous input of solar energy (240 W/m^2 is what Roy used).
Norman, my response below.
Norman says, September 4, 2016 at 4:17 PM:
So now you’re my mental coach? Don’t worry about me, Norman. I know perfectly well what you’re trying to say. I understand perfectly the “back radiation” argument. You should rather worry about yourself and your stubborn unwillingness to listen and read.
This is very simple: The “back radiation” EXPLANATION violates the 2nd Law, NOT the insulation effect it tries to explain.
How many times does this have to be repeated? This is nonsense physics:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
You say the “back radiation” doesn’t make the surface any warmer, because there is more radiation going out of the surface. Then how, looking at the diagram above, do we get from 232 to 289 K? From a pure solar equilibrium temp to the observed global mean …?
The surface temperature rises in absolute terms, and it stays there, Norman, as the “back radiation” is absorbed. In your scenario the “DWLWIR” DOES heat the surface some more. Directly and all by itself. You cannot escape this fact, no matter how much you try to redirect the discussion. Just look at the diagram. THAT’S exactly what happens.
You simply cannot EXPLAIN insulation as an extra INPUT of energy to the heated object. Because there is no extra input of energy.
I quite recently explained this to you on another thread. But you keep ‘forgetting’ and keep asking the same questions over and over again:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-experimental-demonstration-that-cool-objects-can-make-warm-objects-warmer-still/#comment-222099
From the original exchange upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-222431
Norman,
Let’s go back to our hypothetical planet. In the initial steady state, there is no atmosphere on top of its global surface, and so the global surface has simply equilibrated with the average radiant heat input (ASR, net SW) from the planet’s mother star, meaning, its average radiant heat output (OLR, net LW) is equal to it. In our particular case, let’s now say that the average ASR value is 296 W/m^2, and so, in the steady state, this is also the average OLR value: 296 W/m^2 IN = 296 W/m^2 OUT. This state is ideally attained at the point where the planet’s global surface T_avg has reached ~269 K. (This, of course, relies specifically on two purely hypothetical conditions to abide: The surface is 1) a blackbody, and 2) isothermal.)
We now place a massive – and very much radiatively active! – atmosphere on top of this equilibrated planetary surface. Now, just as the surface before it could be considered to start its original journey toward its original steady state temperature (269 K) from a hypothetical initial temperature around absolute zero (or 2.7 K, rather), so could the atmosphere. We simply want to see what happens as energy accumulates inside this massive atmosphere, gradually warming it.
So to begin with, before any energy has managed to be transferred as heat from the surface to this new atmosphere, the surface radiant heat loss is: q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) -> σ (269^4 – 2.7^4) -> 296 W/m^2, IOW just what it was before the atmosphere was placed on top of it. And remember now, this is a fully radiatively active atmosphere – it is able to absorb and emit EM radiation. The only problem is that it’s still too cold.
But what happens as this atmosphere now absorbs more and more energy from the surface (and from the local sun), thermalising it and gradually warming from it? Its temperature rises beyond that of space itself. And as a simple consequence of this, the atmosphere is now turned into an insulative layer, basically interposing a thermal barrier between the solar-heated surface and the absolute coldness of space.
As the atmosphere warms, its apparent DWLWIR to the surface increases. But the atmosphere warms, not from apparent, thermally generated ‘radiant fluxes’, but from the absorbed and thermalised energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun. And what happens when the surrounding temperature of a constantly heated object/surface all of a sudden increases? The temperature difference between the object/surface and its surroundings is reduced. And what does this lead to? It leads to a reduction in the rate of “heat loss” from the object/surface in question. This is true whether the mode of heat transfer happens to be ‘radiative’, ‘conductive’ or ‘convective’. And so, if we assume that the rate of incoming heat to the object/surface remains unchanged, then energy will accumulate (because Q_in > Q_out) and the object/surface will necessarily warm as a result, until its heat balance is restored (Q_in = Q_out). And what happens when the surface temperature rises as a consequence of this process? Its apparent UWLWIR increases. Which makes the (radiant) heat loss rate (DWLWIR minus UWLWIR) of the surface go up again. And so the surface radiant heat loss rate itself could theoretically stay constant during the entire warming process towards the new steady state temperature. It would be 296 W/m^2 in the initial state (296W/m^2 – 0W/m^2, 269 vs. 2.7 K), and it could be 296 W/m^2 in the final (steady) state also (say 398W/m^2 – 102W/m^2, 289 vs. 206 K).
The thing, though, is that once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface, then the whole surface situation changes. Moving towards the new steady state, the atmosphere will 1) make the planet’s albedo increase substantially, and 2) absorb for itself a significant portion of the incoming heat input from the sun, so that it never manages to reach the actual surface at the bottom. This will reduce the average ASR at the surface from the original no-atmo value of 296 W/m^2 to a final +atmo value of a mere 165 W/m^2. Which would mean that about 44 % (!) of the original solar heat absorbed by the global surface is now somehow made unavailable to it by the very presence of the radiatively active atmosphere resting on top of it, either reflecting it back out to space or absorbing it for itself, before it could ever reach the surface.
This situation alone would reduce the potential steady-state surface radiant heat loss from 296 to a maximum of 165 W/m^2. But would it thereby necessarily change the surface T_avg also? No. Because the heat loss (the net LW) is only constrained by the temperature DIFFERENCE between the surface and the atmosphere, not by the individual temperature of the surface and/or the atmosphere. So we could go from 296 minus 0 W/m^2 (net LW: 296 W/m^2) in the initial steady state (at 269 vs. 2.7 K), to 296 minus a potential 131 W/m^2 (net LW: 165 W/m^2) in the final steady state (at 269 vs. 219 K).
However, it doesn’t end there. You see, more things change at the surface once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface than just the total heat balance (moving from Q_in(296W/m^2)=Q_out(296W/m^2) to Q_in(165W/m^2)=Q_out(165W/m^2)). The surface heat budget after all also stops being a purely radiative one. And this fact is an extremely important fact to appreciate, because it has obvious implications for the surface radiant heat loss, which used to make up 100 % of the total. It won’t anymore. It will naturally have to make room for other losses, NON-radiative ones. IOW: It will, by physical necessity, become significantly smaller.
And so this really changes the whole narrative. The surface radiant heat loss ISN’T reduced because of a rise in the effective atmospheric temperature leading to a rise in apparent atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface. It is simply reduced because there is less ‘need’ for it, because other heat loss mechanisms than the radiative one are also now contributing to the total.
So you see, the absolute magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss is thoroughly constrained first by the heat INPUT to the surface (the ASR), then by the (effectiveness of the) other heat loss mechanisms at work. It can’t be determined simply according to some perceived atmospheric level of IR opacity.
In the end, we might have a situation where, after having emplaced a massive atmosphere around our hypothetical planet, the surface steady state corresponds to a Q_in = Q_out of only 165=165 W/m^2 (rather than one of 296=296 W/m^2), where the radiant part is further reduced to, say, 53 W/m^2. And so we’re left with the following inescapable apparent DWLWIR-UWLWIR relationship: 398 – 345 W/m^2 (net LW: 53 W/m^2), at 289 (T_sfc) vs. 279 K (T_atm). But this doesn’t tell us anything about how we got from a surface T_avg of 269 to one of 289 K. All it tells us is that 1) the surface steady-state T_avg happens to be 289 K, and that 2) the surface steady-state radiant heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^2. 289 K -> 398 W/m^2, and 398 – 53 = 345 W/m^2. This is exactly how a pyrgeometer would compute the apparent “sky radiation” (DWLWIR). But it tells us nothing about why the radiant heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^w, nor why the surface T_avg happens to be 289 K. Remember how, when we first placed the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface, the heat input to the surface from the sun was 296 W/m^2, and there were no other heat loss mechanisms in operation except the radiative one. Moreover, the no-(or pre-)atmo steady state surface temperature was 269 K (296W/m^2 IN = 296W/m^2 OUT), and this was also the initial situation as the massive, radiatively active atmosphere (at 2.7 K) was placed around the planet – the DWLWIR was practically zero, because the atmosphere was too cold. Then several things happened: i) the atmosphere started warming (from absorbing energy transferred to it as heat), ii) the heat input to the surface was reduced, and iii) other heat loss mechanisms besides the radiative one became available and operative as the system still grew warmer (a result of the warming atmosphere). And so, from the initial to the final steady state, we went from a surface net LW (radiant heat loss) shedding 296 W/m^2 to one at a mere 53 W/m^2. Meaning, we went from a temperature difference of [269-2.7=] ~266 K between the surface and the APPARENT “effective atmospheric level of downward radiation” to one of [289-279=] 10 degrees. Does this mean that the atmosphere somehow got immensely more opaque to surface IR, lowering the effective level of “sky radiation” to the surface by this huge amount, during the journey from t_i to t_f? No, of course it doesn’t. Here’s what happened in between: i) the atmosphere got warmer, meaning, the temperature difference between the surface and the layers of air above it grew steadily smaller; ii) the overall heat input to the surface from the sun, the ASR (net SW), grew steadily smaller, and so the surface target output value naturally decreased with it; iii) the radiative share of the total surface heat output dropped from its initial 100 %, because of NON-radiative heat loss mechanisms growing to prominence …
To conclude:
1)
The increase in DWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the atmosphere warming. When the atmosphere warms beyond space, from absorbing, thermalising and storing up energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings decreases, and so its total heat loss is naturally reduced. This forces the surface to warm so as to restore its heat balance (the heat input is assumed constant). Yes, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inert, it (or the main portion of it) will eventually be thermodynamically disconnected from the surface, and so space can still be considered the surface’s only significant cold reservoir. But as soon as you make the atmosphere radiatively active, you will connect it thermally with the surface, and so now the atmospheric temperature will directly affect the total heat loss from the surface, which will be greatly reduced at any given surface T_avg relative to the former situation, once the atmospheric T_avg rises above the ‘temperature’ of space. You might fool yourself into thinking that it is in fact the increase in the apparent atmospheric DWLWIR itself that forces the surface temperature to rise in this situation. But it’s not. The absolute TEMPERATURE rise is the CAUSE. The DWLWIR is but a TOOL enabling the atmospheric temperature to connect with the surface temperature in the first place. When the atmospheric temperature rises in this situation, it will then simply be able to affect the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is thermodynamically connected with the surface, and so it effectively replaces space as the surface’s thermal surroundings, meaning that, as it warms, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down (this couldn’t happen with only the vacuum of space around, since a vacuum cannot warm). And as the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down, there will be a decrease in both radiant, conductive and evaporative/convective heat loss from the surface. Forcing a surface temperature rise.
The increase in DWLWIR is simply one expression of this decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings, thus of the reduction in surface heat loss.
2)
The steady-state magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss is to a certain extent simply a function of the steady-state magnitude of the non-radiant heat losses (conduction and evaporation/convection), which will inevitably start ‘eating into’ the radiant portion of the total as soon as a massive atmosphere is in place on top of a solar-heated planetary surface. At some point along the continuum – from 100 to 0 % – a balance will be struck. It simply depends on how effective the radiant vs. the non-radiant losses are at ridding the surface of energy at some particular temperature. This will vary from place to place on the same planet, as it will from planet to planet. The relationship between this steady-state ratio of heat losses and the steady-state surface temperature, though, is apparently not a straightforward (linear) one. The total heat loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel and in the Congo are about the same, but the radiant portion of the total is much larger in the Sahara-Sahel (~100 out of 175 W/m^2) than it is in the Congo (~50 out of 175 W/m^2). This circumstance, however, doesn’t translate at all into a lower surface T_avg in the former region. You can’t just say that a region with a more effective (larger) surface radiant heat loss will necessarily end up having a lower T_avg than one where the radiant heat loss is much smaller. In fact, the surface T_avg is higher in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo by a significant amount.
So how come the radiant heat loss in the Congo is only ~50 W/m^2 and around twice that in the Sahara-Sahel? Atmospheric humidity and clouds. Yes. But also evaporative heat loss and deep moist convection. The two are intimately connected.
Kristian
I read through your long post. Sounds a lot like what your saying I do agree with.
You do know that your CERES information confirms that the amount of GHG in the atmosphere has a significant effect on the DWIR. It is around 405 W/m^2 in Congo region and 375 W/m^2 in Sahara. So that should indicate to you an increase in GHG concentration will indeed lead to a higher DWIR which will then reduce the amount of IR leaving the surface (as you pointed out…50 W/m^2 for Congo and 100 W/m^2 for Sahara). One thing we both agree on is that DWIR does reduce surface IR loss.
I totally agree there are other mechanisms that reduce the surface temperature but they are all considered and accounted for in the global energy budgets. They did not ignore or reject them. Your Congo Vs Sahara is just an example of a region where other effects are dominant above radiation when compared to each other. But GHE is maintaining a higher equilibrium surface temperature in both locations and the difference is only 30 W/m^2 out of a contribution of hundreds of Watt/m^2 at both locations.
Kristian
Here is a point to make that will allow you to see the significance of GHG. Water is a difficult GHG to model because of all its complex modes of both warming and cooling.
But let us go to your Sahara location with its 375 W/m^2 DWIR.
What if you were to introduce tons of Fluoroform into the Sahara atmosphere?
Here are its properties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoroform
Several times the GHG of Carbon Dioxide. (11,700 times).
Now this gas would not have the cooling aspect of water vapor with its clouds and evaporation. Add an equivalent amount of this gas so that Sahara DWIR is now 425 W/m^2. If nothing else changed (like wind patterns) you don’t see how this would nor end up heating the Sahara temperature much above what they are at currently? You have 100 W/m^2 Net IR leaving the Sahara under its current conditions. If you add the gas and increase the DWIR and only get 50 W/m^2 leaving but the same amount of solar input what will happen? You described it. The surface will heat up until it reaches a new equilibrium either via radiation, convection (very little evaporation here) or change in advection.
Norman says, September 4, 2016 at 5:17 PM:
Er, yes. What did that last paragraph of mine say?
“So how come the radiant heat loss in the Congo is only ~50 W/m^2 and around twice that in the Sahara-Sahel? Atmospheric humidity and clouds. Yes. But also evaporative heat loss and deep moist convection. The two are intimately connected.”
And as I explained in the long comment above, the atmosphere limits the surface heat loss first and foremost by being much warmer than space. The “DWLWIR” is primarily an expression of this simple fact. That you still cannot fathom it really boggles my mind.
The one thing radiative properties of a massive atmosphere do is connect the atmosphere (in the steady state) thermodynamically to its surroundings. And that’s it. They connect it with the surface underneath, and they connect it with the vacuum of space outside. They allow steady-state heat transfers INTO and OUT OF the atmosphere.
This is what they do. They’re a “connecting tool”, basically. What causes the surface temperature to actually rise, once the surface is thermodynamically connected to the atmosphere above, is the fact that the warming atmosphere is now able to affect the surface thermally. But it is the warming of the atmosphere that forces the surface to warm also, not the “DWLWIR”.
You still don’t get this, I know. But there it is …
Kristian
You say: “And as I explained in the long comment above, the atmosphere limits the surface heat loss first and foremost by being much warmer than space. The DWLWIR is primarily an expression of this simple fact. That you still cannot fathom it really boggles my mind.”
I feel the same way but in the opposite direction. It boggles my mind you can’t see the direct effect of DWIR on the surface energy budget. A warmer atmosphere without a lot of GHG will not produce a DWIR so the surface radiation will transmit directly to space as if there were no atmosphere. That is why your posts boggle me.
Here is a thought experiment for you that will demonstrate why my current understanding is the correct one and yours is just plain distorted. It is close to the correct view but just a bit twisted in some weird tangent that just does not make a straight line.
Take the Earth. Now remove all the lower atmosphere and make it a vacuum so there is not air in contact with the surface. Above have a dome so the air cannot contact the surface, a vacuum (not sure it could ever be constructed in reality since the material would probably not hole). Above the dome is a normal Earth atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen water vapor, and carbon dioxide. The Earth’s gravity keeps this atmosphere in place like normal it just is not in contact with the surface. The dome allows all radiation in and out (both visible and IR). The solar flux warms the surface like normal, it heats up and starts to emit IR. This IR goes through the dome and is absorbed by GHG’s present (Roy gives the number at 0.8, I have seen higher values). The energy absorbed will start heating and warming this atmosphere. As it warms it will now start radiating in all directions. Some of this atmospheric IR will head to the surface where it is absorbed by the Earth’s surface along with the incoming solar flux. This new DWIR flux will reduce the amount of NET IR the surface will emit so now the energy balance with the incoming flux has changed. Same energy in, less going out. This means the surface will warm until a new equilibrium condition exists. Now the same warming will take place at the surface with zero contact with the atmosphere.
It is really odd to keep posting to you about this. You can totally understand insulation when it slows conduction but you can’t understand it at all when radiation is involved. The more GHG you add the thicker the insulation, the more DWIR you have and the less energy the surface can lose.
If you take an oven with a steady heat source and no insulation and it reaches an equilibrium temperature of 250 C but now add a thick layer of insulation to drastically cut back on conduction losses will your oven temperature go down? Stay the same? Or go up?
Not much different than that no matter how you want to think it is.
“I feel the same way but in the opposite direction. It boggles my mind you cant see the direct effect of DWIR on the surface energy budget. A warmer atmosphere without a lot of GHG will not produce a DWIR so the surface radiation will transmit directly to space as if there were no atmosphere. That is why your posts boggle me. ”
Well because water vapor forms into water droplets and becomes
clouds, are clouds GHG?
It the process of UV light converting O2 into O3 [and chemical reaction which causes oxygen atoms and molecule to emit radiant energy] which occurs in ozone layer. Called GHG. Or to be clear, we can’t have oxygen and our sun and not have ozone.
Or can’t have just N2 and O2 atmosphere and not have ozone.
So a N2 only atmosphere is what you mean?
So I think 1 atm pressure of just N2, would reflect almost as much
of the Sunlight as our world with it’s mixture of gases which are mostly N2.
So roughly it’s 240 to surface and 240 watts radiated back into space with 100 reflected.
Suppose one wants to simplify and have some white sphere in space
which absorbed 240 and reflected 100 watts.
So if mixed paint and painted a surface and tested it, and found
some color of paint [paint can be made of anything which one can grind up and which can be glued together, somehow- that is what paint is- definitionally]. So got something painted and it reflects 100 watt of 340 watts of sunlight [and absorbs and emits
240 watts.
A couple ways of getting 340 watts of sunlight. One way is to be at distance from the sun in which the sunlight was 340 watts. That would be a bit further than Mars orbital distance.
Another simpler way [not as accurate] is to be on the earth surface and have sunlight hit surface at an angle or be at location where sun is at around 20 degree above the horizon. So
if sunrise is at 6 am, around or before 7:30 am with clear skies.
Another way is 4 times 340 is 1360 watts, so go to orbit
and it should reflect 400 watts and absorb 1040 watts.
But this is all wrong, because the N2 atmosphere planet is sphere, but let’s try it anyhow. Or making mistakes is only way anyone learns anything.
So get sphere and paint it with something that reflects 100 and absorbs and emits 240 from 340 watts per square meter.
Make 100 meter in radius sphere out of copper and put in solar orbit at Earth distance from the Sun, and have solid cooper sphere painted [wrongly as above].
So in sunlight this is going to be blindly bright- even if color is painted with flat black paint, or so, is the Moon. Depending on the paint it could blind a human without some kind “sun glasses” or it matters how the paint deals with UV, X-rays, etc, plus just the intensity of sunlight. And matters what angle the sun is related to the sphere and how far you are from it.
And looking at the sun itself is like watching welding at night- worst than looking at the sun on earth surface.
So painted sphere will get the most amount sunlight per square meter of the surface, within 45 degree latitude and longitude
away from the point of zenith of sun upon the sphere.
Or sunlit side of sphere [it’s hemisphere] is 90 degree from the sun zenith on the sphere [of 360 degrees of entire sphere].
So the smaller circle in middle of sunlit hemisphere, will reflect 400 watts per square meter [cause I did it wrong] and rest of sphere will reflect less the 400 watts per square meter- it receives less than 1350 watts per square meter.
So how much area is in this smaller circle.
100 meter radius is 100 times 2 times Pi in terms of circumference of sphere: 628.318 meters.
Each degree: 628.318 / 360 is 1.745 meters.
times 45 is 78.539 meter
Small circle is 78.539 in radius
Sunlit hemisphere is 100 meters in radius- but since dealing
with a curved surface it might be misleading.
Or if flat instead of curved the difference in area is:
Smaller circle: 19378.87 square meter
Larger circle including small circle: 31415.9 square meter
[Pi x 10^4, btw], And 31415.9 – 19378.87 is
12,037.03. Or if flat it’s small area than small circle- but
instead with curved sphere is quite the opposite.
Area of sphere, 100 meter radius, google: 1.2610^5
or hemisphere: .63 x 10^5 or 63,000.
And quite roughly 63,000 – 19378.87 is 43621 square meter.
I can roughly use flat small circle because it’s not curved
much.
Small circle: about 19379 square meters
Larger circle, donut: about 43621 square
Or donut is more than twice area as donut hole
So energy of the sun is disk area: Pi x 10^4: 31415.9
The donut hole get 19379 of the 31415.9
and donut gets 12,037.03 of 31415.9 but spread
over more than twice the area as compare to hole.
Now with atmosphere of N2 reflecting sunlight,
the donut hole area does not have much sunlight
reflecting from it, and the donut has bit more
but it’s twice the area.
Or from a 2 dimensional kind of way the donut reflects
a lot more of the sunlight than donut hole, but not
huge amount more per square meter, as it receive less
sunlight per square square. As percentage of the
sunlight it receive it’s a much larger percentage.
Now the painted sphere does something similar, a main
difference is the paint “designed” to reflect the right
amount of sunlight, would reflect a lot more sunlight
in the donut hole, than it should. And atmosphere would
reflect more of percentage of sunlight as compare to
painted sphere.
Or to try to match it with paint requires using different
paint in different parts of sphere- or, some kind of magical
paint.
Anyways, all that and I didn’t really get to a point of
getting to my point.
gbaikie
too bad you were unable to make your point.
“too bad you were unable to make your point.”
Getting to it.
So 100 meter radius solid copper which is painted sphere- correctly painted- should, in vacuum have equator average temperature
of 30 C. With colder temperatures pole ward
And it approximates a planet with N2 atmosphere.
A small solid sphere in vacuum can conduct some heat poleward,
and likewise a N2 atmosphere could also transport some heat
poleward. [[Small solid sphere has little variation in night and day temperature at equator- assume one day rotation- unlike a planet with N2 atmosphere.]]
But not as much poleward heat transport as water planet can do. Of course the configuration of land masses in relation to ocean would vary how well a water planet can do this.
So roughly colder polar regions or above 50 degree latitudes
and desert like conditions in tropics- hot days and cold nights.
Should be no shortage of wind, and probably large chunks of air masses moving- and/or stronger winds.
Though not allowing for unknowable weather patterns- one could get something like global wind near equatorial regions, with could make it warmer and more uniform day and night temperatures.
Or something vaguely like El Nino without involving an ocean. Plus polar vortexes similar, stronger or weaker as compared to Earth.
Global OLR anomaly at the ToA vs. global TLT anomaly, Mar 2000 – May 2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/tlt-vs-olr.png
Still absolutely no “enhanced GHE” in sight, only natural radiative effects to tropospheric temps plus ENSO-induced cloud anomalies.
Global “DWLWIR” anomaly at the surface vs. global TLT anomaly, Mar 2000 – Feb/May 2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/tlt-vs-dlr.png
No “enhanced GHE” to be seen here either …
Kristian, still no work behind the graphs to be seen either, show all your work behind those graphs like Dr. Spencer and the CERES team publishes.
My work? I downloaded the data and plotted it, what more do you need? You know where to find it. You’re just a pest, Ball4.
Downloading CERES data is only a beginning Kristian, as the CERES team informs you – the instrument has to be calibrated to compare to temperature like any mercury thermometer.
Ball4,
Can you stop it with this nonsense!? Please provide the full quote (with link to specified source) stating that the CERES EBAF Ed2.8 TOA OLR data is not not usable in its presented form, because it is not ‘calibrated’ and ‘validated’, and hence does not in fact have the precision level claimed by the CERES team.
Also, I’ve already shown you this several times, Ed2.8 (black) vs. Ed4 (blue & red) OLR:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Kristian
B4 engages in these tactics deliberately, a sort of malice. Best not let him bait you.
Kristian could answer the question by replicating Loeb 2016 but won’t do so even though it has a different conclusion than Kristian. Kristian provides no confidence intervals. Kristian doesn’t even tell us which data set Level he downloaded.
Calibration issues are not discussed by Kristian who just downloaded the instrument data. For example,
“for monthly mean clear-sky TOA fluxes, (CERES team) do not explicitly account for changes in the physical properties of the scene (e.g., aerosols, surface properties) during the course of the day.”
Kristian did not account for this. Does UAH?
CERES data “Users should be aware that in these cases, albedos (derived from the ratio of outgoing SW to incoming solar radiation) exceed unity.”
Did Kristian account for that? No. Did UAH?
“EBAF uses geodetic weighting to compute global means.”
This assumes a spheroid when Earth is oblate spheroid. Kristian made no correction, did UAH?
“Sohn et al. (2006) note that differences in how clear-sky is defined in model output and observations can lead to regional LW TOA flux differences of up to 12 W m-2.”
What did UAH do? Anything?
“To account for in-orbit changes in SW spectral response function (SRF), direct nadir radiance comparisons between instrument pairs on the same satellite are made and an improved wavelength dependent degradation model is used to adjust the SRF of the instrument operating in a rotating azimuth plane scan mode.”
What did Kristian do about that? Anything needed?
“This paper focuses on how the CERES team corrects for on-orbit changes in instrument calibration.”
Kristian always follow what they did? Dunno, he just downloaded a dataset. there are many more issues Krisitan needs to address, this only a sample.
Kristian just downloaded the data, were all of them properly included to compare to what UAH did for their Tmedian? Dunno.
Ball4 says, September 4, 2016 at 2:48 PM:
It doesn’t have a different conclusion than me. The OLR at the ToA data are basically unchanged from Ed2.8 to Ed4. As I’ve shown you. Again and again. Why do you continue to ignore this?
Still waiting for that quote and source, BTW.
Kristian, calibration unknown, “It doesnt have a different conclusion than me…Still absolutely no enhanced GHE in sight”
CERES team, Loeb 2016 with published calibration techniques: CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade
Feldman 2015: “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010”
Ball4 says, September 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM:
And as you know full well (because I’ve shown you), Ed2.8 would give pretty much the same trend. For the particular time segment in question. However, my “conclusion” doesn’t rest on the 2003-2013 interval.
The quote and its source, please.
Very easy for even Kristian to find CERES principle investigator by google string: Norman Loeb website
In case Kristian still has trouble
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science-team-members.php?person=Loeb
Enjoy the 2nd item at this writing. Show us your work to find replication is “pretty much the same trend” as CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade.
Ball4 says, September 4, 2016 at 5:27 PM:
I already did:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/olr-30-30-paper.png
Why do you keep ignoring it?
Now show us the quote (with linked source), Ball4, where it says that the CERES EBAF Ed2.8 ToA OLR data is not usable in its presented form, because it is not ‘corrected’, ‘calibrated’ and/or ‘validated’, and hence does not have the precision claimed by the CERES team.
Stop acting like a child.
There is no CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade shown in that link Kristian unless you used double secret invisible font. No confidence interval shown at all. You need to accomplish some grown up work to replicate the published paper in full and provide confidence in your curves. The reader is not going to do that work, it is responsibility of the commenter.
“Now show us the quote (with linked source…”
Still having trouble using google? I did not use double secret invisible font Kristian, the latest link has been provided to you “Accounting for in-Orbit Changes in Instrument Calibration” which I looked for cold and found in a few minutes.
“it is necessary to periodically reprocess the data in order to incorporate the latest calibration changes and algorithm improvements”
Up to the commenter (Kristian) to show his work and the data Level downloaded with its formal description. Also, research on UAH compared to these calibrations is necessary. Are they apples and apples like a thermometer reading 32F in ice water? Or not, if so, where,why? The reader can’t tell from Kristian, all we get is some curves. I had to look up the published papers to find out.
Ball4 says, September 5, 2016 at 6:37 AM:
It’s not just a ‘link’, Ball4. It’s a time series diagram of plotted 30N-30S OLR data from Jan’03-Dec’13, with the black CERES EBAF Ed2.8 curve superimposed on the red and blue CERES EBAF Ed4 curves. It’s for all to see – the three curves basically follow the same course.
I use CERES data, Ball4. So the confidence interval would be the confidence interval of the CERES data. Ask the CERES team. Or just look it up.
Yes, thanks, I’ve read that. And where exactly does it say that the Ed2.8 version of the CERES EBAF TOA OLR data is useless in its presented form because it is not ‘corrected’, ‘calibrated’ and ‘validated’, and thus does not come with the precision level claimed by the CERES team?
Quote, please. I didn’t ask for a link to a paper. I asked for a direct QUOTE with a link to the source of that quote. You do understand this, don’t you, Ball4?
You’re only evading, because you know you don’t have such a quote …
Yes, they are presenting an upgrade of their data, Ball4. That’s pretty common. But it doesn’t mean that 1) the ‘old’ data was uncorrected, uncalibrated and/or unvalidated, or that 2) the ‘new’ data is necessarily completely different from the ‘old’ data. In fact, when it comes to the all-sky OLR at the ToA parameter (which is what we’re looking at here), the data is basically unchanged from Ed2.8 to Ed4. As the figure above clearly shows …
You have no case here, Ball4.
No, it’s up to you (Ball4) to provide the direct quote (with link to source) that supports your claim that there is an issue here at all … That’s it’s not just you being an imbecile.
“Its a time series diagram of plotted 30N-30S OLR data..”
Correct, what it is NOT is showing us Kristian’s download replicates this calculation: CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade & until Kristian performs that work there is no confidence that Kristian’s other work is any good, at all. Apparently Kristian just ignores this important result so no one is impressed with Kristian’s simple graphs of readily available data.
The meaning behind the curves & CI is essential to discuss Kristian. Until you get that there is no confidence in your other work especially when it draws different conclusions than CERES Team, you need a mountain of explaining work for that. Not a simple curve download.
“And where exactly does it say that the Ed2.8 version of the CERES EBAF TOA OLR data is useless..?”
Nowhere that I have found, that is Kristian’s misdirection. What is useless is Kristian’s simple download plots without showing us how he can get this out of it: CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade.
I’ve lost track of which quote Kristian can’t seem to find even though I found it cold in a few minutes. Anyone expecting to confidently extend CERES team work should have ALL their publications nailed.
“So the confidence interval would be the confidence interval of the CERES data.”
Says nothing about Kristian’s downloads CI(s) outside CERES team interval; Kristian has to show he can replicate the CI of the CERES team using their time interval then apply the same method to series outside their time interval.
This is so readily apparent one has to conclude Kristian is not up to the task so there is no confidence, at all, in Kristian’s other interval work being meaningful.
Ball4 says, September 6, 2016 at 6:55 AM:
Who are you talking to here, Ball4? Me or some imaginary third person. More and more I get the impression that you suffer from certain mental issues …
Again, my conclusion ISN’T different from that of the CERES team. The only one here ‘concluding’ that since the OLR went down between Jan’03 and Dec’13, this is PROOF of an “enhanced GHE” in operation, is you, Ball4.
I’m not the one who cannot find it. YOU are, Ball4. I know it doesn’t exist. You continue to argue AS IF it does.
No, you didn’t. You found a paper detailing a CERES data upgrade, that I have shown you does not significantly differ from the ‘older’ version when it comes to all-sky ToA OLR.
You’re deliberately misdirecting to evade, Ball4. I know it and you know it.
Haha! So I reckon this goes for anyone who dares posting simple plots of official data on blogs like this …
I’ve posted official data, Ball4. If you think the data is somehow wrong, the onus is on you to back that idea up. You haven’t. What you have shown instead is the exact opposite, that the data is more or less spot on. According to the most recent version.
You have nothing, Ball4.
Kristian continues twisting things into a pretzel when all he has to do is replicate the calculation of the CERES team for CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade from the data he downloaded.
“Who are you talking to here, Ball4?”
The commenter whose written words I clipped for anyone that can plainly see, well except for Kristian.
“Again, my conclusion ISNT different from that of the CERES team.”
Incorrect Kristian, since you write this: “the radiative imbalance at the ToA is not a result of an enhanced GHE, but by an increase in solar input (ASR).”
Then you are forced to agree the OLR went down per CERES team when called out.
“The only one here concluding that since the OLR went down between Jan03 and Dec13, this is PROOF of an enhanced GHE in operation, is you, Ball4.”
Nope, never wrote that, quote my words Kristian’s won’t do. Feldman 2015 did provide proof of eGHE though.
“I know it doesnt exist.”
Again, which quote Kristian? Your bag of pretzels is opaque on that.
“No, you didnt.”
Yes. I did. I’ll find the quote in a few minutes again if Kristian will tell me which quote.
” Youre deliberately misdirecting to evade, Ball4.”
No misdirection Kristian, it is you directing attention away from your inability to calculate CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade from the data you dowloaded.
“So I reckon this goes for anyone who dares posting simple plots of official data on blogs like this “
Nope, only those that do so and then can’t calculate CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade from the data.
Kristian downloaded some official data which anyone can do, then Kristian fails repeatedly to show us the data calculates to CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade. Kristian is unable to show us the data is spot on. I have the CERES team results Kristian, all Kristian has is some downloaded data he doesn’t quite know what to do with.
It is easy Kristian, untwist the pretzel you find yourself in when called out:
1) tell me which quote you want a link to,
2) calculate CERES/Terra OLR -0.89 +/-0.4 W/m^2/decade from the data you downloaded.
The results might even be interesting to discuss & not twist pretzels.
And if the oil and vinegar doesn’t help, you might try some ketchup.
Ball4 is a strange individual, you’ve got that right …
So, Norman, let’s see if I understand you correctly. Let’s take the hypothetical case of tropical ocean with a clear sky insolation of 1,000 W/sq m and a back radiation of 400 W/sq m, both of these radiative fluxes “absorbed by the surface” for total of 1,400 W/sq m “absorbed by the surface”.
So, if I understand correctly, the surface would not warm according to the total of 1,400 W, but only according to the 1,000 W of insolation. Is this correct?
And the reason that the 400 W/sq m caused no warming is because the surface radiated that before it could warm anything. Right?
mpainter
I would say that is close but the point I would change was the “radiated that before it could warm anything”
There is no before or after it is on a continuous basis, the surface is not radiating away the energy before the DWIR arrives, it is emitting the energy constantly as it is also absorbing energy constantly. The exchange is simultaneously going on with different parts of the surface, some parts are warming some cooling. The effect is a total of the individual surface effects.
But the surface warms from insolation, not from back radiation, right? From 1,000 W/sq m, not 1,400 W/sq m, right?
THe surface warms from all radiation it receives. Including back radiation (which is just radiation from the atmosphere).
But Norman says it does not warm from back radiation. Now I don’t know what to believe.
mpainter
David Appell is only partially right. The surface warming is not just a basis of how much radiation it receives. Roy Spencer has stated it numerous times. It is not just how much radiation that is received but also how much energy is emitted away.
What do you say? Is an object receiving 2000 W/m^2 warming?
Is it warming faster than one receiving 10 W/m^2?
You can’t really tell. The object receiving 10 W/m^2 may be warming if it is only losing 5 W/m^2 at the time.
The object receiving 2000 W/m^2 could be cooling if it radiating energy away at 3000 W/m^2.
But it is certain that if an object is emitting away radiation at 3000 W/m^2 but receiving energy at the rate of 2000 W/m^2 it will cool slower than an object radiating away 3000 W/m^2 but not receiving any radiant energy.
If David is “partially right” then you are partially wrong. Because you said back radiation does not warm the surface. David says it does. Someone is confused. Is it you or David. Or do you mean that David is all wrong, and you you were just being nice about it?
Let me clarify this David:
Solar TSI and the GHE warm the surface.
However only with solar TSI is there a net flux of heat to the surface of Earth
In the case of the GHE, the flux is from surface to atmosphere.
As certain people know (as they have been told multiple times), the GHE is not a flux of heat back to Earth and therefore is perfectly in accord with the 2nd LoT.
It surely has to be game with *them*.
” Toneb says:
September 5, 2016 at 1:09 AM
Let me clarify this David:
Solar TSI and the GHE warm the surface.
However only with solar TSI is there a net flux of heat to the surface of Earth
In the case of the GHE, the flux is from surface to atmosphere.”
So atmosphere is warmed by radiant Longwave IR from the surface?
That seems like new version to me.
So is this like Norman’s view that gases re-radiant and don’t really get warmer. Or said differently is it heating the CO2 and Co2 cools at same time so that don’t get warmer?
Or is this going to another argument about lapse rate?
Why don’t we go to Venus.
Is land surface of Venus heated by sunlight and so does something like it does on Earth?
Or there something different going on with Venus?
And flipping over to Mars where there is 28 times more CO2 above the surface as compared to Earth- and Mars’ thin atmosphere also has 210 ppm of water vapor.
Is there GHE on Mars? And if so, about how much?
But GHE = back radiation and Norman says that back radiation does not warm the surface. Whom to believe? Toneb says it does, David says it does, Norman says it doesn’t, but he doesn’t sound so sure, now.
–mpainter says:
September 5, 2016 at 9:27 AM
But GHE = back radiation and Norman says that back radiation does not warm the surface. Whom to believe? Toneb says it does, David says it does, Norman says it doesnt, but he doesnt sound so sure, now.–
Yes, but to be fair, the deniers don’t agree either.
Of course, we prefer to be called skeptics- though
skepticism is basis of science, so is that really fair?
In context of the unsettled science [sometimes I like to be
generous and overly optimistic to include the GHE theory as
science rather some nutty pseudo science badly compiled by
a nameless and feckless committee] I am agreeable with being labeled as a lukewarmer. Example of what believers say:
“Dana Says:
June 8, 2011 at 20:40
Its difficult to define exactly what lukewarmer means, because all deniers want to be considered lukewarmers, because the term makes them sound reasonable. So you get people across the spectrum trying to invoke the label, and it becomes impossible to define.”
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/definition-lukewarmer-co2-not-irrelevant-despite-low-concentration/
To make it clear, I am lukewarmer who knows that over last hundred years or so, there has been what could be called global warming which has resulted in increase in global temperature by about 1 C and fairly certain that in next hundred years or so, global temperature will not increase by more than 1 C.
And roughly I think a 2 C increase in global temperature from the coolest depths of the Little Ice Age is a very good thing.
Or is more more fortunate than anything done by any and all governments in the last hundred years.
Or something perhaps more undeniable, it can’t be worst than what governments have been doing over last hundred years.
And find interesting that witch burning was related to the idea
witches were doing many bad things- which include effecting the weather.
Governments burned witches, and gassed Jews and other “undesirables” [including homosexuals- and other people are simply disagreeable, politically]. And politician always blame something other than the government which constantly creating the mayhem and always dividing it’s citizens.
And as general issue giving more power to the government- never ended well, and can not end well. And the desire for totalitarian government, trumps reason.
Or soviet and Chinese government killed tens of millions of it’s citizen- because politicians are politicians whenever they have
too much power.
mpainter
Maybe I can use your tropical ocean example to show the way GHE will lead to a higher equilibrium temperature.
In your example we now have a non rotating Earth so the 1000 W/m^2 insolation is continous. We want to eliminate the strong effect of evaporation to show just a GHE so we cover the water in a transparent plastic that allows solar and IR to move freely through it but prevents evaporation.
Without the 400 W/m^2 DWIR the water would reach an approximate temperature of 91 C at which point it will be radiating IR at the rate of 1000 W/m^2. It will be an equilibrium condition. Now add the GHG atmosphere with its 400 W/m^2 DWIR.
Your downwelling flux has some options when it hits the surface.
1) transmitted…you have already ruled this out as IR does not penetrate water
2) reflected…water has a high emissivity so should absorb almost all incoming IR.
3) absorbed…this one seems the most likely based upon the properties of water and its ability to absorb IR.
If you think in Kristian’s methodology you could say that with the 400 W/m^2 DWIR combined with the 1000 W/m^2 UPIR the surface is losing only 600 W/m^2. You can do it either way. The surface still emits 1000 W/m^2 and the atmosphere emits 400 and they subtract with a surface losing 600 W/m^2. You still have the solar insolation of 1000 W/m^2 but only losing 600 W/m^2.
What happens now? If the surface has an input of 1000 and an output of 600 it will start to warm until the output is at 1000.
So with the DWIR of 400 the surface (in my way) would have to rise in temperature until it is emitting 1400 W/m^2 that is the only way it will lose 1000 W/m^2.
So the new equilibrium temperature reached would be 123.25 C.
Yes, but Norman, the surface warms from insolation, not from back radiation,right? That is what you said up thread. Or do you think differently now?
mpainter
I did not change my view. The backradiation does not warm the surface. The surface is generally radiating away energy at a higher rate than the backradiation so it would be a cooling effect on its own.
What happens is the equilibrium temperature that can be reached by a constant flux changes if you add backradiation and will go up.
The energy comes from the constant influx of energy.
On Postma’s blog they talk about a tea cup.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/31/cup-calling-the-kettle-for-back-tea/
Postma does not understand GHE as is obvious from his example yet he goes off on a rant about people who do understand the process.
His words: “Both concepts are obvious, gross, flagrant, childish, and idiotic claims violating the most basic thermodynamics, and childhood empirical exploration.”
For some reason he can’t seem to understand that the Earth system is constantly receiving energy. It is an equilibrium temperature that is rising with a constant influx of energy.
They somehow think what Roy is saying is if you pour a cup of tea and wrap insulation around it, then the GHE means the water in the cup will warm up and not cool at a slower rate.
That is their flawed thought process. What goes on with the GHE would be to put insulation around the kettle as heat is being constantly added. The water in the kettle will get hotter with insulation than without, not sure what the equilibrium temperature will be but it would depend upon the quality of the insulation.
So many get it wrong. I rarely see the Postma followers ever give examples of a continuous heat source and adding some form of insulation and noting the results.
Roy does all these experiments, they do none and call him dishonest. Postma is a real crap scientist but he is able to convince so many gullible people then they come on this blog with the same arguments but never understand what is being said.
Yeah, well forget about Postman, I never heard of him and couldn’t give a hoot.
Back to pinning you down, Norman. Do you still insist that back radiation “absorbed by the surface” doesn’t warm the surface?
mpainter
I need to make sure my semantics are correct on these fine points as I think that is the reason for much misunderstanding on the basic issue.
I understand how the process of GHE works but I might not be able to communicate it properly and may make mistakes in my presentation. This does not mean the GHE process is incorrect, it means my ability to communicate it clearly is where the flaw exists.
Here is a attempt. Backradiation alone (ALONE is the key word) will not warm the Earth’s surface because the radiant energy leaving the surface is greater than the radiant energy of the backradiation absorbed by the surface.
This is why David Appell is correct except he leaves out the energy leaving the surface and only mentions the energy entering the surface.
Most skeptics of GHE note that it is absurd and against the laws of physics for backradiation to, by itself, warm the Earth’s surface and by itself it will not. That is the point I am bringing up.
The next point is that the solar flux will only warm the Earth’s surface to an equilibrium temperature in that the temperature will rise until it is at a point where the outgoing energy is the same as the solar incoming flux. Solar flux alone will warm the surface to an equilibrium temperature which is completely dependent upon the actual solar flux.
When both backradiation and solar flux are included the equilibrium temperature of a given solar flux will go up since the backradiation is suppressing the amount of radiant energy that can leave the surface (the heat, the net surface energy flow).
Without backradiation the surface HEAT or NET ENERGY (either choice means the same thing) will be of a higher value than with a backradiation and this amount is dependent upon the amount of backradiation. The higher the value of the backradiation the less HEAT can leave the surface and the incoming solar flux will accumulate a higher energy into the surface.
Still not sure if the communication is working. If that does not make sense to you I can continue trying until either you convince me I am wrong with good logical arguments and some evidence or you can understand correctly what I am trying to state. Thanks for the consideration and have a nice day.
Funny thing, Norman, my comments get shorter but yours get longer. And longer.
The definition of the GHE in a nutshell: it warms the surface.
Soooo, does the GHE warm the surface?
“does the GHE warm the surface?”
A. Earth atm. GHE allows the sun to warm the surface Ts – Te = ~ 288 – 255 = 33K, all measured data.
mapainter
Ok to keep it shorter. Does insulation around an oven warm the oven?
That is the point of contention.
Insulation around an oven with a heating element on will get warmer than the same oven with same heating element with no insulation around it. Does the insulation warm the oven? The oven is warmer with insulation but is the insulation actually warming it?
Without a heating element the non-insulated and insulated oven will reach the same equilibrium temperature.
mpainter
If in your thought process, you believe insulation warms an oven or anything then I would conclude that likewise GHE is warming the surface.
If you think like I do, insulation does not warm things, but things will get warmer with it, then you would conclude GHE does not warm the surface.
I think it is a semantic problem, how people define concepts in their head.
David maybe thinks insulation warms things as does Toneb. They would not be wrong, it is just how they view it so in their view GHE is warming the Earth’s surface. It is not the way I view it.
Norman, then your view is that back radiation absorbed by the surface acts as insulation and retards cooling of the surface. And that back radiation is absorbed by the surface together with insolation but only insolation warms. So in the example that I gave, the sea surface absorbs 1,400 W/sq m of radiant energy, but only 1,000 W actually warms; the other 400 is radiated from the surface with no effect on surface temperature.
Does this fairly represent your views?
mpainter
Your posts are what causes me to post long involved ones that are too long for most people to read or care about. Does not seem short ones work though.
The position of Toneb and David Appell, that GHE warms the surface will cause lots of confusion and the skeptics to claim that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I understand what they are saying but unless you really have a good grasp of it then you will conclude incorrectly that a cold surface is warming a warmer one.
I think no matter how I try to explain it, some will get confused by my explanation.
Only one input can cause actual warming of the Earth’s surface and that is the solar insolation.
Solar insolation will warm a cold surface on its own.
GHE will not warm a surface on its own. Without solar insolation the surface will just keep cooling (slower than without GHE) until it is as cold as a surface without any GHE.
The combination of solar insolation and GHE will lead to a higher surface temperature than with just insolation. With just GHE you get only cooling.
The combination of solar insolation and GHE will warm the surface to a higher temperature than one without GHE.
Just as insulation will raise the temperature of a heating element but it in and of itself is not warming the heating element.
It is difficult to communicate this concept. I doubt this will help, and I am not sure anything I post will. Thanks for you time and considerations.
This argument is really just about semantic issues and it is rather painful to see it just go on and on.
I think it is best if we use an example that is easier to understand. (It’s also an example that I think you libertarian-types…who question climate change because you don’t like the policy implications of the science…can appreciate.) Let’s say that you earn $100,000 per year. And, let’s say that the government imposes a wealth (not income) tax of 25% (and, for simplicity, assume you don’t spend any money). Then, it is not hard to show that the “steady-state solution” after several years would be that you have a wealth of $400,000 (because then the amount you pay to the government exactly balances the amount that you earn each year).
Now let’s suppose that the government decides to give a 20% rebate on your taxes, i.e., return 20% of what you pay. Then, in effect the new tax rate is 20% and your new steady-state wealth would be $500,000. So, you are $100,000 richer.
Now comes the question: Did the government make you richer? This is really a semantic debate. A lot of people would think it silly to say that the government made you richer just by letting you keep more of your hard-earned money. They would say that it is your income that is responsible for your wealth and the net flow of money is from you to the government. On the other hand, there is no doubt that you are richer because the government is now taking less of that money than before.
This is as perfect an analogy as one can find for the situation we are talking about: Income is the energy received from the sun. The wealth is the Earth’s surface temperature. The wealth tax is the energy re-emitted and the rebate is the back-radiation. Money is a conserved quantity (at least in this example) just like energy and the wealth tax means that the amount of money you lose to the government is an increasing function of your wealth just like the amount of energy that the Earth radiates is an increasing function of the temperature.
Joel, you misread the exchange. There was no argument. Norman was merely articulating his view of the actuality of the GHE, back radiation, etc., under my encouragement and attempts to clarify.
Read it again and don’t be pained.
mpainter now:
“Joel, you misread the exchange. There was no argument. Norman was merely articulating his view of the actuality of the GHE, back radiation, etc., under my encouragement and attempts to clarify.”
mpainter earlier:
“If David is ‘partially right’ then you are partially wrong. Because you said back radiation does not warm the surface. David says it does. Someone is confused. Is it you or David. Or do you mean that David is all wrong, and you you were just being nice about it?”
So, in fact, you are clearly confused (or else engaging in sophistry) regarding the use of words that are simply not well-defined. As I said, this is purely a semantic question. If you tell me your definition of what “warm” means as a transitive verb describing the actions of one body on another (in a way that it applies when the second body is exchanging energy not just with this body but also with a third body and I can tell you whether or not back-radiation warms the surface). Without such a clear definition, one simply can’t answer the question because the terms in the question have not been properly defined.
This kind of semantic ambiguity is exactly what the forces of sophistry, like Joe Postma, are exploiting to confuse people like yourself about basic physics.
“If you tell me your definition of what warm means as a transitive verb describing the actions of one body on another (in a way that it applies when the second body is exchanging energy not just with this body but also with a third body and I can tell you whether or not back-radiation warms the surface). Without such a clear definition, one simply cant answer the question because the terms in the question have not been properly defined.”
In terms of gases, warm means increase average velocity of the gas molecules. In terms of liquids and solids, warms means to increase the vibrational energy of molecular structure of the solid or liquid.
Joel, you rant about the word “warm”. For our purposes here it is understood as an increase in kinetic energy. And I think that you are the only person who had difficulty grasping that. You will find that “warm” is used in that same sense by many of your heroes of the global w.a.r.m.
…ing advocates.
Norman:
“David maybe thinks insulation warms things as does Toneb. ”
Yes and no.
It is a matter of semantics.
The warming is done via insulation.
The energy (terrestrial LWIR) is re-received by the surface, having lost it the first place.
And it is less than it lost.
It is not more energy (just the back-radiated component) than it lost – therefore it is not warming it.
10 – 5 =5
5 + 4 =9
9 is less than 10 (Not warming)
Where it CAN warm the SKIN of the surface is due to thermal flux from depth, whereby a new equilibrium is achieved re energy out vs energy in (total below + above).
This only happens at night when there is no absorbed TSI.
Any clearer?
To directly measure the greenhouse effect, just point an infra-red thermometer at the sky. Depending on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, a temperature way above the universe background radiation will be read. I get -42 degrees C at the moment, but Sydney Australia is under a high pressure system which means not a lot of moisture around. (This idea is not original. I did think of it myself, but so have a lot of others…)
So probably in for a relatively cool night. But way warmer than if the sky radiation was -270C or so.
peterg says:
September 5, 2016 at 3:30 AM
“To directly measure the greenhouse effect, just point an infra-red thermometer at the sky.”
Roy Spencer our host, also says this.
I wonder if one can use the infra-red thermometer at higher elevation and by the measurement determine where the greenhouse effect is halved?
☺
Did you try the ketchup?
Fine, Norman. You have difficulty expressing your views. To me, there is a paradox between “absorbed by the surface” and “does not warm”.
Because___the back radiation varies according to the time of day (at any particular place).
What about the clouds at night? Clouds passing overhead can add 20-50 W/sq m to back radiation…at night, with no insolation. By your view, this does not “warm the surface”. I believe that measurements indicate otherwise.
mpainter – You make a good point here. Measurements are available.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Click on Goodwin Creek, it is showing your 1000 and 400 about now. Click on DWIR and air temperature. Plot data. Then you can click on previous day. Do that for a week or so back noting DWIR and T.
Note sometimes DWIR spikes at night (passing cloud(s)) and air temperature does go up which is your “warm the surface” in action. (Solar DW also shows the passing clouds).
You should also find DWIR spike ups at night when the air temperature misbehaves and goes down.
There are some spectacular DWIR jumps too, I have to wonder if a bird alighted on the instrument.
Measurements show both warming and cooling for increases in DWIR, moral of the story is other constraints need be imposed (no birds, no air column cooling breezes, etc.)
Just to editorialize a little more: I like this analogy so much because it cuts through all the sophistry that people like P-stma and other who deny the greenhouse effect engage in. I.e., they never distinguish between “heating” in the sense of the net flow of energy being from the colder atmosphere to the warmer Earth (obviously a violation of the 2nd Law) and “heating” in the sense of causing the Earth to be warmer in steady-state than it would be if the net flow of energy away from the Earth were even larger (at a given temperature) than it is once back-radiation is taken into account.
There is really no reason to be getting into these semantic conundrums because I personally don’t care if you want to say that the government made you richer or not. As long as we agree that
(1) You are richer than you would be if the government did not give you the tax rebate.
(2) The net flow of money is from you to the government.
(3) It is only because you are earning your income that the government rebate causes you to become richer (rather than just to lose your wealth at a slower rate).
…Then, we agree on the science and the rest is semantics.
This post refers back up to this one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-223872
Just one comment on the semantic issues: I think the problem arises because while heat as a noun has a precise definition in physics, “heat” or “warm” as a verb really does not. So, the question, “Does back-radiation warm the surface?” is simply not a well-defined question because the term “warm” is not defined. Norman has explained well the sense in which back-radiation does or doesn’t warm the surface. Without a precise definition of what “warm” as a transitive verb means (particularly in the case where the surface is receiving energy from more than one object), it simply makes no sense to ask the question of whether it warms it or not.
Joel Shore
Good point on the semantics.
I did like your financial analogy but it probably will not make things any clearer.
I think this type of debate has been going on quite some time
Hi Joel,
Since the topic is semantics, I have a question: What is your definition, as a physicist or the word: equilibrium?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry,
I am not particularly interested in defining words that I haven’t used. I tend to avoid the term “equilibrium” myself, although I see others have used it a lot here (and I can’t say I never slip up myself), as I prefer “steady-state”. The reason is that the system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
On the other hand, I may be too much of a stickler on this (coming from the statistical physics background that I do) as there are other types of equilibrium besides thermodynamic equilibrium (which is why giving one overarching definition may be difficult) and I have heard people apply “radiative equilibrium” in the context of atmospheric science.
In fact, the Wikipedia page on radiative equilibrium notes: “Radiative equilibrium is one of the several requirements for thermodynamic equilibrium, but it can occur in the absence of thermodynamic equilibrium. There are various types of radiative equilibrium, which is itself a kind of dynamic equilibrium.”
Your tax analogy, Joel, holds a different significance to me. I see that terms and logic of science and physics do not serve to convey succinctly the GHE, or the process of back radiation, or the involved physical processes. That one should resort to such an analogy as yours underscores the uncertainty of the science. Plus, your analogy does not really seem apt: income taxes, rebates, etc., seem far removed from the issues of science that we strive to resolve.
I agree mp, analogies always have holes. In this one the Fed could create the money out of thin air (money not a conserved quantity in an economy) and the taxpayer not be a bit wealthier as prices increase likewise. For example, you get a raise of 9% and apples increase from $1 to $1.09.
Ball4: You are introducing all sorts of real-world complications with money that, yes, would make the analogy inapplicable. ****So, the solution is to not introduce such complications.*** I don’t think it takes a great imagination to say: “Let us suppose that money is a conserved quantity, so ignore complications like the Fed creating it out of thin air, etc., the decreasing value of money due to inflation, …”
Look, mpainter is stuck on some very basic stuff like how conserved quantities behave in extremely simple situations. If he can’t understand how it works in physics, it makes sense to try to help him understand it in a case where he may be more familiar and may not have the same sort of mental blocks he has to understanding it in the physical world when it is telling him things about the world that he ideologically cannot accept.
Mental blocks, Joel? When will you, and the rest of the zealots realize that the science is not settled?
Disagree Joel, the analogies will never help me, mp or most if not all others. What will always help is the experiment Dr. Spencer did in the previous post & the (simple analogue that shouldn’t be pushed too far) analysis Dr. Spencer did in the top post. I will admit msm does try to use analogies (GHE!) for their readership but among those with some deeper and proper training in the field, a proper experiment will always work.
It is unfortunate that mp doesn’t pay attention to proper experiments and asserts the opposite; wisely use that as a tool to learn why writers ignoring proper experiments do so at their own expense not at the expense of those who learn from the experience. Those folks are the richer.
“You are introducing all sorts of real-world complications”
Well, duh, yeah, that’s exactly why the analogy approach always has holes, better to use the real world in simple, proper experiments. This is why thermo. classes (et. al.) have that lab period attached. They don’t have analogy period.
Mpainter, I get the opposite message!
The language of physics DOES succinctly explain the GHE — but only to those who actually understand the physics to begin with. For those who don’t understand the physics, then imperfect analogies may be helpful as a stepping stone toward better understanding.
Analogies are ways for those with mastery of an idea try to convey that idea to someone without mastery using a setting that is potentially more familiar to he student. The analogy is a crutch for the student.
Thanks for your response, Joel.
” The language of physics DOES succinctly explain the GHE”
###
Always a need to examine the assumptions behind the math. What say you Joel, is “back radiation absorbed by the surface” without warming the surface?
And by “warming” I use that word in the usual sense.
Hi Tim,
You wrote: “The language of physics DOES succinctly explain the GHE but only to those who actually understand the physics to begin with.”
Joel Shore, another physicist, was discussing semantics. So, I asked him what his definition, as a physicist, of the word–equilibrium–was. So I am curious what your definition of this word, equilibrium, might be?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry, there are various definitions depending on the circumstances. Since we are looking at thermodynamics here, then a definition of thermodynamic equilibrium would be appropriate. Something like “In thermodynamic equilibrium there are no net macroscopic flows of matter or of energy, either within a system or between systems. “[from Wikipedia]
I should note that for the sun/earth/space situation under consideration, we should really be talking about “steady-state” (which allows for balanced flows in and out) rather than true “equilibrium”.
Agree Tim steady state more meaningful than equilibrium for Earth system.
Jerry asks a good question too, deserves an answer, equilibrium must be defined in each use as to what exactly the author means, good texts will do that, not leave it up to the reader to figure out. Since thermodynamics is all about equilibrium states though, some say it should be called thermostatics.
Jerry – I looked in Bohren 1998 and found: necessary conditions for strict thermodynamic equilibrium are no change with time of macroscopic thermodynamic variables, no gradients of those variables, and no dependence of the macroscopic system on its history.
At the molecular level of course change is rapid and incessant.
The climatic system is from a thermodynamics point of view of course not at all a system that is in equilibrium. It’s even a formidable problem of non-equilibrium thermodynamics and more precisely a system that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium in the sense defined by Nobel Price Ilya Prigogine, that locally produces entropy and dissipates energy continuously, yet organizes matter at macroscopic level and spontaneously creates order as here in trades winds, hurricanes or living creatures.
See the concept of dissipative structure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system
Only local thermodynamic equilibrium may be invoked in tiny parts of such systems.
As pointed out by Tim Folkerts some “steady state” situation may be established were (mean)
energy fluxes are constant and balanced and it is this kind of “equilibrium” that is usually invoked by climatologists as opposed to bona fide “thermodynamic equilibrium”. The latter for instance would imply first of all a uniform temperature everywhere the same in the whole system.
Hi Tim, Joel, Ball4, and alphagruis,
Thank you all for responding to my question (which I now paraphrase): What is your definition of ‘equilibrium’ as a physicist?
Joel’s response: “I am not particularly interested in defining words that I havent used. I tend to avoid the term equilibrium myself, although I see others have used it a lot here (and I cant say I never slip up myself), as I prefer steady-state. The reason is that the system is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.” seems to summarize each of your responses.
I asked this question because I am a chemist and I recently discovered how differently this word, which I consider a very fundamental word of science, has been taught in chemistry and physic textbooks.
In Physical Chemistry 2nd Ed by Walter Moore, page 5, I read: “5. Equilibrium. The ordinary subjects for chemical experimentation are not individual particles of any sort but more complex systems, which may contain solids, liquids, and gases. A system is a part of the world isolated from the rest of the world by definite boundaries. The experiments that we perform on a system are said to measure its properties, these being the attributes that enable us to describe it with all requisite completeness. This complete description is said to define the state of the system.
“The idea of predictability enters here; having once measured the properties of a system, we expect to be able to predict the behavior of a second system with the same set of properties from our knowledge of the behavior of the original. This is, in general, possible only when the system has attained a state called equilibrium. A system is said to have attained a state of equilibrium when it shows no further tendency to change its properties with time.”
Tim wrote: “I should note that for the sun/earth/space situation under consideration, we should really be talking about steady-state (which allows for balanced flows in and out) rather than true equilibrium.”
Now, it seems that the steady state condition to which you all refer is the necessary condition for equilibrium. Yet, it seems you all do not associate the steady state condition as being a system at equilibrium.
Now, the reason for my question was when I went to a physic text book by Marshal and Pounder, page 74, I read: “According to Newton’s Second Law of Motion, if all the forces on a body balance each other so that there is no net or resultant force, the body has zero acceleration and is said to be in equilibrium.”
Is this difference of definition of the word, equilibrium, the reason that each of you prefer steady state to equilibrium?
For a moment I questioned what Tim’s “true “equilibrium”” was. But then I found that Ball4 had written: “I looked in Bohren 1998 and found: necessary conditions for strict thermodynamic equilibrium are no change with time of macroscopic thermodynamic variables, no gradients of those variables, and no dependence of the macroscopic system on its history.” This answered two questions for me. For I not only did not understand what Tim’s true equilibrium was, but I also did not understand what a thermodynamic equilibrium was.
Am I correct if I understand a thermodynamic equilibrium to be the “equilibrium” which Morrow defined?
Now, relative to equilibrium systems and hence, non-equilibrium systems, I ask: Is the earth’s atmospheric system ever an equilibrium system?
Have a good day, Jerry
Jerry,
First one should not confuse mechanical and thermodynamic equilibrium. They are really very different things.
A system in thermodynamic equilibrium is as defined in your Bohren reference: Uniform pressure, temperature, i. e. no gradients with entropy, internal energy etc that do not change with time. In particular there is no energy dissipation and production of entropy in such a system.
So the earth atmospheric system is definitely never in thermodynamic equilibrium but it may be in a steady state of non equilibrium where for instance its internal energy remains constant but there is a vertical temperature gradient or lapse rate. As pointed out previously the very presence of this temperature gradient implies a system that is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover there is continuous dissipation and production of entropy i.e. the total entropy of the (system + surrounding) steadily increases.
As a most remarkable example of far from thermodynamic equilibrium system is a living creature. In it’s grown-up state it may be in a steady state of non equilibrium (no change in weight, flow of energy in and out cancel, but continuous production of entropy exported to its environment. This is in sharp contrast with when it grows after birth, no steady state in this case, weight increases, energy in exceeds energy out, it’s entropy and internal energy change with time, but there is still continuous dissipation of energy and production of entropy exported to its environment, which is what characterizes systems out of thermodynamic equilibrium..
I meant Tim, not Joel, excuse please.
“That one should resort to such an analogy as yours underscores the uncertainty of the science.”
What a bizarre statement. The fact that we have to resort to analogies simply illustrates the weaknesses in the understanding of those who we are talking to. It is not necessary for us to resort to such analogies when we are talking to other physicists or climate scientists.
And, I explained to you exactly why the analogy is applicable: The scientific issues aren’t complicated. You are stuck on some very basic issues like how a conserved quantity behaves, how one gets a steady-state solution and how that solution behaves in some simple instances, … And, for these issues the analogy is in fact perfectly well-suited. I think the reason you don’t like it is that it gives you a result that you don’t want to believe so you are desperately clinging to the notion that somehow the analogy fails.
No, not a bizarre statement, a considered opinion. Abandoning scientific terms for stretched analogies seems to me symptomatic of the present state of climatology, as in the inflammatory press releases that accompany so much of climate science.
As for the rest of your comment, you obviously regard the science as settled. Don’t expect the rest of us to agree. Plus, you cannot show that atmospheric CO2 is anything but beneficial for the biosphere.
Don’t blame us and a field of science for your ignorance and inability to understand basic science. As I noted, when I have discussions with scientifically-literate people then I don’t need to give them such analogies. In fact, my physics colleagues wonder why I would waste my time talking to people who can’t understand the greenhouse effect and deny this piece of basic physics. Sometimes I wonder too.
You are entitled to your opinions about climate science. Just don’t expect them to care any wait amongst people literate in physics because they absolutely won’t.
Sorry…In my haste, I wrote “care any wait” instead of “Carry any weight”. Go figure.
Joel, I am always willing to discuss issues of science. But discussing far-fetched and inept analogies has no appeal to me.
And still no science from you, only an extended rant against my “ignorance” for not swallowing your stretched analogies.
mpainter
Here are links to your questions. Maybe seeing it will help you to understand what I am saying.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf166c942ad.png
It show a winter period with a very cloudy night. Temperatures do not drop and the UWIR and DWIR are very equal. The energy added to the surface by DWIR is removed at the same rate as the UWIR leaving the kinetic energy of the surface molecules unchanged during the all night exchange of energy.
There may be times (mostly winter months) were DWIR can warm the surface. This would be due to a temperature inversion where the atmosphere above is warmer than the ground below.
This could be an example. Have to look at the local weather conditions because more is going on for specific locations than radiation. It is only one of the energy budgets. Local areas not only have to consider evaporation, convection and conduction but air masses moving in from other locations.
I just picked this graph because it did show DWIR higher than UWIR and warming night time temperatures.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf198728345.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf1bed1cf7e.png
Current Desert Rock. DWIR much below UWIR and the surface is cooling.
mpainter,
For the most part on all the graphs I have looked at the DWIR does not warm the surface in the normal sense.
By lowering the amount of radiant energy leaving, however, it will allow the constant solar input to increase the temperature of the surface leading to a warmer surface than one without DWIR.
Norman says, September 6, 2016 at 1:54 PM:
Again, for the nth time: In your scenario THERE IS NO LOWERING OF THE AMOUNT OF RADIANT ENERGY LEAVING THE SURFACE, Norman!!!! There is only more radiant energy ENTERING the surface. Warming it directly. This is not “insulation”. This is tantamount to extra “heating”. How can you not see this!?
Again, the “back radiation” EXPLANATION is wrong. The insulation effect isn’t.
Kristian
I know you don’t believe those measurements in my links are real (even though they can calibrate the instruments to real temperatures in the lab to get correct readings. I take an IR gun a work and point the laser at different parts and it does quite a good job of giving the same temperature arrived at by other means) but they explain quite well what is going on with the GHE.
I do see I did not post my thoughts correctly. I should have put the word NET in front of my radiation.
My corrected sentence: “By lowering the amount of NET radiant energy leaving, however, it will allow the constant solar input to increase the temperature of the surface leading to a warmer surface than one without DWIR.”
From your post: “here is only more radiant energy ENTERING the surface. Warming it directly. This is not insulation. This is tantamount to extra heating. How can you not see this!?
Again, the back radiation EXPLANATION is wrong. The insulation effect isnt.”
It is very obvious you are making these comments without even trying to take a look at the nice links I put in for mpainter to review. I realize I can’t communicate the ideas to him with words but thought visual images of the process would demonstrate the concept.
Kristian
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf64c42d54c.png
I am linking to a graph of UWIR, DWIR and net IR with air temperature.
If you take a brief moment to look at the graph it will demonstrate clearly what I am saying. You ask “How can I not see this?” that the DWIR is warming directly.
If you look at the graph you will see your thoughts are incorrect and on some strange tangent that makes little physical sense. The back radiation explanation is not wrong. You nee to invest in a good physics thermodynamics book and correct all the flaws in your understanding of how radiant energy works. All current physics books accept that all matter, with temperature, emits radiant energy (EMR). The amount of radiant energy a surface emits is based solely upon its temperature and emissivity. Radiant energy is either reflected, transmitted, or absorbed. It is real energy and will add kinetic energy to a surface if absorbed. The reason a hot surface with a colder one around does not warm is not because the cooler one stopped radiating, it is because the warmer one is emitting radiant energy away (real energy, real joules) at a faster rate than it is absorbing radiation from the cooler surface making the net heat flow from hot to cold.
All the graphs show this. That you need to stick you head in a hole in the ground is not my problem and tell me I am wrong repeatedly when my thought process is based upon the current understanding of thermodynamics. I have posted links to textbooks to show the thought process. When I did I got tons of flak because it was printed by MIT.
The ESRL graphs show exactly what the textbooks say should happen I do not know why I need to subscribe to your twisted and incorrect physics. Maybe you are the one who should study modern physics instead of claiming everyone in the world, all thermo scientists, some who post on this blog, are wrong and you are the only one in the Universe who figured it out correctly even though you have zero supporting evidence for you vast amount of posts. Link me to a scholarly paper that in any way supports the physics you hold firm to.
Norman says, September 6, 2016 at 6:51 PM:
Well, the temperature measurements are real, and the radiant heat flux (‘net LW’) measurements are real. All other values, however, are only COMPUTED, Norman. So in the sense that those computations are ‘real’, then …
You still see two separate, opposite arrows when you look at a thermal radiation field. Those arrows are mathematical constructs only … In reality there is but ONE movement of radiant energy through the thermal radiation field – the net, the probabilistic average, of ALL microscopic (quantum) movements through ALL points in its threedimensional space.
Norman,
“By lowering the amount of radiation leaving..”
###
Are you saying that “back radiation absorbed by the surface” _lowers_ the amount of radiation leaving? This is cooling, it appears.
========================
Norman: “it will allow constant solar input to increase the temperature..”
###
Where is solar input constant? Sun rises, surface warms; Sun sets, surface cools. Whether there be back radiation or none.
mpainter
Yes your statements are correct. But you only tell part of the reality.
I have already stated solar insolation is the only input that actually heats a surface on its own. The combination of the solar insolation and DWIR will allow the surface to reach a higher temperature.
The surface will cool but without back radiation it will cool to a much higher degree than with a surface with backradiation.
And if you take even a brief time to look at the ESRL graphs I linked you too you will see strong evidence that the amount of backradiation has considerable effect on the cooling rate of the surface. Real world measured values, this would be considered the empirical proof of the concept that so many need to reject for unknown reasons.
Norman,
This is so silly! You state, without reservation: “By lowering the amount of radiant energy leaving, however, it will allow the constant solar input to increase the temperature of the surface leading to a warmer surface than one without DWIR.”
1) In your scenario, you are specifically NOT lowering the amount of radiant energy leaving, you are specifically INCREASING the amount of energy ENTERING. To create extra warming.
Hence,
2) It is specifically NOT the constant SOLAR input that further raises the temperature in your scenario. It is specifically – directly and all by itself – the extra input of energy from the “DWLWIR”.
Just follow the energy, Norman:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
In your scenario, there is NOTHING to obstruct any energy at any time from ESCAPING the surface, and the solar input is, as you say, constant. So the ONLY flow of energy in your scenario that can create the EXTRA warming, beyond the pure solar equilibrium, from 232 to 289 K, is the “DWLWIR” from the atmosphere.
You say:
No, Norman. Beyond pure solar equilibrium (165 W/m^2 IN = 165 W/m^2 OUT, at an ideal 232 K), the Sun cannot contribute to any further increases in temperature. In your scenario. So the final increase in temperature, from 232 to 289 K, is solely caused by the “DWLWIR”. In your scenario:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
No, in your scenario (the “back radiation” EXPLANATION), the “back radiation” specifically constitutes an extra INPUT of energy to the surface, not a reduction in the OUTPUT of energy from the surface. That’s extra “heating”, not extra “insulation”.
You will just have to change the way you view and describe this process, Norman. Because as it stands, you are promoting nonsense physics …
“nonsense physics”.
As in “back radiation absorbed by the surface” without warming the surface?
Kristian,
It seems nonsense to you because all your knowledge of physics seems to have been derived by you on your own using your own logic and common sense and not consulting textbook knowledge based upon many experiments and tested applications.
I post links for you to observe and see for yourself. You reject them based upon your own internal understanding of how the measuring devices work even though in lab tests they seem to be able to measure the temperatures of objects just fine.
If you will not look at any links it becomes pointless to keep debating with you. I offer empirical evidence which you claim my points are nonsense. You will not look at the evidence or reject it because it shows strong evidence you are incorrect in your current understanding so you have to make claims that it is not measuring what they scientists claim it does, somehow you seem to be the much wiser than they.
Kristain
I will reload and try again.
Please just link to the graph and read my points.
YOU Posted: “1) In your scenario, you are specifically NOT lowering the amount of radiant energy leaving, you are specifically INCREASING the amount of energy ENTERING. To create extra warming.”
No sir that is not at all what is going on and the evidence demonstrates your point is senseless.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf85e117aba.png
The actual evidence clearly shows the DWIR is not greater than the UWIR and the surface is cooling, the rate of cooling is what is significant. The NET radiant energy loss from the surface with DWIR or “backradiation” is around minus 200 W/m^2. Without the DWIR the surface would be losing energy at the rate of around 500 W/m^2
Watts/m^2 is equal to joules/sec-m^2. Joules are what detemine the internal energy of a body, if more of them leave the surface the body will cool faster. Without GHE the surface will cool at a much greater rate.
Kristian
I think I might be closing in on why you do not understand the GHE and continue to see the scientific world (including Dr. Spencer himself) as misguided in their current understanding.
YOU STATE: “In your scenario, there is NOTHING to obstruct any energy at any time from ESCAPING the surface, and the solar input is, as you say, constant. So the ONLY flow of energy in your scenario that can create the EXTRA warming, beyond the pure solar equilibrium, from 232 to 289 K, is the DWLWIR from the atmosphere.”
You think a constant input can only warm to a certain temperature for some unknown reason. Something in what you think is common sense. The truth is a constant input of energy will pile up. A constant flux of 165 W/m^2 means the solar input is adding 165 new joules of energy into the surface every second per square meter.
If the energy is not lost at the same rate in the first second the square meter has 165 additional joules. The next second 330 joules. A constant input means you will just keep piling up energy. The temperature of a surface is unknown with only the incoming energy. 165 Watt/m^2 can raise the temperature several degrees, thousands of degrees as long as the energy can be added.
The solar input can raise the Earth’s surface to equivalent of the Sun’s surface if the radiant energy is not allowed to exist.
The cool temperature of an equilibrium surface with the 165 flux is because that is the temperature solar energy can raise a surface that can emit radiation at its maximum rate. If something prevents the outward flow the equilibrium temperature will go up and it can reach fantastic high temperatures depending upon how much the outgoing energy is prevented from leaving.
Norman says, September 6, 2016 at 9:11 PM:
No. It seems nonsense physics because it is nonsense physics. I am not using “my own homemade” physics to try and show you this, as you keep telling yourself. I am using simple, straightforward, regular physics. Regular thermodynamics, regular radiation physics, regular quantum physics.
I’m sorry, Norman, but YOU’RE the confused one here. I know PERFECTLY well what you are trying to say. But it’s just muddled … You have a closed mind on this issue, that’s pretty obvious.
mpainter says, September 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM:
Yes. Like energy ADDED to the surface somehow reducing the OUTGOING energy. Like the ADDED energy from the atmosphere somehow “allowing” the (assumed constant) SOLAR input to magically create further warming.
mpainter
I can’t force you to look at the links I put in my posts to you but rather than make statements as you did:
nonsense physics.
As in back radiation absorbed by the surface without warming the surface?”
I have stated the concept is difficult for me to explain to you in words that you and I both accept and agree upon definition and can then logically deduce what is being said.
That is why I chose visual evidence in the form of graphs of measured values.
It clearly shows why back radiation absorbed by the surface (except in a few extreme cases of temperature inversions) does not warm the surface, primarily because the surface is emitting energy at a greater rate.
mpainter
I would take you define warming the same as I do. An increase in temperature over a previous value?
I also believe you accept that the temperature of an object is the result of its internal energy, and type of material it is made out of.
Do you likewise believe electromagnetic radiation possess energy within itself and that this energy, contained in electric and magnetic fields, can add or subtract internal kinetic energy from a body via surface interaction?
Surface radiates away EMR and it loses energy and cools?
Surface absorbs radiation and gains energy warming?
Do you accept that is you add energy to an object but it is losing energy at faster rate than you are adding energy, it will cool? Simple example. You are trying to warm an iron bar with your hand (source of heat) that is immersed mostly in liquid nitrogen.
Do you accept that if you are adding energy to an object faster than it is losing energy that it will warm?
If you accept all these or understand them in a similar fashion to how I do then why do you think that with two radiant energy fluxes going on (incoming and outgoing) at the same time that one that is adding energy being of a lesser value than the process losing energy that the lesser value would indeed be able to warm the surface?
Norman, I have looked at your links, thank you. I see upwelling radiation correlated with air temperature, and back radiation only weakly correlated to air temperature. I see it rise when clouds pass overhead.
Did you see these things?
Yes Norman, yes to all of that. There is one more yes: that 400 W/sq m radiation added to 1,000 W/ sq m radiation will sum to 1,400 W/sq m radiation. Yes.
Kristian
Again: Please look at the link and just for the sake of thought process consider the fluxes you see are real measured values of energy flows.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57cf85e117aba.png
YOU Claim I am wrong and try to convince yourself I am. Reality is on my side.
YOU: “No, in your scenario (the back radiation EXPLANATION), the back radiation specifically constitutes an extra INPUT of energy to the surface, not a reduction in the OUTPUT of energy from the surface. Thats extra heating, not extra insulation.
You will just have to change the way you view and describe this process, Norman. Because as it stands, you are promoting nonsense physics ”
If you look at the link it clearly shows that back radiation is not an extra INPUT of energy. IN reality its overall effect is a reduction in the OUTPUT of energy from the surface and it acts quite similar to insulation even though the processes are different in nature the overall result is the same. Each, insulation and backradiation slow the ability of a surface to cool. Without an input of energy it would not matter. With an input of energy it makes a huge difference.
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
In the graph you link to the backradiation is not wamring the Earth by itself. The Earth surface is radiating at the rate of 398 W/m^2. The backradiation is 345 W/m^2. It can’t heat the surface by itself and the diagram does not show it does. Only your faulty and incorrect reasoning makes you think that is what the diagram shows.
It does show with back radiation the Earth’s surface is only losing radiant energy at the rate of 53 Watt/m^2 because of the backradiation.
If not for the backradiation the Earth’s surface would be losing energy at 398 W/m^2 from radiation alone. If you add the other loses of surface energy (112 W/m^2) you would lose 510 W/m^2 and with only 165 W/m^2 incoming solar your surface is going to cool very fast and keep cooling until it reaches the equilibrium temperature 165 W/m^2 can sustain. As the surface cools the radiant and other forms of energy transfer from the surface will go down until they equilibrium with the solar incoming flux.
mpainter
Yes, I agree with you that 1000 watts/m^2 plus 400 watts/m^2 will equal 1400 Watt/m^2.
Now what is it you want to determine with this conclusion? Where do you go with this?
You made this point above: “So, Norman, lets see if I understand you correctly. Lets take the hypothetical case of tropical ocean with a clear sky insolation of 1,000 W/sq m and a back radiation of 400 W/sq m, both of these radiative fluxes absorbed by the surface for total of 1,400 W/sq m absorbed by the surface.
So, if I understand correctly, the surface would not warm according to the total of 1,400 W, but only according to the 1,000 W of insolation. Is this correct?
And the reason that the 400 W/sq m caused no warming is because the surface radiated that before it could warm anything. Right?”
I think it is correct to add the two fluxes as you have. So you have 1400 W/m^2 being absorbed by the ocean surface. How much will the ocean surface warm? The answer to this would be based upon how long this flux was maintained and how much energy was being lost at the same time.
With a 1000 W/m^2 flux and 400 DWIR for a total of 1400 W/m^2 the ocean will warm. But then when the solar insolation drops to zero and the DWIR is still 400 W/m^2 but the UWIR of the ocean surface is 460 W/m^2 the surface will cool via radiant loss as well as the other energy loss processes (evaporation and convection).
So again is the DWIR warming the ocean surface? Without the solar insolation the water will not warm but only cool? Together they can warm the ocean more than the single solar flux.
Norman, you say “I think it is correct to add the two fluxes as you have. So you have 1400 W/m^2 being absorbed by the ocean surface. How much will the ocean surface warm? The answer to this would be based upon how long this flux was maintained and how much energy was being lost at the same time.”
####
The ocean warms. And warms. And warms. Because water is transparent and the insolation is absorbed at depth. As deep as 100 meters. So from day to day the ocean warms because the heat is cumulative, that is, the oceans do not cool at night except partly. Each day adds more heat to the 100 meters. Every night only a fraction of that is lost. The heat and the temperature rise day after day.
Until the ocean’s surface waters (the upper 300 meters) circulate above a certain latitude. Then they cool. And cool. And cool. They cool to 0 C.
So what does this have to do with the energy budget diagrams?
Answer: nothing.
mpainter
Do you have evidence of your point that water would just keep heating unless the ocean currents moved it North or it just your opinion of how the system works?
Do you have local heat budget (not the global one) but an actual specific heat budget of tropical water to demonstrate your point?
CERES might be able to help you provide evidence. Otherwise your post is an opinion just founded on your belief of how it should work.
The global energy budgets are based upon actual measured values. What they do is smear real measured values and average them out among all the Earth’s square meters. This may not be a correct process but it is based upon actual measured values. I do not know that yours is such unless you can come up with some values. Some real numbers.
Evidence: its not a matter of evidence, Norman, it is a matter of textbook oceanography. Do you understand : *meridional overturning circulation*? If you do, you know that the tropical oceans warm from circa 4 C (upwelling) to 30 C.
Study SST, tropical Pacific. Contrast ENSO regimes. It is there in the data. If you can’t think it through you are lost.
And no, it is not “just my opinion”. It is oceanography. “Real numbers”.
The oceans accumulate heat in the tropics (warming) and release in the high latitudes (cooling). Even the turniphead Trenberth has said so.
Norman says, September 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM:
Ok. So will [1000+400=] 1400 W/m^2 warm the ocean *more* than just 1000 W/m^2? And if so, how/why?
Yes it is. Directly. Forcing the surface to cool more (increased “UWLWIR”). In your scenario.
Er, but the same is true if you remove the “DWLWIR”, Norman. The surface T_avg will go down, not up. Still, we KNOW that the solar flux is a direct HEAT input.
IOW: In your scenario, the solar flux and the “DWLWIR” are considered thermodynamic equivalents, energy inputs to directly create warming – if they are removed, the surface will cool, if they are added back, the surface will warm.
Meaning, they are both TREATED as radiant heat fluxes. Even though only the solar flux happens to be one. The “DWLWIR” is physically an integrated part of the surface heat LOSS …
“they are both TREATED as radiant heat fluxes.”
Mostly by Kristian which results in confusing comments/conclusions by using the heat term incorrectly to make twisty pretzel comments when actually scientists treat SW and LW as radiant energy fluxes each photon with energy hf so not thermodynamic equivalents.
Neither red nor yellow arrow(s) in the top post are heat Kristian.
Vermin will seize upon the confusion extant in thermodynamics concerning the term “heat” and its ambiguous usages to sow further confusion. As a deliberate tactic. Wise persons will not allow themselves to be baited.
Better just ignore this particular troll. He’s a hopeless case.
Kristian
YOU: “Er, but the same is true if you remove the DWLWIR, Norman. The surface T_avg will go down, not up. Still, we KNOW that the solar flux is a direct HEAT input.”
It will go down from what it is with DWIR but it will only go down to a new equilibrium temperature and remain there.
With just DWIR and no solar input the temperature will just continue to drop until it reaches the new equilibrium temperature of input from the Earth’s interior and outer space and I don’t know what they number would be.
The two fluxes are considerably different in what they are able to do.
YOU: “Meaning, they are both TREATED as radiant heat fluxes. Even though only the solar flux happens to be one. The DWLWIR is physically an integrated part of the surface heat LOSS ”
Ball4 already addressed your claim. DWIR is not treated as a heat flux (except in rare temperature inversions where the emitting atmosphere is warmer than the surface, in this condition DWIR is greater than UWIR and the surface can be warmed by DWIR making it a heat flux under these conditions).
Sorry, Norman, but you say “DWLWIR is not treated as a heat flux” and b.s. button on that. You have slipped a mental gear. Let’s see if you even figure it out.
mpainter
I did explain that if there is an inversion the DWLWIR could be considered a “heat flux”. In this case the warmer atmosphere will transfer energy to the colder surface, which is then a heat flux.
If you believe I err it will probably how you define “heat flux”. It seems this is were lots of confusion takes place when opposing sides state their positions.
In my definition a heat flux only takes place from warmer to cooler. It is a NET energy flow not an individual flow.
Any individual flux will not be a “heat flux” since the concept is a NET flux of all radiant inputs. The solar insolation will not be a “heat flux” at an equilibrium state since it will not add warmth to the surface. It would be a heat flux if the NET energy from it was positive.
The best way to approach it to avoid confusion is to listen to Ball4 on this one. Each flux can only be considered a radiant energy flux with direction (Up or Down). It has energy but is not counted as heat.
When you add all the fluxes together the you find out if there is any “heat flux”. It the temperature is not changing you will have no “heat flux” but you will still have the individual fluxes.
See referred cartoon in post. Note Tsurf. Note caption: “energy flow”. DWLWIR is depicted as a constituent of “energy flow” which determines surface temperature. By your lights, this is incorrect. DWLWIR cannot be part of the “energy flow” at the surface.
Note how the cartoon treats DWLWIR as part of the “radiant heat flux” (Kristian’s term) but calls it “energy flow”. Norman, I urge you to think this cartoon through. The difficulty that you (and others) have in depiction of the surface effects of the GHE stems from your denial of the this cartoon.
Please don’t use the tactic of squabbling over whether the term “heat” refers only to a measurable property of matter (kinetic energy) or whether it refers only to the transfer of energy (a process rather than a property, radiant energy being identical to radiant heat in this sense), lest you convict yourself of sophistry.
Kristian
In my scenario and the rest of the scientific world.
YOU: “IOW: In your scenario, the solar flux and the DWLWIR are considered thermodynamic equivalents, energy inputs to directly create warming if they are removed, the surface will cool, if they are added back, the surface will warm.”
No they are no equivalents. And no the DWIR does not directly create warming. It will warm with solar input but not on its own.
If you start with Earth in a state at 200 C (cold but still having an atmosphere…not collapsed). Without a solar flux the surface will keep cooling even with a DWIR so it is not the same. If you have just solar and no DWIR in this case the solar will warm the surface to the radiant equilibrium temperature and hold it there indefinitely.
So no they are not the same and no one treats them the same.
With DWIR the solar input will raise the surface temperature to a new higher equilibrium (warming it) because the DWIR lowers the amount of NET radiant energy leaving the surface and the temperature will increase until the Net surface radiant energy matches the incoming solar. If you stopped the other heat transfer mechanisms from the surface, the surface would get much hotter still but it would reach a new equilibrium and remain there.
Not real hard for most to understand. Seems impossible for you though.
Norman, see Dr. Roy’s “cartoon” at the head of this post. What does that tell you? Obviously the cartoon represents DWLWIR as part of the surface radiation flux.
The question remains : how is the DWLWIR absorbed by the surface without warming the surface?
You, Norman, have been struggling through dozens of comments trying to answer that question. And you have been all over the place in your explanations. Your latest is to deny that DWLWIR is part of the heat flux. You need to show a little consistency in your science.
Norman is deeply confused on this issue, mpainter. It’s as simple as that. Can he get himself to admit it? Of course not …
mpainter
I really have not been all over the place, it is fairly consistent.
I am using the currently accepted definitions of terms used in a scientific context.
The cartoon above has atmosphere flux as a radiant flux not as a “HEAT FLUX” that is your false addition not stated above.
This will not make it any clearer but this is how current definitions are understood (Tim Folkerts can correct me if I am wrong but I highly doubt I am).
You have two hot plates each at 1000 C facing each other. There is zero HEAT flow or flux between the two.
You have another set of plates one at 10 C the other at 0 C that face each other. There is a heat flow between these two and it is greater than the heat flux of the 1000 C plates.
Both sets of plates also have radiant energy fluxes. The 1000 C plates each have a much higher radiant flux than the cooler plates, they just have zero HEAT FLUX as the term is defined. It is the NET ENERGY FLOW between objects (can be two, or more).
So if you have a problem with the definition I can’t be blamed for you lack of understanding. Maybe it is up to you to update your terms.
Norman, the cartoon is wrong, then? The cartoon represents back radiation as “absorbed by the surface” as an “energy flow” that determines temperature, Tsurf.
You say this is wrong.
Your still have not described how back radiation warms the surface without warming it. Perhaps you are thinking about the temperature gradient from surface to air. Perhaps you are trying to express the notion that back radiation lessens that gradient, hence it warms by retarding the rate of cooling at T1, hence it rises to T2. Is this what you mean?
mpainter
In the cartoon. Yes backradiation is absorbed by the surface. I have never stated anything different. Does it warm the surface?
That depends, mostly not.
Once again I will try. Backradiation does not warm the surface in most cases. It is a lesser flux than the outgoing flux and will not keep up with the outgoing energy.
Does that make sense to you? Probably not.
NOTE PLEASE: IT is the COMBINATION of solar flux and DWIR that warm the surface not the DWIR alone. Can you understand that point?
On the daily cycle of day and night. The solar flux will most of the time warms the surface (extreme clouds may prevent this process). Solar flux will warm the surface on its own (nothing to do with the global budget, these are separate topics and should not be mixed together or it brings a mighty torrent of confusion for many). Even with no backradiation, during the day solar flux will warm the surface. DWIR alone will not warm the surface, it only leads to cooling surface. Look at the links again they show it so clearly!
Can you grasp the difference here? The combination of the two fluxes will lead to a warmer surface than the solar flux alone will achieve.
How can something so simple be so baffling to you? Even with empirical evidence for you to look at.
Norman, nothing is as plain, clear as the diagram in the cartoon. Clearly it means that back radiation is warming the surface. Your view defies the laws of physics: that the absorbed back radiation does not increase the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules.
mpainter
One problem is you do not read my posts. I think you quick scan them looking for some material. Evidence: In your post you make this claim: “Your view defies the laws of physics: that the absorbed back radiation does not increase the kinetic energy of the absorbing molecules.”
I already addressed that in a post above to clarify for you. Saying my view defies the laws of physics when you do not know my view is a strange sort of conclusion.
Here is what I wrote above. Will you read it? Most likely not. I will post it as evidence that you are making claims that are not mine.
ME ABOVE ON THIS SAME THREAD: “A surface molecule absorbs a DWIR and starts to jiggle more which is picked up by the surrounding molecules and it would seem that the overall kinetic energy would go up so why doesnt it? That is because for this one molecule that absorbed an IR photon and increased its local kinetic energy there were two molecules elsewhere on the surface that emitting photons (same time) and lost more kinetic energy than the surface gained by the one absorbed photon. With this process going on trillions plus times per second you have a net loss of energy to the cooler atmosphere.”
mpainter
Your conclusions are most difficult to determine the logical pathways that lead to such conclusions.
I your post you state as a conclusion: “Norman, nothing is as plain, clear as the diagram in the cartoon. Clearly it means that back radiation is warming the surface.”
How do you logically arrive at this certain conclusion about the cartoon? There are no values to the fluxes.
Roy himself states: “Here are the basic energy fluxes included in the model. The illustration is just schematic.”
It is only showing direction of flows and not magnitude. Based upon this information how do you conclude the cartoon “Clearly it means that the back radiation is warming the surface”?
Norman, study the Stefan-Boltzmann principle. That is the key. If you can grasp that, it should help clear up your confusion.
A few comments on S-B: this concerns hypothetical “black bodies”. The earth’s surface is not a perfect black body, by no means, but the land surface absorbs and radiates radiant energy in a fashion that approximates hypothetical black body behavior,i.e., that it radiates according to the radiant energy that it absorbs.
So study S-B and I hope that helps.
Norman, you “So if you have a problem with the definition I cant be blamed for you lack of understanding. Maybe it is up to you to update your terms.”
###
I have no such problems. Nor do I have any problem apprehending the significance of the cartoon of the above post.
Whether that cartoon correctly depicts the radiant flux (energy flow, in the cartoon) is a question aside from what the cartoon intends to show.
Norman says, September 7, 2016 at 7:38 AM:
No, Norman. This is where you’re confusion arises. You read about the “back radiation explanation of the GHE”, and then you refer to some radiation physics texts saying there are two streams of radiation between two objects involved in a radiant heat transfer. From this you then draw the conclusion that THEREFORE the “back radiation explanation of the GHE” is correct and agrees with regular physics.
When in fact it clearly DOESN’T.
The difference between those radiation physics texts and the “back radiation explanation of the GHE” is this:
i) In standard radiative transfer physics, the scientists, even when strictly adhering to the bidirectional transfer principle (“Prevost’s theory of exchanges”), are always careful to ensure that their physical description of the radiative transfer up for discussion complies with thermodynamic laws, based on the simple empirical knowledge that, in reality, the two streams in question are in fact inseparable, they are physically integrated into one ‘net transfer’ at all times. You would NEVER, in standard radiative transfer physics, pretend or suggest that the two streams somehow come with distinct, mutually independent thermodynamic powers. MATHEMATICALLY you are of course free to work with them as individual entities, but you can NOT split them up, place them on either side of the equal sign and expect to gain any PHYSICALLY meaningful insights as a result. Because you know that by doing so, all you would accomplish is utter confusion as to what causes what inside your radiative transfer: Temperature is ALWAYS the cause of a radiance, a radiance is NEVER the cause of a temperature. ‘Thermal radiation’ is caused by temperature, it is not a cause of temperature. Only ‘net transfers’ are, that is, “radiant heat fluxes”.
ii) The “back radiation explanation of the GHE” violates all of these principles … It is NOT a product of standard physics, Norman. It is an isolate, an aberration. A misconstrued version, an illegitimate child of, standard physics. A product of a blatant MISUSE and/or of a MISINTERPRETATION of standard physics. You cannot and should not disjoin the two streams and place them on either side of the energy budget of a heated object.
Exemplified in Earth’s surface energy budget:
i) Standard radiative transfer physics, in compliance with regular thermodynamic laws:
Net transfer IN (Q_in) = net transfer OUT (Q_out) ->
Net solar (ASR) = net LW (OLR) + non-radiative losses ->
165 W/m^2 = [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 + [24+88=] 112 W/m^2 = 165 W/m^2
ii) “Back radiation explanation of the GHE”:
Net solar (ASR) + DWLWIR – non-radiative losses = UWLWIR ->
165 W/m^2 + 345 W/m^2 – 112 W/m^2 = 398 W/m^2
i) would be the standard physics approach, ii) the homemade approach of “Climate Science^TM” …
“Temperature is ALWAYS the cause of a radiance”
So … if there are two objects with two different temperatures, each will cause a radiance. The two radiances will travel different directions, with different intensities, with different distributions of energies/wavelengths/frequencies. Even when one stream crosses/passes/opposes the other, each stream has its own unique properties determined by the temperature of the object that caused that radiance.
In other words, by your own logic, the two streams are distinct.
Tim Folkerts says, September 7, 2016 at 10:33 AM:
Yes, and if those two objects are situated in space, those two radiances will, for all intents and purposes, be equal to the radiant HEAT LOSS of each object.
Not really. On a microscopic level, individual photons will travel in different directions. On a macroscopic level, the radiance – or rather, the radiant heat flux; the net movement of radiant energy – will travel in the direction of lower radiation intensity and/or energy density.
Read the above. This is not what happens. A radiance is only realised as an actual macroscopic forward movement of radiant energy as long as it’s opposed by a lesser radiative potential (intensity/density).
In other words, you mix up the microscopic (chaotic, quantum) and macroscopic (ordered, thermodynamic) realms.
Again, I am not saying individual photons do not and cannot fly from cold objects to hot. I’m saying that a radiant macroscopic power density flux does not spontaneously move from a cold place to a hot.
The energy present and the energy density/intensity distribution within a photon cloud does not IN ITSELF constitute a macroscopic (physically detectable) MOVEMENT (transfer) of energy. Statistically/probabilistically, only the net or average of all photon intensities and path directions through all points in threedimensional space constitute a macroscopic movement, an actual transfer of energy, through the radiation field. Such a movement requires two radiative potentials of unequal strength on either side of the radiation field. One more intense than the other. Hotter than the other. This is what we call a “radiant heat transfer”.
Kristian
Energy is transferred, heat is not. They are different concepts. You can’t separate photon flux and understand two distinct energy flows and you are unable to separate energy and heat. You are locked in this view and no one will change your view.
You want others to see it your way but they do not and will not as it is not the correct view.
You remind me of a boy who was raised by his family to think of oranges as apples. So his whole life, when he saw what others see as an orange he would see an apple. All good an well within the family, they ask for an orange and he gives them what I would call an apple.
When he gets out to the larger world and everyone else is opposite he fights to try and convince him. Most boys will change to adapt to the rest of the world. Stubborn boys raised on one notion believe the rest are wrong and only their definitions are correct.
Norman says, September 7, 2016 at 1:22 PM:
You remind me of a boy, too, Norman. So let’s leave it at that, shall we? There is no point continuing this utterly futile ‘discussion’ of ours. You will never change. You will never step out of your bubble.
You think the DWLWIR helps raise the surface temp, but it still doesn’t warm the surface. You also think that by ADDING energy to the surface, you’re actually REDUCING the energy LOSS from the surface, and that by adding extra energy to the surface from the ATMOSPHERE, then the SOLAR input, which is constant and is NOT obstructed from escaping the surface again, is what magically creates further warming.
A child would see how all this is not only illogical and against all common sense, but also just plain stupid.
How can you defend such nonsense …!?
Kristian
Now you have to be pulling my leg! You actually posted this statement? “then the SOLAR input, which is constant and is NOT obstructed from escaping the surface again, is what magically creates further warming.”
What is not reflected is completely absorbed by the surface, it is not escaping it is no longer there to leave, it went to increasing the kinetic energy of the surface molecules.
Kristian: “You also think that by ADDING energy to the surface, youre actually REDUCING the energy LOSS from the surface, ”
Not what I think but what can actually be observed in reality not abstract speculation.
I sent a few links to mpainter down below. I was hoping you would look at them to demonstrate the direction you are on it a wrong one and try and help you find the correct science path.
My goal on this blog is to keep the science as honest and pure as possible. I reject a lot of claims by the extremist views of David Appell but yours are just as antiscience as his. More fluffed up by belief than reality.
Would you ever consider downloading this thermodynamics textbook to your computer and reading some of it when you have time.
http://web.mit.edu/lienhard/www/ahtt.html
Kristian, ultimately the only message I hear in your recent posts is “Yes, I know that individual photons exist, but it is incorrect physics to treat them like they exist”.
Tim Folkerts says, September 7, 2016 at 1:18 PM:
Uhm, you know that’s not what I’m saying, Tim. So stop misrepresenting me. And stop playing stupid. It doesn’t become you. I would much rather see you engage in a proper analysis of the different perspectives on how these processes work.
After all, they’re all just model descriptions of reality. We are describing the very same process. We SEE the same thing, but we choose to explain and define what we see in different ways.
I really don’t get the blinkered, hidebound stubbornness of you people … What’s so terrible about admitting that it’s not some perceived “DWLWIR flux” (which is only an apparent radiative temperature EFFECT) from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface that makes the surface even warmer, but rather the TEMPERATURE of that atmosphere being much closer to that of the surface itself than space …?
Kristian,
Frankly I am not sure what you are saying! Yes, it is all “just models” — but you are the one insisting that the more detailed, more complete model can’t possibly be right, while the generic, averaged-out model is the only right perspective.
“Whats so terrible about admitting that its not some perceived DWLWIR flux (which is only an apparent radiative temperature EFFECT) from the cool atmosphere to the warm surface that makes the surface even warmer, but rather the TEMPERATURE of that atmosphere being much closer to that of the surface itself than space ?”
Several things are wrong. First of all, DWLWIR is not an “apparent effect” but rather a real, measurable energy flow (in the form of IR photons).
Moving on, there could be lots of different sorts of atmospheres all at the same temperature that would have drastically different effects on the surface temperature. So *temperature* per se is not the deciding factor. You would see dramatically different impacts on surface temperature from 20 C atmospheres of (100% N2) vs (99% N2, 1%CO2) vs (98% N2, 1%CO2, 1% H2O).
On the other hand, any atmosphere that supplies some specific amount of DWLWIR will have the same impact of surface tempearatures. 200W/m^2 of DWLWIR from pretty much any atmosphere will have basically the same impact of surface temperatures.
So it is indeed the RADIATION, not the TEMPERATURE that matters!
Tim Folkerts
After posting comments to both mpainter and Kristian it is so pleasant to read the thought process of someone who actually took advanced science classes. Thanks it is refreshing!
Hi, Tim, time for a reappraisal of the physics, right? Time to constrain the GCM’s with observations, don’t you think?
What’s this that I hear about the TOA CO2 spectrum as originating mostly in the stratosphere? Did you know that?
Tim Folkerts says, September 7, 2016 at 5:14 PM:
Er, what are you trying to say? It is indeed the more detailed, more complete description of the radiation field that says that the ‘net movement’ of radiant energy through a radiation field ISN’T the net of TWO opposite macroscopic movements, like two arrows on a piece of paper, but the average of ALL microscopic movements. The one saying it’s like two arrows, is a simplistic mathematical model only. Are you telling me you don’t know this?
You know this is incorrect, Tim. You KNOW that the DWLWIR from a cool atmosphere to a warmer surface (“back radiation”) isn’t something we can measure, but something we will have to compute. We measure (as in ‘physically detect’) the temperature of the surface and the ‘net LW’ (the radiant heat flux) up. The two component ‘fluxes’ of a ‘net flux’ are just ASSUMED to be there. Mathematically. But they cannot ever be separately detected/observed. You know this, so why do you pretend you don’t?
Quite an assertion there, Tim.
You know that I’ve pointed out how the temperature isn’t the full story. The temperature GRADIENT is one thing. No, the MASS is the real cause. The air TEMPERATURE is merely one (albeit a very important one) property with which a massive atmosphere affects the surface temperature of a planet. On a planet like Venus, for instance, the bulk air density/pressure gradient from the surface up is such that you need to go tens of kilometres up the atmospheric column before you reach levels of air ‘thin’ enough so as to allow sufficient amounts of energy to escape to space via radiation. Still, it happens at basically the same pressure/density levels as on Earth (although the thick tropopause cloud layer on Venus complicates the direct comparison somewhat). Same on Titan.
*Sigh*
Where is that 100% N2 atmosphere? And where is that 20 C atmosphere containing 99% N2 and 1% CO2 affecting (I guess, warming) the surface temp less than one containing 98% N2, 1% CO2 and 1% H2O? I would think the surface would rather be warmer in the former case, from a higher albedo and greater atmospheric absorp tion of incoming solar (by the H2O) in the latter.
This is just you ASSUMING stuff, Tim. It’s got nothing to do with the real world. Titan has an atmosphere containing somewhere between 96 and 98% N2. It affects the surface temp in exactly the same manner as the Martian and the Venusian atmosphere do (both containing 95-96% CO2). The things that matter to the differences between their specific surface T_avg are only solar input, lapse rates and atmospheric mass.
No, read this explanation of why it’s temp rather than DWLWIR:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-223543
You’re seeing this issue from the wrong perspective. You’re looking at the apparent 345 W/m^2 of DWLWIR and from this point you start out by asking “What if those W/m^2 weren’t there?” But at that point, the warming of the atmosphere has already happened. The DWLWIR is 345 W/m^2 rather than 0 W/m^2 because the relevant atmospheric layers have gained an effective temperature of 279 rather than 2.7 K.
OF COURSE you would think, just like Norman here, that it is the radiation that matters. But you’re basically seeing a mere EFFECT of temperature as the CAUSE of that temperature.
Kristian writes “We measure (as in physically detect) the temperature of the surface”
Kristian should know even HCN mercury thermometers on the surface compute the air temperature just like a radiometer computes the DW and UW LW. Temperature is not physically detected either from the avg. KE of the molecules; Kristian has a lot to learn.
I think we have reached an impasse. Your focus is too narrow and literal.
* yes, pyrgeometers only measure the net flow of IR, but there are other instrumen out there.
* yes, a one-way flow model works wonderfully in many settings, but it has limitations.
*yes, a simple macroscopic model can provide answers to a wide range of thermodynamic problems, but acknowledging atoms and photons and statistical mechanics provides deeper, broader understanding.
*yes, there is only one atmosphere, but if your science can’t make predictions about new situations, then it is not really science.
Kristian writes: “The things that matter to the differences between their specific surface T_avg are only solar input, lapse rates and atmospheric mass.”
Then Kristian ought to be able to compute Earth T_avg. 288K from only “solar input, lapse rates and atmospheric mass.”
Show us.
We already know (energy in – energy out) increases T_avg. to steady state computing to ~288K as shown in top post atm. 0.8 emissivity analysis. Or other Tavg. computed from atm. emissivity (opacity) 0.0 to 1.0.
Tim Folkerts says, September 8, 2016 at 6:52 AM:
Who could ask for a more classic example of warmist projection?
Instruments that directly detect each separate ‘component flow’ in a radiant heat transfer? Really? Do tell!
Maybe. But at least it has the all-important strength that it never allows a cold object to spontaneously raise directly the U and T of a warmer object by transferring a flux of energy to it.
It IS specifically acknowledging atoms and photons and statistical mechanics, Tim. That’s exactly WHY it’s a better and more precise description of reality than the two-way flow model. Try to pay attention.
If you average out all individual photon movements and intensities throughout a radiation field, you get ONE bulk movement of radiant energy, Tim. NOT two opposing ones. From hot to cold only. The two-way flow model is a mathematical simplification of reality, to make calculations easier.
So, is your idea about atmospheric IR activity setting the surface temperature rather than atmospheric mass able to predict how the tropopause both on Titan, Earth (~0.5-1% IR-active atm) and Venus (97% IR-active atm) is situated around the 100-200 mb level, plus that Mars doesn’t have a “radiative GHE” as defined at all, despite having an atmosphere made up of 95-96% CO2?
I’m afraid my ‘science’ is more able to predict and explain these observations than yours, Tim …
“But at least it has the all-important strength that it never allows a cold object to spontaneously raise directly the U and T of a warmer object by transferring a flux of energy to it.”
Not never Kristian, that has been demonstrated* possible experimentally in accord with 2LOT as universe entropy increased which is a reason one way fails. Another reason one way also fails is Planck law showing all objects emit/absorb at all frequencies, all temperatures.
*A colder object can spontaneously make a warmer object warmer still Kristian, as Dr. Spencer’s test shows in previous post. Both the cardboard and ice irradiate the hot plate. “Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still”
Kristian
Your physics is like D*o-u*g*C*o*t*t*o*n. Not based upon anything but your own opinions and conclusions. Ungrounded thought process that lacks the rigor of science. Make believe.
You seem like that all you need do is say it is so and if it is.
Here you post your own flawed opinion. “If you average out all individual photon movements and intensities throughout a radiation field, you get ONE bulk movement of radiant energy, Tim. NOT two opposing ones. From hot to cold only. The two-way flow model is a mathematical simplification of reality, to make calculations easier.
Two-way flux is not because of a mathematical simplification of reality. It is a logical rational conclusion based upon the atomic theory. If a hot surface is emitting so much radiant energy it is most logical to assume that if its temperature remains the same it will emit the same amount of radiant energy regardless of the surrounding radiant energy sources. No mechanism found for another hot surface to suppress the emission of radiation from a surface. Your ideas are screwy at best and with you would really think about how poorly reasoned they are.
I’m still waiting for Kristian or any other self-proclaimed expert in atmospheric thermodynamics to produce a simple time-dependent model that produces anything like the real atmosphere’s vertical temperature profile from an arbitrary temperature starting point. Otherwise, it’s all just hand waving, and I am bored with the usual suspects’ “technical term salads”.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, September 8, 2016 at 3:25 PM:
Hehe. And I’m waiting for Roy Spencer’s derivation of Earth’s surface T_avg without already knowing it first.
Dr. Spencer already did so in the top post spreadsheet with all measured input Kristian. The model doesn’t know the answer to start. It even gets the 255K right which it doesn’t know either to start.
Now it is Kristian’s turn to do so from: solar input, lapse rates and atmospheric mass showing us his calculation or spreadsheet can produce “anything like the real atmosphere’s vertical temperature profile from an arbitrary temperature starting point.”
Kristian says: “The two component fluxes of a net flux are just ASSUMED to be there. Mathematically. But they cannot ever be separately detected/observed. “
Before derailing us with lots of extra questions, let’s agree on some basics — like “do photons exist?” Your statements (like the one above) clearly show that you consider photons to be merely ‘mathematical assumptions’ that “cannot ever be separately detected/observed”. You are going against all of physics for the past 100 years, so you better have pretty strong support for this position you are taking.
And until we clear that up, there is really no point even getting into further discussions.
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2016 at 6:46 AM:
You’re not that strong on this microscopic vs. macroscopic realm thing, are you Tim? The inherent disorder of the quantum world and the inherent order of the world of thermodynamics. Chaos vs. consistent patterns.
This inability (or unwillingness?) to comprehend the simple fact that a ‘photon’ and a ‘radiant power density flux’ are two different things on a fundamental level apparently makes everything I write completely unintelligible to you.
For instance, you say: “Your statements (like the one above) clearly show that you consider photons to be merely ‘mathematical assumptions’ that “cannot ever be separately detected/observed”.”
No, Tim. I’m not saying that a ‘photon’ is merely a mathematical assumption that cannot ever be separately detected/observed. I’m POINTING OUT that the notion of two distinct and oppositely directed ‘radiant power density fluxes’ operating inside ONE radiant heat transfer is merely a mathematical assumption (and/or simplification of reality) which cannot ever be empirically verified, because what you always end up detecting, no matter what you do, is the radiant HEAT only, the ‘net radiation’, the statistical/probabilistic – UNIDIRECTIONAL – average of ALL photon movements and intensities inside the entire radiation field.
I’ve been telling you this now for quite some time, Tim. Why do you continue to shy away from discussing (or even addressing) it?
“I’m POINTING OUT that the notion of two distinct and oppositely directed ‘radiant power density fluxes’ operating inside ONE radiant heat transfer is merely a mathematical assumption..”
Those fluxes are each made up of photons Kristian. Since photons exist both the radiant power density fluxes exist. Tim is correct.
Those fluxes are not merely mathematical constructions, the net flux (arithmetic) points which way the KE flows in the objects irradiated (an important finding in many designs like car engines), heat flow is a measure of their KE flow. The last Dr. Spencer post experiment should convince Kristian.
Kristian should also look up an experiment ref.d by Planck and see how this physics was established at the very beginning (Tim’s 100+ years ago). Will be instructive. And, OMG, maybe, hopefully, reduce the length of comment streams.
Sure, neither photon stream can be separated to do work by 2LOT, I think that is all Kristian is really meaning to convey. The 2 photon streams can be superposed because they are independent which Kristian doesn’t yet grasp.
Ball4 says: September 9, 2016 at 11:49 AM
Kristian:(Im POINTING OUT that the notion of two distinct and oppositely directed radiant power density fluxes operating inside ONE radiant heat transfer is merely a mathematical assumption..)
And a mathematically impossible assumption at that!!
“Those fluxes are each made up of photons Kristian. Since photons exist both the radiant power density fluxes exist. Tim is correct.”
Trick, Some fools call one cycle of a 0.5 micron wave packet a 2 ev photon as that is the Lorentz energy of one cycle of 0.5 micron absorbed flux. How many cycles of such flux before an electron has a 50% probability of emission from Nickel at 20 C? A 1 micron flux has zero probability no-matter how many cycles, so far! What is it that you are calling a photon?
“Those fluxes are not merely mathematical constructions, the net flux (arithmetic) points which way the KE flows in the objects irradiated (an important finding in many designs like car engines), heat flow is a measure of their KE flow. should convince Kristian.”
There is only one flux, as per the definition of flux! The last Dr. Spencer post experiment is a clear demonstration of that singular physical process!
“Kristian should also look up an experiment ref.d by Planck and see how this physics was established at the very beginning (Tims 100+ years ago). Will be instructive. And, OMG, maybe, hopefully, reduce the length of comment streams.”
In what experiment did Dr Planck ever refer to flux or a physical transfer of power? Planck was very, very careful to only refer to “specific intensity”, which can only be identified a spectral field strength, normalized to the term ‘spectral radiance’! Note the (cm x sr) in the denominator of y axis graphs of all Planck’s equations.
“The 2 photon streams can be superposed because they are independent which Kristian doesnt yet grasp.”
Such cannot be superposed as Maxwell’s equations forbid such construct! The generation of flux or the “magnetic flux density” B never physically happens with such combination of (E x H) Poynting vectors at the same frequency! Your religious nonsense is never scientifically creditable!
Will, consider the incoherent photons inside an opaque cavity being let out of a small hole as BB radiation field as Planck et.al. did in experiments in a lab, the reflected (and refracted) waves do satisfy the partial differential equations of the electromagnetic field i.e. the Maxwell equations. So you are completely wrong about that.
“In what experiment did Dr Planck ever refer to flux or a physical transfer of power?”
The ones he references in “The Theory of Heat Radiation” so Will is wrong about that too. But Will IS right about Planck using cm as “The Theory of Heat Radiation” is written in the CGS system.
“There is only one flux, as per the definition of flux!”
A photon is a quantum energy flux, multiple photons, multiple fluxes especially inside the cavity, a bath of photons. One photon flux up and one photon flux down is two fluxes Will, they are independent. Buy a clue!
Ball4 says: September 9, 2016 at 7:02 PM
“Will, consider the incoherent photons inside an opaque cavity being let out of a small hole as BB radiation field as Planck et.al. did in experiments in a lab, the reflected (and refracted) waves do satisfy the partial differential equations of the electromagnetic field i.e. the Maxwell equations. So you are completely wrong about that.”
Trick,
I asked but you refuse to identify what you may mean by the word photon. How many cycles of EM flux to emit an electron from room temperature Nickel? At what frequency?
wj(In what experiment did Dr Planck ever refer to flux or a physical transfer of power?)
“The ones he references in The Theory of Heat Radiation so Will is wrong about that too. But Will IS right about Planck using cm as The Theory of Heat Radiation is written in the CGS system.”
References where? The per cm refers to “wavenumber” not to the cgs system. In the same manner the per steradian refers to a static field strength vector, never to any flux crossing the aperture area. If there were no opposing ‘radiance’ the actual exit flux across that aperture per cm would have been PI times that much as the aperture would represent a Lambertian surface and the S-B equation would hold for those wavelengths. Buy a clue!
wj(There is only one flux, as per the definition of flux!)
“A photon is a quantum energy flux, multiple photons, multiple fluxes especially inside the cavity, a bath of photons.”
How many cycles of flux for your imaginary ‘photon’ please?
You claim some spontaneous flux inside a closed cavity of a single temperature. Please present some viable conjecture as to why such flux shall ever be generated? You seem to believe in perpetual motion.
Will: “References where?”
Buy a clue and get a copy of “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Will, see footnotes p. 199. Will would know this if Will had demonstrated actually reading the whole thing.
The per cm refers to wavenumber in the CGS system Planck used.
“How many cycles of flux for your imaginary photon please?”
Depends on its frequency Will, your photon energy depends on frequency too, h*f, buy a clue Will quote Planck.
“You claim some spontaneous flux inside a closed cavity of a single temperature. Please present some viable conjecture as to why such flux shall ever be generated?”
Buy a clue Will, read Planck, quote his words, no conjecture, read the testing in footnotes p. 199 that demonstrated by experiment spontaneous flux inside a closed cavity of a single temperature.
There is no perpetual motion Will, that is only your religious belief. Buy a clue Will, read Planck.
Tim Folkerts says: September 9, 2016 at 6:46 AM
Kristian says: The two component fluxes of a net flux are just ASSUMED to be there. Mathematically. But they cannot ever be separately detected/observed.
“Before derailing us with lots of extra questions, lets agree on some basics like do photons exist? Your statements (like the one above) clearly show that you consider photons to be merely mathematical assumptions that cannot ever be separately detected/observed. You are going against all of physics for the past 100 years, so you better have pretty strong support for this position you are taking.”
Where oh where are your so called detected/observed thermal EM photons being emitted in a direction of higher radiance? You do not have even one viable conjecture as to how such spontaneous emission may occur. It is you Tim that has no scientific support for your nonsense.
Will asks, “Where oh where are your so called detected/observed thermal EM photons being emitted in a direction of higher radiance?”
A. In Dr. Spencer’s experiment, last post.
If the radiance was from hot plate 1 way, the cardboard would have had no effect on thermometer reading. The data show an effect. Will is completely wrong, buy a copy of “Theory of Heat Radiation” Will and get a clue.
Ball4 says: September 9, 2016 at 8:53 PM
Will asks, Where oh where are your so called detected/observed thermal EM photons being emitted in a direction of higher radiance?
“A. In Dr. Spencers experiment, last post.”
Trick, Nowhere is that ever evident!
“If the radiance was from hot plate 1 way, the cardboard would have had no effect on thermometer reading. The data show an effect. Will is completely wrong, buy a copy of Theory of Heat Radiation Will and get a clue.”
Again, and again, The hot plate has radiative potential HP, cardboard radiative potential CB, Ice has radiative potential IC. Got that! Not a flux, but just a potential for flux (an EM field strength)!
The only flux ever spontaneously generated must be proportional to the difference in opposing potentials nothing more, nothing less, and absolutely never bi-directional spontaneous thermal radiative flux.
HP-IC must have Flux P (power from heat-lamp) must be equal to HP – CD. If CD is higher than IC than with CD in place HP must increase so as the difference remains as Flux P. No opposing flux is ever needed nor is it ever generated…
Wrong Will, Dr. Spencer’s thermometer indicated an increase in temperature measuring an increase in hit plate KE not hotplate PE from your “potential” flux off the ice, a very silly notion, photons are EMR per Maxwell’s equations not potentials, buy a clue Will pick up a copy of “The Theory of Heat Radiation”.
Ball4 says: September 10, 2016 at 7:54 AM
Wrong Will, Dr. Spencers thermometer indicated an increase in temperature measuring an increase in hit plate KE not hotplate PE from your potential flux off the ice,
Trick, Do not say ‘wrong’, point out what you think is even one error pwease!
Dr. Spencer’s lamps At higher temperature than all else are the only supply of additional KE in the whole demo, the only!The lamps sustain a variable level of KE (sensible heat) in the plate.
That same plate must dispatch that same ‘extra power’ to achieve a sustainable/stable temperature. The plate can ‘only’ do that; if exists a lower ‘radiance’ surround that has the capability of accepting such EM flux from the energized plate. As the ice ‘radiance’ is replaced by the cardboard ‘radiance’, the plate ‘radiance’, must increase in order to sustain that required difference in thermal EM radiative potential (delta radiance). I.E. the plate temperature must increase to sustain the required difference in potential (radiance). Radiance is never a potential energy, it is a flux (power) potential. Please learn the difference. Please also try to learn the difference twixt potential for flux, and flux itself. Please point out even one technical error in you can!
Will, if that is your best effort to admit Dr. Spencer’s experiment and top post show the 2stream physics then not worthwhile pointing out some detail technical errors.
Ball4 says: September 10, 2016 at 8:06 PM
“Will, if that is your best effort to admit Dr. Spencers experiment and top post show the 2stream physics then not worthwhile pointing out some detail technical errors.”
buy a clue Will pick up a copy of The Theory of Heat Radiation.
I have so read every word of Max Plancks 1914 novel, including auf Deutsch, with assistance. There is absolutely nothing in that document that is anywhere close to what you claim!
Ball4 says: September 10, 2016 at 8:06 PM
“Will, if that is your best effort to admit Dr. Spencers experiment and top post show the 2stream physics then not worthwhile pointing out some detail technical errors.”
Complete response “without silly Spencer’s rulez” now at:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/weekend-unthreaded-133/#comment-1836179
Will saya “I have so read every word of Max Plancks 1914 novel..”
Will, you demonstrate no actual evidence of having done so. And it wasn’t a novel. Quote Dr. Planck’s words as evidence.
Ball4 says: September 11, 2016 at 7:36 AM
Will saya (I have so read every word of Max Plancks 1914 novel..)
“Will, you demonstrate no actual evidence of having done so. And it wasnt a novel. Quote Dr. Plancks words as evidence.”
From Planck! “Fuck you Gertrude auf deutsch!”
Perhaps not a novel as it is does not flow with time. Planck’s 1914 novel clearly depicts the Max lifelong struggle with the concept of “quantum”, (discreet rather than a continuum). Are irrational numbers discreet? In what way? BTW ‘Photons’ are not involved. Such fantasy came way way later!
Ball4 says: September 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM
Will: References where?
“Buy a clue and get a copy of The Theory of Heat Radiation Will, see footnotes p. 199. Will would know this if Will had demonstrated actually reading the whole thing.”
The per cm refers to wavenumber in the CGS system Planck used.
wj (How many cycles of flux for your imaginary photon please?)
‘Depends on its frequency Will, your photon energy depends on frequency too, h*f, buy a clue Will quote Planck.’
Is one cycle a ‘photon’. i.e. one ev for 1 micron EMR? Yes? No?
Does one cycle of flux constitute your insane version of some fantasy ‘photon’? Yes? No?
wj (You claim some spontaneous flux inside a closed cavity of a single temperature. Please present some viable conjecture as to why such flux shall ever be generated?)
“Buy a clue Will, read Planck, quote his words, no conjecture, read the testing in footnotes p. 199 that demonstrated by experiment spontaneous flux inside a closed cavity of a single temperature.”
There was no “demonstration” only conjecture! Did you even read to page 200 where Planck writes of multiple sources of radiance! You seem only a troll coached by tidbits from goons at SKS! Do you have your viable conjecture of flux inside a closed cavity or not? if you have such what is your version of generated flux. Planck had none!
“There is no perpetual motion Will, that is only your religious belief. Buy a clue Will, read Planck.”
Yes no perpetual motion except for your fantasy of imaginary flux.
Even Planck had great worry!!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.201100712/pdf
Why your insistence in appearing as a Pfucking Pfool?
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencers experiments. There is no perpetual motion Will despite your insistence, buy a clue and get a copy of Plancks The Theory of Heat Radiation to quote from directly.
Kristian makes progress here. Just a few days ago Kristian wrote the DWIR photons “flying” were only postulated: “the postulated back radiation flux from the atmosphere”.
Now Kristian has come around to “individual photons will travel in different directions….I am not saying individual photons do not and cannot fly from cold objects to hot”
So now the cold atm. object in reality does “fly” photons to the hot surface object. Somewhere Dr. Spencer is smiling. With this comment, Kristian now agrees with all the top post arrows.
And yes Kristian, net macro KE flows from surface to atm. during the micro photon exchange increasing universe entropy as heat is a measure of constituent KE in an object.
Kristian twists yet another pretzel, “In standard radiative transfer physics…radiant heat fluxes”
Those texts get it right unlike naive Kristian. A specific one, Yves Le Grand wrote a standard radiative energy transfer text “Light, Colour, and Vision”, 1957, John Wiley & Sons, p.4: “…radiant heat is a meaningless term.” and adds, “to say that the sun, for instance, radiates heat is nave”.
All the texts show you can disjoin (Kristian term) the two streams and place them on either side (or right over each other) of the energy budget of a heated object just like the top post diagram since the incoherent photons do not interact. Find us a text that writes otherwise Kristian. The only blatant misuse, misinterpretation is by Kristian.
No violation Kristian. Two opposing visible or near IR plane waves (photons if you will) same frequency and amplitude arrive at a plane disk on each side, the total power received by the detector is the sum of the powers of the two waves acting separately. See a good text for the math proof.
This property of waves (EMR) is not shared by two streams of automobiles. If they cross each other, collisions irreversibly change the automobiles.
Perhaps I can offer my description.
1) The earth surface receives solar radiation and warms.
2) The surface emits IR upwards.
3) GHGs in the atmosphere partially intercept this radiation stream.
4) These GHGs increase in temperature slightly.
5) These GHGs radiate up and down (now slightly more due to its temperature rise.
6) The lapse rate exists from surface temp reducing down to 2~3K at TOA
7) The t^4 – t^4 formula shows that the surface is faced with the slightly higher temp of GHG due to its absorbed IR.
8) If there were no GHGs, the temperature of the atmosphere would be slightly lower which will lower the surface temperature.
9) More GHGs increase the atmospheric temperature and the surface temp will follow.
10) The concept of energy flowing down from GHGs of a lower temperature is a nonsense.
11) This is my current view, potentially modifiable due to experiments coming shortly.
Steve – Is that 1-11 the same as the top post Fig. 1 cartoon?
No. I need to understand what happens to a hotter body when exposed to IR from a cooler body in a vacuum.
Steve – the too post arrows intentionally do not show any flux for convection, conduction so represent radiative energy transfer in vacuum conditions.
“No. I need to understand what happens to a hotter body when exposed to IR from a cooler body in a vacuum.”
If the cooler body was an ideal blackbody- nothing happens.
But we don’t have any ideal blackbodies, which means all known existing bodies will reflect and re-radiate radiation rather than absorb all the radiation. The opposite of perfect or ideal blackbody is something which reflects or re-radiates all radiation which intercept it.
And parabolic mirror will take light hitting it and reflect as directed light.
So, suppose you had a perfect parabolic mirror at Earth distance from the sun and the mirror was a large as the sun.
Go the mid point distance of Earth and the Sun. The reflected sunlight from the perfect parabolic mirror, with provide the same amount of sunlight as the sun from distance of 1.5 earth distance-
1.5 AU. And of course from that distance the sun is 1/2 the distance of Earth. The suns will be the same apparent size- and reflected sun will same amount of flux as though from 1.5 AU distance- like Mars- about 600 watts per square meters- though the reflected sun will look bigger [much bigger]. If instead of parabolic mirror you used a flat mirror, the apparent size of the sun would just like looking at it from 1.5 AU- though it would be weaker sunlight as compared to parabolic mirror.
Anyways this mirror would cause the sun to not cool a much, and sun would have to emit more radiate energy. Roughly the sun would expand a bit to do so. Or it seems to me the sun would get bigger rather than hotter- though if bigger essentially is hotter- Earth gets a few more watts of sunlight.
Or reflecting radiant energy is good way to keep an object cool in sunlight in vacuum. Or acts as insulation- house insulation is
mostly about insulating again convectional heat loss- which only issue in an atmosphere [or within a pressurized vessel in space].
Reflecting light is also a way of magnifying sunlight. Or with enough flat mirrors focused on spot one make something as hot as
the sun.
Steve Richards says: September 10, 2016 at 3:36 AM
“No. I need to understand what happens to a hotter body when exposed to IR from a cooler body in a vacuum”
That depends on the source of power of your proposed “IR flux”!!
If that power source ‘creates’ a ‘radiance’ (power potential) greater than that of your “hotter body”, at some or all frequencies, than EM radiant flux may be generated proportional; to that difference in ‘radiance’, with the sign of that difference indicating the direction of the singular flux, at that frequency.
If only “sensible heat” of mass with flux power potential a monotonic function of temperature is available, than all generated thermal EM flux will be spontaneous, always proportional to the delta ‘radiance’ at each frequency, and in each direction. Such unidirectional spontaneous flux will always be in the direction of lower absolute flux.
This was the conclusion of 97% of the early 20th century scientists’ really, really, attempting to figure out just what is going on! This is called ‘search’ not re-search, as is the current plagiarism (with attribution). Such conclusion may someday be falsified in the true scientific manner, but nothing so far comes close!
All what now goes for ‘science’, claims all mass with temperature most radiate, with absolutely no evidence of their religious fantasy.
Ok, thanks for the responses.
If I were to tighten the question a bit more,
Two identical resistances, 50mm apart within a vacuum.
Resistor A has 5V@1A flowing causing it to rise in temperature to 100C.
Resistor B has slightly less V and A causing to rise to 80C.
Both resistors off, contraption cools to room temp.
Resistor A energised and arms to 100c, resistor B is warmed by radiation to 50C.
Resistor B now energised WITH SUFFICIENT current for resistor B to reach 80C.
What happens to the temperature of resistor A?
Also it was mentioned that the degree of blackbody perfection of the two resistors may change the results, can anyone say why?
Steve – An easy experiment. Do it. Let us know results like Dr. Spencer did. Past tests have shown no vacuum is needed as you can duplicate results at 1bar.
“What happens to the temperature of resistor A? Also it was mentioned that the degree of blackbody perfection of the two resistors may change the results, can anyone say why?”
Consider resistor A shiny as a mirror and then black as coal. Aligned perpendicular then parallel to B. Steady state T depends on both the irradiance T and direction (and polarization) and the incident object composition matter for steady state T. Dr. Spencer showed that in the last post by experiment.
Generally, semi conductor conducts electricity better the higher temperature they are [metals are opposite to this].
“Resistor A energised and arms to 100c, resistor B is warmed by radiation to 50C.”
So saying resistor B is radiantly heated by A, and not warmed or energised by electrical power like B is?
And I assume direct current and in a series?
“Resistor B now energised WITH SUFFICIENT current for resistor B to reach 80C.”
Now having electrical power which is less only causing same
Resistor to warmed to 80 C [because it’s in a series with a identical Resistor- I assume]
“What happens to the temperature of resistor A?”
It could lower in temperature as higher temperature semi conductor become less resistant when their temperature rises.
But since metals do the opposite one can design and make it to the opposite.
“Also it was mentioned that the degree of blackbody perfection of the two resistors may change the results, can anyone say why?”
Well first you say you in vacuum and you say you have room temperature- leading to a conclusion the one is in a box which has vacuum or a box is a vacuum. In either case the resistors are not really in a vacuum- in terms of radiant energy. But also I suppose that doesn’t matter much.
In any case the resistors can warm each other, if metals the warmer they get the more power they use, and the opposite if semi conductors- and one usually use metals with wiring/connectors.
With conduction, there are also two opposite flow of energy.
I suggest to fans of back radiation and forcing that they try to design a boiler with the help of back conduction and isolation forcing. The result could be interesting.
There is also something that is often ignored : the use of back radiations and the notion of forcing in climatology are not at all related to some special properties of radiative transfer (that would differentiate them from conduction transfers) but to a strange premise placed on convection. This premise says that convection and radiative phenomena are independent, and that convection alone sets the temperature gradient. The surprising corollary is that convection does not participate in global energy transfer but act in a loop closed by backradiations.
Yes, I think that is the key weakness. You can look at it from the point of the reductio – assume convection is so powerful that temperature equilibrates instantaneously and uniformly throughout the atmosphere. There is no lapse rate in that case, and the surface temperature reduces to the same as in the non-atmosphere case.
So, there has to be a point of diminishing returns, and an inflection that reverses the sign of GHE impact at some point. Given the propensity of natural systems to strive toward their physically imposed limits, I suspect we are at or very near that inflection point, and are effectively insensitive to further GHG forcing in the present climate state.
phi: There is nothing particularly strange about it. It is simply an assumption that the timescales for convection are so much faster than radiation that they can be essentially considered as instantaneous. These sorts of separations of timescales arguments are used throughout physics and are not particularly controversial.
Bart: I don’t understand your point. It makes no sense to assume that convection does something that it simply doesn’t do. The whole point about convection is it is a very fast and efficient process when it operates but it can only drive the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate and no further because an atmosphere with a less steep lapse rate is not unstable to convection.
I agree that if we lived in a universe where the atmosphere was unstable to convection down to an isothermal state then it would completely wipe out the radiative greenhouse effect. But, that’s not the Universe we live in.
These sorts of separations of timescales arguments are used throughout physics and are not particularly controversial.
Yes of course, as well as related lengthscales. For instance it is what one does when one theorizes in a simple thermal conduction experiment. There is a temperature gradient across the sample and one makes the (usually valid) assumption that there is a well defined temperature locally but not globally i.e. collisions establish local but not global thermodynamic equilibrium.
Similarly in the so-called adiabatic approximation in molecular or solid state physics one assumes that electrons move so much faster than nuclei or ions that one may solve the Schroedinger equation for a given atomic configuration and use the result as a function of configuration as an input for the calculation of vibration modes.
“The whole point about convection is it is a very fast and efficient process when it operates but it can only drive the lapse rate down to the adiabatic lapse rate and no further because an atmosphere with a less steep lapse rate is not unstable to convection.”
Again, the lapse rate is not the whole story. The formula only gives you a rate, not absolute temperature, and it is only valid up to the ERL.
First, radiation propagation in atmosphere is not by a mechanism that compares to thermal conduction where one may safely assume local thermodynamic equilibrium. Thats not the case with radiation transfer here, radiation in not in local equilibrium with air except perhaps in lower troposphere and center of the CO2 15 micrometer line. So there is nothing like a local Fourier law in radiation transfer in atmosphere as in stellar physics for instance, where the photon mean free path is short enough to ensure local thermodynamic equilibrium.
Second convection and radiation transfer are not independent since deep convection is precisely triggered by GHG hindered radiation transfer. Thats why the folks studying these things use the concept of radiative-convective equilibrium.
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5560_2002/Lec26.pdf
And that convection sets the vertical gradient is a simple consequence of the way it works, as pointed out by Joel Shore. Nothing strange or surprising, the wet adiabatic lapse rate being an attractor of the system that is a system far from thermodynamic equilibrium and as such exhibits its own organization principles, setting lapse rate, forming trade winds, hurricanes, El Ninos etc.
Finally wet convection does of course not only participate but dominates in global heat transfer to the top of the atmosphere.
“Finally wet convection does of course not only participate but dominates in global heat transfer to the top of the atmosphere.”
Not with the dominant theory. That’s what lies beneath her skirts:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/e6u2pk.jpg
No, that is just the result of the confusion that lies beneath your skirt not dominant theory.
Moreover please don’t label your “diagram” as the one of Trenberth. Trenberth in his diagram just shows energy fluxes at interfaces and of course no fancy loops that are plain nonsense. Maybe you might think very hard about this, finally.
alphagruis,
This is indeed the dominant theory and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
“Trenberth in his diagram just shows energy fluxes at interfaces…”
This is a poor choice because indicated only for net flows assimilable to heat flow. Energy flows can not drown in the earth except in the form of heat. If it is purely energy flows, you have to complete them.
Well, I do not see more than the flabby notion of a moist adiabatic attractor which affects only the pronounced low pressure area.
No , it isn’t.
And it’s up to you to prove that your nonsense loops have anything to do with the so-called “dominant theory” and Trenberth diagram. For instance you must definitely not understand properly what convection means and does to associate a loop with relevant heat transfer.
Actually there are no literate physicists who disagree with what you call “dominant theory” and there is nothing like an “alternative theory” or precisely an alternative explanation of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. “Theory” by the way is much too overblown in context, we are not at all talking about something like competing quantum gravity and string theories…
alphagruis,
“…your nonsense loops…”
But they are not mine !!!
If you stick to integrate back radiation you need to recycle them and you can not do otherwise than with loops. Nobody denies this. We can discuss the distribution of flows (my schema minimizes the loop of the greenhouse effect) but not deny the logical consequences of a poor concept.
alphagruis,
I wonder where are going back radiation if they are not involved in a loop.
A prerequisite to scientific thinking is logic.
Bon vent.
Merci, j’en aurai bientt besoin au sens propre du terme.
alphagruis says: September 9, 2016 at 1:26 AM
“A simple suggestion: Consider reading a good textbook that explains from scratch how two opposite photon fluxes are involved in reaching equilibrium between thermal radiation in a box held at temperature T and the walls of that box i.e. the very basic and fundamental concept of thermal and blackbody radiation.”
You claim some ‘opposing photon flux’. Such is a physical impossible! See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224455
“Feynman lectures are a good start: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_41.html”
Now you claim that some lecture on “Brownian motion” somehow relates to the generation of an EM Poynting flux! Why?
mpainter
This will not help you understand my points. It is a waste of time on my part. You might click on the links but you will not attempt to understand the message they are telling you.
It is okay though, I learn more by it. I wish Kristian would at least look at the data and consider it. Dream big I guess.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d099bdbd3bb.png
This graph is just of all the radiant fluxes together and the air temperature. You can see there are numerous radiant inputs. Each is significant in determining surface temp.
mpainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d09a6ad5c8b.png
This is all the fluxes combined vs temperature. You can see when the NET flux is negative surface temperatures drop (cooling). When NET flux is positive you an see surface temperatures rise (warming).
mapainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d09b36caecf.png
Just the backradiation
mpainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d09b1c7f7f0.png
Just surface IR emission. I give these to show you actual numbers.
mpainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d09bc94fe3b.png
Combined Surface emission minus backradiation. It is negative the entire 24 hour cycle.
mpainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d0a151a409f.png
Solar net. The downwelling solar minus the reflected solar that is not absorbed.
mpainter
Now the big one. The one that totally supports what I have spent many words trying frivolously to explain to you. If you look at the links you may understand (Dream big, hope for more).
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d0a5f24d0ed.png
Once again the backradiation. If you look at the number value during the day it is around 335 W/m^2.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d0a202f36ea.png
This link is of the Total NET radiation. It is all the fluxes with backradiation included. Note it reaches around 440 W/m^2 or so during the middle of day.
Dream big! What does this mean? Remove the 335 W/m^2 from the Daytime total NET flux and you have around 105 W/m^2 heating the surface instead of 440 W/m^2.
All the graphs clearly and without doubt show backradiation alone does not warm the surface but actually is too little of a flux and the surface cools. This final post shows beyond reasonable doubt that it is the combination of the two fluxes that achieves the higher equilibrium temperature of the Earth’s surface proving that the GHE is real, valid physics, does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and is currently working in the real world to maintain higher equilibrium surface temperature.
mpainter
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57d0a7cea15bb.png
This one clearly and most positively shows that backradiation is not warming the surface even though the surface is absorbing it.
Look at the temperature part of the graph during the night with no solar flux involved and explain to me why you think backradiation is warming the surface when the evidence shows it does not.
The net radiation loss is negative. How does this warm the surface?
Norman says, September 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM:
The net radiation loss is negative. How does this warm the surface?
*Sigh*
As has been explained to you now probably several tens of times, like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
This EXPLANATION of the effect is physically nonsensical, Norman. NOT the effect itself. The “back radiation” EXPLANATION of it. According to it, there is no other energy flow that can raise the surface temp from 232 to 289 K but the DWLWIR. That makes the DWLWIR a radiant heat flux number two, right next to the solar flux.
Kristian
I have also countered your explanations many times and provide real world data. You escape from it is then to claim the instruments are not measuring a real downwelling flux of radiant energy. I think your escape is a bogus one. You come up with your own ideas and when challenged with facts have to claim the facts are wrong.
The FACTS (which you can’t accept) the measured reality, the same device that can accurately determine temperatures in labs of materials during calibration (Both Roy and Ball4 have sent you articles on these instruments which you just conveniently ignore because it does not fit into your beliefs…rather than examine the flaws in your beliefs you reject the science of instrument measured values and just go right on ahead with your unsupported claims).
One thing I have in my favor is measured evidence. So far you have zero support of any of your conclusions. I sent you a link to a energy transfer textbook to read which I doubt you ever will.
The measured values show DWLWIR does not alone heat the surface. The surface cools with this flux alone. It is a real flux created by a warm atmosphere that generates IR via GHG molecules. It can’t warm the surface because it is less than the UWLWIR. The graphs to measured values clearly show all what I post.
Your only escape is to reject the evidence that supports my claim and shows yours to be wrong. So provide evidence for your claims that DWLWIR is a radiant heat flux. The graph you provide does not suggest this at all!!
THE UWIR in your graph is 398!! The DWIR is 345! The number 345 is less than 398! IT is not adding heat to the surface!! It does warm the surface. It adds energy, not heat! Your thought process has flaws that are not fixable by rational thought.
Kristian
Roy Spencer spent time and effort on the previous thread to demonstrate to people of your thought process how backradiation can change equilibrium temperatures. You still reject all evidence presented to you. Real world measured values (you have to reject the instruments used to measure this and won’t accept any form of measurement). Roy does an experiment which blows your assertions out of the water but it has no effect you just keep going straight ahead.
I do not know what science you follow. Reject all empirical data that counters what you strongly believe and call the reality nonsense as if that somehow will make your claims stronger.
I have already explained how solar influx can raise the temperature if the DWIR acts as a radiant reduction from UWIR you don’t like that explanation even though it is logical.
As Roy has stated numerous times. It is not the energy going in that determines a surface temperature, it is the energy going in and out that determine this.
A light bulb filament at only 10 watts power will achieve a surface temperature over 2000 C.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/176918/how-to-calculate-temperature-of-an-incandescent-bulb-filament
The very small surface area of the filament does not let out enough energy at room temp so the temperature keeps rising until the the surface can emit 10 watts which is at temps over 2000 C
Real world fully supports the GHE, data fits, Roy’s experiments prove it. And then you think I am wrong?
mpainter
You: “Input does not sum with output. It sums with residual heat. And that is the laws of physics. DWLWIR and upwelling IR are not vectors, you cannot sum them as vectors. Net is screwball AGW science.”
Which laws of physics would that be? And Net is screwball.
This is your opinion of course as you have not actually looked at the physics but make the claim it is physics.
For a little while I was swayed by the PSI group and this thought process and considered. After reading Roy’s Blog and learning some physics I reject all the crap being peddled on this blog and want to restore science.
I may not change you but when you and Kristian peddle false unverified opinions as if they were real physics and you both were in the “know” and everyone else is on the “take”. It appeals to uneducated Conspiracy people who do not research or investigate on their own.
Here is real physics. This will show up in many textbooks, it is well understood and accepted and used throughout heat transfer engineering.
REAL PHYSICS (not peddled opinions):
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Net is theoretical construct, not observed.
Observed values are the measured values.
Input does not sum with output. It sums with residual heat. And that is the laws of physics. DWLWIR and upwelling IR are not vectors, you cannot sum them as vectors. “Net” is screwball AGW science.
Repeat, DWLWIR sums with residual heat of insolation. Upwelling results, the measured value, not the theoretical net.
“DWLWIR and upwelling IR are not vectors, you cannot sum them as vectors.”
The radiometer views the whole hemisphere above it mp, so the photons measured come from all vectors above. The red arrows in top post should be cones as scientists in the field know, well except for mpainter. And science (1LOT) does add ALL the energy in minus ALL the energy out of a control volume to get the net change in energy inside – just as in the spread sheet top post and all experiments to date confirm 1LOT.
“That makes the DWLWIR a radiant heat flux number two, right next to the solar flux.”
That really is a net negative (KE & radiant) energy flux (in Kristian term’s a bizarre negative heat flux what ever that means), since the LW DW-UW net is negative as shown in the ESRL plots. KE flows from surface to atm. Kristian not the other away around as you write. And your chart bizarrely neglects a yellow arrow for the solar SW atm. absorbed in the 345 LW atm. emitted.
Kristian has a lot of science to learn and improve. This should be taken as an opportunity for Kristian not an adversity.
Norman, only the upwelling IR is obtained by measurement. The “net” is this measurement less the DWLWIR. “Net” is a theoretical construct.
The reality is the measured upwelling IR.
Upwelling IR depends on Tsurf, Tsurf depends on DWLWIR (plus residual heat of insolation)
See if you can figure out the rest, Norman. I hereby resign.
mpainter
Net is two measured values added together not a theoretical construct. All the fluxes are measured values. The Nets are just simple math on the measured values.
One instrument is facing downward measuring UWIR the other faces up and will measure the DWIR. The addition of these two measurements is the net.
Overriding principle:
Radiant energy is absorbed as kinetic energy. Let’s see how far you get with overriding principles, Norman, or if you cling to your pseudo-vector mathematics.
mpainter
I will stick with the empirical evidence and the textbook explanations of heat transfer. I really do not know from what background you come from with your points. Do you have higher level physics studies or does most your information come from the Internet and your own opinions?
There are some who actually took thermodynamics courses at University levels and post here and they do post ideas like what I post. Textbooks also go along with this reasoning.
I have not seen the word “pseudo” used since g*e*r*a*n was banned by Roy.
It is not clinging to anything. I like science integrity. When people go off and try to use their own reasoning then act as if it is the reality without grounding themselves back into a textbook on the topic, I feel the need to comment.
Norman, the empirical evidence is the measurement, not the pseudo-vector mathematics. You are thoroughly confused.
My textbook says that “radiation absorbed by the surface” is absorbed as kinetic energy. What does yours say?
And does your textbook treat isotropic radiative flux as vector sums?
mpainter
Here is a book for you to read.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0dqMyFOUqxoC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=radiation+absorbed+at+surface+becomes+kinetic+energy&source=bl&ots=z3iV9-s4Qc&sig=x_g_PXml_XbXZAuE1V-5De9GFhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz8OWCi4HPAhVFbR4KHWxMDrcQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=radiation%20absorbed%20at%20surface%20becomes%20kinetic%20energy&f=false
This one has view factors for radiation and explains it quite well.
The Earth/Atmosphere act as a sphere inside a sphere which has a view factor of 1. All the Earth’s radiation will hit the atmopshere.
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf
Also shows how NET radiation works, since you do not know how this process works it would help you to read through it for greater understanding.
1st law of thermodynamics would have to treat isotropic radiative flux as vector sums when the field of view is 1. All energy has to be accounted for.
I think your physics book was written by Kristian. Do you have a link to this magic physics book that provides you with such informed knowledge that all other physics professionals are wrong and don’t even know it.
I have linked you to many sources of physics information you just give me a single line quote.
Norman, I assume that you take the position that radiation absorbed by the surface is NOT absorbed as kinetic energy.
If you do not take that position, you need to say so. Because others are reading this. You see.
mpainter
I already answered this twice now. Why do you keep bringing the same point up over and over?
But because you ask here is the third post of what I have already said. Maybe this time you might read it or not.
Again: “ME ABOVE ON THIS SAME THREAD: A surface molecule absorbs a DWIR and starts to jiggle more which is picked up by the surrounding molecules and it would seem that the overall kinetic energy would go up so why doesnt it? That is because for this one molecule that absorbed an IR photon and increased its local kinetic energy there were two molecules elsewhere on the surface that emitting photons (same time) and lost more kinetic energy than the surface gained by the one absorbed photon. With this process going on trillions plus times per second you have a net loss of energy to the cooler atmosphere.
mpainter
NOTE: Rather than spending so much time posting maybe you should look at the links to thermodynamics I posted and read the material and learn what the science is saying. All your questions are contained within.
I can’t help it you have some really poor ideas about how radiation works. Not sure where you got these ideas. Was it this web site?
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/
It has lots of information and maybe it convinced you. Now I would hope you go to some real science sources and spend time reading and learning the material.
Ok, Norman, I think that I understand now: the photon jiggles the absorbing molecule a little bit, but not enough to warm it. How good of you to take the time to explain thanxgoodbye.
mpainter
I think at least I have found out why you do not understand my point.
I am not sure you understand what a temperature of an object is or a surface.
It is the average kinetic energy of the surface or object.
So in your mind if you add kinetic energy to one part of a surface that means the average kinetic energy of the entire surface is going up.
Since you don’t consider the temperature to be average kinetic energy it makes explaining things nearly impossible.
You might read up on it (since it is average kinetic energy) that some molecules on the surface are vibrating much more rapidly in their fixed positions than other surface molecules and this whole process moves around the surface continuously. That is why a surface emits a spectrum of radiation and not just at one wavelength. The surface has many different molecules with many different states of kinetic energy. I hope you read more physics in the future so you can understand these things and posters do not have to waste time trying to explain them to you.
mpainter
Science and technology continue to move forward. The are developing Quantum Thermometers to see variations of heat in objects that normal thermometers would not.
If you look at the image of cell you can see that it has temperature variations but a standard thermometer would only give you the average temperature of a cell or many cells.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/52
At least this may help you understand that surfaces are not one uniform layer of kinetic energy so adding energy to one part automatically adds kinetic energy to the whole surface.
If you have competing processes where one is adding some energy and the other is removing energy, the only way you could tell if the kinetic energy, overall, is going up or down is to know the combination of the processes.
If more energy is added to the surface than removed the kinetic energy of the whole surface goes up (but you will still colder and warmer regions on that surface…it is the overall that a thermometer will indicate).
Hope all this helps in your quest for Truth. The “Truth is out there” we just have to be open and willing to look for it.
— Norman says:
September 9, 2016 at 4:49 AM
mpainter
I think at least I have found out why you do not understand my point.
I am not sure you understand what a temperature of an object is or a surface.–
It depends what you talking about.
An object cooling can have cooler surface. An object being warmed
can have a warmer surface.
A surface can have specific meaning- ie, gases don’t have a surface.
Only solids and liquids and plamsa [anything with structural connection] can have a surface.
But it’s common for people to refer to the surface temperature
as the air temperature close to the surface.
Or air does not have or is a surface, surface air temperature is
air near the surface. Or a store at the corner, can be called the corner store.
The ocean is warmed by sunlight below it’s surface. The ocean is warmest at the surface because warmer water is less dense, and rises to the surface.
In comparison a land surface is warmed at it’s surface, and heated surface conducts heat below the surface. The higher the temperature of the land surface in relation to interior [below the ground/surface] the more heat can be conducted in a time period.
The heated land surface also heats the air above it, and likewise
the hotter the surface the more heat can transferred to the air.
With ocean a higher surface temperature results in more evaporation. Evaporation is adding gases to atmosphere and water vapor has lower density as compared to air. This results in surface air temperature being close to the temperature of the surface of the ocean, whereas with land surface there can be quite
large differences between the surface of the land and the air near the surface.
I would add that there is two major surfaces on Earth, the land surface and the ocean surface.
In terms of global average surface air temperature one can ignore the temperature of the land surface.
Or the ocean surface temperature dominantly controls the global average air temperature.
So to model Earth one should understand what the temperature of a planet completely covered with oceans would be.
And at Earth distance such planet completely cover with ocean and has 1 atm [of any gas] will have higher average global temperature
than Earth- or Earth’s land area generally lower the global average air temperature. There few reasons- not one reason for this- but one reason is air temperature above ocean is the same temperature as ocean surface temperature.
Norman, study Stefan-Boltzmann, maybe that will help you.
mpainter
Maybe if you would be a little more specific in exactly what point you would like me to study. I would be more than happy to learn but not sure what direction you think I need help in, clarification certainly would not hurt. Thanks.
Solar radiation of 1368W passes down the atmosphere. At the surface a fraction remains. The amount is found by dividing it by the volume of a sphere, 4/3pi*r^3, and we get what energy a cubic meter of air contains when irradiated.
In the same way that TSI is divided by four to get effective temperature, we divide by 1.333333…. to get energy-content of a spherical volume with pi*r cancelled out.
=1026W/m^3
Now we let this continue to transfer through the surface to see what a cubic meter of solid surface matter receives.
=769,5W/m^3.
Now we know how much energy that heats up the massive surface. And we get a familiar number there.
To get the fluxdensity emitted by the surface we need to divide it into 2m^2 of emitted energy, since the energy of 1 heated m^2 is emitted by two m^2.
Holy crap. That gives 384W/m^2.
There is no energy missing in solar radiation to heat up the surface. We can stop claiming that icecold gas heats the surface, we can use only the hot sun. Phew!
Everything is back to normal again. No icecold gases heating warm surfaces. That is good, because the greenhouse effect was the only thing that claimed such bad physics.
I think my simple model is simpler than yours, and it get the right answer in a straightforward manner without rubberball-radiation that contradicts maxwell-boltzmann distribution. The m-b distribution tells us that temperature is a result of density of energystates at different levels. Radiation from a cold gas to a warm surface would dilute the higher states of excitation in the warm surface, the effect would be lower temperature.
More co2 means more dilution. If we want to account for atmospheric radiation. It-is-not-about-the-number-of-photons.
Another point. Everyone is aware that the stefan-boltzmann law is a form of E=m*c^2?
E is P and m is A. P/A=σT^4
σT^4 is the energy equal to the photons c^2.
To add an atmosphere or small amounts of co2 is equal to increasing m or A.
See what happens when you add mass or Area to the equation. If the energy increases, as the warmist puts its faith in, the speed of light must increase.
Einstein simplified P/A=σT^4 into E=m*c^2 to get the energy in the smallest quantities. But they both address the same thing, energy in relation to matter.
Your claim is that an atmosphere or small fractions of it, when added to the solid surface or fractions increase, will increase the energy in the system by increasing the mass. When energy is divided over an increased mass and that energy increases, Einstein starts turning over in his grave.
Very soon he is spinning at a high speed and you should dig him up and connect a generator to his corpse, then you will get even more free energy added to that you claim comes from icecold gas.
Please dont say that increasing the amount of icecold porous matter will increase the density of energy in an open system in contact with the ultimate heatsink of 3K space. It will be very embarrassing in the future to have made such claims.
Tattare
Do you live in Colorado or Oregon by any chance?
mpainter or Kristian
How do either of you explain the results of Roy Spencer’s experiment on the previous post?
Why does putting cardboard on top of ice result in the surface temperature of the heated plate from warming up and reaching new equilibrium temperatures?
His backradiation explanation works perfectly to explain it. Wonder what yours are.
mpainter and Kristian
Why do you think that a 10 watt power supply can increase one surface to over 2000 C and another -158 C?
The first is a tungsten filament in a light bulb. The other is a one meter square surface.
Why does surface area matter so much?
It is what Kristian can’t accept. Slow the rate at which radiant energy leaves and the temperature rises. It is not just the incoming that matters but also the outgoing.
Radiation emission is a surface phenomena. Decrease the area with the same input energy and the temperature must rise until it emits the same amount of energy it receives. For an 8 mm^2 tungsten filament surface receiving 10 watts the temperature must rise to over 2000 C to get rid of 10 watts through the very small surface area.
Backradiation overall effect is to reduce the NET radiation emitted by the surface with the same incoming energy. The result is a temperature rise just as reducing surface area also increases surface temperature under a constant energy input, the joules just keep piling up until they can escape through high temperatures.
In all this time we have come no further, Norman.
You say, September 8, 2016 at 9:29 PM:
(My boldface.)
You STILL think I have this mental block preventing me from understanding your position, Norman. I don’t. I understand your position perfectly well. That’s not the problem here. All this time you have done nothing but building straw men to tear down. And you’re doing it again here now.
The mental block is all yours. At least try to see how there’s no logic in what you’re saying. You’re indeed describing a very real effect, a real phenomenon, Norman. We all agree on that. It’s called “insulation”.
All I’m trying to tell you is this: YOU’RE DESCRIBING IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO PHYSICAL OR LOGICAL SENSE.
Simple analogy:
We have a room that at any point in time holds one hundred people. There’s an open door at each end of the room. Every minute, ten new people arrive in through the first door, but at the same time, ten people also leave the room through the second door, making sure we maintain a dynamic balance between input and output of people, and thus always keep the number of people inside the room the same: 100.
Then, at some point, we start letting two people per minute enter the room through the second door as well. What happens? Well, there are still ten people entering the room through the first door every minute, and there are also still ten people exiting the room through the second door during the same period. There are no restrictions imposed saying the ten people leaving each minute now all of a sudden aren’t allowed to. No, the only change is that now two extra people are entering through the same door per minute as the ten are leaving.
We all know what will happen to the number of people inside the room in this situation. It will increase.
But what CAUSES the INCREASE? I’m not talking about the dynamic balance between input and output that caused the original number. I’m only talking about what causes this number, this baseline, to start INCREASE.
Both before and after the ‘change’, ten people per minute freely enter the room through the first door, and both before and after the ‘change’, ten people per minute exit the room through the first door.
What causes the number of people inside the room to increase, Norman?
I quote you verbatim: “Slow the rate at which radiant energy leaves and the temperature rises.”
You are NOT slowing the rate at which radiant energy leaves the surface, Norman. NOT in how you specifically describe the process behind the temperature rise. You are directly speeding up the overall rate at which radiant energy enters and is absorbed by the surface. By adding the DWLWIR to the solar input. And that’s how you get extra warming. That’s how you increase the number of people inside the room.
Again, we describe the very same effect, the very same physical phenomenon, and we even get the same end result – reduce Q_out while keeping Q_in unchanged, and you get warming.
The bone of contention is simply: How is Q_out reduced?
I say: By increasing the temperature of the heated object’s thermal surroundings, in our case, the atmosphere. THEREBY increasing the apparent radiance of the atmosphere, the DWLWIR, reducing the ‘net LW’ (“the radiant heat loss”) AND the other heat losses from the surface. (There are also other ‘massive’ effects reducing surface heat loss, like surface air pressure and the pressure/density gradient of the atmospheric column.)
You say: By increasing the DWLWIR.
Kristian, perhaps you are not doing a good job of explaining your position. What I hear you saying in your analogy is NOT what I hear you saying other places.
Specifically, by saying the “two flow model” is only ‘mathematical’, you are sending the message that you can’t have 2 people coming in the back door to get a net flow 8 out. Instead, the message you have communicated is that the reality is that 8 are leaving and none are returning. You have communicated that “10 leaving and 2 returning” is a false model that cannot actually exist.
So the debate as I been hearing it is (using your analogy)
NORMAN: 10 leave, but 2 others come in (two flows)
KRISTIAN: only 8 leave (one flow)
And further, after a new steady-state is achieved, debate as I been hearing it is (using your analogy)
NORMAN: 12 leave, but 2 others come in (two flows)
KRISTIAN: 10 leave (one flow)
Ball4 says:
September 10, 2016 at 5:18 AM
Will says (That is the only flux, with the sign indicating direction!)
“No Will, you are proven completely wrong by Dr. Spencers experiment in which the cardboard had a proven effect in the data. Both the cardboard and ice irradiated the hot plate with photons. If what you write were true inserting the cardboard would have had no effect. Buy a clue Will and pick up a copy of The Theory of Heat Radiation and find out exactly why you are completely wrong.”
Dr. Spencer starts with the ungodly fantasy that all mass with temperature must radiate EMR. Nothing can be further from the physical near this planet Earth.
Trick, Do not say wrong, point out what you think is even one error pwease!
Dr. Spencers lamps At higher temperature than all else are the only supply of additional KE in the whole demo, the only!The lamps sustain a variable level of KE (sensible heat) in the plate.
That same plate must dispatch that same extra power to achieve a sustainable/stable temperature. The plate can only do that; if exists a lower radiance surround that has the capability of accepting such EM flux from the energized plate. As the ice radiance is replaced by the cardboard radiance, the plate radiance, must increase in order to sustain that required difference in thermal EM radiative potential (delta radiance). I.E. the plate temperature must increase to sustain the required difference in potential (radiance). Radiance is never a potential energy, it is a flux (power) potential. Please learn the difference. Please also try to learn the difference twixt potential for flux, and flux itself. Please point out even one technical error in you can!
Kristian says: September 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM
“Youre not the only person in the world who knows a little bit about physics. If you read this, you know where Im coming from. Radiation is not two opposing arrows on a piece of paper. Its slightly more complex than that:”
Indeed! Thermal EMR with wide bandwidth, near zero coherence interval,powered only by Boltzmann (kTb) statistics. Seems to require more than understanding. Such requires continual, repeated, pawing through the junk box and finding, ‘that doesn’t fit quite right either’!
Once you can recognize Lorentz invariance peeking from within Maxwell’s 22 equations but find that missing from the 4 or 6 of John Pointing, you can try something else from the junk box.
“You might think you know what Im saying, Joel, but you obviously dont ”
Kristian, Your expressions are from a different POV than my own. Yours I can disagree with, but I cannot ignore such!
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 6:34 AM
Will says:(Such can easily explain the Gravitationally induced thermostatic lapse rate of Earths atmosphere, we think! This (of course) may be falsified at anytime. So far the totally incompetent academic physicists cannot even figure out what that term may possibly mean.)
“(1) If you actually read a textbooks in atmospheric science,”
Why would anyone bother to read one of your referenced “textbooks”
Any Catechism has more religious understanding. Any Mad magazine has more science!
“you would know that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is understood as indeed being related to the gravitational acceleration and the specific heat.”
There is never anything possibly ‘adiabatic’ about any ‘well mixed’ troposphere! The coincidence that a non condensing maximum stable Earth thermal lapse rate being near -g/Cp likely will never be solved. All is religious fantasy. Changing atmosphere to 1 x 10^18 kg SF6, would be unlikely to change Earth’s surface pressure or thermal lapse rate! All you ever have is religious nonsense.
“There is no debate on this. [The only confusion that sometimes arises is that some people think this is the equilibrium temperature in the atmosphere whereas the adiabatic lapse rate really represents a stability limit for the lapse rate. I.e., lapse rates steeper than this tend to spark convection, which drives down the lapse rate, whereas lapse rates less steep are stable (which is why the stratosphere does not have the sort of lapse rate one sees in the troposphere).]”
Blah da da, blah da da, blah da da! Go somewhere and buy a clue!
“(2) Despite your musings, there are not two different types of physicists who believe two different things. I have worked in both industry and academia and physicists in industry dont go around thinking that physicists in academia have different laws of physics than they do.”
There are those that ‘can’, they all ‘do’! There are those that ‘cannot’, they all teach!
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2016 at 8:32 AM:
*Sigh*
Read what Norman writes, Tim. He says that by ADDING more energy to a surface, you reduce the energy ESCAPING it. Do you find this a logical statement?
Start by telling Norman how this process should be described, not me. And then we could perhaps start talking. Because this topic – when you finally get down to it – is really all about definition.
Kristian said earlier:
“I quote you [Norman] verbatim: Slow the rate at which radiant energy leaves and the temperature rises. ” … ”
And then later wrote.
“Read what Norman writes, Tim. He says that by ADDING more energy to a surface, you reduce the energy ESCAPING it. “
You may have quoted verbatim, but you didn’t seem to catch the context. Specifically, shortly after the first sentence you quoted, Norman said “Backradiation overall effect is to reduce the NET radiation emitted by the surface with the same incoming energy. “
It seems pretty clear that Norman’s *intent* has always been that reducing the *NET* outgoing radiation (relative to some previous steady-state condition) leads to warming. He just says it using a 2-flow model (and occasionally doesn’t explicitly state the 2-flow model or the word “net”).
Kristian
Not exactly what I am saying. It is how you are interpreting it though.
It is most obvious you do not understand how the GHE works and need really detailed linking thoughts to understand what is going on. Tim understands it.
YOU: “Read what Norman writes, Tim. He says that by ADDING more energy to a surface, you reduce the energy ESCAPING it. Do you find this a logical statement?”
You have to understand where DWIR comes from in the first place. It is created by the surface energy flows (all combined in the real world, just radiation in Roy’s simple model). Energy from the surface (radiation, latent heat, conduction and convection) are what warm the atmosphere and generate the DWIR. This is why you treat IR as a Net energy. You do not do it with solar because solar is its own energy.
Does that make sense Kristian? It is a necessary step to build up the logical connection of what I post that you do not interpret correctly.
The atmosphere absorbs 77 W/m^2 of solar flux so maybe about 39 W/m^2 of DWIR could come from solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere (since if it were the only source of atmospheric warming you would get a 38.5 Flux up and a 38.5 flux down to Earth).
Most of the 100’s of W/m^2 of DWIR comes from the surface warming the atmosphere.
Of the 398 W/m^2 that is leaving the Earth’s surface, a large amount of this is absorbed and converted to warming energy of the Earth. Of the 398 being emitted only 240 goes out to space, it means 158 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere and 345 are returned to the surface so the surface net loss is 53 W/m^2. It is what allows the solar input to pile up and raise the surface to a higher equilibrium temperature.
The reason the DWIR reduces the amount leaving is because it is part of the UWIR, not a distinct or separate energy system.
I doubt it will help but if you respond I will try to keep clarifying the situation.
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2016 at 10:56 AM:
Then you haven’t paid much attention to what Norman has been saying. If there is one confused individual on this thread (in addition to Ball4, of course), it is Norman.
Here’s what he originally stated:
“By lowering the amount of radiant energy leaving [the surface], however, [the DWIR] will allow the constant solar input to increase the temperature of the surface leading to a warmer surface than without DWIR”
When the absurdity of this statement was pointed out to him, he modified it thusly:
“By lowering the amount of NET radiant energy leaving, however, it will allow the constant solar input to increase the temperature of the surface leading to a warmer surface than without DWIR”
But he’s still not getting the point. The way he’s describing this process, there is no “NET radiant energy” leaving the surface. The only radiant energy leaving the surface according to his description is the UWLWIR. The DWLWIR, the other component of the net is rather entering the surface. And when the DWLWIR increases, that does NOT entail a reduction in the radiant energy leaving the surface, and it does not constitute a reduction in the NET radiant energy leaving the surface either. It’s not reducing any energy flows of any kind, in any direction. It is an increased energy INPUT, causing the energy OUTPUT to increase as well (+T -> +UWLWIR).
Look what Norman says even in the quote you provide above:
“Backradiation overall effect is to reduce the NET radiation emitted by the surface with the same incoming energy.”
According to the two-way transfer model, the surface DOESN’T emit net radiation at all. It ONLY emits UWLWIR. And so, if you increase the DWLWIR you haven’t reduced the energy emitted by the surface at all. You have simply increased the energy INPUT to the surface.
Directly – upon absorp tion – making the surface warmer. It doesn’t do this in the current state. Neither does the solar input. Because we’re in a steady state (a dynamic equilibrium) by now. But the DWLWIR (just as the solar flux) sure did raise the T_avg of the surface up to the point where this steady state was attained. According to the “back radiation” explanation of the “GHE”, based on a misinterpretation of the two-way transfer model.
If everyone could just stick to the original, standard setup of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation …:
q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)
… rather than the mathematically customised version of “Climate Science^TM” …:
q/A = σ T_sfc^4 – σ T_atm^4 (bidirectional transfer)
… then all would be just fine. No confusion about causality. Then everyone would see at once that the rate of radiant heat loss from the surface simply changes as the atmospheric temperature changes, on a general level.
And then the rate of bulk radiant energy movement (the macroscopic/thermodynamic flux), the actual transfer of energy moving from the warmer surface, through the radiation field, to the cooler atmosphere, could indeed be said to have been reduced. Because this movement naturally and spontaneously follows a downward gradient of radiation intensity and/or energy density. The ENERGY is always there, the net MOVEMENT of the energy isn’t. And that makes all the difference between a transfer and a non-transfer.
Macroscopically, there is only the ONE net movement of radiant energy. From hot to cold.
This perspective shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
That is bidirectional energy transfer Kristian, photons from the surface irradiate the atm., photons from the atm. irradiate the sfc. Kristian is simply confused calling it unidirectional. Dr. Spencer’s last post test:
q/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 T_ice^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams up & down)
Then:
q’/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 T_cardboard^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams up & down)
)
q .NE. q’ as shown in the data. The hot plate irradiates the ice, the ice irradiates the hot plate as does the cardboard. In the data.
The heat is a measure of the net bidirectional energy transferred in the KE of the hot plate as calculated by the thermometer (and ice, cardboard if they had thermometers).
Better?
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
That is bidirectional energy transfer Kristian, photons from the surface irradiate the atm., photons from the atm. irradiate the sfc. Kristian is simply confused calling it unidirectional. Dr. Spencer’s last post test:
q/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 – T_ice^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams up & down)
Then:
q’/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 – T_cardboard^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams up & down)
q .NE. q’ as shown in the data. The hot plate irradiates the ice, the ice irradiates the hot plate as does the cardboard. In the data.
The heat is a measure of the net bidirectional energy transferred in the KE of the hot plate as calculated by the thermometer (and ice, cardboard if they had thermometers).
Sorry, Kristian, I have to side with Norman here about “net radiant energy leaving”. No physicist would ever try to make the distinction you are trying to make.
Consider accounting as an analogy. You can increase “net income” by decreasing the “outgo” (expenses). No one considers this terminology in the least bit odd. The term “net income” includes flows of money in and flows of money out. Net income does NOT mean only summing actual money coming in from various sources.
Its the same in physics. In this case, “leaving” is merely an adjective to tell people which direction is to be considered positive:
(net radiant energy leaving) = – (net radiant energy arriving)
Either expression would include flows in both directions, just with an opposite sign convention.
Another example is in the 1st law of thermodynamics, which some write as Delta(U) = Q + W and others write as Delta(U) = Q – W. In the first case, “W” = “net work done ON the system” and in the send case, “W” = “net work done BY the system”. Both versions of “W” would depend on the work ON the system and work BY the system; they would just have opposite signs everywhere.
–You have to understand where DWIR comes from in the first place. It is created by the surface energy flows (all combined in the real world, just radiation in Roys simple model). Energy from the surface (radiation, latent heat, conduction and convection) are what warm the atmosphere and generate the DWIR. This is why you treat IR as a Net energy. You do not do it with solar because solar is its own energy.–
Have very tall [and large] cylinder on the Moon.
Measure surface temperature inside and at bottom of cylinder.
The add air into cylinder. The cylinder has open top.
If an molecule is warm, it’s velocity could be 500 m/s.
And the cylinder could high enough so 500 m/s does not escape lunar gravity and escape thru the top of cylinder. Or if high enough the top of cylinder doesn’t need a roof/ceiling/lid- it can be open.
Put in enough gas so one has 1 psi of air pressure at the surface.
And it would be 1 psi regardless of the temperature of gas. But
the hotter the gas the higher the majority of gas is. Or if gas is say 150 K, most gas will be closer to the surface- like within 10 meters of the surface. Whereas 400 K gas maybe within 1 or 5 km of the surface. Or has to be very tall cylinder.
So with very tall cylinder, add 10 psi of air [giving a air pressure similar to earth]. with 10 psi pressure at surface, the density of air at surface will be largely effected by temperature
of gas. Or if gas is cool enough it could be same density are
Earth surface air density- 1.2 kg per cubic meter.
Because the Moon has low gravity, this would be cold air- wild guess less than 0 C.
Also with 1/6th the gravity one needs 6 time more air mass above
the surface inside cylinder. So to get 10 psi on the Moon requires more atmosphere as compare to with world with Earth’s gravity.
Or depending on how you want to look at this, this 10 psi air at less than 0 C could be viewed as having more energy per 1 meter square vertical column from surface to space.
Or to make cylinder hold higher temperatures it’s really, really
tall [in terms of anything made by humans].
So have really tall cylinder and have sunlight warm the air to 100 C. That very energetic and hot air, will not allow the surface
of the moon to become hotter than lunar surface without a cylinder above it.
And it does not matter what gases you add.
Now without any gases in cylinder it’s possible the surface is warmer than rest of lunar surface- the cylinder reflects and increases amount of sunlight reaching surface. That why you check it’s temperature before putting gases in it. But other than that
the gases aren’t going to increase the surface temperature- though the addition of gases will certainly will increase the average surface temperature.
Kristian says: ” rather than the mathematically customised version of Climate Science^TM :
q/A = σ T_sfc^4 σ T_atm^4 (bidirectional transfer)”
If you would actually read physics textbooks, you would find that the view you attribute to climate science is the view that physicists also subscribe to, which sort of explains why those of us who are physicists are always telling you that you are wrong, alas to no avail.
“Because this movement naturally and spontaneously follows a downward gradient of radiation intensity and/or energy density.”
Since you are implicitly making analogies to other things, like a gradient in pressure, I am curious to know if you understand them any better. If I have two containers of gas separated by a permeable membrane and one is at a higher pressure and one at a lower pressure and I now poke a hole in the membrane, then I think we both agree the NET flow of gas molecules will be from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure container. Now here’s the question: Do you believe this to be because there is a unidirectional flow of gas molecules from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure container or do you believe that there are flows in both directions but a larger flow of molecules from the high to lower pressure and a smaller flow of molecules from the low to higher pressure?
Ball4 says: September 9, 2016 at 12:56 PM
“Better?”
No
Kristian:(q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer))
“That is bidirectional energy transfer Kristian, photons from the surface irradiate the atm., photons from the atm. irradiate the sfc. Kristian is simply confused calling it unidirectional.”
Trick,
There is absolutely no spontanious bidirectional thermal EM energy transfer. Such cannot exist ever! See: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224455
I agree Joel, Kristian writes this as I understand his thinking as some sort of a heat eqn. (one way) when it is really a radiant energy 2way transfer eqn.:
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
Which is really for bidirectional radiant energy transfer. Works for inversion too. Strictly, this is an idealization given that monodirectional irradiances do not exist; even a laser beam has a finite angular spread.
Also, many feel too constrained to just up and down idealization given the photon bath existing at the surface but it serves a basic purpose to start – as shown in the top post idealization and the test Dr. Spencer shows in last post. It can be pushed too far, restraint is needed.
A consequence of 2stream is scattering can therefore occur in only these two directions: a photon directed downward can be scattered only downward or upward, and similarly for a photon directed upward. This being tough for many to swallow simply debate endlessly, as demonstrated by Kristian. Idealizations are for starting to understand not ending.
Will, you are completely wrong, buy a clue, better buy a copy of “The Theory of Heat Radiation.”. See:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224464
Joel Shore says: September 9, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Kristian says: rather than the mathematically customised version of Climate Science^TM :
q/A = σ T_sfc^4 σ T_atm^4 (bidirectional transfer)
No another JS lie: Kristain actually writes:
If everyone could just stick to the original, standard setup of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation :
q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)
rather than the mathematically customised version of Climate Science^TM :
q/A = σ T_sfc^4 σ T_atm^4 (bidirectional transfer)
“If you would actually read physics textbooks, you would find that the view you attribute to climate science is the view that physicists also subscribe to, which sort of explains why those of us who are physicists are always telling you that you are wrong, alas to no avail.”
The infamous Joel Shore arrives!!!
Why oh why would anyone want to read a corrupt Berkly ‘post normal’ catechism of pseudoscience? The original Stefan-Boltzmann equation is available as a true scientific masterpeice, never ever falsified!… While the broken Joel Shore climatism version has never even once been observed; simply because such cannot be possible.
Ahhh “why those of us who are physicists are always telling you that you are wrong”. The academic cry! You must trust us,we know! WE ARE SKYINTISTS, you rat boy know nothing! see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224455
“the higher pressure container to the lower pressure container. Now heres the question: Do you believe this to be because there is a unidirectional flow of gas molecules from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure container or do you believe that there are flows in both directions but a larger flow of molecules from the high to lower pressure and a smaller flow of molecules from the low to higher pressure?”
If had 20 psi tire filled with helium and fill tire to 25 psi
by addinfg compressed air from 120 psi pressure tank, it would surprise me that helium could travel back to compressor tank.
Despite knowing that helium molecules average velocity is much faster than air.
Ball4 says: September 9, 2016 at 7:30 PM
“I agree Joel, Kristian writes this as I understand his thinking as some sort of a heat eqn. (one way) when it is really a radiant energy 2way transfer eqn.:
q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)
What monumental BS! That is the only flux, with the sign indicating direction!
“Which is really for bidirectional radiant energy transfer. Works for inversion too. Strictly, this is an idealization given that monodirectional irradiances do not exist; even a laser beam has a finite angular spread.”
False! lasers with constant physical beam size are difficult but not impossible, just expensive. Generally a beam focused at a particular distance is an acceptable compromise. That S-B equation is only a maximum total flux between two infinate Lambertial surfaces of zero curvature. The S-B equation includes the effective radiating solid angle of PI steradians for such Lambertian surfaces.
True!! mono-directional irradiances do not exist from any source of finite solid angle area! But again irradiance is still not necessarily a flux. Irradiance is precisely, and only the UN-normalized field strength at some remote location from the source. It is the integral of radiance over the total solid angle of the source.
If and only if there is no opposing (field strength (radiance) will irradiance result in that value of flux in W/m^2. Integrate that over your local area and you get the one way power physically transfered. If that thermal EM field strength is precisely opposed in every direction throughout the area, direction and frequency; no flux in any direction or frequency shall be generated.
Tim Folkerts says, September 9, 2016 at 1:59 PM:
Thanks for that paternal lecture, Tim. I really didn’t know anything about any of those things! Now, can we get back to the real issue …?
In the “back radiation” explanation of the “GHE”, the outgoing ‘surface net LW’ term [Q_lw] – the only thermodynamically relevant radiative term besides the incoming ‘net SW’ [Q_sw] from the Sun – is essentially drained of its inherent physical meaning and significance, broken up and dispersed by simple mathematical tricks. Bestowing instead individual thermodynamic powers on its conceptual components:
Q_sw(in) + DWLWIR – Q_c+e(out) = UWLWIR
To find the UWLWIR on the righthand side, the final rate of outgoing radiant energy from the surface, assumed to be a direct resultant of the final surface temperature (σT^4), all you need to know is 1) the incoming solar heat flux [Q_sw(in)], 2) the DWLWIR, the final rate of incoming radiant energy from the atmosphere to the surface, and 3) the final outgoing conductive-eaporative heat flux [Q_c+e(out)].
So if you know that the Q_sw(in) is 165 W/m^2, the DWLWIR is 345 W/m^2, and the Q_c+e(out) is 112 W/m^2, then you can easily derive Earth’s steady-state surface T_avg:
165 + 345 – 112 = 398 W/m^2 -> 289 K
Ingenious, isn’t it?
In this simple explanation of Earth’s surface T_avg, the ‘surface net LW’ [Q_lw(out)] is basically a non-entity, a complete irrelevance, if anything, a mere EFFECT of the change in DWLWIR, just like the surface T_avg and the UWLWIR.
In this explanation, it is specifically NOT by reducing its ‘net LW’ that you increase the surface U and thereby its T. You do it rather by increasing the energy input from the atmosphere, the DWLWIR. This directly causes TWO effects: i) the surface U and T goes up, and ii) the surface ‘net LW’ (UWLWIR-DWLWIR) goes down.
In this explanation, the decrease in ‘net LW’ [Q_lw(out)] is reduced to a direct EFFECT of the increase in DWLWIR, right alongside the rise in surface U and T.
The difference is simple: Rather than also letting two extra people per minute IN through the same door where ten people leave every minute, we place sort of a reverse bouncer at the door, refusing two of the ten people normally leaving exit.
This is equivalent to what I described above: Less radiant energy (people) per unit of time is allowed to move away from the heated surface (the room), because there is a reduced gradient of radiative intensity and/or energy density facing it (the reverse bouncer). Again, the radiant energy itself (the ‘photon cloud’) is always there, everywhere, but a CHANGE in the average intensity in one or more directions through the radiation field is required for there to be a change in the average (net) MOVEMENT of radiant energy relative to the heated surface.
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4420/BlackBodyThermo.pdf
The TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere (plus its density/pressure/weight) is what limits the (total) surface heat loss at any particular surface T_avg, not its radiation. Its radiation is an EFFECT of temperature, not a CAUSE of it. If the effective temperature difference is small, then the apparent radiation difference is small too. But it’s not the radiation difference that causes the temperature difference. It’s the other way around …
Joel Shore says, September 9, 2016 at 7:05 PM:
And naturally, along comes arrogant little Joel. Yes, in order to work with these terms mathematically, you are of course free to shuffle them about. Like I said. But that doesn’t mean that these alternative versions of the original formula are somehow describing alternative versions of reality. Reality is what dictated the original formula, after all. Physicists – with some real-world insight and perspective, that is, who have been able to look beyond the tip of their nose when amassing their knowledge – know this. “Climate scientists” apparently don’t. Because they apparently think that it’s ok PHYSICALLY to let mere conceptual components of radiant heat fluxes increase the U and T of thermodynamic systems, directly and all by themselves, simply because it seems ok MATHEMATICALLY:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
Will says “That is the only flux, with the sign indicating direction!”
No Will, you are proven completely wrong by Dr. Spencer’s experiment in which the cardboard had a proven effect in the data. Both the cardboard and ice irradiated the hot plate with photons. If what you write were true inserting the cardboard would have had no effect. Buy a clue Will and pick up a copy of “The Theory of Heat Radiation” and find out exactly why you are completely wrong.
Kristian incorrectly writes: “its ok PHYSICALLY to let mere conceptual components of radiant heat fluxes increase the U and T of thermodynamic systems, directly and all by themselves, simply because it seems ok MATHEMATICALLY:”
It is ok mathematically AND physically. Dr. Spencer’s test proved radiant energy fluxes are not merely mathematical Kristian, they are physical too:
q/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 – T_ice^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams ice up & hot plate down)
as shown in his data, the added heat melting the ice was a measure of the KE exchanged, the temperature of the hot plate changing with the cardboard insertion showed as KE change on the thermometer.
The ice & cardboard irradiated the hot plate as shown in the data.
Kristian says: “And naturally, along comes arrogant little Joel….”
You have a strange definition of arrogance. Apparently, it is not arrogant if you fancy yourself an expert in physics and what physicists understand about thermodynamics even though you have no background in this area and particular have never taken a course or apparently read anything about statistical physics, the foundation upon which our modern understanding of thermodynamics rests. (And have not talked to any who have this background who actually agree with your point-of-view!)
However, it is arrogant if you have actually committed the time to studying the relevant fields of physics, earning a PhD in physics, with research in statistical physics and you have the gall to point out the basic errors and lack of knowledge that one of the “not arrogant” people is demonstrating.
Ball4 says: September 10, 2016 at 5:28 AM
“Kristian incorrectly writes: (its ok PHYSICALLY to let mere conceptual components of radiant heat fluxes increase the U and T of thermodynamic systems, directly and all by themselves, simply because it seems ok MATHEMATICALLY:)
“It is ok mathematically AND physically. Dr. Spencers test proved radiant energy fluxes are not merely mathematical Kristian, they are physical too:”
Again, only if you believe the religious fantasy of spontaneous thermal EMR flux in opposing direction!! such as:
“q/A = σ (T_hotplate^4 T_ice^4) (bidirectional energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference, two independent photon streams ice up & hot plate down)”
What two photon streams? you pull this crap from the terlet!!
“as shown in his data, the added heat melting the ice was a measure of the KE exchanged, the temperature of the hot plate changing with the cardboard insertion showed as KE change on the thermometer.”
How does that ever indicate opposing thermal flux.
“The ice & cardboard irradiated the hot plate as shown in the data.”
Of course and yes! you fail to recognize that the term irradiate is merely an UN-normalized “radiance” or power transfer potential. Irradiance never, ever, refers to any flux. This is quite independent of how Wm STOAT Connolley changed the description of irradiance at Wikipedia!!
“What two photon streams?”
The one from the hot plate and the one from the ice.
Joel,
You’re an arrogant little bugger (I wanted to write ‘twat’). You might not think so yourself, but you are. It seems you can’t help yourself.
You’re not the only person in the world who knows a little bit about physics. If you read this, you know where I’m coming from. Radiation is not two opposing arrows on a piece of paper. It’s slightly more complex than that:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/teaching/astro-310-F08/09-radiation-field.pdf
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~alan/atmosferas/chapter-1.pdf
https://www.science.mcmaster.ca/medphys/images/files/courses/775/ch3.pdf
You might think you know what I’m saying, Joel, but you obviously don’t …
“If you read this, you know where Im coming from.”
Not really Kristian. Except for one use of gamma, the ratio of specific heats, not one of those pieces uses the term “heat” so there is no need for Kristian to use it either when discussing radiation. Used properly, heat is simply the measure of KE in an object.
Ball4 says: September 10, 2016 at 8:40 PM
(If you read this, you know where Im coming from.)
Not really Kristian. Except for one use of gamma, the ratio of specific heats, not one of those pieces uses the term heat so there is no need for Kristian to use it either when discussing radiation.”
Trick,
Please go somewhere, anywhere, get your shoes tied, face wiped, diaper changed, with asswipe by someone nice!
The term ‘Gamma’ is the gas chemistry term for ratio Cp/Cv yielding a value of 7/5, 1.4 for Earth’s atmosphere. Such reviles nothing of this atmosphere. That same value 7/5, 1.4 is called ‘isentropic exponent’ kappa in all engineering. Such can easily explain the Gravitationally induced thermostatic lapse rate of Earth’s atmosphere, we think! This (of course) may be ‘falsified’ at anytime.
So far the totally incompetent academic physicists cannot even figure out what that term may possibly mean.
“Used properly, heat is simply the measure of KE in an object.”
Grand BS! So far temperature seems to be indicative of both sensible heat (some accumulation of power) plus gas mass pressure (a different accumulation of power) while never including the accumulation of coherent momentum power (Mv^2/2) which seems not represented by temperature.
Why oh why do you attempt to promote your religious nonsense?
Will says: “Such can easily explain the Gravitationally induced thermostatic lapse rate of Earths atmosphere, we think! This (of course) may be falsified at anytime.
So far the totally incompetent academic physicists cannot even figure out what that term may possibly mean.”
(1) If you actually read a textbooks in atmospheric science, you would know that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is understood as indeed being related to the gravitational acceleration and the specific heat. There is no debate on this. [The only confusion that sometimes arises is that some people think this is the equilibrium temperature in the atmosphere whereas the adiabatic lapse rate really represents a stability limit for the lapse rate. I.e., lapse rates steeper than this tend to spark convection, which drives down the lapse rate, whereas lapse rates less steep are stable (which is why the stratosphere does not have the sort of lapse rate one sees in the troposphere).]
(2) Despite your musings, there are not two different types of physicists who believe two different things. I have worked in both industry and academia and physicists in industry don’t go around thinking that physicists in academia have different laws of physics than they do.
How ironic! I am not the one who thinks this…You are. I think that a lot of people know physics, including here Tim Folkerts, Ball4, Roy Spencer, to name just a few. I also think that those who write the physics textbooks and the great physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who codified statistical physics know physics.
You are the one who thinks you are so wise that you can understand physics without even familiarizing yourself with this stuff. It must be impressive to be so brilliant that you can have a better understanding of thermodynamics than those who have studied the statistical physics that underlies it.
Sorry…My last post was responding to this quote that I accidently cut off—
Kristian says: “Youre not the only person in the world who knows a little bit about physics.”
Fine links, Kristian, but none of them give any evidence whatsoever to support your view. They simply don’t deal with the question of two bodies (or a body and its surroundings) interacting radiatively. Whereas, I have provided you with textbook references that directly support our point of view…essentially any elementary physics textbook that writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation applied to a body and its surroundings. For example, in University Physics by Young & Freedman (the textbook we happen to use in the introductory physics course), they explain the equation as being the amount of radiation that a body emits minus the amount it absorbs from its surroundings. (I tried to quote the book directly but something in the spam filter for this site doesn’t like it.)
Ball4 says: “Used properly, heat is simply the measure of KE in an object.”
Actually, I would quibble with you on that one. I think what you are referring to as a measure of kinetic energy is more properly termed something like the total internal energy (which is a direct measure of the KE for an ideal gas, although the relationship is not as simple for other objects).
The term “heat” is usually used to represent the macroscopic net flow of energy between two systems due to a temperature difference. As such, heat does flow only from hot to cold. However, on the microscopic level, this heat flow is made up of energy transfers going in both directions.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not some magical statement that energy flows only in one direction but simply the statement that in a macroscopic system, the amount of energy from the warmer object that is absorbed by the colder object will always be greater than the amount of energy from the colder object that is absorbed by the warmer object. (Strictly speaking, it is a statistical statement that this becomes the overwhelming more likely result as the system becomes larger, but for any reasonable sized macroscopic system, any observed violation of this would not happen even over times larger than the current age of the Universe.)
“The term heat is usually used to represent the macroscopic net flow of energy between two systems due to a temperature difference.”
Consider, Joel, that heat no longer exists in an object after the demise of the caloric “fluid”. Thus “heat” can’t transfer or flow, that is a relic of the 1800s.
KE of the object’s constituent particles does exist and as energy cannot be destroyed only transformed. Thus any net flow of energy between objects is physically KE, of which heat is a measure.
Kristian well knows I have some irreverent thoughts on “heat” term stemming from the link (he provided! (unintentionally)) to Mark Zemansky’s piece:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKl9WRxYfPAhVEyj4KHQykCmMQFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciphy.tistory.com%2Fattachment%2Fcfile24.uf%401810D1264C95C1266B5C98.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEuSqEa3mSsrbe8BadaguDYUmL0RQ&bvm=bv.132479545,d.cWw
Joel, considering the bulk of Kristian’s writings it is evident the root cause of his confusion is that he misuses the “heat” term just as Zemansky writes.
For evidence, all one needs is Kristian incorrectly writing this thinking it is a one way “heat” equation when it is really a two way object irradiation equation, a radiative energy transfer of KE between bodies as shown in Dr. Spencer’s experiment:
q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (Kristian’s incorrect: unidirectional transfer)
There is no KE in that equation only bidirectional EMR. The KE of one body reduces (of which heat is a measure) in the EMR transformation, transfer to the other body, the net direction by 2LOT increasing universe entropy. Note it all works for atm. inversion layers also.
Joel says: “I think what you are referring to as a measure of kinetic energy is more properly termed something like the total internal energy”
See Zemansky (3) p. 298.
Ball4,
“For evidence, all one needs is Kristian incorrectly writing this thinking it is a one way heat equation when it is really a two way object irradiation equation…”
All transfers can be modeled by two ways but these two ways are never independent statistically or macroscopically. Considering two ways instead of one is a great way to forget the absolute link between the two and thus to arrive at completely false conclusions in terms of thermodynamics. That’s why no one has ever had the crazy idea to make a thermal calculation using the concept of back conduction.
“All transfers can be modeled by two ways but these two ways are never independent statistically or macroscopically.”
Passing incoherent photons do not interact phi, they are completely independent. The bidirectional EMR fluxes (ice, hot plate irradiation of each other) in Dr. Spencer’s experiment are independent. Thus can be superposed.
Ball4: Zemanski is making my point exactly. Note that all those quotations that he gives on p. 298 are to examples of the error of “(1) Referring to the ‘heat in the body'”. As Zemanski points out, the problem is that the authors are trying to avoid the use of the word internal energy, which is what they should be using. (See the top of p. 299.)
I love his error (2) about using “heat” as a verb because he points out exactly the problem that I railed about above when everyone was arguing about whether or not back-radiations heats the Earth. I think, in fact, he could have made the point more strongly by noting the situation that we are talking about where the final temperature of a body is being determined by interactions with multiple other bodies, in which case the use of the transitive verb “heat” becomes even more problematic.
phi says: “Thats why no one has ever had the crazy idea to make a thermal calculation using the concept of back conduction.”
In fact, if you were looking at conduction microscopically, you absolutely would have to consider energy being transferred in both directions. I think the reason why people talk more about it with radiation than conduction is with radiation you do have objects separated by macroscopic distances, plus you have a distinctly different spectrum for the radiative flows in the two directions.
Sorry…I should have spelled the author’s name correctly as Zemansky.
Ball4, for what it’s worth, I think that Kristian’s problem is that he doesn’t understand that heat is a macroscopic concept referring to the NET energy transfer. Thermodynamics is explicitly a macroscopic theory…The folks who invented it had no ability to see what was going on microscopically and didn’t pretend to know.
It was only once Gibbs et al. came along and laid the microscopic foundations with statistical mechanics that we could understand the elegant way in which the Laws of Thermodynamics, and particularly the Second Law, is understood to arise from the microscopic level. How irreversible behavior (like the flow of heat from hot to cold) on the macroscale arise from reversible behavior at the microscale is one of the most profound and deep principles in physics. It is a shame that it is not taught more widely and that there are whole groups of people like Kristian and Will who are willfully ignorant of this beautiful piece of physics and live in this bizarre world where explicitly macroscopic laws are extended down to the microscale to yield an alternative reality that is devoid of all the real beauty in the way Nature actually works.
And, then these people spewing their own ignorance give themselves the title “AUTODIDACT”. Does the arrogance of the willfully ignorant know no bounds?!?
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 6:37 AM:
Indeed. And they say what I say. Radiation – as a real physical phenomenon, not its mathematical description – is not like a single arrow. It’s very clear you’re ‘attacking’ me without having bothered at all to try and understand what I’m actually saying. Again, you think you do, and build straw men to tear down based on that, but you obviously don’t.
I’m simply explaining how the actual “transfer” of energy via radiation between systems at different temps is equal to the statistical/probabilistic average of all photon movements (across all directions/angles and intensities) through all points that make up the threedimensional radiation field, and that this necessarily results in one (unidirectional) net flow/flux, from hot to cold.
I really don’t see why anyone should find this pretty standard description of reality so reprehensible …!
See, this is what I’m talking about. How arrogant can one get?
I don’t even know why I bother talking to you …
I should add that it is not necessary to have a full-blown course (or read a textbook) in statistical and thermal physics to begin to appreciate this relationship between microscopic reversibility and irreversible behavior on the macroscale. Knight, Jones, and Field, College Physics, a book used for algebra-based introductory courses in physics, does a fine job of explaining this (https://www.amazon.com/College-Physics-Strategic-Approach-3rd/dp/0321879724/)
“Im simply explaining how the actual ‘transfer’ of energy via radiation between systems at different temps is equal to the statistical/probabilistic average of all photon movements (across all directions/angles and intensities) through all points that make up the threedimensional radiation field, and that this necessarily results in one (unidirectional) net flow/flux, from hot to cold.”
Fine…So what are you arguing against in the following statement? The transfer of energy between the Earth and atmosphere consists of energy transfer from the Earth to the atmosphere and energy transfer (“back-radiation”) from the atmosphere to the Earth. Because the energy flow from the Earth to atmosphere is larger than the energy flow from atmosphere to Earth, the net energy transfer (“heat flow”) is from the warmer Earth to the colder atmosphere.
It seems for you the sticking point is that you are willing to say photons move in both directions but somehow not energy…and yet we know how much energy each photon carries.
“Indeed. And they say what I say.”
Great…Then you ought to have no trouble finding physics textbooks that specifically endorse your point of view over ours. Have at it!!!
Joel, yes, but be careful since internal energy U of a gas you mentioned consists of the PE arising solely from forces exerted by internal constituent particles of the system on each other (p*V term) AND also the kinetic energy from motion of and about the particles’ mass center, measured as heat – meaning more constituent KE, measure the object hotter or warmer at higher temperature. The object never contains heat separate from KE as pointed out by Zemansky in (1).
The p*V term is missed by many as their worldly experience is conduction in solids where the change in p*V is negligible, this sometimes has to be unlearned for an atm. gas.
My favorite example is boiling of water always needed a fire in common knowledge until the French hired the Austrians to make cannons to shoot at the Germans. The Austrian lathes turned the cannon castings so fast they were immersed in water to cool which then would boil. That process at first drew crowds amazed to see boiling water could be had without a fire. No gathering firewood anymore!
Kristian writes, “that this necessarily results in one (unidirectional) net flow/flux, from hot to cold.”
Sure, the results from two independent photon streams, i.e. the net KE transfer goes by 2LOT. That is not what you wrote earlier Kristian:
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
That is a bidirectional radiative energy transfer.
Kristian,
Just to help you out with your quest to find textbooks supporting your view, let me tell you two not to look at:
(1) Don’t look at Young and Freedman, University Physics, as they define the rate of energy radiation from a surface simply as being proportional to the 4th power of its temperature. They then go on to introduce the full form of the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation by saying, “While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature Ts are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation.”
(2) Don’t look at Knight, Jones, & Field, College Physics, as they do the same thing…first discussing how a body radiates heat in proportion to the 4th power of its temperature and then saying “Suppose an object at a temperature T is surrounded by an environment at temperature T0. The net rate at which the object radiates heat energy- that is, radiation emitted minus radiation absorbed is…” [and they write down the Stefan-Boltzmann law].
I have many more physics textbooks you will want to avoid at work, but those are the two that I happen to have handy at home.
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 6:42 AM:
As you seemingly don’t have the slightest clue what my view actually happens to be, Joel, then how would you be able to tell?
They describe a radiation field just like I describe it. That is all the ‘evidence to support my view’ that I need.
They don’t have to. Their determination of the radiation field will be the same. There will still be photons at different frequencies coming in from different directions through each point in space, averaging out probabilistically to one net movement of radiant energy through the field. It is only when you artificially/conceptually put up a vertical plane to divide the radiation field between the two opposing objects or regions into two opposite-facing parts, where only the radiation moving into the plane on either side is mathematically accounted for, that you all of a sudden “discover” a separate radiation flux coming in from both ends.
Ball4 says: “The object never contains heat separate from KE as pointed out by Zemansky in (1).”
I read (1) to say that an object never contains heat at all. It contains internal energy. And, what you call the potential energy and what you describe in what follows seems, from what I can tell, to be a description of how you can change the internal energy of a system by doing work on a system, not just by adding heat. [In particular, what you describe about doing work on a system could apply even to an ideal gas…and an ideal gas, by definition, does not have a potential energy term because the microscopic elements of the gas (whether you want to call them atoms or molecules) do not interact.]
In thermodynamics, there are two types of variables: Things like the temperature, pressure, internal energy, volume, … are state variables of the system. Things like heat and work are not state variables; they simply describe and label two ways energy is transferred from one system to another (or “its environment” which is often the term that stands in for everything that is outside of the system).
As Zemansky notes, referring to the “heat in a body” is simply wrong.
By the way, along the lines of your story about the Austrian lathes, we have a cool demo we do call the “fire piston” where we rapidly compress a gas in a piston, getting it so hot that we burn a piece of paper inside the piston. [You can type “simpson fire piston demo” into YouTube search to see various examples of this demo.]
“They describe a radiation field just like I describe it.”
No Kristian, I did not find in those links what you wrote:
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 _ T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
If I missed it, prove it.
Kristian: “That is all the evidence to support my view that I need.”
And, therein lies the problem. You quote things that don’t actually address the question of whether there is a unidirectional or bidirectional flow of energy and claim that they support your view.
Then, when I quote sources that directly address the situation by directly discussing the fact that While a body at absolute temperature T is radiating, its surroundings at temperature Ts are also radiating, and the body absorbs some of this radiation, you ignore it. Or, do you believe that the body absorbs the radiation without absorbing any energy from the radiation?
Joel, you’re predictably lining up straw man after straw man. I have shown you links that describe the radiation field the way I describe it, and still you don’t get what I’m saying. If you don’t want to understand or acknowledge my argument, then that’s up to you. But don’t expect me, then, to respond to your patronising rants on matters that have absolutely no bearing on the things I actually do point out and discuss.
You’re defending a dogma, Joel, and you’re doing it by ‘misunderstanding’ and ‘misrepresenting’ alternative perspectives. A classic strategy. Congratulations!
Joel writes, “I read (1) to say that an object never contains heat at all.”
Correct, thus heat cannot transfer from a place it does not exist, the object does contain KE (and internal PE) which thus can transfer to another place – your piston invokes the transfer p*V energy transfer by virtue of external work.
Also correct per Zemansky you are thinking of U as the sum of the KE and internal PE, a certain poster around here initials SW always misses that p*V aspect of U. I haven’t observed Kristian misses it.
Think of thermal energy U per Zemansky as the abbreviated form of therm -odynamic inter – nal energy to separate his thermal energy U from chemical energy, nuclear energy, et. al. somewhere I have the U complete list called the Hamiltonian/Lagrangian internal energy but can’t find it at the moment.
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 12:24 PM:
Yeah, nice tactic, Joel. Pretend I don’t know this just as well as you do. And do it in a condescending (almost insulting) fashion. Keep up the good work! *Eyeroll*
By the way, Kristian, you do understand, I hope, that the radiative greenhouse effect arises from the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation whether or not you interpret the flows of energy as bidirectional or unidirectional.
What actual material difference in the greenhouse effect do you believe arises because of your (bizarre) interpretation?
Kristian writes “I have shown you links that describe the radiation field the way I describe it,”
Again, no Kristian, you have not provided any links showing your radiative energy unidirectional transfer. None of those links write the eqn. you describe unidirectional transfer here, the root cause of your confusion from misusing heat term per Zemansky:
“q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) (unidirectional transfer)”
No text book or proper link will write that or find one.
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 1:36 PM:
Hahaha! It’s completely hopeless, isn’t it? Getting you to step out of your little bubble and try to find out what it is that I’m actually saying. It’s like talking to the proverbial wall. Hello!? Anybody home?
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 1:56 PM:
Joel, you do understand, I hope, that what you’re doing here is trolling, no more, no less.
You obviously haven’t read anything of what I’ve been writing. So I suggest you do that rather than ask me to explain it to you from the beginning.
Joel, the problem for Kristian arises in his writing this for example:
“The TEMPERATURE of the atmosphere (plus its density/pressure/weight) is what limits the (total) surface heat loss at any particular surface T_avg, not its radiation.”
Since as Zemansky correctly informs in (1) heat doesn’t exist in an object, heat can’t be lost by that object but internal KE (and internal PE), U, CAN be lost/gained thus Kristian draws inaccurate conclusions misusing the heat term.
There is not ever a need to use the heat term, Kristian could always get around its use but stoically continues to misuse heat term as Zemansky points out. Forcing the reader to figure out meanings which is just what Zemansky writes.
Thanks for the conversation.
Yeah…I did re-read what Kristian wrote above after I asked my question of how he thinks his point-of-view changes anything about the greenhouse effect. It is really hard to make heads or tails of though. I think Spencer’s comment “twisting yourself into a pretzel” is an apt description of what Kristian is doing. He is basically trying to distort physics in any way he can to preserve his precious pre-conceived beliefs.
Part of the problem that allows him to do this is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as we have been talking about it is really a simplification when you are talking about radiative transfer in a gas. So, he can obfuscate things to the point where he can imagine that increasing the radiative opacity of the gas has no effect on anything and it all magically stays at the same temperature, or at least that is what he seems to be saying as near as I can get my Kristian-decombobulator to work!
It is indeed amazing what sort of pretzels people will tie themselves into in order to avoid science that contradicts their ideological beliefs.
Kristian,
So I am desperately trying to look up through the conversation to identify your actual thesis regarding the greenhouse effect and the closest I can come is this: “What part of the total system is it, then, once the atmosphere has become radiatively active, that will routinely baffle (as in negate) any further RADIATIVE attempt at producing extra warming? Yup: Atmospheric circulation.”
Fine, so if that is your thesis then
(1) Why are you spending so much time arguing the irrelevant point of the interpretation of the terms in the equation when you really don’t have any beef with the radiative greenhouse effect at all except that you think that convection (which is what I presume you mean by “atmospheric circulation” will negate it?
(2) It is easy enough to incorporate convection into the models (at least in various levels of approximation) and is done. It reduces, but does not eliminate the radiative greenhouse effect (and how that effect changes as you vary atmospheric opacity). And, the reason it does not eliminate it is precisely because the atmosphere is only unstable to convection if the lapse rate is steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate.
So, what of this whole picture do you believe to be wrong? And, if your real beef is that Spencer’s model is purely radiative, why are you off on this long tangent about unidirectional vs bidirectional energy flows?
Joel,
If you had paid any attention to what I’ve been writing here on this thread and on previous threads, then you would’ve known that my argument isn’t about uni vs bidirectional transfer at all. The only reason why I always seem to get myself entangled in these endless and ultimately fruitless discussions, is that at some point I make a remark to the effect that the whole “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface thing is but a computed, not a measured (as in ‘physically detected’) quantity. And every time I do, it goes off like a bomb. People go berserk. It’s like I’m denying gravity or light itself. But of course, thermodynamically, it makes absolutely no difference whether the surface radiant heat loss (net LW) is [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 or just 53 W/m^2. What I’m trying to get through to people is that those two component ‘fluxes’ (the DWLWIR and the UWLWIR) do not in any way possess individual thermodynamic powers. That they are always physically integrated into ONE net thermodynamic transfer – the surface radiant heat loss.
And so, when the IPCC split the net LW into two distinct ‘fluxes’, placing the one on the INPUT side of the energy budget and the other on the OUTPUT side, right beside the other real HEAT inputs and outputs (the solar flux [Q_sw(in)], and the conductive/evaporative flux [Q_c+e(out)]), as if they were all thermodynamic equivalents, implying that this setup somehow directly explains Earth’s surface T_avg, then people get confused into thinking that mere radiative EFFECTS of temperature might rather be considered a CAUSE of temperature. They simply end up seeing (consciously or subconsciously) the two LW ‘fluxes’ as separate thermodynamic quantities, AS IF the DWLWIR were an extra heat input to the surface alongside the solar flux, and the UWLWIR were itself a surface heat output right next to the conductive/evaporative one. It simply makes them get caught up in the notion that the DWLWIR is somehow a cause of surface temperature rise, directly and all by itself. Just like the solar flux.
What I am trying to convey, then, is that the DWLWIR is really only a conceptual ‘half’ of the surface radiant heat LOSS, its Q_lw(out), and that it is for the most part simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column above the solar-heated surface. As can be inferred directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4]
It is the fact that the atmosphere is able to WARM beyond the ‘temperature’ of space that makes it an insulative layer. It is the fact that the temperature of the atmosphere is much closer to the temperature of the surface than space, that makes the surface radiant heat loss so small even at a high T_avg. The radiative properties of the atmosphere are but a tool to make it all work. They connect the atmosphere and the surface thermodynamically, and they enable the atmosphere to cool to space. They simply allow heat to flow into and out of the atmosphere in the steady state. It is, however, the atmosphere’s MASS that ultimately causes the atmospheric thermal effect (what you would call the “GHE”) on the solar-heated surface.
And so THIS is what I feel is important to discuss, NOT the whole uni vs. bidirectional radiant transfer thing. Which is really only an academic aside.
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 2:23 PM
“YeahI did re-read what Kristian wrote above after I asked my question of how he thinks his point-of-view changes anything about the greenhouse effect.”
The whole concept of GHE is a deliberate scam. Such is based on some fantasy of spontaneous bidirectional EM%R power transfer That somehow increases the temperature of Earth’s surface. Such cannot be demonstrated as such never happens!
“It is really hard to make heads or tails of though. I think Spencers comment twisting yourself into a pretzel is an apt description of what Kristian is doing. He is basically trying to distort physics in any way he can to preserve his precious pre-conceived beliefs.”
Only folk employed to deliberately distort this physical are doing so for profit! Kristian like I, have no pre-conceived belief. Only some desire to expose and detail the magnitude of this CAGW SCAM.
You Joel have absolutely no evidence of any thermal EM flux (or power transfer) in the direction of higher EM radiance in any direction, at any frequency.
“Part of the problem that allows him to do this is that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as we have been talking about it is really a simplification when you are talking about radiative transfer in a gas.”
The S-B equation simply never applies is such a situation!
“So, he can obfuscate things to the point where he can imagine that increasing the radiative opacity of the gas has no effect on anything and it all magically stays at the same temperature, or at least that is what he seems to be saying as near as I can get my Kristian-decombobulator to work!”
Only you and your buddies are intent to deliberately obfuscate things for political or monetary profit!
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencer’s experiments. There is no perpetual motion Will despite your insistence, buy a clue and get a copy of Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation to quote from directly.
Joel Shore says, September 11, 2016 at 2:23 PM:
Rather than twisting other people’s opinions into pretzels and then just spouting your regular pompous nonsense, Joel, why don’t you show us all the scientific (observational) evidence from the real Earth system that “increasing the radiative opacity of” the atmospheric column really does lead to an absolute rise in the surface T_avg? As claimed. Or that increasing the atmospheric content of CO2 (and of water vapour) even does increase the total all-sky “radiative forcing” at the ToA and/or at the surface at all over time …
Real-world data shows us it’s simply not what happens.
Real world data in Feldman et.al. 2015 does show us all the scientific (observational) evidence from the real Earth system “increasing the radiative opacity of” the atmospheric column really does lead to an absolute rise in the surface T_avg. Kristian just ignores the real world data to suit his purposes.
Real-world data shows us it’s simply what happens, Kristian, in that 2015 paper over long time frames, that increasing the atmospheric content of CO2 (and of water vapour) does increase the total all-sky “radiative forcing” at the ToA and/or at the surface, again over long time frames (decade or more).
Confirmed by OLR decreasing over ~11 years in Loeb 2016. Which Kristian has yet to show he has the ability to replicate.
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 7:04 AM
With no attempt at understanding Ball4 (Trick) pronounces: (Used properly, heat is simply the measure of KE in an object.)
Trick spouts of simplicity while wearing diapers!
Joel Shore, with no attempt at understanding pronounces:
“Actually, I would quibble with you on that one. I think what you are referring to as a measure of kinetic energy is more properly termed something like the total internal energy (which is a direct measure of the KE for an ideal gas, although the relationship is not as simple for other objects).”
Again with no reference to any of the well measured and defined true physical terms “sensible heat”, “latent heat”, and “power storage of a compressed gas”. Joel wishes to combine all these painfully learned distinct concepts of “storage/accumulation of power (time integral), into some catchall nebulous noun phrase ‘internal energy’, that no one except arrogant academic writers of college textbooks would ever accept as being meaningful! Next is to try to make such nonsense equivalent/identical with “work”, which is never storage/accumulation of power, but instead conversion of power to structure over a defined time interval, with the physical unit known as ‘action’. Always misinterpreted by the Joels as Joule-seconds. What a hoot!
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 7:04 AM
Joel Shore never ‘says’ nor ‘writes’ there is only some pontification from above about the vast difference between microscopic and telescopic. Joel in his magnificence truly spits on all us “Rat boys that know nothing”. Consider:
“The term heat is usually used to represent the macroscopic net flow of energy between two systems due to a temperature difference. As such, heat does flow only from hot to cold. However, on the microscopic level, this heat flow is made up of energy transfers going in both directions.”
Does any Rat boy give a shit about ‘microscopic’ weather, climate, heat flow, or energy transfer? The term ‘flux’, gross power crossing a unit area, in and out does have meaning to ever Rat boys!
“The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not some magical statement that energy flows only in one direction but simply the statement that in a macroscopic system, the amount of energy from the warmer object that is absorbed by the colder object will always be greater than the amount of energy from the colder object that is absorbed by the warmer object.”
Who? if anyone gives a shit of your ‘microscopic’?By definition Flux, whether conductive, convective, compressive, gravitational, or radiative can only be unidirectional, never bidirectional. Any statement that the 2LTD ‘spontaneous gives stuff’, then takes some back, is the big big indicator of magnificent scam in progress!
“(Strictly speaking, it is a statistical statement that this becomes the overwhelming more likely result as the system becomes larger, but for any reasonable sized macroscopic system, any observed violation of this would not happen even over times larger than the current age of the Universe.)”
Please please stuff your statistical up where such belongs!!
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencer’s experiments. There is no perpetual motion Will, buy a clue and get a copy of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” to quote from.
Sorry, should be “exit the room through the second door”.
Tim Folkerts and Ball4
Thanks for your posts. It seems that my view is the correct one.
Kristian:
Your people analogy will work perfect in helping me explain my point to you (that so far has been most unsuccessful!).
You have a stadium of 100,000 people total.
In the incoming entrance (the only one in) you have 168 people coming in every 10 minutes.
You have an out door as well but the out door has both a way out and a way back in through the same larger entrance.
Out of the Out entrance 398 people are leaving every 10 minutes but 345 want to go back in, they can reenter through the same exit they left.
The 345 came from the 398 that left. So out of the 398 that left the stadium how many left for good never to return? Was it all 398 even though 345 of that number came back?
In this example the stadium would continue to fill because you have 168 people entering every 10 minutes but only 53 leaving. Then you have to have another exit (similar to evaporation and convection) that would remove 115 people but they would go into the same group as the 398 so in this larger group you would have 513 total people and of that 513, 345 of them are going to go back in. Now you have an equilibrium stadium, the number does not go down in time but remains a constant even though people are coming in and leaving all the time.
Does this make my point clearer to you? I hope so!
If one understands that thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory and that the unpinning for the modern (20th century) understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is statistical physics, then it is obvious that Kristian is confused. I don’t think Kristian has ever read any exposition of how irreversibly on the macroscale arises from reversible processes on the microscopic scale and alas he seems to have no desire to learn this physics that would enrich his understanding of the Universe but require him to abandon some of the incorrect principles that he clings to.
LOL
Kristian says: September 10, 2016 at 6:01 AM
“LOL”
Grinn!!
Blatently stolen from JoNova’ site
A word, for your consideration. AUTODIDACT
autodidact
/ˈɔːtəʊdɪdakt /
▸ noun a self-taught person.
DERIVATIVES autodidactic /-ˈdaktɪk/ adjective
ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from Greek autodidaktos self-taught, from autos self + didaskein teach.
From the Oxford Dictionary of English iPad ap.
Seems to apply for a number of contributers here, and can be worn as a badge of honour.
Must be impressive to be so brilliant that you can learn this stuff all on your own! And I am the arrogant one?!?!
Joel Shore says: September 9, 2016 at 7:00 PM
“If one understands that thermodynamics is a macroscopic theory and that the unpinning for the modern (20th century) understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is statistical physics, then it is obvious that Kristian is confused.”
This only shows the Joel Shore has much ‘education’ but absolutely no understanding of anything, especially electromagnetic field theory. Joel keeps on with his rant that EMR must conform to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as in his catechism such is written. Thermal EMR does so conform, but in a way that Joel is unlikely to ever learn. He does not even try to learn, to him he knows everything.
“I dont think Kristian has ever read any exposition of how irreversibly on the macroscale arises from reversible processes on the microscopic scale”
Kristian likely understands much much more than Joel and Joel refuses to learn anything. Instead Joel mumbles about himself:
“alas
heI seem(s) to have no desire to learn this physics that would enrichhismy understanding of the Universe but requirehimme to abandon some of the incorrect principles thatheI cling(s) to.”Will Janoschka
Upthread YOU: “Dr. Spencer starts with the ungodly fantasy that all mass with temperature must radiate EMR. Nothing can be further from the physical near this planet Earth.”
YOU also post this: “Indeed! Thermal EMR with wide bandwidth, near zero coherence interval,powered only by Boltzmann (kTb) statistics. Seems to require more than understanding. Such requires continual, repeated, pawing through the junk box and finding, that doesnt fit quite right either!
Once you can recognize Lorentz invariance peeking from within Maxwells 22 equations but find that missing from the 4 or 6 of John Pointing, you can try something else from the junk box.”
So you from reading your posts you reject what the majority of physics are saying about EMR. You also think physicists are wrong in how they calculate the mass of the atmosphere. So you stand against the vast majority of science at this point in you thought process.
It is possible that you are a super genius and can see things no one else has been able. I do not think this is the case with your posts. I think you have mastered the art of “sounding” like a genius and tying to convince some of your absolute brilliance but I think you are a phony pretending. You read up on some material post some technical jargon you don’t have the slightest idea what it means and try to pass yourself off as this super brilliant human that knows more than the entire current world of physics.
Will Janoschka
Here is one big reason you are a pretender. You make these claims that scientists of today don’t understand physics but the science of today is being used to constantly develop things that work! If current science were as flawed as you believe, nothing complex designed from such flawed physics would work and yet it does.
Your phony and totally unsupported claim that all all matter does not radiate IR can be dispelled by purchasing an IR camera and pointing at different objects to see images or find criminals hiding in grass. If all these things were not emitting IR (EMR of the band called Infrared) then nothing could be built to detect them.
Your posts are worse than worthless, they are truly dishonest and deceptive designed to mislead those with just a little physics background.
If you post that current physics is wrong (just based upon your own opinions) then you must provide lots of supporting evidence and even experimental proof. To overturn the accepted requires more than some jargon posted on a blog.
You provide none but your technical jargon that sounds super brilliant but probably crap is anyone spent time reading into it.
Give some links to your sources, give some experiments to prove your points and quit pretending you have a super genius mentality and all others are little kids that need their butts wiped.
“If current science were as flawed as you believe, nothing complex designed from such flawed physics would work and yet it does.
You dream. Nobody ever built a device that works on the basis of weird notions as radiative forcing or independant back radiation invented by cliamtologists.
Well phi there are microwave ovens from radiative forcing notions and lasers from independent back radiation notions. What is hard to find is some invention based on photon notions instead of EMR.
Yes, lasers are a fancy example of backradiation, a notion that is everywhere in physics anyway.
And even a simple mirror is a device that demonstrate the existence of back radiation. X-ray Laue diffraction experiments do it too.
The ignoramuses who claim back radiation is a weird notion invented by climatologists probably take advantage of such devices everyday and yet are not even aware of it.
That’s the funny situation of ignoramuses who talk about thing they don’t know anything about.
And, sorry, it’s not hard to find an invention based on photon notion, i. e. quantized EMR: the very laser again with stimulated emission, a pyrrometer exploiting Planck thermal radiation distribution, a photoelectric cell etc. All things that do not work as they work if EMR were just the classical phenomenon described by Maxwell’s equations.
“And, sorry, it’s not hard to find an invention based on photon notion, i. e. quantized EMR: the very laser again with stimulated emission, a pyrrometer exploiting Planck thermal radiation distribution, a photoelectric cell etc.”
Add holography, radar, interferometry. All…ALL those mentioned invented from EMR wave notions, I can’t name a single invention merely from the particle or photon aspect of light notion. Perhaps someone can. This ought to be a clue how to think about the duality.
What’s more EM waves can go through walls (bluetooth & wifi go room to room), photons seem to get stopped by the same walls. What’s up with that conundrum?
phi, maybe it is language translation confusing you.
“Detecting” the two incoherent photon streams is everyday routine occurrence since at least around 1900, Dr. Spencer’s latest test proved it is possible yet AGAIN. He did one last summer in the natural environment also.
“Separating” the two incoherent photon streams was proven impossible using 2LOT, in the early 1950s.
Understand the translation, detecting and separating carry two different distinct meanings in this thermodynamic context.
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 6:53 PM
“phi: What guarantees the enforcement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in exchanges of radiant energy between objects is Kirchoffs Law of Thermal Radiation (along with the fact that the amount of thermal radiation an object emits at any wavelength is an increasing function of its temperature). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation and especially the discussion in the Theory Section where they mention how the 2nd Law would be violated if Kirchoffs Law did not hold.”
Joel Shore, the academic SKS troll writes of the Wm.STOAT Connolley wikipedia version of one of Kirchhoff’s Laws as though this were something from Gus. It is not. it is but a complete contradiction of that Kirchhoff Law:
“An object at radiative equilibrium absorbs no thermal EMR flux nor changes sensible heat Such incident flux (power) merely passes through that mass, although both frequency and direction may change.” Dr. Kirchhoff never wrote of thermodynamic heat transfer by other means. As you know, such as always present in this atmosphere.
What actually preserves 2LTD for thermal EMR is simply the Rudy Clausius “stuff don spontaneously go uphill”
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencer’s experiments. There is no perpetual motion Will, buy a clue and get a copy of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” to quote from directly.
Ball4,
Obviously not. I do not know what leads you to believe that.
Ball4 says:
September 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM:
“Passing incoherent photons do not interact phi, they are completely independent.”
They do not act independently on matter. Only the net flow has an observable macroscopic effect.
Joel Shore says September 11, 2016 at 12:03 PM
Yes.
alphagruis,
INDEPENDENT back radiation.
Three words are too much for you ?
“Only the net flow has an observable macroscopic effect.”
The independent back radiation flows making up the net are measurable phi. According to the experiment by Dr. Spencer: Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still. The two independent micro streams shown to have a measurable macroscopic effect, the thermometer data measured it. No useful work was performed though phi, the 2LOT was not harmed in that experiment.
Ball4,
What you say is right except the INDEPENDENT. Or, justify it. Good luck!
Dr. Spencer’s experiment justified INDEPENDENT back radiation Phi, there are many others. I urge you to find an experiment that shows incoherent photons interact. No such tests exist to my knowledge, fill me in with citation if so.
Ball4,
But no, the experience of Roy Spencer is much better explained with net flows than with double flow which we should never forget that they are inseparable. Your dual IR flows can be expressed only as heat, so net flows. No instrument can separate these two flows and especially not a thermometer.
And sorry to repeat myself but it may be useful:
The use of back radiations and the notion of forcing in climatology are not at all related to some special properties of radiative transfer (that would differentiate them from conduction transfers) but to a strange premise placed on convection. This premise says that convection and radiative phenomena are independent, and that convection alone sets the temperature gradient.
phi
YOU state: “But no, the experience of Roy Spencer is much better explained with net flows than with double flow which we should never forget that they are inseparable. Your dual IR flows can be expressed only as heat, so net flows. No instrument can separate these two flows and especially not a thermometer.”
What about Roy’s FLIR camera that shows cold ice and hot surface for plate. Why is this instrument not measuring two distinct IR flows.
If he had two cameras. One looking down at the ice and showing cold , meaning the ice is emitting a lower level of IR that is being detected by the array inside the camera and another camera looking up at the plate and picking up lots of IR energy that is converted into a stronger signal and temperature.
What do you think the IR camera is picking up? What is the array responding to? Why do they give different images when the camera is pointed in their direction? I will not say you are wrong. I would like you to clarify as to what you think is going on with his camera and what it is picking up.
“the experience of Roy Spencer is much better explained with net flows than with double flow which we should never forget that they are inseparable.”
If there was only a net flow phi, there would have been no change in the thermometer data between ice and cardboard, the thermometer detected the different independent flows of the ice and cardboard.
If it can be better explained, do so. True, the net flow is the only one that can do work per 2LOT, the independent gross flows can not be separated to do work per 2LOT. They do exchange energy bidirectional as proven by the thermometer data in the experiment, no violation of 2LOT.
Norman,
The camera is sensitive only to net flows between it and the target. The temperature of the camera is an integral part of the observed phenomenon. Then we can obviously calibrate the instrument to derive the back radiation.
Ball4,
Same answer as to Norman for the camera. The power of back radiation can only be be inferred but never isolated. There is no two independent streams from the thermodynamics point of view.
The power was isolated to the ice/cardboard stream change phi. It was detected by thermometer data.
Ball4,
You play with words. And if not, well this is perfect because if you think you have found a way to isolate the back radiation, You’ll make a fortune and solve global energy problems.
The fortune has already been made, phi, by folks figured out how to make instruments to detect the independent back radiation long ago. Started in the lab when Planck and his collaborators made them useful to detect incoherent photon streams and now they are commercially available.
No fortune to be made in separating the independent back radiation radiative transfer flows though that was finally put to rest as impossible thru 2LOT in the early 1950s IIRC. Maxwell tried to prove it could not be done but was ultimately unsuccessful. Took a long time after his efforts led the way.
No play on word semantics either phi, Dr. Spencer’s last post test speaks loudly enough all by itself.
Ball4,
And if you can not separate them because of the second law of thermodynamics, you do not think by chance that just means they are not independent ?
“you do not think by chance that just means they are not independent ?”
No. God does not play dice. They were shown to be independent by experiment.
Ball4,
Oh, I do not address myself to God but to you who seem to have a very curious definition of the concept of independence.
Good, then there is no chance the two flows are dependent. Find a proper test proving otherwise phi. Haven’t observed one from you so far, just assertion. Incoherent photon streams really are, well, incoherent, no interaction, no dependency.
Ball4,
But you yourself have acknowledged that we could not separate the two flows !!!
It’s perfect. I have nothing more to prove. Just point out that it correspond exactly to an absolute dependence on the macroscopic level (never one of the flux can be expressed MACROSCOPICALLY independently of the other).
Obviously, this also means that GHG forcing, which is nothing else than some independent back radiation, is a thermodynamically unacceptable concept.
Try again…
phi, maybe it is language translation confusing you.
Detecting the two incoherent photon streams is everyday routine occurrence since at least around 1900, Dr. Spencers latest test proved it is possible yet AGAIN. He did one last summer in the natural environment also.
Separating the two incoherent photon streams was proven impossible using 2LOT, in the early 1950s.
Understand the translation, detecting and separating carry two different distinct meanings in this thermodynamic context.
Ball4,
Why are you changing the topic ??? We are not talking of detection but of dependence and independence.
No subject changing phi. Your confusion must be in the translation, see my comments:
“The independent back radiation flows making up the net are measurable phi.”
“the thermometer detected…detected by thermometer data”
“gross flows can not be separated”
Detected and/or measured are distinct meaning from separated. Innumerable tests show incoherent photon streams are independent, no tests show incoherent photon streams are dependent.
“This premise says that convection and radiative phenomena are independent, and that convection alone sets the temperature gradient.”
That is not really what is said. It is said that when the radiative effects cause lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate, the atmosphere becomes unstable to convection, which is quite an efficient and relatively rapid process for lowering the lapse rate back down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
So, in other words, in the absence of convection, the lapse rate in the troposphere would be steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate. However, this temperature profile is unstable once convection is considered. So, convection tends to push the lapse rate profile back down to the adiabatic lapse rate.
phi: What guarantees the enforcement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in exchanges of radiant energy between objects is Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation (along with the fact that the amount of thermal radiation an object emits at any wavelength is an increasing function of its temperature). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation and especially the discussion in the Theory Section where they mention how the 2nd Law would be violated if Kirchoff’s Law did not hold.
Joel Shore,
“It is said that when the radiative effects cause lapse rates steeper than the adiabatic lapse rate, the atmosphere becomes unstable to convection, which is quite an efficient and relatively rapid process for lowering the lapse rate back down to the adiabatic lapse rate.”
No only.
1. The concept of radiative forcing implies that any radiative imbalance is compensated only by translation of the thermal profile.
2. Models parameterize convection. This goes well beyond consideration of a simple stability limit.
phi: “1. The concept of radiative forcing implies that any radiative imbalance is compensated only by translation of the thermal profile.”
That is not the whole story because the change in the thermal profile that does occur is dealt with as a feedback…the lapse rate feedback, a negative feedback included in all of the climate models used to compute quantitative results.
Ball4 says: September 11, 2016 at 4:39 PM
phi, maybe it is language translation confusing you.
Detecting the two incoherent photon streams is everyday routine occurrence since at least around 1900,”
Can you provide the name of even one person that has ever witnessed EMR flux, whether photon or any other in a direction of higher radiance? Who? Where? What instruments were used? Ball4 troll only spouts religious fantasy!
“Dr. Spencers latest test proved it is possible yet AGAIN. He did one last summer in the natural environment also.”
Dr. Spencer only again demonstrated a singular one way flux.
Separating the two incoherent photon streams was proven impossible using 2LOT, in the early 1950s.”
Untrue! I only demonstrated the impossibility of physically falsifying either conjecture. The two way thermal EMR flux remains a total contradiction of Maxwell’s equations, and is never used except as a scam.
“Detecting and separating carry two different distinct meanings in this thermodynamic context.”
This atmosphere and its operation are clearly an ungodly difficult fluid dynamics context/situation, never some realizable thermodynamic situation. Surface EMR exitance plays no significant part!
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencer’s experiments. There is no perpetual motion Will, buy a clue and get a copy of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” to quote from directly.
Joel Shore says: September 11, 2016 at 6:33 PM
“phi: There is nothing weird about back radiation except the name. It is simply thermal radiation. I dont really even like the word back added to it since it tends to make people think it is something special or different. It is not.”
Joel troll! Can you produce even one repeatable form of evidence that has ever physically demonstrated to occurrence of EMR flux (power transfer) in a direction of higher radiance at any frequ7ency, in any direction, spontaneous or not?
Will as you know, Dr.Spencer’s last post experiment is a repeatable form of evidence that has physically demonstrated an occurrence of EMR flux (power transfer) in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency, in any direction, spontaneous or not. So Will is wrong about the science yet again.
Will, buy a clue and get a quote directly from Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” to correct your errors.
phi
What is an IR camera detecting? The IR is coming from the source that is emitting it and images can be created from this energy alone.
Have you read about multi-layer insulation used in spacecraft to do two things. Sometimes hold valuable heat in and sometimes to keep it out. It is all radiation based insulation and it works quite well in the vacuum of space. What do you think keeps things warm with the multi-layer insulation in the dark of space when the spacecraft is in the shadow of Earth and has no solar input? Back radiation.
Please read and understand they actually use this material in space and it works. If the theory was wrong then why does it work as theory predicts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Yes, but none of this, or laser or microwave oven, use the weirds concepts of INDEPENDENT back radiation or radiative forcing.
” Norman says:
September 11, 2016 at 2:04 PM
phi
What is an IR camera detecting? The IR is coming from the source that is emitting it and images can be created from this energy alone.
Have you read about multi-layer insulation used in spacecraft to do two things. Sometimes hold valuable heat in and sometimes to keep it out. It is all radiation based insulation and it works quite well in the vacuum of space. What do you think keeps things warm with the multi-layer insulation in the dark of space when the spacecraft is in the shadow of Earth and has no solar input? Back radiation.”
Nope. I would say it’s thermal mass.
Just to clear, LEO [low Earth orbit] has orbital period of about 90 mins, or less than 45 mins of night.
And during ISS day, it’s earth day, and during earth and ISS’s day the earth is reflecting a lot of sunlight- and it varies [when and where is varies, could interesting issue to look at]. And during earth and ISS night the earth is not reflecting sunlight [towards dawn and evening, ISS is roughly getting as much direct sunlight as it does at any other part of daytime- but less earth reflected light].
Next, ISS does not need heaters to keep warm, instead it is using a radiator to keep cool. So does ISS slow the amount of heat it’s trying to radiate during the 45 mins of night?
Or in simple terms does it turn off the refrigerator/air conditioner at night. They might because it requires battery power- but they shouldn’t while they are getting solar power.
Now, one has other things in orbit, but higher orbits are going less effected by earth- generally less effected by the shadow of Earth. One can have polar orbit which always crossing earth during the morning [or any time of day]
“Typical sun-synchronous orbits are about 600800 km in altitude, with periods in the 96100 minute range, and inclinations of around 98 (i.e. slightly retrograde compared to the direction of Earth’s rotation: 0 represents an equatorial orbit and 90 represents a polar orbit).
Special cases of the sun-synchronous orbit are the noon/midnight orbit, where the local mean solar time of passage for equatorial longitudes is around noon or midnight, and the dawn/dusk orbit, where the local mean solar time of passage for equatorial longitudes is around sunrise or sunset, so that the satellite rides the terminator between day and night. Riding the terminator is useful for active radar satellites as the satellites’ solar panels can always see the Sun, without being shadowed by the Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
So those orbits are in LEO. So if “riding the terminator”, earth will to right side and sun directly above, So behind you is the dark non-reflecting Earth and beside you and ahead of you is the reflecting Earth. If blackbody that should have highest average temperature, though if spacecraft can reflect the sunlight and the Earth shine.
phi: There is nothing weird about “back radiation” except the name. It is simply thermal radiation. I don’t really even like the word “back” added to it since it tends to make people think it is something special or different. It is not.
And, despite your protestations, this is EXACTLY the same physics at play for the multi-layer insulation for spacecraft that Norman pointed you to.
The only reason why this is at all controversial in this context is for the very simple reason that people like you don’t like the results coming out of the physics. I say TOUGH. Deal with it.
But, hey, if you want to continue arguing against it, I encourage you to do so. Go to any place you can find where physicists hang out and tell them that you represent climate change skeptics and explain your beliefs about this piece of physics. I can guarantee it will impress them very much and certainly influence their opinions about whether climate change skeptics are well-informed or just a bunch of people who don’t understand basic physics!
“There is nothing weird about back radiation except the name.”
Again!
INDEPENDENT back radiation.
Three words are too much for you?
<blockquote< INDEPENDENT back radiation
Just a concept that’s meaningless, cher phi
So yes these words are bullshit for a physicist.
No matter of discussion in any respect.
Norman says: September 11, 2016 at 2:04 PM
“phi What is an IR camera detecting? The IR is coming from the source that is emitting it and images can be created from this energy alone.”
High performance IR cameras detect variations in received EMR flux, They use arraya of detectors cooled below 80 Kelvin for high speed detection of amplitude or spatial modulation of a scene well above the temperature of such detectors.
Cheap Viewers can detect variations even of radiances lower than that of the bolometer array by measuring how much the detector temperature was above that if such detector were radiating to absolute zero. In no case is any concept or needed of opposing EMR flux ever considered or needed for visual presentation. Such two way thermal EMR flux concept has only one purpose. To SCAM the unsuspecting!
Kristian,
Too long of a string to post to so I will post down here (sorry I know you don’t like that).
I will link to your post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224689
I think I would agree with you point: “They dont have to. Their determination of the radiation field will be the same. There will still be photons at different frequencies coming in from different directions through each point in space, averaging out probabilistically to one net movement of radiant energy through the field.”
I did read up on radiation fields and I think you are using this concept correctly. But photons do carry energy and if they are moving from the warmed atmosphere to surface they will be absorbed by the surface so they will add energy to the surface.
The radiant field would be the Net flow of all the photons. The energy flow. Which is what I have been saying. The net energy of IR energy (the solar is visible) is negative from the surface. The atmosphere alone will only cool the surface.
Norman says: September 11, 2016 at 1:49 PM
“I did read up on radiation fields and I think you are using this concept correctly. But photons do carry energy and if they are moving from the warmed atmosphere to surface they will be absorbed by the surface so they will add energy to the surface.”
Pleas read up on multiple sources of EM radiance, and see how such can modify and even eliminate exitance in particular directions. (beam shaping). Your pool table rails can only deflect at the time of intersect. Relitivistic EMR with zero proper time seems to be able to do ricochets before they happen! Earthlings do not know! they can only guess, then measure, then walk away with head swinging from side to side. This is called ‘learning’!
Will Janoschka,
Now it seems you are no longer pretending to be a super genius human but are playing the role of superior alien species who just wants to educate the ignorant and uninformed humanity.
You are a good actor but I think if I really spent time on what you are stating and posting it will come up as sophisticated BS that will fool the unthinking but have little real meaning.
One way or another, whoever you really are, you have a most interesting personality and I do like reading your posts (even if I do not agree with any of your conclusions). They are different and do challenge my thought process.
Thanks.
You are welcome! Norman
I admit ‘I do not know’! I try to be contrarian, as it seems many confuse personal opinion with science. Science is hard. One of the hardest is “why is this wrong?”. IFAIK good science must apply to all valid points of view. I merely attempt a contrary POV to see in such can be invalidated. Most times none even try to invalidate, others obediently recite their catechism!
A thoughtful comment from Will for once. Very well written. There are actually some socially redeeming qualities to WJ. Gotta’ give credit where credit is due.
test
Something is not liked in my current post.
I will try to break it up to find the offending words.
phi
Here is an example to consider. I will use only sound as it is purely a wave phenomena and does not display the particle aspects light does at times.
test 123
Joel,
If you had paid any attention to what I’ve been writing here on this thread and on previous threads, then you would’ve known that my argument isn’t about uni vs bidirectional transfer at all. The only reason why I always seem to get myself entangled in these endless and ultimately fruitless discussions, is that at some point I make a remark to the effect that the whole “back radiation” from the atmosphere to the surface thing is but a computed, not a measured (as in ‘physically detected’) quantity. And every time I do, it goes off like a bomb. People go berserk. It’s like I’m denying gravity or light itself. But of course, thermodynamically, it makes absolutely no difference whether the surface radiant heat loss (net LW) is [398-345=] 53 W/m^2 or just 53 W/m^2. What I’m trying to get through to people is that those two component ‘fluxes’ (the DWLWIR and the UWLWIR) do not in any way possess individual thermodynamic powers. That they are always physically integrated into ONE net thermodynamic transfer – the surface radiant heat loss.
And so, when the IPCC split the net LW into two distinct ‘fluxes’, placing the one on the INPUT side of the energy budget and the other on the OUTPUT side, right beside the other real HEAT inputs and outputs (the solar flux [Q_sw(in)], and the conductive/evaporative flux [Q_c+e(out)]), as if they were all thermodynamic equivalents, implying that this setup somehow directly explains Earth’s surface T_avg, then people get confused into thinking that mere radiative EFFECTS of temperature might rather be considered a CAUSE of temperature. They simply end up seeing (consciously or subconsciously) the two LW ‘fluxes’ as separate thermodynamic quantities, AS IF the DWLWIR were an extra heat input to the surface alongside the solar flux, and the UWLWIR were itself a surface heat output right next to the conductive/evaporative one. It simply makes them get caught up in the notion that the DWLWIR is somehow a cause of surface temperature rise, directly and all by itself. Just like the solar flux.
What I am trying to convey, then, is that the DWLWIR is really only a conceptual ‘half’ of the surface radiant heat LOSS, its Q_lw(out), and that it is for the most part simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column above the solar-heated surface. As can be inferred directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4]
It is the fact that the atmosphere is able to WARM beyond the ‘temperature’ of space that makes it an insulative layer. It is the fact that the temperature of the atmosphere is much closer to the temperature of the surface than space, that makes the surface radiant heat loss so small even at a high T_avg. The radiative properties of the atmosphere are but a tool to make it all work. They connect the atmosphere and the surface thermodynamically, and they enable the atmosphere to cool to space. They simply allow heat to flow into and out of the atmosphere in the steady state. It is, however, the atmosphere’s MASS that ultimately causes the atmospheric thermal effect (what you would call the “GHE”) on the solar-heated surface.
And so THIS is what I feel is important to discuss, NOT the whole uni vs. bidirectional radiant transfer thing. Which is really only an academic aside.
Kristian says: September 11, 2016 at 11:25 PM
“And so THIS is what I feel is important to discuss, NOT the whole uni vs. bidirectional radiant transfer thing. Which is really only an academic aside.”
Indeed Kristian.
The internal method of heat transfer between surface, ocean, and atmosphere, remains a closed loop very very stable system. Please look elsewhere. Local details are unimportant. To and from space remains always open and unknown. If this Earth receives more power its temperature must increase to increase exitance by any and all means. The reverse is true with less received power. If temperature changes, please look elsewhere! The whole climate thingy has been a gigantic scam from the start! No science is involved!
Will is technically incorrect per Dr. Spencer’s experiment. There is no perpetual motion Will, buy a clue and get a copy of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” to quote from.
Kristian writes: “those two component fluxes (the DWLWIR and the UWLWIR) do not in any way possess individual thermodynamic powers.”
Dr. Spencer’s experiments have proven Kristian incorrect writing that, the two streams of photons do possess individual thermodynamic power as they are each composed of those photons with energy h*f irradiating an object on which they are incident carrying that thermodynamic energy.
“..the surface radiant heat loss.”
Radiant energy loss Kristian, until you can understand Zemansky (and Planck) telling you there is no heat in an object only constituent KE, Kristian will always come to incorrect conclusions as Zemansky demonstrates and as shown by Dr. Spencer’s experiments.
Will says: “If this Earth receives more power its temperature must increase … “
Why only mention half the the equation? If earth EMITS LESS POWER, then it will also warm up — even when receiving constant power.
This is the hypothesis of global warming. More CO2 reduces the emitted power, so the earth (especially the surface) has to warm up until the emitted power once again balances the received power.
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM:
Nice of you to point this out, Folkerts. Because it is something we specifically do NOT see in the real Earth system over the last 30+ years, even as the total atmospheric CO2 content went up by more than 16% over that same period, accompanied also by a distinct increase in the mean content of total tropospheric water vapour.
What we see, rather, is that the cause of the current radiative imbalance at the ToA is clearly an increase in solar input (ASR), and that Earth’s emitted power to space (OLR) simply tracks tropospheric temps over time, so that the causal chain here looks like this:
Increase in heat INPUT -> warming -> increase in heat OUTPUT
No increased ‘insulation’, that is. Only increased ‘heating’ …
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/uahv6-tlt-trop-x.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/hirs-vs-erbs-1984-2000.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/hirs-vs-uahv6-b.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/tlt-vs-olr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/tlt-vs-dlr.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/toafluxesfdvserbs_zps3489ddec1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/erbe-olr-85-991.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/ipcc-ar4.png
Tim Folkerts
Exactly! You have said in one sentence what I have spend several posts trying to explain.
Kristian again neglects Feldman 2015, Loeb 2016 real world data:
Increase in energy INPUT -> warming, & vice versa: Surface Tmedian anomaly tracks the net of ALL 9+ forcings. Decrease in OLR energy output -> increase surface Tmedian -> increase in surface energy OUTPUT.
This is what the real world data as measured over recent ~decade is telling Kristian. Read the papers Kristian, find fault if you can.
Tim Folkerts says: September 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM
Will says: (If this Earth receives more power its temperature must increase )
“Why only mention half the the equation? If earth EMITS LESS POWER, then it will also warm up even when receiving constant power.”
Such is the all, not half. Only the received determines temperature as space has low but quite constant radiance (the second T^4 term inside the required parenthisis) of Dr, Boltzmann’s S-B equation. From this equation, the unknown first T^4 depends entirely on input flus because at that equilibrium temperature both radiative equilibrium and thermodynamic equilibrium will be met!
All input power must eventually and spontaneously convert to entropy, na,na! One few ways of dispatch of excess ‘entropy’ is via EMR exitance to constant ‘radiance’ space, at lower frequency, but much much greater radiative solid angle. This dispatch is what determines temperature for all points in the radiative atmosphere. What causes the Earth’s particular atmospheric distribution of atmospheric temperatures, remains unknown to any and all of the incompetent academic atmospheric (climate) scientists.
“This is the hypothesis of global warming. More CO2 reduces the emitted power, so the earth (especially the surface) has to warm up until the emitted power once again balances the received power.”
Indeed! However there is absolutely no evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 effects EM exit flux at all! All your hypothesis has is wild and unobserved religious fantasy.
“However there is absolutely no evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 effects EM exit flux at all!”
Technically incorrect again Will, Feldman 2015 data found decade long evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 does effect EM exit flux. You are behind in your studies; buy a clue and get a copy.
But don’t take time away from getting clued in by your study of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation”, quote Planck from that first so you can understand the basic radiative transfer physics quoting Feldman 2015.
“that the DWLWIR … is for the most part simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column above the solar-heated surface. As can be inferred directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 T_atm^4]
Not bad as far as it goes. However the expression for Q_lw(out) is missing one key idea — emissivity. IF we assume for simplicity that the emissivity of the ground is 1, then we should have
Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 ε(atm)T_atm^4]
Emissivity of hte atmosphere can and does change. This means that it is fundamentally incomplete to say “simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column”. The “backradiation” depends on temperature (as you have been accurately saying), but also depends on emissivity of the air.
So to me it still seems more logical and intuitive to to say that
Q_lw(out) = E_lw(upward) – E_lw(downward)
where E_lw(upward) = σT_sfc^4 and E_lw(downward) = σε(atm)T_atm^4. The energy flow from the earth depends more’directly’ on the energy flow down than on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM:
Folkerts, the “effective temperature of the air column” always has an emissivity of 1, both when pointing up and down. Callendar speaks of ‘the average atmospheric depth of downward radiation’ or something to that effect, and states that the more opaque the air column becomes to outgoing surface IR, the lower towards the surface this “effective radiating level” will be located. IOW, its temperature will be closer to that of the surface itself, and so the “sky radiation” (the DWLWIR) will be more intense, and the surface radiant heat loss [Q_lw(out)] will consequently be smaller.
This is what we see, for instance, when comparing semi-arid and humid tropical/subtropical regions on land here on Earth, like the Sahara-Sahel belt vs. the Congo basin. The atmospheric column above the surface is much more opaque overall to outgoing surface IR in the latter region than in the former, so much so that the radiant heat loss is about twice as large in the semi-arid Sahara-Sahel belt than in the humid Congo basin. The “effective atmospheric temperature” is thus much higher in the latter than in the former region. At the same time, the average heat input from the Sun is about the same in both regions, leading to a net total radiant heat flux into the surface (‘net SW’ minus ‘net LW’, or ASR+DWLWIR – UWLWIR, if you will) which is considerably larger on average in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel (in fact, 72% more intense!):
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/net-total-flux-sfc-sahara-sahel-vs-the-congo.png
And STILL, the surface T_avg in the Congo basin is significantly lower than in the Sahara-Sahel belt, by several degrees.
What does this tell us? It tells us that you can’t just assume that by reducing the RADIANT heat loss from the surface, then the surface T_avg will have to become warmer. In order to increase the TOTAL heat loss back to where it was. Because, obviously, there are other processes at work too … As soon as you change the IR opacity of the atmospheric column, you change a whole bunch of other factors as well, a lot of them NON-radiative. And – evidently – the net result of these changes isn’t necessarily warming at the surface.
“Folkerts, the effective temperature of the air column always has an emissivity of 1 …”
Yes! And apparently then you have been meaning “effective temperature” of the atmosphere all along, rather than “actual temperature”. But “effective temperature is only measured from the “backradiation” coming down from the atmosphere. So when you say that *effective temperature* is what matters, then you are really saying that is it *backadiation* that matters!
“It tells us that you cant just assume that by reducing the RADIANT heat loss from the surface, then the surface T_avg will have to become warmer. … And evidently the net result of these changes isnt necessarily warming at the surface.”
There are two separate issues. And perhaps by each of us focusing on one issue, it has made the discussion less fruitful.
1) The temperature at a given location is not tied solely to the radiation. Two locations could have the same radiation loss but different temperatures; two locations could have the same temperature lost but different radiation losses. Your examples of Congo vs Sahara show this to be true. Different levels of evaporation or convection or ocean currents play an important role.
2) Reducing the RADIANT lose — keeping everything else constant — WILL lead to surface warming. Reducing radiant loss in the Congo will warm the Congo. Reducing radiant loss in the Sahara will warm the Sahara. Reducing radiant loss in the Arctic will warm the Arctic.
GHGs cool the top of the atmosphere and warm the bottom (on a global scale), reducing radiant loses (on a global scale) and leading to warming (on a global scale).
*****************************
At this point, all sorts of issues come up about feedbacks and the SIZE of the warming, but I can’t see any way to deny warming on a global scale when you restrict the outgoing radiation from the top of the atmosphere.
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2016 at 2:18 PM:
Hehe, nice try, Tim. No, it is not the “back radiation” that matters. It’s the temperature. And you know that. If the ‘average depth of atmospheric downward radiation’ had been located 1 mm above the ground (at emissivity 1) while the ‘air’ had been at 2.7 K, then there wouldn’t be any ‘downwelling radiation’ to the surface exceeding that of space itself. You need the atmospheric mass to warm.
The radiative properties of the atmosphere simply connect the surface thermodynamically with the atmosphere above, and the atmosphere with space beyond it. They don’t themselves CAUSE the surface temperature to rise. The atmosphere WARMING from absorbing heat transferred to it from the surface and directly from the Sun is what forces the surface temperature to rise. Because of the decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its thermodynamic surroundings. The radiative properties of the atmosphere make sure those surroundings are the atmosphere rather than space, enabling the atmospheric temperature rise to affect the surface temperature.
You can see for yourself how the ‘average depth of atmospheric downward radiation’ doesn’t matter to surface T_avg. The “effective temperature” of the atmosphere is much higher in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel, making the surface radiant heat loss in the former region much smaller than in the latter one. But this fact doesn’t make the surface T_avg higher in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel. Rather the opposite.
And how do we know that the higher atmospheric “effective temperature” in the Congo is a result of higher atmospheric IR opacity in the first place. It is just something that’s assumed to be the case. But it could just as well simply be a result of the effectiveness of the OTHER heat loss mechanisms available, primarily evaporation -> deep moist convection, making the ‘need’ for radiant heat loss much less.
Congo and Sahara are like any two complex local comparisons & whether Kristian did the analysis correctly is unknown as he just presents the results.
For example, a correct analysis of Sahara (Alouef) and Madison, Wisc. precipitable water in the column shows the concentration of water vapor in Madison to be 20% LESS than Alouef where the temperature is higher. A combination of higher surface temperature and column water vapor density means the all sky emission to surface above Alouef is higher than Madison. Thus “desert conditions” are more likely found in Madison than Alouef.
Here’s exact quote from Callendar 1938 Kristian mentions discussing the complexity of local conditions and arguing against Kristian’s writing:
“…CALLENDAR realized the extreme complexity of the temperature control at any particular region of the earth’s surface (Congo, Madison and Sahara) and also that radiative equilibrium was not actually established, but if any substance is added to the atmosphere which delays the transfer of (LW) radiation, without interfering with the arrival or distribution of the (SW energy) supply, some rise of temperature appears to be inevitable in those parts which are furthest from outer space.”
Callendar goes on to write this circumstance is “likely to prove beneficial to mankind”.
“You need the atmospheric mass to warm.”
If there was less mass, the atmosphere could warm more easily and more quickly from the same heat input. Thus you would seem to be claiming that LESS mass in the atmosphere would lead to MORE warming!
“And how do we know …? It is just something thats assumed … “
Sorry, no. Science is not just about “assuming” things that fit your preconceptions about the world.
“The atmosphere WARMING from absorbing heat transferred to it from the surface and directly from the Sun … The radiative properties of the atmosphere simply connect the surface thermodynamically with the atmosphere above.”
So … it is radiation that warms the atmosphere, and it is radiation that thermodynamically connects that warmed atmosphere to the surface, but it is not radiation that causes anything with the surface. Got it!
“You can see for yourself how the average depth of atmospheric downward radiation doesnt matter to surface T_avg”
No, what I see is that radiation DOES matter– along with many other factors. For example, Congo has much higher cloud cover than Sahara, so it has much less incoming radiation. It is damper, so it has more evaporation. But IR radiation MUST matter, since IR radiation is part of the energy balance.
Your conclusions would be like seeing someone who eats a lot a sugar but is still thin … and concluding sugar “doesn’t matter” when it comes to weight. Sugar does matter, but is only part of the equation.
Tim Folkerts says: September 12, 2016 at 6:29 PM
(You need the atmospheric mass to warm.)
“If there was less mass, the atmosphere could warm more easily and more quickly from the same heat input. Thus you would seem to be claiming that LESS mass in the atmosphere would lead to MORE warming!”
If there were less atmospheric mass there would be less atmospheric surface pressured. Please ask the incompetent Climate Clowns “why this Earth has the surface pressure that it has? How much Atmospheric mass has this Earth? Why is the inane meteorological dogma of atmospheric mass always way to high. If no correct mass is associated with atmospheric mass motion, how can any atmospheric power/energy ever be estimated? Why do these incompetent Climate Clowns remain employed/alive?
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2016 at 6:29 PM:
This is you just trolling about, Tim. Are you saying that with a less massive atmosphere, but with the same atmospheric composition and with equal gravity, then the lapse rate would be gentler? You know that with a more massive atmosphere, then the bulk air density and pressure down low would naturally be higher and so less internal kinetic energy would be free to escape the air mass per unit of time via radiation, and so any excess energy would on average have to be moved convectively higher up the atmospheric column in order to reach bulk air layers thin enough to let go of it at sufficient rates. This natural energy distribution process forces the steady-state temperatures up down low:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/heavy-atmospheres.png
True. But we’re not dealing with “science” here, Tim. We’re dealing with “pseudoscience”. Where “facts” are just made up on the fly, as one goes along. It is simply taken for granted, as a fact, that the mean surface radiant heat loss in the Congo is less than in the Sahara-Sahel due to a higher degree of atmospheric IR opacity in the former region, when it could just as easily be the case that the NON-radiative heat losses in the Congo basin are so much more effective than in the Sahara-Sahel region that there is simply not as much heat left to be shed via radiation. The average heat INPUT in both regions is about the same, ~175 W/m^2, and so this would also be the average total heat OUTPUT in both regions. Most likely it’s a balance thing between the effectiveness of the radiative and the non-radiative losses respectively, and so atmospheric IR opacity indeed WOULD, to a certain extent, be a factor on top of the general sfc-atm temperature difference factor. But as you can readily see for yourself, the degree of atmospheric IR opacity is powerless in determining the surface T_avg. Less effective surface radiant heat loss does NOT equal higher surface T_avg. Empirical evidence suggests the opposite to be true …
Uhm, it contributes. But it’s not a necessary contributor. The atmosphere would warm perfectly well even without absorbing IR from the surface. From simply having a MASS. However, it wouldn’t be able to COOL perfectly well without being able to emit IR to space.
Not “radiation” per se. Even though I do see how this could be considered pure semantics. It’s rather the “radiative properties” of the atmosphere. Atmospheric radiation, after all, isn’t what warms the surface. The atmospheric TEMPERATURE is. As I pointed out, when the temp difference/gradient between thermodynamic systems or regions decreases, it causes ALL heat transfers to weaken, including radiant heat transfer. Which will induce accumulation of energy and hence a rise in temperature, if the heat INPUT to the heated system stays the same. But you can’t say that by somehow reducing the surface radiant heat loss, then you’ve reduced the temperature difference/gradient between the surface and the atmosphere. And you also can’t say that by reducing the surface radiant heat loss, then you’ve automatically reduced the TOTAL surface heat loss to cause surface net warming.
No, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply enable the atmospheric temperature (higher than that of space) to thermodynamically AFFECT the surface temperature by reducing the temperature DIFFERENCE between the surface and its effective thermal surroundings. Without atmospheric radiative properties, those surroundings would be space. With atmospheric radiative properties in place, however, space is all of a sudden replaced by the atmosphere itself.
Look, this isn’t so hard. You use a circular argument to claim (or at least imply) that it is somehow the magnitude of the DWLWIR from the atmosphere that causes Earth’s surface T_avg to be 289K rather than, say, 255K. But this is just a simple case of working backwards. You already KNOW that the surface T_avg is 289K, and so you can calculate a BB emission flux from the surface at 398 W/m^2. You then find the global average surface radiant heat loss (net LW). In any particular spot it is a directly measurable/detectable physical quantity, although all individual measurements will have to be averaged into one value in order to find a global mean, just like with the temps. Anyhow, in this way you estimate the global mean surface net LW value to be ~53 W/m^2 (out of a total surface heat loss of 165 W/m^2, which is equal to the average surface heat gain, the net SW or ASR), and from this you are then easily able to derive an apparent DWLWIR ‘flux’ of [398-53=] 345 W/m^2. And voil! Subtracting the non-radiative surface losses, [165-53=] 112 W/m^2, from the combined energy input from the Sun (ASR: 165 W/m^2) and the atmosphere (DWLWIR: 345 W/m^2), what do you get? 165+345-112 = 398 W/m^2. Which corresponds directly, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, to a surface T_avg of 289K.
And we’ve come full circle.
But wherein lies the problem?
Let’s say we ‘know’ the surface T_avg is 255K. Same heat input from the Sun (165 W/m^2), same radiant heat loss (53 W/m^2), same non-radiant heat loss (112 W/m^2). Could we ‘find’ the surface T_avg in this situation also? Of course we could …
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-53= 187 W/m^2
Subtract the non-radiant heat losses from the combined energy input from the Sun and the atmosphere:
165+187-112 = 240 W/m^2, which corresponds to a surface T_avg of 255K.
What if all the surface heat inputs/outputs were different? The heat input from the Sun: 200 W/m^2. The radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The non-radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The surface T_avg kept the same: 255K.
Well,
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-100= 140 W/m^2
200+140-100 = 240 W/m^2 -> 255K.
Do these results surprise anyone? Didn’t think so …
There is nothing in the DWLWIR that causes anything when it comes to temperature. It is CAUSED BY temperature.
And the magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss can NOT be said to be a simple product of the degree of atmospheric IR opacity. The surface radiant heat loss will vary according to 1) the size of the surface heat INPUT from the Sun, 2) the temperature difference between the surface and the air layers above it, and 3) the effectiveness of the NON-radiative surface heat loss mechanisms.
The claim is made that if you suddenly removed the 345 W/m^2 of apparent DWLWIR ‘flux’ from the atmosphere to the surface, then the surface radiant heat loss would abruptly soar to an initial 398 W/m^2, which would hugely cool the surface. But that’s starting at the wrong end. With an average global heat INPUT from the Sun to the surface of a mere 165 W/m^2, the surface could never achieve a surface radiant heat loss larger than 165 W/m^2 in the first place, no matter how hot the surface ended up being. IOW, this particular limitation to the surface radiant heat loss isn’t derived from the DWLWIR at all. Furthermore, even a surface radiant heat loss of 165 W/m^2 could never be achieved with a massive atmosphere in place on top of the surface, simply because in this situation there would be OTHER heat loss mechanisms available besides the radiative one. In fact, a lower surface T_avg would very likely get us closer to the maximum rate of surface radiant heat loss than a higher one. At a surface T_avg of perhaps 230K, we could potentially come fairly close to a radiant heat flux of 160-165 W/m^2, if emitted to a radiatively active atmosphere at a mere, say, 80-90K, even though there would be some conductive-convective loss to account for already here. Let’s say ~150 W/m^2 worth of radiant heat loss, all in all. But such a high radiative loss rate would be absolutely impossible to achieve once the radiatively active atmosphere in question had warmed to temps much closer to that of the surface itself. As the sfc-atm temp difference continued to go down, the surface radiant heat loss would decrease with it. In fact, as the sfc-atm temp difference continued to go down, ALL surface heat losses would decrease, and so we would be left with a positive surface heat imbalance. Which would lead to surface warming. Which would in turn lead to further atmospheric warming. And all this warming would eventually lead to evaporative heat loss becoming significant, accompanied by a stronger, more effective atmospheric circulation. Strengthening and increasing the NON-radiative portion of the total surface heat loss. Thereby reducing the radiative part. To levels even lower than where it already was. Eventually reaching a mere 53 W/m^2, scarcely a third of the total surface heat loss (165 W/m^2). At a surface T_avg of 289K.
Yes. Radiative properties DO matter. But only in allowing the warm atmosphere to replace cold space as the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. But once that happens, it is the rising temperature of the atmosphere that actually FORCES the surface T_avg up. And from the point where the surface and the atmosphere are thermodynamically connected, atmospheric circulation becomes operative and stable and those “many other factors” of yours effectively render any changes in internal radiation powerless in raising the surface T_avg. As shown in the empirical data.
No, it specifically does NOT have much less incoming radiation, Tim. You need to check with the data. The average net SW at the ToA is MUCH higher in the Congo region than in the Sahara-Sahel region. At the surface, this has pretty much evened out (avg net SW in both areas around 175 W/m^2). Remember, the Sahara-Sahel has a much higher surface albedo than the Congo, while the Congo has a much higher atmospheric albedo than the Sahara-Sahel. Overall, it evens out.
Er, yes. My point exactly. What are you trying to say? That I’m right? Remember, total heat IN and total heat OUT in both regions are pretty much the same, 175 W/m^2 IN and 175 W/m^2 OUT. But the radiative part of the heat OUT is very different. And the surface T_avg in the Congo is considerably lower than in the Sahara-Sahel.
So what is my point, Tim?
It is PART of the energy balance, yes. But it doesn’t DETERMINE the energy balance. AFTER the radiative properties have made the massive, warm atmosphere the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. If they weren’t around to do that, then yes, the surface would end up much colder in the steady state, while the bulk atmosphere would end up much warmer. Because in this situation, the surface wouldn’t “see” the atmosphere, and its effective thermal surroundings would be space, as if the atmosphere weren’t there. The atmosphere itself, however, would effectively be thermodynamically isolated from the rest of the universe. And so, even being substantially warmer on average than our current one in the steady state, it might just as well have drifted away to the far side of the Moon.
You obviously don’t understand “my conclusions”, Tim. Or you just don’t want to. At least you’re doing nothing but twisting my argument(s) around. A bit like a pretzel, I guess.
It is indeed interesting to see how you so freely admit to this. You know you have a whole bunch of fellow warmists out there (even on this very thread) that are NOT willing in the least to concede this point. In their world, radiative (im)balance determines EVERYTHING, except the lapse rate (that’s the single “massive” contribution to the “GHE”). Atmospheric circulation is not treated as a real, natural force to be reckoned with at all. It is only considered – mathematically – a modifier of the tropospheric temperature gradient. Other than that, all tropospheric processes are seen either as unchanging (static/constant) or as dependent on radiative changes (mere feedbacks to “radiative forcing”).
Well, after looking at the real-world data, it can clearly be said that this simplistic approach, this one-dimensional view of the world, has been found wanting, to put it mildly …
Tim Folkerts says: September 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM
Kristian:(that the DWLWIR is for the most part simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column above the solar-heated surface. As can be inferred directly from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation: Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4]”)
“Not bad as far as it goes. However the expression for Q_lw(out) is missing one key idea emissivity. IF we assume for simplicity that the emissivity of the ground is 1, then we should have
Q_lw(out) = σ [T_sfc^4 ε(atm)T_atm^4]”
Never!! try: Q_lw(out) = εσ [T_sfc^4 – (atm)T_atm^4]. ε must always be a complex solution to both surfaces. The differential radiance term
[T_sfc^4 – (atm)T_atm^4] “must” be evaluated before any other terms are ever applied. This is a fixed rule for evaluating any mathematical expression. Boltzmann did not include the required parenthesis casually, as you all two streamers assume.
Why such simplicity? only because you are again trying to scam with some S-B equation that never, ever, applies to an atmosphere with no surface. The S-B equation is but a maximum limit for thermal EM radiative unidirectional flux between two flat parallel infinite Lambertian surfaces with effective radiating solid angle of PI steradians. Every physical (measurable) flux “requires” the analysis and proper application of the spectral emissivity of both of these surfaces. Again why are you trying to apply the S-B equation where it does not apply?
“Again why are you trying to apply the S-B equation where it does not apply?”
Because Planck expressly wrote in “The Theory of Heat Radiation” that it does apply. Will should know that having read every word. So he claims.
Also ε need not be a complex solution Will, ε is readily, routinely, easily measured. Even for complex spacecraft. Well, actually they measure the reflectivity of the craft then use 1-r = ε as they are opaque (0 transmissivity).
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 6:11 PM
(Again why are you trying to apply the S-B equation where it does not apply?)
“Because Planck expressly wrote in The Theory of Heat Radiation that it does apply. Will should know that having read every word. So he claims.”
Max made no such claim! Trick is again trolling.
“Also ε need not be a complex solution Will, ε is readily, routinely, easily measured. Even for complex spacecraft. Well, actually they measure the reflectivity of the craft then use 1-r = ε as they are opaque (0 transmissivity).”
Fine troll Trick! please calculate the effective radiative emissivity ε
between two parallel surfaces each with a measured emissivity ε of 0.75?
“Max made no such claim!”
As suspected, proves Will did not read every word, still needs to buy a clue and actually read Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation” and quote “Max’s” words to the contrary which he won’t find to quote.
“please calculate the effective radiative emissivity ε”
I will NOT do your bidding Will. Show us on your own if you want.
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 7:03 PM
wj:(Max made no such claim!)
“As suspected, proves Will did not read every word, still needs to buy a clue and actually read Plancks The Theory of Heat Radiation and quote Maxs words to the contrary which he wont find to quote.”
OK Please indicate the location in his 1914 work by that name where Dr. Planck referred to the Stefan- Boltzmann equation that was not published yet? What translation are you using?
please calculate the effective radiative emissivity ε
I will NOT do your bidding Will. Show us on your own if you want.
Two common values for two surface 75% emissivity are 48.25% and 60% Are either correct? Why?
“Please indicate the location in his 1914 work by that name where Dr. Planck referred to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that was not published yet? What translation are you using?”
By this Will admits in reality to not actually having read every word of Planck’s “The Theory of Heat Radiation”. Buy a clue Will, get a copy and look in there before spouting illiterate comments:
P. 69: “CHAPTER II STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW OF RADIATION”
See Eqn. 78 for total radiant energy, Kristian’s q/A = σ * T_sfc^4. Developed by Stefan’s rough experiments in 1879 refined by Boltzmann from Maxwell’s radiation pressure 1884.
“Are either correct”
I will NOT do your bidding Will. Show us on your own, but please spend time getting thru & understanding Planck’s work first. Quote Planck’s work, actual words, in showing us. Build some credibility.
“Never!! try: Q_lw(out) = εσ [T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4]. “
Let’s clarity
What you have is more specifically the net IR energy transferred from the surface to the atmosphere (and -Q_lw(out) is the net IR energy transferred from the atmosphere to the surface). This would be the 356-333= 23 W/m^2 on the Trenberth diagram.
However, there is ADDITIONAL IR energy transferred from the surface to space. The 40 W/m^2 on the Trenberth diagram.
The TOTAL IR energy out from the surface would include the both energy to the atmosphere and the energy out to space. The location for the “ε” depends on which one is intended. Putting ε INSIDE the [] — like I did — gives the larger total IR energy out. Putting the ε OUTSIDE the [] — like you did — gives the smaller IR energy out just to the atmosphere.
For determining the SURFACE temperature, the TOTAL IR leaving the surface is more important than the IR energy out just to the atmosphere. But both have their place.
Tim Folkerts says: September 12, 2016 at 9:57 AM
“Emissivity of the atmosphere can and does change. This means that it is fundamentally incomplete to say simply an apparent radiative expression of the effective temperature of the air column.”
For this earth’s atmosphere with almost no reflectivity. The atmospheric emissivity at any wavelength remains constant at 1-(1/e) 63% for one optical depth at that wavelength. In the CO2 13.5-15.5 micron bank surface optical depth is less that two meters. For this band then the .98 ‘radiance’ value is established within 8 meters from the surface. This value does not change for 101 kPa atmpspheric gas at any CO2 value above 200 ppmv. This ‘radiance’ from above reduces actual surface exitance to 2% of your miscalculated value.
but replaces that with the exitance from 8 meters up. That 2% exitance accumulates all the way to TOA where atmospheric ‘structures’ can and do provide exitance into much more than the surface limited PI steradians.
“63% for one optical depth at that wavelength.”
That may be. Need ε over the spectrum Will, all wavelengths and the surface is not at 1 optical depth.
Looking up in the dry arctic regions tests show atm. ε = 0.7 for a hemisphere of steridians and across the spectrum. In the humid tropics such ε = 0.95. Globally the median ε is around 0.8 as shown in the top post spreadsheet & discussed by Dr. Spencer.
To all One-Way fluxers
Kristain, phi, Will Janoschka and any others.
First I would like to know what is the source of the strong belief in a Uni-flux radiation flow. It seems ingrained in all of your thoughts, it is not used in current themodynmaics. I am just curious what sources do you use that are so certain and against the mainstream science?
I will answer with a question: for you, conduction is one way or two ways?
Yes, and is an electric current one-way or two-way? What about wind? Or water flowing? Convective transfer?
Microscopically, they’re ALL multidirectional. MACROscopically, they’re UNIdirectional. Same with radiative transfer. Because macroscopically, all microscopic movements average out to ONE net movement (or non-movement, if there is no potential gradient). That’s all we can ever detect.
Following Zemansky: It is incredible Kristian is still referring to heat loss from the surface. Yes Kristian, when water flows the hydraulic engineer refers to a “water current”.
Similarly, when electric charge flows, one refers to an electric current and when heat flows, one alludes to a heat current. There is, however, a fundamental difference, Kristian: both water and electricity are matter which is conserved. Heat, however, is not conserved.
When water and electricity enter a system, they don’t disappear. When heat enters a system, it has no existence within the system as “heat” only KE of which heat is its measure (hot, cold so forth).
Consider a cooler ideal gas undergoing isothermal expansion in contact with a warmer large furnace. Heat goes into the gas, but the gas undergoes no change of energy, since the work done by the gas compensates the inflow of heat. Heat continues to go in, but there is not only no heat in the gas, but no energy change as well!
Confused? You should be, just drop the “heat” term from existence in an object (thus heat can’t be lost only KE can be lost/gained or reduced/gained in an object) and confusion will subside, conclusions drawn will be that much less incorrect.
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 3:24 PM
“Following Zemansky: It is incredible Kristian is still referring to heat loss from the surface. Yes Kristian, when water flows the hydraulic engineer refers to a water current.”
Is Zemansky the fool that attempted to eliminate sensible heat, latent heat, and gas pressure? Sorry that did not work! All of thos physical world ignores Zemansky.
“Similarly, when electric charge flows, one refers to an electric current and when heat flows, one alludes to a heat current. There is, however, a fundamental difference, Kristian: both water and electricity are matter which is conserved. Heat, however, is not conserved.”
Only in Tricks imagination.
“When water and electricity enter a system, they dont disappear.”
They dont? How does elecricity power/energy appear in a charged battery.
” When heat enters a system, it has no existence within the system as heat only KE of which heat is its measure (hot, cold so forth).”
The sensible heat of any mass is measured every day, such is a property of mass. It is but trick’s fantasy that ‘heat’ has but a verb form. No thinking person accepts that!
“Is Zemansky the fool that attempted to eliminate sensible heat, latent heat, and gas pressure?”
No.
“How does elecricity power/energy appear in a charged battery.”
From the charging electrical current.
“The sensible heat of any mass is measured every day”
Yes, no kidding. The constituent particle KE is component of internal energy U of any mass Will, as every thinking person knows, just as the thinking person knows the sensible heat is a measure of that KE as in any fool can yell “Yikes that dry ice is COLD” as that measure of heat is all any fool can sense.
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 8:20 PM
(Is Zemansky the fool that attempted to eliminate sensible heat, latent heat, and gas pressure?)
“No.”
Ok just who was the first with such nonsense?
(How does elecricity power/energy appear in a charged battery.)
“From the charging electrical current.”
That is but a method of power storage! Does such appear as some relocation of mass from the generator to the battery? Does the mass of the battery decrease upon discharge? are volt-amp-hours some dream of internal KE as in the fool concept of internal energy?
Oh Woha are we! Science may never be able to return.
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 8:20 PM
Wj(The sensible heat of any mass is measured every day)
Yes, no kidding. The constituent particle KE is component of internal energy U of any mass Will, as every thinking person knows, just as the thinking person knows the sensible heat is a measure of that KE as in any fool can yell Yikes that dry ice is COLD as that measure of heat is all any fool can sense.
Ok now just what is the KE of a bottle of 200 atmosphere compressed air tank at ambient temperature? Consider what is call a 70 cu ft scuba tank. Trick only has crap from the terlet with no knowledge.
“Ok just who was the first with such nonsense?”
Will.
“Does such appear as some relocation of mass from the generator to the battery? Does the mass of the battery decrease upon discharge?”
Will refers to an electric current. Oh Woha is Will, science eludes Will.
“just what is the KE of a bottle of 200 atmosphere compressed air tank at ambient temperature?”
Sitting on the shelf in the dive shop? Zero relative to the shop. A lot relative to the sun. Even more relative to Sagittarius A*.
phi
I link to many sources when I make statements to verify it is not my own opinion. Why is it difficult for you to link to some verifiable source for you one-way flux opinion? Are you a Joe Postma disciple?
Is that where all you people go as your factual source of data?
You reject textbooks, measuring instruments, atomic theory but I guess if Big Joe says it is that way it must be that way.
If not Postma, then who is peddling these ideas that you believe so strongly?
Are these questions that difficult for you to provide and answer or a link?
I do know one thing about all the self-described experts in the field. None of you provide links to sources to verify your opinions. You make all kinds of declarations and assertions but never provide support.
Norman says, September 12, 2016 at 2:18 PM:
Yes, you link to many sources that CLAIM the same thing. They all simply adhere to a mathematical model saying it’s like that. None of them, however, at any time SHOW that what they claim is anything but a hypothetical idea, a theoretical assumption.
You see, radiation isn’t like arrows on a piece of paper. That’s a mathematical SIMPLIFICATION of reality. It is much more complex than that. Described for instance here:
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/teaching/astro-310-F08/09-radiation-field.pdf
http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~alan/atmosferas/chapter-1.pdf
https://www.science.mcmaster.ca/medphys/images/files/courses/775/ch3.pdf
I ask you again, Norman:
“(…) is an electric current one-way or two-way? What about wind? Or water flowing? Convective transfer?”
And I tell you again:
“Microscopically, theyre ALL multidirectional. MACROscopically, theyre UNIdirectional. Same with radiative transfer. Because macroscopically, all microscopic movements average out to ONE net movement (or non-movement, if there is no potential gradient). Thats all we can ever detect.”
“Same with radiative transfer.”
No Kristian, your own formula for that shows bidirectional energy transfer.
Just as proven by Dr. Spencer’s last post test, and last summer’s test & the arrows in the top post, and analysis.
The micro constituent KE internal to your two objects flows in the macro direction given by 2LOT. This is pretty simple Kristian, once you read what the masters actually wrote from the testing they performed.
Passing clouds added LW can easily be detected from the instruments.
Yes, Ball4, and the mathematical equation for convective heat transfer is of the same general form:
q/A = h(T_1 – T_2)
The lefthand side, however, represents an actual energy flux, while on the righthand side are simply two expressions of temperature, the difference between which results in the energy flux on the left. Exactly equivalent to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
Yes, that is the Fourier Conduction law Kristian, no energy transfer by motion (convection) if no temperature gradient. The h is the conductivity. Ever experience a slight convective breeze at the same air temperature?
The problem is that eqn. can’t be generally applied to a fluid (the atm.) since the h is solely a property of the medium (air with low relative conductivity) and not its state of motion. By motion is meant relative to each other part of the medium. A football moves when kicked and all its parts move together.
To insulate your house, you want to trap air in the fluff insulation so the air can’t move (convect) thus to take advantage of its low thermal conductivity or between window panes (argon even better, more resistant to convection). A vacuum like a thermos would be the best, near zero conductivity but much more expensive for your house.
Not sure what that has to do with radiation Kristian. Fill me in. But you combine that Fourier law with a continuity eqn. and leads to Laplace’s eqn. which turns up in many physical contexts, still not radiation context, need Planck law for irradiation of objects.
Ball4 says, September 12, 2016 at 4:47 PM:
Exactly! Just like there’s no macroscopic (thermodynamically relevant) energy transfer by radiation if there is no temperature difference across the radiation field.
You do see the mathematical equivalence here:
Convection: q/A = h(T_1 – T_2)
Radiation: q/A = σ(T_1^4 – T_2^4)
According to your logic, if T_1 and T_2 are at the same temperature in the first equation, then we will still be able to say that there are separate macroscopic convective energy transfers moving in both directions; they are simply of equal magnitude and so the net of the two happens to be zero:
q/A = hT_1 – hT_2
Another funny mathematical trick you can do to make it SEEM you’ve manipulated reality is this:
Let’s say you have a hot object with emissivity 0.1 faced with a cold object with emissivity 1. With the two-way interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, one could now pretend to have reversed the net flow of energy and violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. MATHEMATICALLY you could. But we all know that the physical reality will never allow it to happen.
Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.1
Object 2: T=250K, ε=1
In what direction will the net LW move? From hot to cold, or from cold to hot? According to the S-B equation …
Since the two objects involved have different emissivities as well as different temperatures, I guess the best thing to do is split up the terms on the righthand side of the equal sign right from the start. After all, we’re dealing with two distinct macroscopic fluxes coming in from either side here, aren’t we?
So,
q/A = (“Hot flux”: ε_1 σ T_1^4) – (“Cold flux”: ε_2 σ T_2^4) ->
q/A = (0.1*5.6704×10^-8*350^4) – (1*5.6704×10^-8*250^4) ->
q/A = 85.1 W/m^2 – 221.5 W/m^2 = -136.4 W/m^2
The “cold flux” turns out to be much bigger than the “hot flux” in this way, which means the NET of the two (q/A) will naturally move from cold (T_2) to hot (T_1).
Which is of course impossible and thus will not happen.
So how do we really treat this situation?
We keep all terms together and where they belong at all times, like in the original, standard version of the equation. Because it describes what actually PHYSICALLY happens. There is but ONE macroscopic flow of energy to be detected, not two. And that flow is the net, the q/A:
q/A = ε_1*ε_2*σ (T_1^4 – T_2^4) ->
q/A = 1*0.1*5.6704×10^-8 (350^4-250^4) ->
q/A = 5.6704×10^-9 (1.11×10^10) = 62.9 W/m^2
The net LW now moves in the correct direction, from hot to cold.
“Just like theres no macroscopic (thermodynamically relevant) energy transfer by radiation if there is no temperature difference across the radiation field.”
That’s wrong Kristian, the atm. convection is for mass motion.
Even with the same T1,T2:
Radiation: q/A = σ(T_1^4 T_2^4)
there is radiative transfer, photon energy h*f being exchanged, the net KE change in the objects is zero. In conduction:
Fourier Conduction: q = h(T_1 T_2)
when T1=T2, two solid objects in contact, the net kinetic energy exchanged is zero though the molecules bang against one another at the contact.
Put a third object in between, like air, you can superpose the processes as they are independent and get the zeroth law.
Forgot the site nuanced translations again:
“Just like theres no macroscopic (thermodynamically relevant) energy transfer by radiation if there is no temperature difference across the radiation field.”
That’s wrong Kristian, the atm. convection is for mass motion.
Even with the same T1,T2:
Radiation: q/A = σ(T_1^4 – T_2^4)
there is radiative transfer, photon energy h*f being exchanged, the net KE change in the objects is zero. In conduction:
Fourier Conduction: q = h(T_1 – T_2)
when T1=T2, two solid objects in contact, the net kinetic energy exchanged is zero though the molecules bang against one another at the contact.
Put a third object in between, like air, you can superpose the processes as they are independent and get the zeroth law.
“The “cold flux” (-221.5) turns out to be much bigger than the “hot flux” (85.1)”
-221.5 is NOT bigger than +85.1 Kristian. There are no absolute values taking off the signs, need to carry a sign convention along.
Your minus sign result does comply with 2LOT and will always show the correct direction that KE will be exchanged given a fixed sign convention (top post plus is down, minus is up); you should consider the radiative transfer eqn. works for difference in an atm. inversion layer where atm. is warmer than surface, net KE of the surface rises.
Ball4 Declaration = Troll
“Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.1
Object 2: T=250K, ε=1
So how do we really treat this situation?”
Well, not the way you tried to. 🙂
Object 1 emits 0.1 * 5.67e-8 * 350^4 = 85 W/m^2
When this reaches Object 2, all of it is absorbed.
So the flow from hot -> cold = 85 W/m^2
Object 2 emits 1 * 5.67e-8 * 250^4 = 221 W/m^2
Object 1, with ε=0.1 only absorbs 0.1*221 = 22 W/m^2
How handy! the flow actually is from warm to cool! The 2nd Law is upheld, exactly as it must be!
To finish up we would have to know a few more details about Object 1. There are two cases.
CASE 1: Object 1 is reflective. Then the other 0.9*221= 199 W/m^2 reflect back to object 2.
* the net for Object 1 is
-85 (emitted to 2) +22 (absorbed from 2) = -63 W/m^2 leaving.
* the net for Object 2 is -221 (emitted toward 1) +199 (refelcted back and re-absorbed) + 85 (absorbed from 1) = +63 W/m^2 arriving.
Check!
I’ll let you work out CASE 2 where Object 2 is partly transparent, with the 199 W/m^2 passing through Object 1 and escaping to space. It is simple enough.
****
The rules work fine. You just mis-applied them.
Bevid Dan Gurion says: September 13, 2016 at 8:36 AM
“Ball4 Declaration = Troll”
In a previous incantation, Ball4 was known as the SKS Bot Troll ‘Trick’, Both tend to be harmless, unless you let such infect your food. OR YOUR BEER!!!
Tim Folkerts says: September 15, 2016 at 6:40 PM
(Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.1 Object 2: T=250K, ε=1
So how do we really treat this situation?)
“Well, not the way you tried to. ”
Indeed!
“So how do we really treat this situation?”
Folkerts: Schuster-Schwarzschild two-stream approximation nonsense!
“The rules work fine. You just mis-applied them.”
But they always also work the same with opposing ‘radiances’ and a singular flux always in the direction of lower radiance. There is never any need for the circular perpetual motion. Now to gain some actual insight to thermal EMR effects!
Tim Try Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.2 Object 2: T=250K, ε=0.9 All other surround: 273.15K, ε=0.63: Pressure less than 0.1 torr! (0.1mm mercury, 13 Pa)” This can easily be demonstrated in a bell jar with only a Welch roughing pump for vacuum. A physical demo rather than some pseudoscience ‘thought problem’!! Try to pay particular attention to just what is ‘reflected’ or ‘transmitted’ by anything that may have such properties. Careful attention to power values of whatever power sources/sinks are maintaining the three ‘temperatures’ may give insight into your personal decision to promote Schuster-Schwarzschild.
Its not all that different from what you said at the end .. just a different perspective. There is no violation, even when talking about one-way fluxes, since it only “counts” as energy flow from one object to the other it it actually gets ABSORBED by the second object.
Will challenges: “Tim Try Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.2 … “
It would be just as difficult and work out the same in the end with either one-stream or two-stream calculations, so I am not sure what this is suppose to prove. Actually, I think it would be easier conceptually with a two-stream approach, but either would be fine.
“There is never any need for the circular perpetual motion.”
True. For macroscopic thermodynamics there is no need for photons. Just like there is no need for atoms. The microscopic view including atoms and photons simply enriches the understanding and allows additional predictions BEYOND what bulk macroscopic thermodynamics permits.
If you prefer the ‘blinders’ imposed by ignoring atoms and photons, well, you will indeed still be able to do macroscopic thermodynamics just fine.
Tim Folkerts says: September 15, 2016 at 8:10 PM
“Its not all that different from what you said at the end .. just a different perspective. There is no violation, even when talking about one-way fluxes, since it only counts as energy flow from one object to the other it it actually gets ABSORBED by the second object.”
Indeed flux the measurable transfer of power (Watts) from one side of a unit hypothetical surface area to the other , always called flux. Wiggles as in thermal ‘noise’, the microscopic domain of nuevo pseudoscience, are never ‘flux’ and can never affect the ‘temperature’ of ether side of such area. All is but a political SCAM for “profit”!!
Tim Folkerts says: September 15, 2016 at 9:11 PM
“Will challenges: Tim Try Object 1: T=350K, ε=0.2
It would be just as difficult and work out the same in the end with either one-stream or two-stream calculations, so I am not sure what this is suppose to prove. Actually, I think it would be easier conceptually with a two-stream approach, but either would be fine.”
From a scientific standpoint the two remain equivalent indeed. From a political/financial standpoint the two stream version is much more acceptable by cattle/peons as ‘simple, straightforward, and WRONG’,
as has been meteorology for the last 400 years! The Astrologers banned them from the Guild, for having no personal integrity!
There is never any need for the circular perpetual motion.
True. For macroscopic thermodynamics there is no need for photons. Just like there is no need for atoms. The microscopic view including atoms and photons simply enriches the understanding and allows additional predictions BEYOND what bulk macroscopic thermodynamics permits.”
There is no ‘understanding’ at all in your fantasy! If you wish to compare “physics” “this measurable physical”, to your metaphysical ‘philosophical’ of golden toned Rhinocerotidae, please say so and all will vote for ‘any other’!
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 1:00 PM
“To all One-Way fluxers Kristain, phi, Will Janoschka and any others.”
“First I would like to know what is the source of the strong belief in a Uni-flux radiation flow.”
For me it is but Maxwell’s equations that cover all EM generation, transmission, and reception. EMR itself has nothing to do with thermodynamics. If the effect of generation and reception involve ‘only’ sensible heat as power source/sink, then and inly then do something thermal apply. Almost all here refuse to consider ‘field theory’ as viable science. Kristain is starting to learn from a mechanical POV.
“It seems ingrained in all of your thoughts, it is not used in current thermodynamics. I am just curious what sources do you use that are so certain and against the mainstream science?
Your so called mainstream science is but a vast corruption of the scientific method. There is no longer any attempt at creating a falsifiable premise. Any fantasy that your cubie mate agrees with is now ‘science’.
Will must have learned his one way only radiative transfer comments from his cubie mate then. He demonstrates no scientific method learning of the subject matter. Or do so Will if you want to have any credibility on the subject.
Will,
I don’t see anything in Maxwell’s Equations that specifically supports your bizarre ideas. Nor are Maxwell’s Equations alone sufficient to describe thermal radiation…You would have to know the motion of the charge in order to describe the generation of EM waves and you need something to tell you about the thermal motion of the charge that is producing the electromagnetic radiation.
I know many physicist colleagues who understand Maxwell’s Equations and EM radiation better than you do (I leave it as an open question whether or not I would count myself as one of them) and not one of them comes up with your bizarre conclusions.
You can deride mainstream science all you want. But, the real question is whether we are in the presence of a genius autodidact who is smarter than Einstein (since Einstein only challenged conventional science after having studied it in traditional ways) or whether we are in the presence of someone with crackpot ideas and a huge overconfidence in his abilities relative to actual trained scientists.
I think the answer is pretty obvious to just about everyone but yourself.
Joel Shore says: September 12, 2016 at 7:49 PM
Will,
“I dont see anything in Maxwells Equations that specifically supports your bizarre ideas.”
It is obvious that you do not see! You likely Have not even studied the subset that creates the EM field. especially a thermally (noise) supported EM field.
“Nor are Maxwells Equations alone sufficient to describe thermal radiationYou would have to know the motion of the charge in order to describe the generation of EM waves and you need something to tell you about the thermal motion of the charge that is producing the electromagnetic radiation.”
This is necessary ‘only’ for EM coherence evaluation. Directional flux evaluation only requires vector summation of all incoherent broadband Poynting vectors into one incoherent broadband Poynting flux, or the generalized hemispherical Lambertian flux as carefully described by Dr. Boltzmann in the equation named after he and his mentor.
“I know many physicist colleagues who understand Maxwells Equations and EM radiation better than you do (I leave it as an open question whether or not I would count myself as one of them) and not one of them comes up with your bizarre conclusions.”
Can you name even one that has done, can do, or has written the software to do a simple 109 x 100 focal plane array phase solution for EM beam forming? Has that individual solved the trade off for longer range radar detection from that vector, and the ability to query a different direction Joel Shore says: September 12, 2016 at 7:49 PM
Will,
“I dont see anything in Maxwells Equations that specifically supports your bizarre ideas.”
It is obvious that you do not see! You likely Have not even studied the subset that creates the EM field. especially a thermally (noise) supported EM field.
“Nor are Maxwells Equations alone sufficient to describe thermal radiationYou would have to know the motion of the charge in order to describe the generation of EM waves and you need something to tell you about the thermal motion of the charge that is producing the electromagnetic radiation.”
This is necessary ‘only’ for EM coherence evaluation. Directional flux evaluation only requires vector summation of all incoherent broadband Poynting vectors into one incoherent broadband Poynting flux, or the generalized hemispherical Lambertian flux as carefully described by Dr. Boltzmann in the equation named after he and his mentor.
“I know many physicist colleagues who understand Maxwells Equations and EM radiation better than you do (I leave it as an open question whether or not I would count myself as one of them) and not one of them comes up with your bizarre conclusions.”
Can you name even one that has done, can do, or has written the software to do a simple 100 x 100 focal plane array phase solution for EM beam forming? Has that individual solved the trade off for longer range radar detection from that vector, and the ability to query a different direction, or how to interleave the two? After many years of that. Please ask what they have if thermal noise is the only phase determinant for each of the 10,000 elements? Can you transmit and receive at the same instant ever? What is flux?, or how to interleave the two? After many years of that. Please ask what they have if thermal noise is the only phase determinant for each of the 10,000 elements? Can you transmit and receive at the same instant ever? What is flux?
Joel Shore says: September 12, 2016 at 7:49 PM
“Will,I dont see anything in Maxwells Equations that specifically supports your bizarre ideas. Nor are Maxwells Equations alone sufficient to describe thermal radiationYou would have to know the motion of the charge in order to describe the generation of EM waves and you need something to tell you about the thermal motion of the charge that is producing the electromagnetic radiation.”
Are you using some subset of the 22 Maxwell’s? Perhaps the 4 or 6 John Poynting’s vector set with no included Lorentz invariance? Or worst of all the Wm STOAT Connolley version at Wikipedia! How are you summing all the zero coherence random EM field generator on both surfaces? Why do you speak of waves when you appear not to be able to handle the field equations?
And why do you spout so much fancy words or concepts you obviously don’t know anything about ?
Calling all ONE-Way FLUXERS from across the Web
Tell me what is going on in the situation I will describe.
You are in a room painted with this material:
http://newatlas.com/vantablack-s-vis-spray/42298/
You are behind a large directional spotlight that emits 1000 Watts/m^2 of power (visible light mostly). In this room, since you are behind the directional light source, you will not be able to tell if the light is on or off, there is not light returning to your eyes.
Now someone moves a statue in the middle of the room and you can clearly see it illuminated, you can take a picture of it or a video.
There is energy returning from the statue to your eyes. Enough energy to trigger electrochemical reactions, or trigger CCD devices in a camera….Real energy.
This is a unique flux with details about the statue. It carries both energy and information and it is moving up against a much stronger 1000 W/m^2 outward flux to be able to reach your eyes.
This is backradiation, radiation which would have gone outward and been absorbed by the black walls but is now moving backward into the source of light and into your eyes.
I think all you one-way flux people need to go back and study a physics book!
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 1:21 PM
You are in a room painted with this material:
http://newatlas.com/vantablack-s-vis-spray/42298/
Nice plug for some startup peddling there latest goof off!
“You are behind a large directional spotlight that emits 1000 Watts/m^2 of power (visible light mostly). In this room, since you are behind the directional light source, you will not be able to tell if the light is on or off, there is not light returning to your eyes.”
Is your room a vacuum or what? why can I not sense the entropy generated by your spotlight.
“Now someone moves a statue in the middle of the room and you can clearly see it illuminated, you can take a picture of it or a video.”
Indeed this is called reflection in the direction of lower radiance (a lower power field)!
“There is energy returning from the statue to your eyes. Enough energy to trigger electrochemical reactions, or trigger CCD devices in a camera.Real energy.”
Again both your painted walls and the reflected radiance of eye, electrochemical, or ccd must have lower ‘radiance’ for that flux ever to be generated.
“This is a unique flux with details about the statue. It carries both energy and information and it is moving up against a much stronger 1000 W/m^2 outward flux to be able to reach your eyes.”
If that lamps reflector where good 99.9% and the lamp positioned in front of a 99.99% corner reflector returning any filament radiance to that same filament, all that would physically happen upon applying your 1000w/m^2 power is that the filament would achieve such a high radiance (temperature) that such filament must evaporate ceasing such application of power. Most folk with experience would not try such an “awshit” again.
This is backradiation, radiation which would have gone outward and been absorbed by the black walls but is now moving backward into the source of light and into your eyes.
I think all you one-way flux people need to go back and study a physics book!
“This is backradiation, radiation which would have gone outward and been absorbed by the black walls but is now moving backward into the source of light and into your eyes.”
Well if that is backradiation then this backradiation is not absorbed by Greenhouse gases.
gbaikie
backradiation is not absorbed by Greenhouse gases as far as I understand the concept. Backradiation is merely the term used to describe the IR radiation produced by heated atmosphere containing GHG. It is a downwelling flux of IR energy that then can be absorbed by the Earth’s surface. Most of the Earth’s surface is a strong IR absorber so most of this energy will then be absorbed.
” Norman says:
September 12, 2016 at 8:55 PM
gbaikie
backradiation is not absorbed by Greenhouse gases as far as I understand the concept”
Ok
“Backradiation is merely the term used to describe the IR radiation produced by heated atmosphere containing GHG.”
If greenhouse gases do not absorb wavelength, then they don’t emit that wavelength.
“It is a downwelling flux of IR energy that then can be absorbed by the Earths surface. ”
This flux can not heat the surface. If it could heat the surface it could heat other things- it could be a source of energy.
Or basically anything which can heat something can be a source of energy- there are no exceptions.
“Most of the Earths surface is a strong IR absorber so most of this energy will then be absorbed.”
Most of earth surface is ocean, and ocean surface is largely
transparent to the entire blackbody spectrum of sunlight.
One way Fluxers across the WEB and beyond in the realm of imagination and fantasy is fact and truth is what one believes it to be.
In the room I described above now have an IR spotlight and it is focused into a round circle on the wall that only covers a small portion of the entire wall. So the incoming IR flux only hits a portion of the opposite wall from where you stand with your IR camera or other detector.
With the IR spotlight on you watch your camera in the black room.
After a while you start to see increase in IR, the opposing wall is showing higher temperatures? What is your camera picking up? The main IR beam is not in a position where you IR camera could pick up anything from this flux, the camera is focused on the wall that is not part of the spotlight beam path.
The spotlight is indirectly heating the wall and now it is emitting more IR than before the light started. It is a separate flux of IR than the primary spotlight and you can pick it up and it is moving in the direction opposite of the primary IR flux.
What is going on here, how can that be? Something is wrong!
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM
“In the room I described above now have an IR spotlight and it is focused into a round circle on the wall that only covers a small portion of the entire wall. So the incoming IR flux only hits a portion of the opposite wall from where you stand with your IR camera or other detector.”
Ok your spotlight causes in increase in temperature of some spot on the far wall but all the power from the spot is absorbed yet everywhere else is at a higher temperature than that spot so no thermal EMR flux can emit.
“With the IR spotlight on you watch your camera in the black room.
After a while you start to see increase in IR, the opposing wall is showing higher temperatures? What is your camera picking up? The main IR beam is not in a position where you IR camera could pick up anything from this flux, the camera is focused on the wall that is not part of the spotlight beam path.=
The radiance (field strength) of all the the wall with the spot is still lower than that of your IR camera. Your IR camera correctly determines the unidirectional flux from each bolometer because the radiance (not flux) of the spot is higher than the rest of the wall, the bolometers focused upon the spot must emit less IR in that direction than the bolometers focused elsewhere. your camera indicates both a higher radiance and higher temperature of that spot than the rest of the wall!
“The spotlight is indirectly heating the wall and now it is emitting more IR than before the light started.”
The wall emits nothing,different parts the wall are absorbing varoius EM flux from every direction in the surround. Perhaps conducting that power away external to the room for some sort of final equilibrium temperatures (plural). That IR camera is merely calculating the differences in opposing ‘radiance’ (field strength) at various locations on the opposing wall. all flux of the camera rem ains in the direction of the wall with different values in dufferent directions because and entirely do to the ‘difference in opposing field strengths with only one easily measurable EM flux.
“It is a separate flux of IR than the primary spotlight and you can pick it up and it is moving in the direction opposite of the primary IR flux.”
It is not a flux! Such transfers no power at all. It it the beautiful EM effect of opposing field strength in limiting the physical flux from a source of higher field strength.
“What is going on here, how can that be? Something is wrong!”
Hope that helps from a contrary point of view! Perhaps when the Roaches take over, some of them can falsify one POV! Don’t count on it!!
Dr. Spencer, you mention that the calculations do not consider convection and this is an important caveat, because radiation calculations at the surface serve only to provide a camel for the alarmists to ride. Radiation calculations are useful to establish the equivalent emissions height as seen from space, and that is all. Once that is known one has only to calculate downward, starting with the Planck temperature, using actual lapse rates, layer by layer, to the surface. No proverbial hot spot, all feedbacks present and accounted for. Because convection, not radiation, rules the temperature profile throughout the troposphere.
pochas94, the actual temperature profile of sounding rockets can be calculated by radiative balance on sublayers of the atm., this is called LBLRTM, look up some papers on the method.
If as you write “convection, not radiation, rules the temperature profile throughout the troposphere” then you should be able to similarly calculate the actual atm. temperature(z) from only convection inputs. Show us. Or provide a link to a paper that shows us.
Actually convective-radiative balance works best as shown long ago by Manabe, Strickler 1964, and Manabe, Wetherald 1967. The LBLRTM is an improvement on their methods as in Clough, Iacono 1992, 1995 “Line by Line calculation of atm. fluxes and cooling rates”…for the LW region associated with the radiative effects of atm. water vapor, the principal greenhouse gas.
For an elementary discussion on lapse rate and temperature read the Wikipedia Article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere#Temperature
For a discussion on how the lapse rate controls the temperature profile, see Clive Bests article.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4475
Note his remark in comments on how, with the effective emissions height 5000 meters the observed surface temperature of the earth is obtained when variations in lapse rate are properly considered.
Radiation calculations establish the effective emissions height. The temperature profile of the troposphere follows from the eeh and the lapse rate profile.
pochas94, not one sounding rocket thermometer recorded the lapse rate as shown in your link(s). LBLRTM analysis nailed the recorded sounding rocket temperature(z) profile dead nuts (within 1%) as the papers you need to read explained in detail when showing their results.
Ball4 says: September 12, 2016 at 6:28 PM
“pochas94, not one sounding rocket thermometer recorded the lapse rate as shown in your link(s). LBLRTM analysis nailed the recorded sounding rocket temperature(z) profile dead nuts (within 1%) as the papers you need to read explained in detail when showing their results.”
That is complete Trick troll BS There is not one version of any “line by line radiative transfer model that is capable of doing what Trick claims!!
F. Miskolczi used the HiTran database numbers in a completely different (correct) manner to get his calculations to agree with most radiosonde data. No one else at NASA, NOAA, or NCAR/UCAR has ever even come close.
Trick’s nonsense is from measurements carefully and deliberatly ‘adjusted’ to comply with nonsense from a model!
Yet again, Will remains clueless, ignorant of reality.
Buy a clue Will, show us F. Miskolczi wrote what you just made up out of thin air. Show us no one else came close. Will won’t be able to do so when called out. As usual.
Ball4 says:September 13, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Yet again, Will remains clueless, ignorant of reality. Buy a clue Will, show us F. Miskolczi wrote what you just made up out of thin air. Show us no one else came close. Will wont be able to do so when called out. As usual.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
Starts annotated pg 277 By one understanding of science Trick! Something you will never be able to accomplish!!
Ball4 says:September 13, 2016 at 6:29 AM
Yet again, Will remains clueless, ignorant of reality. Buy a clue Will, show us F. Miskolczi wrote what you just made up out of thin air. Show us no one else came close. Will wont be able to do so when called out. As usual.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media
/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf
Starts annotated pg 277 By one understanding of science Trick! Something you will never be able to accomplish!!
See I told ya’ Will won’t be able to do so when called out.
Buy a clue Will, show us F. Miskolczi wrote what you just made up out of thin air. The piece you link to is by van Andel. Can you read? Buy an understanding F. Miskolczi is not van Andel.
Ball4 says: September 13, 2016 at 8:43 PM
“See I told ya Will wont be able to do so when called out.
Buy a clue Will, show us F. Miskolczi wrote what you just made up out of thin air. The piece you link to is by van Andel. Can you read? Buy an understanding F. Miskolczi is not van Andel.”
Good God trick troll, all three of the Ferenc Miskolczi papers are freely available on-line. You would not be able to read let alone understand even one. If you cannot understand the well written analysis of the late Noor van Andel, you truly canot understand anything of this physical. Some others like Dr. Spencer may actually enjoy the easy to read technical!
So Will really did make up out of thin air what he attributed to F. Miskolczi, Will did not actually consult a paper. What a complete scam Will!
Will Janoschka
Here is material for you to consider. Your claim is source of your understanding of EM is the Maxwell’s equations.
Here: “While Maxwell’s equations (along with the rest of classical electromagnetism) are extraordinarily successful at explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena, they are not exact, but approximations. In some special situations, they can be noticeably inaccurate. Examples include extremely strong fields (see EulerHeisenberg Lagrangian) and extremely short distances (see vacuum polarization). Moreover, various phenomena occur in the world even though Maxwell’s equations predict them to be impossible, such as “nonclassical light” and quantum entanglement of electromagnetic fields (see quantum optics). Finally, any phenomenon involving individual photons, such as the photoelectric effect, Planck’s law, the DuaneHunt law, single-photon light detectors, etc., would be difficult or impossible to explain if Maxwell’s equations were exactly true, as Maxwell’s equations do not involve photons. For the most accurate predictions in all situations, Maxwell’s equations have been superseded by quantum electrodynamics.”
From this source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
Norman, wiki gives no source for that discussion. Leaves it up to the reader to find its physical meaning so I would challenge you to prove it is physically meaningful, using full scientific method.
Maxwell’s equations do come to grips with the nature of light (quantum packets, EMR) but not of matter which is left to be treated as continuous.
Quantum electrodynamics does extend Maxwell’s work to recognize the discreteness of both matter and radiation fields, thus presumably more rigorous. Alas, though, as hard as Maxwell’s equations are to apply (which CAN be done), quantum electrodynamics is just about impossible to apply except for very, very simple systems, for example, the hydrogen atom.
Ball4
My post on the Maxwell equations was just something to consider for Will. I am not taking any position on this issue. It is not my opinion one way or the other.
That piece is so far beyond Will’s ken Norman, you won’t ever…EVER get a considered science response. Only much more gibberish. Will mostly subtracts from conversations, not adds.
Memorable gibberish though it is, most times not even wrong – incomprehensible. A science dictionary thrown in a cement truck mixed up with aggregate sarcasm and poured out by a lunatic.
Ball4
LOL that was funny!
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 7:53 PM
“Will Janoschka Here is material for you to consider. Your claim is source of your understanding of EM is the Maxwells equations.”
Thank you Norman! Earthlings know nothing! They are well above the Roaches but below the Gods! Hell the Gods, JPl/CalTech have not even stopped tweeking the place yet!
“Here: While Maxwells equations (along with the rest of classical electromagnetism) are extraordinarily successful at explaining and predicting a variety of phenomena, they are not exact, but approximations. In some special situations, they can be noticeably inaccurate. Examples include extremely strong fields (see EulerHeisenberg Lagrangian) and extremely short distances (see vacuum polarization).”
I agree, more shaking head side to side, then “I believe I will have another beer!” OTOH Radar Differential measurements at Lunar distances, showing thermal expansions plus minus 1 mm, lets me trust Jimmies work much much more than all the post normal Skyintests put together.
“Moreover, various phenomena occur in the world even though Maxwells equations predict them to be impossible, such as nonclassical light and quantum entanglement of electromagnetic fields (see quantum optics). Finally, any phenomenon involving individual photons, such as the photoelectric effect, Plancks law, the DuaneHunt law, single-photon light detectors, etc., would be difficult or impossible to explain if Maxwells equations were exactly true, as Maxwells equations do not involve photons. For the most accurate predictions in all situations, Maxwells equations have been superseded by quantum electrodynamics.
Thank you again! The R. Feynman work did catch some blivits and extend the equations in a marvelous way. Most all of his findings must be considered. However Maxwell’s stuff takes 6 years of everyday work to be able to get a glimmer. Such have no error when applied to scale the size of Earth’s atmosphere.
I find the Feynman lectures fascinating in that he leaves a bit out, like the Saturday serials, where next Saturday you find that the aircraft pilot did not really crash into the mountains as all the equations demand.
So, just out of curiosity, Will, how many problems have you worked out of Jackson (https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-David-Jackson/dp/047130932X/)? Working many of the problems in this book is pretty much a rite of passage in learning E&M for every physics graduate student.
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 6:39 PM
“So, just out of curiosity, Will, how many problems have you worked out of Jackson (https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electrodynamics-Third-David-Jackson/dp/047130932X/)? Working many of the problems in this book is pretty much a rite of passage in learning E&M for every physics graduate student.”
Joel, you do not even state what you may mean by your E&M! How many EM field solutions have you done with over 1000 field sources?
I am not interested in the hogwash that is your way of brainwashing innocent students. Have any of your students ever been able to get a job that uses any part of your hogwash? Who for example?
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 6:39 PM
“So, just out of curiosity, Will, how many problems have you worked out of Jackson”
I looked at your reference that you praise! It goes on and on about ‘photons’ while never giving a clue as to what a photon may be or if such is ever physical or merely a probabilistic construct, (a fantasy)!
Do you have any physical definition of your ‘photon’? How many cycles of 0.4 micron EM wave packet does it take to yield a 50% probability of room temperature Nickel emitting an electron? Have you ever even tried to find out? Seems that all you can ever do is ‘profess’ from one of your nonsense US$100 text books. Again ripping off innocent students and their parents!
Great, so now Will Janoschka, World Expert on Electromagnetism is trashing the seminal text on the subject. Arrogance apparently knows no bounds.
Joel Shore the Magnificent cannot even guess at the number of cycles for a 50% probability! Can you even haphazardly form some physical concept for your fantasy ‘photon’?
phi
YOU ask: “I will answer with a question: for you, conduction is one way or two ways?”
Now you would have to clarify what you mean by conduction. Are you talking about energy flow or heat flow? Energy flow in conduction is two way, heat flow is one way. At least for a Chemist’s understanding of any surface with a temperature.
No macroscopic surface has a uniform kinetic energy distributed evenly among all the individual constituent surface molecules. Some molecules have higher kinetic energy some lower, the macroscopic surface has many different levels of kinetic energy as evidence of an energy spectrum emitted by a surface.
Therefore in conduction, if you have a much warmer bar then touch it to a cold one, the temperature difference will tell you the warm bar has more molecules at higher kinetic energy than the colder bar but look at the spectrum (this is blackbody but it will give you an idea).
http://thecenterhold.com/files/2015/04/Black-Body-Spectrum.jpg
If I understand he graphic correctly it is showing that a 300 K object will have some molecules emitting more energy (higher kinetic energy) than a 1000 K object. Not a lot but some.
After having established this with evidence. In conduction some molecules in the cold bar will have higher kinetic energy than some of the molecules in the hotter bar. There is a higher probability that the higher kinetic energy molecules will lose energy to the lower kinetic energy molecules. This implies that some energy of the cold bar will move to the hot bar. So the energy is flowing in both directions, the Heat in only one since the hot object has many more higher kinetic energy molecules than the cold surface.
But consider the rate of heat transfer via conduction. The closer the two objects are in temperature the less heat flows but the kinetic energy of both surfaces can be enormous.
If you have two bars at 1000 C each, no heat flows between them, the conduction is zero but do you think the surface kinetic energy has stopped? Do you think each surface is not constantly changing energy with the opposing surface? You do not think energy is flowing in both directions continuously but only because the two energy flows are equal is there no flow of heat.
Have you ever studied chemical equilibrium? Water evaporation? If you have air that is saturated it is not assumed that water molecules from the surface quit moving into a gas phase, what is thought to occur is that water continues to enter a gaseous phase with some higher energy surface molecules but at the same time and in equal amounts some gaseous molecules are a low energy and return to the surface water and become liquid form.
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 9:37 PM
phi (‘YOU ask: I will answer with a question: for you, conduction is one way or two ways?)
“Now you would have to clarify what you mean by conduction. Are you talking about energy flow or heat flow? Energy flow in conduction is two way, heat flow is one way. At least for a Chemists understanding of any surface with a temperature.”
Norman, Do you claim to actually be a ‘Chemist’? You seem to be much more a SKS replacement for Joel Shore who completely failed with his microscopic bull shit with intent to confuse all!
“No macroscopic surface has a uniform kinetic energy distributed evenly among all the individual constituent surface molecules. Some molecules have higher kinetic energy some lower, the macroscopic surface has many different levels of kinetic energy as evidence of an energy spectrum emitted by a surface.”
Who cares Norman? Does your incessant microscopic BS make my potatoes grow better or worse in this whole world of invariant climate?
Norman,
So there are indeed two opposite energy fluxes with conduction but only the net is used in thermal calculations. Can also be modeled IR transfers through two opposite energy fluxes but only the net has a thermal effect. Why strive to maintain two different standards?
As I have already said, this difference in processing is specific to climatology and is not related to some particular properties of IR transfers but to the hypothesis that, whatever the origin of imbalances, they are systematically compensated by a simple translation of the thermal profile. This means that an imbalance due to a change of the radiative structure has exactly the same effect than an imbalance due to a variation of the amount of energy entering the system. This radical simplification enables to express a structural change by a simple increase of back radiation in W / m2. Hence the use of the two streams model for IR and the notion of radiative forcing.
In reality, a modification of the incoming energy as an alteration of the structure have differents and complex effects on the thermal profile and can absolutely not be expressed by a simple variation of back radiations.
Actually, what you say here is not really true, phi. Modern climate models will treat different forcings differently and do find that different forcings have (somewhat) different efficacy. There are also important distinctions between the effects of forcings that are more globally-uniform such as increase in well-mixed greenhouse gases vs. forcings that are more inhomogeneous (such as changes in aerosols).
And, different forcings do have quite different effects on the vertical structure in the sense that a forcing due to increase solar irradiance warms the stratosphere whereas a forcing due to increased greenhouse gases cools the stratosphere. By contrast, the structure of the warming for different forcings tends to be much more similar in the troposphere because of the very important role of convection.
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 6:36 PM
“Actually, what you say here is not really true, phi. Modern climate models will treat different forcings differently and do find that different forcings have (somewhat) different efficacy. There are also important distinctions between the effects of forcings that are more globally-uniform such as increase in well-mixed greenhouse gases vs. forcings that are more inhomogeneous (such as changes in aerosols).
And, different forcings do have quite different effects on the vertical structure in the sense that a forcing due to increase solar irradiance warms the stratosphere whereas a forcing due to increased greenhouse gases cools the stratosphere. By contrast, the structure of the warming for different forcings tends to be much more similar in the troposphere because of the very important role of convection.
Can you physically demonstrate even one “radiative forcing”?
All remains religious fantasy, with intent to scam, never inform.
A radiative forcing is simply an imbalance in the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance that then leads to the Earth system absorbing more energy than it emits, as seen in the steady warming of the oceans, which is where most of the excess energy ends up.
The scammer is not the hardworking scientists but rather the ideologues like yourself who spout sciency-sounding nonsense.
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 8:07 PM
“A radiative forcing is simply an imbalance in the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance that then leads to the Earth system absorbing more energy than it emits, as seen in the steady warming of the oceans, which is where most of the excess energy ends up.”
So all that you mistakenly call radiative forcing is any thermal lag, thermal time constant, indicating a thermodynamic temporary non-equilibrium condition. With every atmospheric molecule peddling as fast as it can to re-establish such equilibrium! All of the rest of the world calls that ‘weather’. Why is your scam still needed? Do you have any idea of what they will do to you for participating?
I am not talking numerical models but radiative forcing !
Numerical models are based on empirical thermal profile, it’s a related but different problem.
phi
Check this out, it demonstrates how molecules of a gas have many different kinetic energies at the microscopic level but at the macroscopic you have a temperature that is the average of all the gas molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Translational_motion.gif
If you have a hot gas and a colder one the big difference between warm and cold is that you will have more higher energy molecules in the hot gas, but both gases will still have slow molecules that can speed up in collisions and both will have much faster molecules that can lose energy in collision.
Hope these posts help clarify a two way flow of energy yet only a one way flow of heat.
Clarify? Flow of heat? Where was the heat exactly before it flowed Norman? Where exactly was the heat after it flowed?
Perhaps Norman really means the KE represented in the red and blue dots as the energy that transferred between dots, dots & wall’s PE. Heat being the measure of all the dots KE, is that box measured hot or cold?
Ball4
I am using the “modern” definition of heat. I believe you like the older version similar to Gordon Robertson where heat is the kinetic energy of body of molecules.
Flow of heat is a transfer of energy from a hotter body to a colder one on the macroscopic level.
I do not say the modern definition is superior and it is obvious it causes lots of confusion over ideas.
In a gas example, by flow of heat I would consider this to mean that the greater number of higher kinetic energy molecules in the hot gas is equalized over time by interacting with the colder gas molecules until both gases have the same numbers of high and low kinetic energy molecules and there is not overall difference between the two.
The modern science definition of heat has only changed from the original to delete the caloric fluid from reality Norman. Otherwise, since Clausius time, heat has been the measure of kinetic energy in a body, unchanged today. The misuse of the modern definition (no caloric) continues to cause confused thinking, confused writing and incorrect, unscientific conclusions.
Stick with your last paragraph, use object internal KE exclusively.
“The modern science definition of heat has only changed from the original to delete the caloric fluid from reality Norman. Otherwise, since Clausius time, heat has been the measure of kinetic energy in a body, unchanged today. “
No. This is NOT the current definition of heat, Q. This is (sort of) the definition of internal energy, U. If you think otherwise, please find one single modern source that agrees with your assertion.
Physics would have been much better off if the verb form “heating” had been adopted for Q, since that more accurately describes the concept. Q is a measure of how much energy was transferred from one systems to another system due to the difference in their temperatures.
There is never “heat (Q) in an object” just like there is never “work (W) in an object”.
“No. This is NOT the current definition of heat, Q.”
Q is not heat Tim!
Q is the rate of heating, or heating rate, or simply heating, a component of dU/dt, Q is the contribution to the sum of forces that vanish on avg. W is another component of dU/dt, a rate of working, the contribution from forces that do not vanish on average.
Heat is a measure (hot, cold) of the constituent KE in an object. That’s it. All he wrote. Short and sweet. Put that in a framed picture over your work desk with a picture of Clausius.
I empathize with you Ball4. Lots of things in thermodynamics would have been much easier if words had been used differently from the start.
However, “Q” *is* “heat” in every modern thermo textbook. And heat is “energy transfered from one object to another because of a difference in temperature” or “the energy transferred by non-mechanical means, equal do the difference between the change in internal energy and the diathermic work” (to quote two textbooks).
Other definitions could have been used. But they weren’t.
“However, Q *is* heat in every modern thermo textbook.”
No sir. Cite some Tim. Easier if on line but my library is close. I will wager/conjecture on close inspection they ALL properly define Q a rate. Not heat. What I find is that they define Q a rate then are sloppy and mistakenly backslide to write Q as heat, period. Students are faced with unlearning that in order to think more clearly later on.
There is no heat in an object from which it can then transfer.
There is no work in an object from which it can then transfer.
There is U internal energy of constituents (in the form of PE+KE et. al.) in an object from which thermodynamic internal (thermal for short) energy U can then transfer.
Per Clausius (memoir 1, p. 18) heat is defined a measure (hot, cold) of the constituent KE, regardless of what text crept in behind him.
You cannot pour fluid heat from hot to cold as in the caloric days though I find some texts do define heat can in fact flow. No! heat is not a physical current, read the Zemansky piece cited, linked above. I will get a Mark Zemansky text ordered and see if he is true to his words.
I just DID cite two textbooks!
I could add wikipedia:
“In physics, heat is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings in some way other than through work or the transfer of matter. … The total amount of energy transferred as heat is conventionally written as Q (from Quantity) for algebraic purposes.”
“What I find is that they define Q a rate then are sloppy and mistakenly backslide to write Q as heat, period. “
The RATE of transfer is written dQ/dt or “Q-dot” (the letter “Q” with a dot over it to denote dQ/dt). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_derivative
It is THIS discussion where we have occasionally been “sloppy” and used “Q” instead “dQ/dt”. In context, ‘experts’ will be able to recognize the intent.
So officially, rather than something like
Q_lw(out) = εσ [T_sfc^4 T_atm^4]
we should have been been explicit and included both the time derivative AND the area:
d(Q_lw(out))/dt = εσ [T_sfc^4 T_atm^4] *A
or
P_lw(out) / A = εσ [T_sfc^4 T_atm^4]
“I just DID cite two textbooks!”
Names?
——
Tim says above: “There is never heat (Q) in an object”
Then Tim posts wiki clip: “heat is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings”
How was that heat able to “pass” if it was never in an object?! Wiki is not accurate, as usual. KE passes between a system and surroundings.
Does Tim not see the problem? Is this any better: work is energy that spontaneously passes between a system and its surroundings. No.
—–
dU/dt = Q + W, thus Q is a rate.
Then Tim says: The RATE of transfer is written dQ/dt
See the problem?
In my experience, “heat” is an ambiguous term, thermodynamically. It can be either a noun (e.g. ocean heat content, proportional to T) or verb (transfer of energy, “heating”, proportional to dT/dt). Only the equations are precise.
Ball4, I don’t know how much more plain I can make this. Q is heat. Q is heat in every thermodynamics textbook.
U = Q + W (or U = Q – W depending on which sign convention you prefer). Your “dU/dt = Q + W” is just plain wrong. If nothing else, W is always work = F*d, with metric units of N*m = J. So Q must also be joules … not watts. OR trust google (with the phrases in quotes) …
* searching “dU/dt = Q + W” gives exactly 2 results
* searching “U = Q + W” gives 349,000 results
Sometimes you see dQ = δQ + δW, but that is not at all equivalent to what you wrote.
Yes, trying to reduce ambiguity somewhat irreverently. Ocean Heat Content really is Ocean Energy Content. I am tired of having to do the substitution. The missing heat really is missing energy. Being ambiguous, heat takes on whatever meaning the writer has in mind, the problem is communicating to the reader.
Being specific might catch on, it was my HS English teacher’s only point I remember. Except it was with a lisp, “be thpethific.” Maybe that was intentional, who knows, it worked.
Work = f*d. What is the eqn. for heat? What is the symbol for heat? Other than H and C on faucets.
Some say H was given to enthalpy in order to make up for heat going unrecognized without a symbol, but I am suspicious.
Tim, of course the most hits determines what is a law or not these days, on the internet one is not allowed to be inaccurate.
/sarc
Did you open any of the 349,000? Every one I opened had delta U = Q + W. I was not exhaustive though.
Perhaps you can find a proper link that does have U = Q + W to discuss, I couldn’t find one. I mean geez if the basics can’t be agreed, there are no rules, science IS a dice game.
In the meantime I will look around. Rules, I need rules, even in a dice game. A knife fight, not so much.
Sorry, that should indeed be
ΔU = Q + W
rather than
U = Q + W
But it should NOT be
dU/dt = Q + W
U, Q, W, and ΔU are all units of joules. They are not rates. The internal energy, U, changes when “heating”, Q or “working”, W is performed on a system.
“ΔU = Q + W”
Yup…That is the standard notation for the 1st Law (modulo the issue of sign…The + sign is applicable if work is defined as the work done ON the system BY the environment and the – sign is applicable if work is defined as the work BY the system ON the environment. And, alas, there seems to be no uniform standard on that score. One of my colleagues used to tell students that much of thermodynamics involves just getting the prepositions right!)
And…another point…As I noted, things like U, T, p, V, N are state variables because they depend on what thermodynamic state you are in, whereas Q, W, and ΔU are process variables because they describe the transition between different states via the interactions that the system has with the environment.
Tim, I got out my thermo course text book. My prof. wrote it, there was no arguing with the text. It took him 73 pages to set the stage talking about refrigerators, car radiators, steam engines and steam tables before this verbatim quote: Another aspect of this definition of heat is that a body never contains heat. Whew, I didnt sleep thru that class.
He also writes delta E (state 1 to 2) = the heat transferred to the system during the process from state 1 to state 2 PLUS the work done by the system during the process. He writes the physical significance of the property E is that it represents all the energy of the system in the given state…KE, PE, chemical any number of other forms.
Another on line text: If we heat the gas by some means (radiative or conductive) at a rate Q…where W is the rate at which work is done…1st law is dU/dt = Q + W.
Leads me to think your ΔU = Q + W are all changes per unit time, a rate. I will have to hit the library and poke around on the net for other texts. You didnt name yours yet.
Joel, yes, dU/dt = Q+W is written dU/dt = Q-W in some engineering texts as engines do work on the surroundings with W positive, that positive work entails a decrease in internal energy U so instead of +W engineers must write -W, a different in convention only, no right or wrong only different as you note.
Ball4,
Yeah, ΔE is an alternative notation to Δ for the internal energy. As for using Q and W for rates, I don’t think that is very standard. I just opened a random Thermal Physics book in my stack that I have (I’ve recently been collecting them since I may potentially teach this course in the future), D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, uses Q/Δt when he want to write a rate. Reif (Fundamentals of Statistical & Thermal Physics) uses some weird script P (presumably standing for power…and script so it doesn’t get confused with pressure?)
Some books seem to try to avoid it altogether. For example, K. Stowe (Statistical Mechanics & Thermodynamics) writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann Law just using the word “flux” for the intensity (i.e., in units of W/m^2).
Ball4, All I can say is that your prof used a non-standard nomenclature. I can’t find a single source that uses “Q” to be a rate of change.
The two upper level thermo texts on my shelf (Zemansky; Sears & salinger) agree with me. A dozen freshman physics texts on my shelves agree. A graduate Stat Mech text agrees. Joel agrees. The well-known Q = mcΔT agrees with me.
“The two upper level thermo texts on my shelf (Zemansky; Sears & salinger) agree with me.”
I’ve ordered Zemansky text will take awhile, might be able to find Sears at the local college library.
ΔU = Q + W is standard script; however Q and W are both also changes over the process cycle per unit time making them rates. As in Tim writing dQ = δQ + δW which would be changes per unit time, i.e. rates.
Tim: “I cant find a single source that uses Q to be a rate of change.”
Bohren 1998 defines Q and W as rates, same as Caballero on-line text. I will have to inventory the various authors, so far I haven’t found a text that DOESN’T call Q & W rates.
Tim Folkerts says: September 13, 2016 at 6:56 AM
b4:(The modern science definition of heat has only changed from the original to delete the caloric fluid from reality Norman. Otherwise, since Clausius time, heat has been the measure of kinetic energy in a body, unchanged today. )
“No. This is NOT the current definition of heat, Q. This is (sort of) the definition of internal energy, U. If you think otherwise, please find one single modern source that agrees with your assertion.”
The entire world that does useful things disagrees with you and your pious academic dogma, written in the catechism of your ‘modern sources’ Why would any thinking person ever accept any of your catechism?
“Physics would have been much better off if the verb form heating had been adopted for Q, since that more accurately describes the concept.” Perhaps, but your version of ‘physics’, hopefully, shall never recover! Such is totally corrupt!
“Q is a measure of how much energy was transferred from one systems to another system due to the difference in their temperatures.”
Only power or flux is ever transferred. Sensible heat, latent heat, and compression are all separate physically measurable different nouns for the accumulation and storage of ‘power’ in different forms of mass. Although some of these forms may spontaneously and isentropically interchange, there is no generalization allowed.
There is never heat (Q) in an object just like there is never work (W) in an object.
Both sensible and latent heat of mass are both identifiable and measurable. Work upon mass is easily identifiable and measurable as ‘structure’ or ‘action’!
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 6:57 PM
“Ball4,Yeah, ΔE is an alternative notation to Δ for the internal energy. As for using Q and W for rates, I dont think that is very standard. I just opened a random Thermal Physics book in my stack that I have (Ive recently been collecting them since I may potentially teach this course in the future), D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, uses Q/Δt when he want to write a rate. Reif (Fundamentals of Statistical & Thermal Physics) uses some weird script P (presumably standing for powerand script so it doesnt get confused with pressure?)”
“Some books seem to try to avoid it altogether. For example, K. Stowe (Statistical Mechanics & Thermodynamics) writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann Law just using the word flux for the intensity (i.e., in units of W/m^2).”
More Shore pseudoscience gibberish!
Boltzmann’s term flux, like the needed parenthesis is precise and correct. Flux and intensity can never be confused except for some intent to confuse (scam) others! EM flux is always a unidirectional power transfer across some normalizing area in W/m^2. EM intensity is always a vector field strength in Watts/steradian. Such has normalization ‘irradiance’ total field strength incident on a normalizing surface, or the 4 space normalization, ‘radiance’ W/(m^2 x sr). Or even ‘spectral radiance’ in W/(m^2 x sr x cm). This is the only meaning that M. Planck used throughout his discussion of thermal EMR (his words specific intensity). One would expect an academic ‘lecturer’ to at least be able to get the terminology correct.
Ball4,
I looked online for pdf versions of thermodynamics textbooks.
The first four I found are
Max Planck https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/planckdover.pdf
Tarik Al-Shemmeri http://www.leka.lt/sites/default/files/dokumentai/engineering-thermodynamics.pdf
R. K. Rajpu https://futureingscientist.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/engineering-thermodynamics-3rd-ed-r-k-rajput-by-ronaldplus.pdf
Cengel & Boles https://futureingscientist.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/engineering-thermodynamics-3rd-ed-r-k-rajput-by-ronaldplus.pdf
All of those define Q as having dimensions of energy, joules, not dimensions of power.
I did see that the Caballero text you linked to does use Q & W as rates, but this seems to be an uncommon nomenclature.
Of course, at one level, it doesn’t matter as long as everyone defines what they are talking about. At another level, using uncommon notation leads to unnecessary confusion (like this whole sub-thread!)
“All of those define Q as having dimensions of energy, joules, not dimensions of power.”
Not true Tim. My research finds Q expressed as a rate is common nomenclature.
Also turns up a lot of differences, generally agree Q is a rate, agree on no heat in an object (except for one:
al-Shemmeri: rate Q = Watts = joules/sec p. 46, Defines U as KE. Writes “an object does not possess heat”. p.41. Writes: “U is increased by transferring energy to the object.” Then writes quantity of heat (Q) so not consistent.
Planck: Q is small quantities of heat added over the cycle p. 54.
Rajput: Heat cannot exist as stored energy. +Q is heat received by the system in joules. Heat is some thing…only appears at the boundary… p. 46,47.
Sonntag 1968: A body never contains heat. Q is the rate of heat transfer. Q1 to Q2 is the heat transferred during the given process state 1 to 2. Heat is a boundary phenomenon. Energy crosses the boundary. p. 73-5.
Bohren 1998: Q is rate of heating. p. 17. Never use heat as a noun. There is no such thing as the amount of heat in a system. When a system is cooled why dont we say cold has been added to it? p. 25.
Peixoto: p. 374. Q is net diabatic heating rate. Mentions heat storage apparently heat CAN be stored.
Zemansky: Q is non-mechanical method of producing change in U. The identification of heat with Q is unjustified. There is no such thing as the heat in a body.
—-
Saved the best for last Clausius 1st memoir, p. 18: Heat is the measure of KE of the particles within a body.
That is the best. The one I choose.
Why the future authors came to such different definitions than Clausius is for someone else to research.
Salby: Heat transfer occurs thru absorbing radiant energy and conduction. p.3. q = energy transferred into system…realized as KE. p. 82
Ball4: Having cross-posted, I will modify my statement to be that I don’t think the use of Q and W for rates is very standard in physics textbooks; maybe engineering textbooks use it more…perhaps because they are most interested in rates and it less cumbersome to do it this way.
Joel are you positive
ΔU = Q + W
are not all discussed as changes per unit time? Even Planck’s Treatise discusses them all as changes over the cycle in formulae. A cycle takes time.
Planck: (From an x-y figure of a cycle point 1 to cycle point 2) “ΔU = W + Q where W is the mechanical work expended on the substance and Q the total heat absorbed by it.” Thus even Planck writes Q and W are changes and over the cycle changes take finite time, so Q and W are rates per unit time as defined in the texts I noted.
No…They are generally talked about in Joules. I suppose it is meant as Joules in one cycle…but I would say that you need to multiply by cycles/s to get a rate. Joules/cycle is not a rate as cycle has no units. If you multiply by cycles/s, you would then get something that is a rate in Joules/s, i.e., Watts.
The units are change in Joules over the cycle which takes so many seconds i.e. joules/sec. The familiar watts.
Ball4 says: September 13, 2016 at 7:36 PM
“Joel are you positive ΔU = Q + W”
“Gibberish”
“are not all discussed as changes per unit time? Even Plancks Treatise discusses them all as changes over the cycle in formulae. A cycle takes time.”
Perhaps someday you will learn the meaning of Lorentz invariance!
Each cycle Of EMR flux always has one Planck’s constant (h) ‘quantum’of Watt seconds. But one unit of ‘action’ cannot be validly referred as Watt seconds^2. Such must be referred as W-sec within the fixed time interval of one cycle! This is often referred as 4-space flux density. Some claim a (h/2pi) as angular flux density. That does not work well thermally, as N cycles does result in rootN rms noise power, even for small N, less than 100! Go buy a clue!
)
Ball4 says: September 13, 2016 at 7:52 PM
“Planck: (From an x-y figure of a cycle point 1 to cycle point 2) ΔU = W + Q where W is the mechanical work expended on the substance and Q the total heat absorbed by it. Thus even Planck writes Q and W are changes and over the cycle changes take finite time, so Q and W are rates per unit time as defined in the texts I noted.”
Just who was it that misconstrued what Max Plank actually wrote?
What fool translation might you be using in your rants?
“The units are change in Joules over the cycle which takes so many seconds i.e. joules/sec. The familiar watts.”
Ball4: As I explained, that is not how units work. By your logic, I could define x to be the amount that a wheel translates in one rotation and then I could claim x is really a velocity because the wheel takes a certain amount of time to complete one rotation.
The correct statement is in fact that you multiply x (in m/cycle) by the frequency (in cycles/s) to get a velocity.
I understand that some books apparently DO use Q and W to be rates but the ones that we talked about that define Q and W to be the amount of work or heat transferred in one cycle, they are not defining a quantity in Watts; they are defining it in Joules.
Yes Joel, ΔU = W + Q is in joules but the delta U means from internal state 1 to state 2 over a unit of time so it is really Q1 to Q2 energy absorbed by temp. difference, call it a cycle/sec if you want, and that means time is really a factor. The authors I looked thru, certainly not exhaustive, nowadays commonly define Q and W as rates. dQ/dt would be a second derivative.
Norman says: September 12, 2016 at 9:43 PM
“phi Check this out, it demonstrates how molecules of a gas have many different kinetic energies at the microscopic level but at the macroscopic you have a temperature that is the average of all the gas molecules.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Translational_motion.gif
If you have a hot gas and a colder one the big difference between warm and cold is that you will have more higher energy molecules in the hot gas, but both gases will still have slow molecules that can speed up in collisions and both will have much faster molecules that can lose energy in collision.Hope these posts help clarify a two way flow of energy yet only a one way flow of heat.”
Can we please identify just which minder of the institution let this Norman get close to a computer connected to the INTERNET?
Will Janoschka
So you are indicating, with your post, you are clueless of what I am posting so therefore you resort to the conclusion that I must be insane? Standard physics. I reread what I posted and it is clear enough to comprehend.
Simply stated for you. It means molecules have a kinetic energy distribution over a range of many values on a surface or in a gas or liquid. There is no uniform kinetic energy among molecules of a macroscopic object.
You may be correct. What is your technical reason for disputing Avagadro?
Will Janoschka,
I really haven’t got the slightest idea what your point is here. If you want to communicate it might help if you clarify what you are trying to state.
THIS from you: “What is your technical reason for disputing Avagadro?”
Where is that coming from? What dispute did I post with Avagadro? You really are a loon!
Indeed, it’s quite bizarre that Will considers anything in what you quoted the least bit controversial! He really must be completely and utterly clueless about statistical physics. (Heck, even many introductory physics courses would teach him these basic things…But I guess it is more fun for him to spout meaningless gibberish about Maxwell Equations and field theory.)
“(Will) really must be completely and utterly clueless about statistical physics.”
Not limited to just that one item Joel, you could have accurately put the period after clueless.
http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_42.html
One may recommend Volume 1 as a good start for all those people, like phi or Janoschka, obviously illiterate in physics and spouting their endless nonsense here. And as Feynman emphasized, knowing the name of something doesn’t mean knowing something.
Of course it is more fun for those people to spout bullshit than shut up for a while, take a few months of their time and learn some basics.
Things might change in a heartbeat if those people had to bet and loose their own money on the ridiculous drivel they post everyday here.
alphagruis,
A Heat Transfer Textbook, John H.Lienhard
http://k204.ru/books/English/ahttv131.pdf
Radiative heat transfer p. 525.
And go play boat in your bucket.
that chapter looks like a pretty good treatment.
Yes, it does. And, it of course quite clearly embraces the two-way interpretation: See Eqns (10.9) and (10.10).
They also talk about the atmospheric greenhouse effect and global warming on pp. 579-581.
And also writes p. 7: dU/dt = Q – W
where Q is the heat transfer rate and W is the work transfer rate.
–Joel Shore says:
September 13, 2016 at 7:22 PM
They also talk about the atmospheric greenhouse effect and global warming on pp. 579-581.–
Yes, before it, talking about glass and greenhouses [and gets it wrong] and then:
“The atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect on the earths surface that is very similar to that caused by a pane of glass. Solar energy passes through the atmosphere, arriving mainly on wavelengths between about 0.3 and 3 μm. The earths surface, having a mean temperature of 15C or so, radiates mainly on infrared wavelengths longer than 5 μm.”
before it:
“Glass is nearly transparent to wavelengths below 2.7 μm or so, passing more than 90% of the incident solar energy. At longer wavelengths, in the infrared, glass is virtually opaque to radiation.”
I will add the obvious [to fishes], that:
The Ocean water is transparent “to wavelengths below 2.7 μm or so” and rather than “virtually opaque”, ocean water is utterly opaque in longwave IR.
But this is not actually the reason that ocean is warmer than land.
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 7:16 PM
“Yes, it does. And, it of course quite clearly embraces the two-way interpretation: See Eqns (10.9) and (10.10).”
I guess that is why the SPIE got the damned thing banned as an engineering text! More than 20% of the so called view factors are also incorrect.
Come on, phi, you nicely demonstrate an updated version of Feynman’s quote:
Knowing an internet link to a subject obviously doesn’t mean knowing that subject.
In his lecture_42 Dr. Feynman Makes several mistakes generally not detectable by pseudo-physicists. Adding sensible heat to liquid H2O in order to change its state from liquid to gas at considerable lower density, may or may not be considered ‘work’ W. Although ‘power’ was certainly added as a change in mass ‘structure’ called ‘action’ which in some regard ‘appears’ as ‘work’ (a ploughed furrow). In a different POV all applied power was merely stored as latent heat of evaporation. this is generally considered fully reversible through condensation, or reduction in pressure/volume! Why cannot you pseudo-physicists get your story straight?
Another is the elevation of air-mass to higher altitudes as ‘work’ overcoming Earth’s gravitational ‘attraction’. There is absolutely no ‘work’ done ‘moving’ any air-mass from location to location within Earths troposphere. Accelerations of mass do require ‘work’, but not mere relocations within the tropospheric ‘isopotential’ as evidenced by the complete self-buoyancy of this atmosphere. Self-buoyancy of Earth’s atmosphere remains, quite independent of the amount of bugs, bees,bats,birds,aircraft,and water colloid all remaining airborne! Why cannot you pseudo-physicists ever get your story straight?
And how can you, even as a genuine crackpot, spout ever more and more nonsense as time goes by ?
A most remarkable feat.
Joel Shore says (september 13, 2016 at 7:16 PM) :
“Yes, it does. And, it of course quite clearly embraces the two-way interpretation: See Eqns (10.9) and (10.10).”
What matters is that the author feels no need to give equations calculating independently the two streams.
In addition, the two terms of the two equations are not even independent.
phi pontificates:
No, utterly wrong, of course he does.
Just have a look at equation 1.31, page 32, and, finally become aware the explanations in the relevant paragraph of your own reference !
So, as you were already told, even your own reference, that you obviously never read, demonstrates how silly your claims are.
You are completely clogged or what?
Equ. 1.31 : Qnet =…
Keep cool, phi.
Sure, just above equation 1.31
Q1to2 = A1eb(T1)
Q2to1 = A1eb(T2)
are by no means two equations calculating independently the two streams
Moreover, as I already told you in vain in French forum, the very nature of Kirchhoffs law, a basics, namely equation 10.8b, compares explicitly the two couterflowing streams, again demonstrating that whatever you spout here is pure bullshit.
As they say in French: Quand on fera danser les couillons phi ne sera pas lorchestre.
By the way, with credit to one of my colleagues for pointing this out to me, these distributions of velocities in a gas can and have actually been measured and compared to the theoretical predictions of statistical physics. One of the earliest works on this is here: http://www-liphy.ujf-grenoble.fr/pagesperso/bahram/Phys_Stat/Biblio/miller_1955.pdf See Figures 4 & 5.
pon Earth’s
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 10:15 AM
“By the way, with credit to one of my colleagues for pointing this out to me, these distributions of velocities in a gas can and have actually been measured and compared to the theoretical predictions of statistical physics. One of the earliest works on this is here: http://www-liphy.ujf-grenoble.fr/pagesperso/bahram/Phys_Stat/Biblio/miller_1955.pdf See Figures 4 & 5.”
The distribution of gas molecular speed of particular species is called a Maxwell Boltzmann distribution, with most probable speed less than average speed less than rms speed. This has been known since 1933. This is not Maxwell Boltzmann statistics however!
The energy is not just proportional to mv^2 however. Gas energy (ke) is proportional to the rate of change in momentum of the aggregate, noting that momentum of each molecule is a vector property, not a scalar. This Earth’s atmosphere is a variable mixture of many species, at many temperatures, at many temperatures. Any attempt to do microscopic statistical analysis upon this Earth’s atmosphere, must always remain meaningless!!
Again, All of your post modern pseudoscience gobbledygook applied to this atmosphere remains meaningless!
at many temperatures, at many temperatures
at many temperatures, at many densities!!
Many times in my old age I miss the proper juggling of all 22 Maxwell’s globes,balls,rings,knives,hatchets,aerogel, whathaveyou, etc. Sorry folk I am not that good! I remain gooder than your scammers.
alphagruis says: September 14, 2016 at 5:29 AM
‘And how can you, even as a genuine crackpot, spout ever more and more nonsense as time goes by ? A most remarkable feat. ”
Please point out one technical or physical error! All you ever have is religious fantasy, with intent to SCAM!!
Keep cool, phi.
Sure, just above equation 1.31
Q1to2 = A1eb(T1)
Q2to1 = A1eb(T2)
are by no means two “equations calculating independently the two streams”
Moreover, as I already told you in vain in French forum, the very nature of Kirchhoff’s law, a basics, namely equation 10.8b, compares explicitly the two couterflowing streams, again demonstrating that whatever you spout here is pure bullshit.
As they say in French: “Quand on fera danser les couillons phi ne sera pas l’orchestre.”
Poor boy.
You obviously can not find anything then you look in the introduction of the book a botched paragraph that talks about two opposite heat flow!
And if you had read the beginning of the chapter 10.2, you would not have taken argument of Equ. 10.8b which is anyway not an expression of flux.
Anyway, what is to say is there : http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-224983
Keep cool phi.
Don’t become angry.
Sorry, as I demonstrated and everybody can see now, your reference everywhere says exactly the opposite of what you are looking for
Whether you like it or not.
And of course in Kirchhoff’s law both sides are very precisely the expression of a flux. Again you clearly demonstrate that you definitely don’t know what you’re talking about.
alphagruis,
You offer us here a great case of psychological projection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
phi says: September 15, 2016 at 5:44 AM
“Poor boy.You obviously can not find anything then you look in the introduction of the book a botched paragraph that talks about two opposite heat flow!
And if you had read the beginning of the chapter 10.2, you would not have taken argument of Equ. 10.8b which is anyway not an expression of flux.”
Thank you! Giggle!
Well phi, i’m really scared, now.
There is no doubt left, you obviously must be as brilliant a “psychiatrist” as an “expert” in radiative heat transfer.
alphagruis says: September 16, 2016 at 12:41 AM
“Well phi, im really scared, now.
There is no doubt left, you obviously must be as brilliant a psychiatrist as an expert in radiative heat transfer.”
There is absolutely nothing in any electric powered or thermal EMR power transport that has anything whatsoever to do with your fantasy “heat transfer”. You clearly have nothing to offer except fake
religious fantasy!
The bottom line here is Roy doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate IR absorbed by the surface of the Earth vs. IR absorbed by any arbitrary surface of something (small or large). In both cases, the absorbed IR is surely warming the surface, but does a surface absorbing IR establish that there is radiative GHE acting on that surface. I say, no — it doesn’t.
The bottom line is the amount of IR the atmosphere passes to the surface is just aggregate DLR at the surface, independent of its source (or combination of sources). He makes no clear connection to surface DLR and the underlying driving mechanism of the GHE (which isn’t specifically DLR at the surface).
Thus this saga has no end in sight.
“Thus this saga has no end in sight.”
Yes…just as in the sense that the saga of whether the Earth is round or flat or whether it is ~4.5 billion or 6000 years old has no end in sight.
Scientists will continue to accept it and a few diehard laypeople will continue to deny the science.
And, nothing will ever convince you guys. I actually agree that even better evidence of the GHE is not the so much the downwelling radiation but rather the upwelling radiation as observed by satellites from space (http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif). This data clearly shows how the Earth’s surface is at a temperature where it is emitting way more IR than it possibly could (without rapidly cooling) if the atmosphere were not absorbing much of it…And, it shows that the atmosphere is absorbing much of it and that the spectrum matches very well the predictions of radiative transfer theory using the known line spectra of the atmospheric constituents, including CO2.
Joel Shore says: September 13, 2016 at 7:56 PM
(Thus this saga has no end in sight.)
“Yesjust as in the sense that the saga of whether the Earth is round or flat or whether it is ~4.5 billion or 6000 years old has no end in sight. Scientists will continue to accept it and a few diehard laypeople will continue to deny the science.
Academic pseudoscientists must accept any religious fantasy of their supervisors, or be denied feeding at that trough.
Joel Shore
You are correct that nothing presented will ever convince them. They do not accept measured values, they do not accept logical and reasonable conclusions (like all objects with temperature radiate IR based upon the object temperature and emissivity). They will accept that alone objects will radiate as an individual flux of intensity determined by temperature and emissivity but then if you add other objects it seems they think the object will no longer radiate as before but that all the different objects will somehow suppress the radiation flows of the others and the hottest object is the most Authoritarian of the group and stops all subject surfaces from being able to emit any further IR.
You can take a hand-held IR thermometer and point it at all kinds of objects at different temperatures and it will accurately give you a temperature of the object surface (which can be verified by a thermometer) but they do not accept that each object is radiating its own unique IR flux in direction of your hand-held.
Norman says: September 14, 2016 at 4:51 AM
“Joel Shore, You are correct that nothing presented will ever convince them. They do not accept measured values, they do not accept logical and reasonable conclusions (like all objects with temperature radiate IR based upon the object temperature and emissivity). They will accept that alone objects will radiate as an individual flux of intensity determined by temperature and emissivity”
All accept such “alone” with no limiting opposing field strength. All measurably must so emit such EMR flux. It is you and your scammers that refuse to accept, even after repeated demonstration, that such fantasy flux is always physically limited by opposing thermal radiative field strength. You simply refuse any concept of field. As such you can never learn of gravitational potential either.
Will Janoschka
Your posts are so dumb they actually are getting painful to read.
What the? What is this you post “You simply refuse any concept of field. As such you can never learn of gravitational potential either.”
Your thought process is not even logical. Like a random frog jumping around inside your brain cells triggering words that have little or no logical flow. You are one really messed up mind, scrambled eggs anyone?
Norman says: September 14, 2016 at 8:29 AM
Will Janoschka
Your posts are so dumb they actually are getting painful to read.
What the? What is this you post You simply refuse any concept of field. As such you can never learn of gravitational potential either.
Have you had even one course in electric, magnetic, electromagnetic, or gravitational field theory? Do you insist that such are either non existent or non scientific? Why?
An of course you will never accept that reverse flux is never needed nor generated!
Joel Shore
I did have a question about the outgoing IR measurement. I am not sure that would tell you anything about the surface temperature. It alone would tell you the rate the Earth system is able to lose energy but could not the energy be anywhere in the system based upon this measurement alone? Could you not have a very warm atmosphere and colder surface? If the solar flux was mostly IR (an IR star) could you not have this coming directly from the upper atmosphere and it would not let you know of surface conditions? Just a thought.
Norman, if one measures in the IR window of atmosphere around 10-11 micrometers the radiation comes mostly from earth surface and reflects essentially the surface (skin) temperature.
Sea surface temperatures are obtained in this way in cloud free conditions.
alphagruis says: September 14, 2016 at 5:51 AM
“Norman, if one measures in the IR window of atmosphere around 10-11 micrometers the radiation comes mostly from earth surface and reflects essentially the surface (skin) temperature.”
That window measured extends from 8-13.5 microns 26.7% power of what a black-body earth could possibly emit. In that band the atmosphere is 78% cloud covered. What is your significance?
“Sea surface temperatures are obtained in this way in cloud free conditions.”
Indeed and quite accurately at nadir (down) the sea surface however is never Lambertian, never stationary and nothing is known of any EMR exitance Outgoing exit flux via differential sea-air temperature and wind speed convection overpower any sea EMR exitance by 5000:1.
82% of Earth’s NCAR/UCAR radiative surface exitance can be dispatched/ignored as academic toilet training.
Will Janoschka,
YOU POST: “82% of Earths NCAR/UCAR radiative surface exitance can be dispatched/ignored as academic toilet training.”
It is more than obvious that 99.99% of your post should be ignored and flushed down the stool as absolute garbage. Do you have this program on your computer where you put in technical terms and it spews out posts for you that try to sound intelligent but are really garbage and have no coherent thought process.
Norman says: September 14, 2016 at 8:25 AM
Will Janoschka, YOU POST: 82% of Earths NCAR/UCAR radiative surface exitance can be dispatched/ignored as academic toilet training.
Norman trolls!!
Trenberth at UCAR claims 340W/m^2 from 288 Kelvin S-B nonsense with 60W/m^2 in the ‘window’. All of the other 280 W/m^2 is suppressed by near surface H2O and CO2 suppressing 83% of the nonsense. But the window is 78% covered by clouds reducing that 60 to 12 W/m^2 thermal radiative exitance. The best physical measurement and calculated estimate of average surface thermal radiative exitance is 24 W/m^2.
Why do you not go try to find out who and when someone attempted to make such measurement of power flux instead of claiming zenith surface radiance calculations are actual physical exitance. Where the hell is your physical evidence?
Will Janoschka
YOU: “Trenberth at UCAR claims 340W/m^2 from 288 Kelvin S-B nonsense with 60W/m^2 in the window. All of the other 280 W/m^2 is suppressed by near surface H2O and CO2 suppressing 83% of the nonsense. But the window is 78% covered by clouds reducing that 60 to 12 W/m^2 thermal radiative exitance. The best physical measurement and calculated estimate of average surface thermal radiative exitance is 24 W/m^2.”
Gibberish nonsense, I can’t even figure out what you are trying to say with this bunch of mixed up mash of mania.
“but does a surface absorbing IR establish that there is radiative GHE acting on that surface. I say, no it doesnt.”
Reduce that surface absorbing IR to near zero IR, does that establish a reduced GHE acting on that surface. I say yes – it does.
We can get this past 1000 comments from idiots cant we?
Depends on how many others here reply to you – as it stands 83 are needed.
So there is the number YOU need to post.
I shan’t be going down the rabbit-hole to converse with you at least.
Will Janoschka
If you keep posting we certainly can. When you post one or two comments on a thread you sound like a brilliant person. The more you post the less intelligent you sound and even more fanatic an pointless. Stick to two posts a thread and we will not know how little you actually know or understand.
If you do not like, stop reading!
Ok.
Will Janoschka
Finally you made a reasonable comment! Didn’t think you had it in you.
Maybe the fabric of nexus hidden under the reality syndrome jumping behind Maxwell’s 73 plus equations of nostril hair entanglement at relativistic Lorentz contractions past the invoid flux graviton matrix could explain how you concocted a sentence structure that was at least readable.
Congrats to you! Great job!
From upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-225174
Tim Folkerts says, September 12, 2016 at 6:29 PM:
This is you just trolling about, Tim. Are you saying that with a less massive atmosphere, but with the same atmospheric composition and with equal gravity, then the lapse rate would be gentler? You know that with a more massive atmosphere, then the bulk air density and pressure down low would naturally be higher and so less internal kinetic energy would be free to escape the air mass per unit of time via radiation, and so any excess energy would on average have to be moved convectively higher up the atmospheric column in order to reach bulk air layers thin enough to let go of it at sufficient rates. This natural energy distribution process forces the steady-state temperatures up down low:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/heavy-atmospheres.png
True. But we’re not dealing with “science” here, Tim. We’re dealing with “pseudoscience”. Where “facts” are just made up on the fly, as one goes along. It is simply taken for granted, as a fact, that the mean surface radiant heat loss in the Congo is less than in the Sahara-Sahel due to a higher degree of atmospheric IR opacity in the former region, when it could just as easily be the case that the NON-radiative heat losses in the Congo basin are so much more effective than in the Sahara-Sahel region that there is simply not as much heat left to be shed via radiation. The average heat INPUT in both regions is about the same, ~175 W/m^2, and so this would also be the average total heat OUTPUT in both regions. Most likely it’s a balance thing between the effectiveness of the radiative and the non-radiative losses respectively, and so atmospheric IR opacity indeed WOULD, to a certain extent, be a factor on top of the general sfc-atm temperature difference factor. But as you can readily see for yourself, the degree of atmospheric IR opacity is powerless in determining the surface T_avg. Less effective surface radiant heat loss does NOT equal higher surface T_avg. Empirical evidence suggests the opposite to be true …
Uhm, it contributes. But it’s not a necessary contributor. The atmosphere would warm perfectly well even without absorbing IR from the surface. From simply having a MASS. However, it wouldn’t be able to COOL perfectly well without being able to emit IR to space.
Not “radiation” per se. Even though I do see how this could be considered pure semantics. It’s rather the “radiative properties” of the atmosphere. Atmospheric radiation, after all, isn’t what warms the surface. The atmospheric TEMPERATURE is. As I pointed out, when the temp difference/gradient between thermodynamic systems or regions decreases, it causes ALL heat transfers to weaken, including radiant heat transfer. Which will induce accumulation of energy and hence a rise in temperature, if the heat INPUT to the heated system stays the same. But you can’t say that by somehow reducing the surface radiant heat loss, then you’ve reduced the temperature difference/gradient between the surface and the atmosphere. And you also can’t say that by reducing the surface radiant heat loss, then you’ve automatically reduced the TOTAL surface heat loss to cause surface net warming.
No, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply enable the atmospheric temperature (higher than that of space) to thermodynamically AFFECT the surface temperature by reducing the temperature DIFFERENCE between the surface and its effective thermal surroundings. Without atmospheric radiative properties, those surroundings would be space. With atmospheric radiative properties in place, however, space is all of a sudden replaced by the atmosphere itself.
Look, this isn’t so hard. You use a circular argument to claim (or at least imply) that it is somehow the magnitude of the DWLWIR from the atmosphere that causes Earth’s surface T_avg to be 289K rather than, say, 255K. But this is just a simple case of working backwards. You already KNOW that the surface T_avg is 289K, and so you can calculate a BB emission flux from the surface at 398 W/m^2. You then find the global average surface radiant heat loss (net LW). In any particular spot it is a directly measurable/detectable physical quantity, although all individual measurements will have to be averaged into one value in order to find a global mean, just like with the temps. Anyhow, in this way you estimate the global mean surface net LW value to be ~53 W/m^2 (out of a total surface heat loss of 165 W/m^2, which is equal to the average surface heat gain, the net SW or ASR), and from this you are then easily able to derive an apparent DWLWIR ‘flux’ of [398-53=] 345 W/m^2. And voil! Subtracting the non-radiative surface losses, [165-53=] 112 W/m^2, from the combined energy input from the Sun (ASR: 165 W/m^2) and the atmosphere (DWLWIR: 345 W/m^2), what do you get? 165+345-112 = 398 W/m^2. Which corresponds directly, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, to a surface T_avg of 289K.
And we’ve come full circle.
But wherein lies the problem?
Let’s say we ‘know’ the surface T_avg is 255K. Same heat input from the Sun (165 W/m^2), same radiant heat loss (53 W/m^2), same non-radiant heat loss (112 W/m^2). Could we ‘find’ the surface T_avg in this situation also? Of course we could …
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-53= 187 W/m^2
Subtract the non-radiant heat losses from the combined energy input from the Sun and the atmosphere:
165+187-112 = 240 W/m^2, which corresponds to a surface T_avg of 255K.
What if all the surface heat inputs/outputs were different? The heat input from the Sun: 200 W/m^2. The radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The non-radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The surface T_avg kept the same: 255K.
Well,
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-100= 140 W/m^2
200+140-100 = 240 W/m^2 -> 255K.
Do these results surprise anyone? Didn’t think so …
There is nothing in the DWLWIR that causes anything when it comes to temperature. It is CAUSED BY temperature.
And the magnitude of the surface radiant heat loss can NOT be said to be a simple product of the degree of atmospheric IR opacity. The surface radiant heat loss will vary according to 1) the size of the surface heat INPUT from the Sun, 2) the temperature difference between the surface and the air layers above it, and 3) the effectiveness of the NON-radiative surface heat loss mechanisms.
The claim is made that if you suddenly removed the 345 W/m^2 of apparent DWLWIR ‘flux’ from the atmosphere to the surface, then the surface radiant heat loss would abruptly soar to an initial 398 W/m^2, which would hugely cool the surface. But that’s starting at the wrong end. With an average global heat INPUT from the Sun to the surface of a mere 165 W/m^2, the surface could never achieve a surface radiant heat loss larger than 165 W/m^2 in the first place, no matter how hot the surface ended up being. IOW, this particular limitation to the surface radiant heat loss isn’t derived from the DWLWIR at all. Furthermore, even a surface radiant heat loss of 165 W/m^2 could never be achieved with a massive atmosphere in place on top of the surface, simply because in this situation there would be OTHER heat loss mechanisms available besides the radiative one. In fact, a lower surface T_avg would very likely get us closer to the maximum rate of surface radiant heat loss than a higher one. At a surface T_avg of perhaps 230K, we could potentially come fairly close to a radiant heat flux of 160-165 W/m^2, if emitted to a radiatively active atmosphere at a mere, say, 80-90K, even though there would be some conductive-convective loss to account for already here. Let’s say ~150 W/m^2 worth of radiant heat loss, all in all. But such a high radiative loss rate would be absolutely impossible to achieve once the radiatively active atmosphere in question had warmed to temps much closer to that of the surface itself. As the sfc-atm temp difference continued to go down, the surface radiant heat loss would decrease with it. In fact, as the sfc-atm temp difference continued to go down, ALL surface heat losses would decrease, and so we would be left with a positive surface heat imbalance. Which would lead to surface warming. Which would in turn lead to further atmospheric warming. And all this warming would eventually lead to evaporative heat loss becoming significant, accompanied by a stronger, more effective atmospheric circulation. Strengthening and increasing the NON-radiative portion of the total surface heat loss. Thereby reducing the radiative part. To levels even lower than where it already was. Eventually reaching a mere 53 W/m^2, scarcely a third of the total surface heat loss (165 W/m^2). At a surface T_avg of 289K.
Yes. Radiative properties DO matter. But only in allowing the warm atmosphere to replace cold space as the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. But once that happens, it is the rising temperature of the atmosphere that actually FORCES the surface T_avg up. And from the point where the surface and the atmosphere are thermodynamically connected, atmospheric circulation becomes operative and stable and those “many other factors” of yours effectively render any changes in internal radiation powerless in raising the surface T_avg. As shown in the empirical data.
No, it specifically does NOT have much less incoming radiation, Tim. You need to check with the data. The average net SW at the ToA is MUCH higher in the Congo region than in the Sahara-Sahel region. At the surface, this has pretty much evened out (avg net SW in both areas around 175 W/m^2). Remember, the Sahara-Sahel has a much higher surface albedo than the Congo, while the Congo has a much higher atmospheric albedo than the Sahara-Sahel. Overall, it evens out.
Er, yes. My point exactly. What are you trying to say? That I’m right? Remember, total heat IN and total heat OUT in both regions are pretty much the same, 175 W/m^2 IN and 175 W/m^2 OUT. But the radiative part of the heat OUT is very different. And the surface T_avg in the Congo is considerably lower than in the Sahara-Sahel.
So what is my point, Tim?
It is PART of the energy balance, yes. But it doesn’t DETERMINE the energy balance. AFTER the radiative properties have made the massive, warm atmosphere the effective thermal surroundings of the surface. If they weren’t around to do that, then yes, the surface would end up much colder in the steady state, while the bulk atmosphere would end up much warmer. Because in this situation, the surface wouldn’t “see” the atmosphere, and its effective thermal surroundings would be space, as if the atmosphere weren’t there. The atmosphere itself, however, would effectively be thermodynamically isolated from the rest of the universe. And so, even being substantially warmer on average than our current one in the steady state, it might just as well have drifted away to the far side of the Moon.
You obviously don’t understand “my conclusions”, Tim. Or you just don’t want to. At least you’re doing nothing but twisting my argument(s) around. A bit like a pretzel, I guess.
It is indeed interesting to see how you so freely admit to this. You know you have a whole bunch of fellow warmists out there (even on this very thread) that are NOT willing in the least to concede this point. In their world, radiative (im)balance determines EVERYTHING, except the lapse rate (that’s the single “massive” contribution to the “GHE”). Atmospheric circulation is not treated as a real, natural force to be reckoned with at all. It is only considered – mathematically – a modifier of the tropospheric temperature gradient. Other than that, all tropospheric processes are seen either as unchanging (static/constant) or as dependent on radiative changes (mere feedbacks to “radiative forcing”).
Well, after looking at the real-world data, it can clearly be said that this simplistic approach, this one-dimensional view of the world, has been found wanting, to put it mildly …
Correct! Not only do the climate scammers not know how this compressible fluid atmosphere operates, they have not even tried to analyze any part of it. Whatever the gullible accept is good enough. Will this scam last long enough? We will see! We will not run out of suitable volcanoes. You might want to ask Tim: Why earth has the amount of atmosphere it has? How he plans on changing that amount?
And why it would stay changed from the amount determined by what he does not know?
All the best! -will-
“With an average global heat INPUT from the Sun to the surface of a mere 165 W/m^2, the surface could never achieve a surface radiant heat loss larger than 165 W/m^2 in the first place, no matter how hot the surface ended up being.”
What a bizarre statement. Why do you believe this? There is no such limitation. What is true that a surface that is hotter so that it is emitting more than it is receiving would cool over time. However, it certainly will emit more than that until it cools.
Look, the difference between what we are talking about and what you are talking about is that we are constrained by the laws of physics whereas you are only constrained by one law: The law that nature works in such a way that there is no radiative greenhouse effect (because that goes against your ideology).
I hope you and Will enjoy being poster children for just how far people go to deny science when that science conflicts with their ideology.
Kristian, “There is nothing in the DWLWIR that causes anything when it comes to temperature.”
Well, no, there is each photon radiant energy h*f deposited at the L&O surface where the photon gets annihilated, the energy lives on as KE in the L&O surface & surface temperature is a measure of the KE.
Joel Shore
It is good that an actual trained physicist visits this blog.
What is definitely true about science is that we need our University settings to teach science. You can see how far self-taught individuals veer away from reality. They do not understand the material found in textbooks arrived there via experimentation from the past. Scientists would come up with hypothesis then think about how to prove or disprove what they thought. Einstein patiently waited for empirical evidence to support his ideas.
I already demonstrated to Kristian that a 10 watt power input could raise a tungsten filament to over 2000 C but he still cannot understand energy how the process works. His mind is very similar to d*o*u*g*c*o*t*t*o*n neither can understand that input energy is only one part of the surface temperature equation. The elephant in there thought rooms that they cannot understand is that the surface temperature depends on outgoing energy as well as incoming.
A 10 watt power supply to a 1 m^2 surface will be very cold at equilibrium with space. A super small surface area of a tungsten filament (8 mm^2) will rise to incredible heat with a 10 watt power supply. The only way the energy can leave via radiation is from the surface molecules. If you reduce the area of the surface molecules with the same energy input the temperature rises drastically because it has to get very hot to eliminate the 10 watt input.
Kristian seems to think the more he repeats his points the more valid they will become.
Joel Shore says: September 14, 2016 at 6:40 PM
Kristain (two places):(With an average global heat INPUT from the Sun to the surface of a mere 165 W/m^2, the surface could never achieve a surface radiant heat loss larger than 165 W/m^2 in the first place, no matter how hot the surface ended up being.)
Most all, except for academics (educated way beyond any intelligence) Joel da troll and that ilk, would interpret that (With the mere) a limit of total flux of 165 W/m^2, with the total m^2 a fixed value for both input and output flux.
“What a bizarre statement. Why do you believe this? There is no such limitation. What is true that a surface that is hotter so that it is emitting more than it is receiving would cool over time. However, it certainly will emit more than that until it cools.”
Joel da troll, makes up some kind of hotter, straight from the toilet! About what to expect from such unfortunately!
Joel Shore says, September 14, 2016 at 6:40 PM:
*Sigh*
If you read my entire comment rather than being so focused on quoting out of context, I’m sure you would understand what I mean, Joel. I’m pretty sure Tim does. It’s not hard.
But I guess it would go against your ideology …
Joel’s job like the employment of Dr. Roy, Dr.Gavin, Dr, Judith, and most all at NASA, NOAA, NCAR/UCAR, IPCC, and several other institutions demand just such a religious ideology for the proper protection of the bizarre pseudoscience. We can only hope that this obscenity soon collapses.
More than likely, however, they will merely redefine their precious CO2 GHE to actually lower surface temperature and really we all gonna freeze!
Will Janoschka
Or maybe better we can hope you go and learn actual physics instead of your cobbled quilt of distorted pieces of science and really try to understand the theory and why they are making the claims they do.
Rather than being the dunce in the classroom and claiming everyone in the room is wrong except you, try to understand the concepts.
Also even the scientists still believe an ice age is on the way with the global warming.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386a/gallery1-fig16.html
My job only demands that I teach students correct physics. And, before when I worked in industry, my job had nothing whatsoever to do with these issues (except when I was asked to solve a problem that involved radiative transfer and I had to use the correct equations with view factors and the whole nine yards).
And, my guess is that Roy Spencer has already not exactly endeared himself to the climate science community with his views, as well as the history of the UAH data set which showed cooling instead of warming for many years (do in about equal parts to the short length of the record and to errors in the analysis that have since been corrected).
Actually, I believe that part of the motivation for Roy Spencer’s posts here is to try to clear distance himself from those of you in the AGW-skeptic community who are an embarrassment because denial of basic physics really does not make the AGW skeptic community look very good. And, I think the amazing thing to witness is just how strong this denial of science is even when you are faced with mountains of evidence from someone who shares your ideological worldview and viewpoint on the danger (or lack thereof) of AGW. You guys are to the AGW skeptics movement what the Young Earth Creationists are to the evolution denialists.
Joel Shore says: September 15, 2016 at 7:20 PM
“My job only demands that I teach students correct physics. And, before when I worked in industry, my job had nothing whatsoever to do with these issues (except when I was asked to solve a problem that involved radiative transfer and I had to use the correct equations with view factors and the whole nine yards).
Why then do you never attempt to teach correct physics?
“And, my guess is that Roy Spencer has already not exactly endeared himself to the climate science community w/ith his views, as well as the history of the UAH data set which showed cooling instead of warming for many years (do in about equal parts to the short length of the record and to errors in the analysis that have since been corrected).”
Indeed! Dr. Roy clearly understands what it is like to oppose the political powers that be!
“Actually, I believe that part of the motivation for Roy Spencers posts here is to try to clear distance himself from those of you in the AGW-skeptic community who are an embarrassment because denial of basic physics really does not make the AGW skeptic community look very good. And, I think the amazing thing to witness is just how strong this denial of science is even when you are faced with mountains of evidence from someone who shares your ideological worldview and viewpoint on the danger (or lack thereof) of AGW. You guys are to the AGW skeptics movement what the Young Earth Creationists are to the evolution denialists.”
OTOH, Dr. Roy’s clear support of the physically measurable/demonstrable may indicate defense for his previous labeling/characterization of the AlGorestas as “Climate Nazis” A title that all physical science supports!!!
Tim Folkerts says: September 15, 2016 at 8:21 AM
If you read my entire comment rather than being so focused on quoting out of context, Im sure you would understand what I mean, Joel. Im pretty sure Tim does. Its not hard.
“And if you then allowed the atmosphere to absorb radiation again, then the surface would emit LESS than 53 W/m^2 net thermal IR and would start to warm again.”
You now start to show the futility of the circular “reverse flux”
Rather than the measurable opposing “radiance” which clearly and measurably indicates “hey day yust closed da valve on da odder end”, We are now “up to our ass in flux”! “Presedente Obummer, please go flux yourself, really good”
Kristian, studying your whole piece is not worthwhile when coming upon passages that are known to be incorrect like you missing the h*f energy in LW IR deposited at the surface. There are MUCH better sources to study tied to proper, replicable observational evidence.
You also miss as the atm. becomes theoretically optically thinner less of the 78 SW is absorbed in the atm. and adds to the 165 absorbed at the surface.
If you want to extend Dr. Spencer’s top post analysis by writing a long comment, that comment should at least agree with his starting point(s) along with his results from last summer. Your latest comment does not do so.
You also offer no observational proof that your results for Sahara & Congo are valid, you simply discuss them as givens. And as support you self cite. You do not build a defendable case worth reading. There are better sources.
“If you read my entire comment rather than being so focused on quoting out of context, Im sure you would understand what I mean, Joel. Im pretty sure Tim does. Its not hard.”
Actually, I was with Joel on this one, so either you are not communicating your position well, or Joel & I both see the same flaw. The context was
“The claim is made that if you suddenly removed the 345 W/m^2 of apparent DWLWIR flux from the atmosphere to the surface, then the surface radiant heat loss would abruptly soar to an initial 398 W/m^2”
And I agree with that claim (give or take a few W/m^2). IF you suddenly removed the ability of the atmosphere to absorb or emit radiation, then yes, the entire ~ 398 W/m^2 of radiation from the ~288 K surface WOULD continue to be emitted and the surface WOULD start to cool dramatically. Eventually a new equilibrium would be established where a much cooler surface would emit ~ 398-345 = 53 W/m^2 of net thermal IR. The initial 398 W/m^2 of radiation heat loss is not somehow limited to 165 W/m^2.
And if you then allowed the atmosphere to absorb radiation again, then the surface would emit LESS than 53 W/m^2 net thermal IR and would start to warm again.
********************
Your claim comes out sounding like:
* there is a river with a flow of 165 gal/second.
* the river was dammed for a while, building up a pond until there was eventually an outflow of 165 gal/s
* the
surface radiant heat lossout flow from the pond could never achieve asurface radiant heat losswater outflow larger than 165W/m^2gal/s even if you suddenly tore a huge hole the dam.Tim Folkerts says, September 15, 2016 at 8:21 AM:
OR, you’re both willfully ‘misreading’ what I’m writing.
And I agree with that claim too, Tim. My only objection was this, if you remember:
But that’s starting at the wrong end.
With a constant heat input to the surface from the Sun at 165 W/m^2, then THAT’S the target for the warming surface. The surface will warm until its heat OUTPUT can match that input, 165 W/m^2. At that point, it will have reached dynamic equilibrium, a steady state.
What you’re doing is starting at some arbitrary high surface temperature with heat input/output equilibrated at 165 W/m^2, and only THEN artificially/hypothetically remove one conceptual ‘half’ of the radiant heat loss.
That’s starting at the wrong end, Tim …
“..youre both willfully misreading what Im writing”
Kristian invents a conspiracy theory.
No misreading, what Kristian writes actually does miss the energy in the LW incident on the surface (as shown by Dr. Spencer’s lab and in situ experiments) and the sun SW power incident on surface is non-constant 165 as the atm. opacity increases/decreases with the emissivity factor as shown in Dr. Spencer’s simple and correct top post analysis.
When Kristian gets the observed physics right, the alleged conspirators will let him know.
” At that point, it will have reached dynamic equilibrium, a steady state.”
Yes.
“What youre doing is starting at some arbitrary high surface temperature”
No. I am starting at exactly the situation you described — a scenario where energy has balanced and temperature equilibrated at ~ 288 K.
The temperature has only gotten this ‘artificially’ high by INCLUDING radiation from the warm atmosphere. If that radiation is removed (or never added to begin with), temperatures would settle toward the ‘natural’ temperature of ~ 255.
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE YOU START! With an atmosphere that provides thermal IR toward the surface, the temperature settles toward ~288 K no matter where you start. Without an atmosphere that provides thermal radiation toward the surface, the temperature settles toward ~255 K no matter where you start.
Dr Spencer even added a note to this effect in his top post. And the simple model also shows it doesn’t matter where you start.
Tim Folkets says, September 15, 2016 at 11:22 AM:
Tim, now you’re just playing obtuse.
This is exactly it. You’re doing it again. You use a circular argument to claim that it is somehow the 345 W/m^2 DWLWIR that makes Earth’s surface T_avg 289K and not 255K. You don’t know that, Tim. You’re just ASSUMING it.
You eagerly pounced on the opportunity to ‘misunderstand’ one sentence by reading it out of context, simply in order to avoid dealing with the real issue here.
From my comment above:
“(…) this is just a simple case of working backwards. You already KNOW that the surface T_avg is 289K, and so you can calculate a BB emission flux from the surface at 398 W/m^2. You then find the global average surface radiant heat loss (net LW). In any particular spot it is a directly measurable/detectable physical quantity, although all individual measurements will have to be averaged into one value in order to find a global mean, just like with the temps. Anyhow, in this way you estimate the global mean surface net LW value to be ~53 W/m^2 (out of a total surface heat loss of 165 W/m^2, which is equal to the average surface heat gain, the net SW or ASR), and from this you are then easily able to derive an apparent DWLWIR ‘flux’ of [398-53=] 345 W/m^2. And voil! Subtracting the non-radiative surface losses, [165-53=] 112 W/m^2, from the combined energy input from the Sun (ASR: 165 W/m^2) and the atmosphere (DWLWIR: 345 W/m^2), what do you get? 165+345-112 = 398 W/m^2. Which corresponds directly, via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, to a surface T_avg of 289K.
And we’ve come full circle.
But wherein lies the problem?
Let’s say we ‘know’ the surface T_avg is 255K. Same heat input from the Sun (165 W/m^2), same radiant heat loss (53 W/m^2), same non-radiant heat loss (112 W/m^2). Could we ‘find’ the surface T_avg in this situation also? Of course we could …
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-53= 187 W/m^2
Subtract the non-radiant heat losses from the combined energy input from the Sun and the atmosphere:
165+187-112 = 240 W/m^2, which corresponds to a surface T_avg of 255K.
What if all the surface heat inputs/outputs were different? The heat input from the Sun: 200 W/m^2. The radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The non-radiant heat loss: 100 W/m^2. The surface T_avg kept the same: 255K.
Well,
UWLWIR: σ255^4 -> 240 W/m^2
DWLWIR: 240-100= 140 W/m^2
200+140-100 = 240 W/m^2 -> 255K.
Do these results surprise anyone? Didn’t think so …
There is nothing in the DWLWIR that causes anything when it comes to temperature. It is CAUSED BY temperature.”
Kristian asks: “But wherein lies the problem?
Lets say we know the surface T_avg is 255K. Same heat input from the Sun (165 W/m^2), same radiant heat loss (53 W/m^2)…”
Therein lies the problem, at Tmedian 255K same solar input, the radiant energy into surface from the sun would be around 240 not 165 as the optically thin atm. would absorb very little SW, the radiant energy loss would be almost all directly to space for very little (non-zero) LW down resulting from very little atm. absorbing and emitting.
Can readily be learned from setting atm. emissivity to say 0.05 as simply explained by Dr. Spencer in top post & as pointed out by Tim.
“Tim, now youre just playing obtuse. … Youre just ASSUMING it.”
Well, actually, I am only assuming that the laws of physics apply and seeking the simplest solution consistent with the observations.
So let’s start from the “right end” — a simple situation that we can agree and then build toward a more complex situation. Imagine a planet with albedo for incoming sunlight, a, emissivity for thermal IR, ε, and average solar input, I = 340 W/m^2 (similar to eafrth). Let the surface temperature be T_Ave. Let’s see what T_ave would be in various situations. (PS the estimated T_ave will be a bit high because of non-uniformities in temperature). Stop wherever you get lost or disagree.
CASE 1: a=0 (black), ε=1 (black), no atmosphere at all.
ANSWER: T_ave = 278 K
CASE 2: a=0.3 (similar to earth), ε=1 ), no atmosphere at all.
ANSWER: T_ave = 255 K
CASE 3: a=0.3, ε=0.95 (similar to earth), no atmosphere at all.
ANSWER: T_ave = 258 K
CASE 4: a=0.3, ε=0.95, pure N2 atmosphere @ same mass as earth’s atmosphere.
ANSWER: T_ave = 258 K = same as CASE 3
CASE 4a: a=0.3, ε=0.95, pure N2 atmosphere @ either 10x or 0.1x mass of earth’s atmosphere.
ANSWER: T_ave = 258 K = same as CASE 3.
With an atmosphere transparent to EM energy, the surface will only gain/lose energy radiatively, so such an atmosphere will not change the surface temperature as determined by radiative balance. As long as the atmosphere is transparent, then neither conduction nor convection nor evaporation can possibly raise the surface temperature. The steadystate solution will be (1-a)I solar energy absorbed leading to T_ave = ( (1-a)I/σε)^0.25
CASE 5: a=0.3, ε=0.95, atmosphere of N2 + some GHG.
ANSWER: T_ave > 258 K (~ 290 with a simple model like the top post)
We know that the surface temperature IS higher for the earth. And we know that an atmosphere that can absorb IR will limit the ability of he surface to radiate away energy, causing warming.
The only simple, self-consistent explanation for any temperature above 258 K is “backradiation”. So yes, I do assume that the only simple, self-consistent answer is correct.
***************************
Again, which specific (if any) do you disagree with, and why?
Tim Folkerts says: September 16, 2016 at 5:34 PM
“So lets start from the right end a simple situation that we can agree and then build toward a more complex situation. Imagine a planet with albedo for incoming sunlight, a, emissivity for thermal IR, ε, and average solar input, I = 340 W/m^2 (similar to eafrth). Let the surface temperature be T_Ave.”
With point source insolation there can be no average temperature that has any meaning. Just like the average temperature of the Moon has no meaning All of your assumptions are meteorological nonsense of ‘simple straightforward and wrong’. Nowhere on this planet exists a lambertian surface with a fixed spectral emissivity. On this Earth, the variable airborne water, in all 5 phases completely determine all temperatures There is absolutely no way to even guess at any change in temperatures even if Earth’s surface had no thermal radiative exitance whatsoever.
“As long as the atmosphere is transparent, then neither conduction nor convection nor evaporation can possibly raise the surface temperature.”
There is no gas that is ‘transparent’, especially 400 km slant path grazing surface. Your statement is false, and there must exist the gravitationally induced pressure, density, temperature lapse.
“We know that the surface temperature IS higher for the earth.”
Higher than what? higher than some feeble minded application of 1/2 the S-B equation that can never apply to a convex manifold with a gaseous surround.
“And we know that an atmosphere that can absorb IR will limit the ability of he surface to radiate away energy, causing warming.”
You have absolutely no evidence of such!
“The only simple, self-consistent explanation for any temperature above 258 K is backradiation.”
Your simple nonsense is not consistent, not an explanation and wrong.
Every bit that you do with your religious backradiation can be done in a much more consistent manner without the religious effects.
Tim Folkerts says, September 16, 2016 at 5:34 PM:
Hehe, yeah. And my question to you then becomes: “What “observations” are you talking about exactly?”
Agreed.
Indeed.
No.
It seems we’re just going in circles here, Tim. You’re spending
all your time and effort attempting to redirect the original focus of this discussion, away from my central argument and toward your ever-new red herrings instead. Pretending that you’re not ‘getting my message’. Or that it wasn’t even there to begin with. That you never saw it …
The atmospheric TEMPERATURE, being substantially higher than that of space, is what causes the surface to warm beyond pure solar equilibrium. The DWLWIR is merely an apparent radiative expression of this. What the radiative properties of the atmosphere do is simply ENABLING the atmospheric temperature to affect the surface temperature. By making the atmosphere rather than space the effective thermal surroundings of the surface.
The atmosphere would easily warm without possessing any radiative properties. It could, however, not effectively cool. And so, the radiative properties of an atmosphere do not cause an atmosphere’s temperature to rise. But rising atmospheric temperatures would cause a solar-heated surface below the atmosphere to warm, given atmospheric radiative properties in place. So, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply allow the atmosphere and its acquired temperature to thermodynamically connect with and thus affect its surroundings in the steady state. In other words, they allow heat to enter and to exit the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium …
“The atmospheric TEMPERATURE, being substantially higher than that of space, is what causes the surface to warm beyond pure solar equilibrium. The DWLWIR is merely an apparent radiative expression of this. ”
You are the one going around in circles, with an answer that ultimately disagrees with physics. In particular, you need to focus on the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics — conservation of energy.
The atmosphere would easily warm without possessing any radiative properties.
I guess that depends on your definition of “easily”. There could indeed be some thermal energy transfer to the atmosphere (ie warm it) at the warmer, sunny side of the atmosphere. But there would be energy transfer FROM the atmosphere (cooling it) on the cold night side (ie cooling the atmosphere).
“It could, however, not effectively cool.”
Once a steadystate situation is reached, by definition the atmosphere is cooling (losing energy to places that are below average surface temp) exactly as effectively as it is warming (gaining energy from areas that are above average surface temperature).
And specifically, if the atmosphere is warming (gaining energy), the surface would losing energy and cooling BELOW the average temperature determined by radiation balance.
“And so, the radiative properties of an atmosphere do not cause an atmospheres temperature to rise. “
Oh, the conduction to/from the atmosphere could make the atmosphere somewhat warm thru this process. So radiation is not the ONLY process that warms the atmosphere.
But here is where you need to pay attention to conservation of energy. Once this hypothetical, transparent N2 atmosphere has reached steady-state (dynamic equilibrium), we can re-focus on the surface. The surface is now neither gaining nor losing net energy to the atmosphere. it is still gaining the original solar energy. It is losing energy only to space via radiation.
So the surface has now recovered from the earlier cooling and has warmed BACK TO THE ORIGINAL T_AVE determined by radiative balance. Back to the T-ave listed in the cases above.
So, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply allow the atmosphere and its acquired temperature to thermodynamically connect with and thus affect its surroundings in the steady state.
Sort of. We just established that without the radiative properties, the steady-state solution would be the T_ave determined purely by radiative balance.
So that atmospheric temperature *per se* does not raise T_ave. It is ONLY the radiative interaction that causes T_ave to rise above ~ 255 K. Which allows the atmosphere to warm further by conduction. Which allows the surface to warm more … see the top post. 🙂
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2016 at 7:47 AM:
Sure, Tim. You just keep telling yourself that …
LOL!
So now I don’t conserve energy? Do tell!
So you’re basically saying that conductive cooling (atm>sfc) during the night would equal convective warming (sfc>atm) during the day? Nice.
What are you on about?
LW radiation is primarily what COOLS the atmosphere, Tim. The atmosphere is heated by 1) the release of latent heat of vaporisation from the surface (88 W/m^2, 40%), 2) SW from the Sun (75 W/m^2, 34%), 3) LW from the surface (~33 W/m^2, 15%), and 4) conduction from the surface (24 W/m^2, 11%). It is cooled by LW to space (220 W/m^2, 100%).
We already agree on this, Tim. Aren’t you reading what I’m writing? You’re turning into “Norman” …
Yeees?
Indeed. Absent the atmospheric radiative properties, it doesn’t. Like I’ve been pointing out now for some time.
And we’ve completed yet another full circle.
So I guess I will have to reiterate even one more time:
“What the radiative properties of the atmosphere do is simply ENABLING the atmospheric temperature to affect the surface temperature. By making the atmosphere rather than space the effective thermal surroundings of the surface.
The atmosphere would easily warm without possessing any radiative properties. It could, however, not effectively cool. And so, the radiative properties of an atmosphere do not cause an atmosphere’s temperature to rise. But rising atmospheric temperatures would cause a solar-heated surface below the atmosphere to warm, given atmospheric radiative properties in place.
So, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply allow the atmosphere and its acquired temperature to thermodynamically connect with and thus affect its surroundings in the steady state. In other words, they allow heat to enter and to exit the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium …”
Kristian,
Excellent thermodynamic description of the greenhouse effect. The focus on radiative physics appears to prevent many people to understand this mechanism.
phi says, September 17, 2016 at 9:41 AM:
Indeed. People evidently have a severe mental block when it comes to this particular issue. They simply cannot get around it. Their mind is somehow incapable of stepping out of its bubble to acknowledge and take in perspectives different from its own.
And the obsessive focus on radiation and hypothetical radiative effects is of course the reason why …
Kristian says: September 17, 2016 at 2:40 AM
Tim Folkerts says, September 16, 2016 at 5:34 PM:
TF(“Well, actually, I am only assuming that the laws of physics apply and seeking the simplest solution consistent with the observations.”)
wj:Why is a simple solution desirable?
Kristian: “Hehe, yeah. And my question to you then becomes: What observations are you talking about exactly?”
-snip-
Kristian: “The atmospheric TEMPERATURE, being substantially higher than that of space, is what causes the surface to warm beyond pure solar equilibrium. The DWLWIR is merely an apparent radiative expression of this. What the radiative properties of the atmosphere do is simply ENABLING the atmospheric temperature to affect the surface temperature. By making the atmosphere rather than space the effective thermal surroundings of the surface.”
Correct. The so called DWLWIR is merely a fictitious radiative expression of this. The scammers can never say what their “radiation” may possibly be physically. There is never any indication of radiative power actually being transferred in a direction of higher radiance. Any distinction between ‘field strength’ and ‘flux’ must be deliberately ignored. The gravitational compression of the mass of atmosphere ‘must’ result in the pressure, density, temperature, lapse always present in any atmosphere above 20kPa. This is measurable, even with no radiative effects.
Kristian: “The atmosphere would easily warm without possessing any radiative properties. It could, however, not effectively cool. And so, the radiative properties of an atmosphere do not cause an atmospheres temperature to rise. But rising atmospheric temperatures would cause a solar-heated surface below the atmosphere to warm, given atmospheric radiative properties in place.”
This smacks of unverifiable conjecture!! It is likely that the yet unknown effects of airborne water may very well neutralize or reverse such conjecture.
Kristian: “So, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply allow the atmosphere and its acquired temperature to thermodynamically connect with and thus affect its surroundings in the steady state. In other words, they allow heat to enter and to exit the atmosphere even in a state of dynamic equilibrium ”
Indeed! This Earth has an open system and with the Emmy Noether “proof” of no needed “conservation of energy, “within a gravitational field. Therefore, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for any “GHE”, CO2 or not!!!
‘
phi says: September 17, 2016 at 9:41 AM
“Kristian,
Excellent thermodynamic description of the greenhouse effect. The focus on radiative physics appears to prevent many people to understand this mechanism.”
I agree! May I add that the thermodynamic interpretation of the most relativistic of all ever discovered “EMR”, including thermal EMR, truly makes a mockery of any and all scientific method!
All the best! -will-
I am starting to get the feeling that we are really just going around and around based on an ambiguous definition of “to cool”! (Or perhaps based on transient vs steadystate effects.)
#1: to cool = to remove thermal energy.
It is definitely true that the net thermal energy flow due to IR is OUT from the atmosphere. IR removes heat.
+356 – 333 – 199 = -176.
So in this sense thermal IR is “cooling” the atmosphere. And conduction/convection/evaporation are adding heat, or warming the atmosphere.
#2: to cool = to lower the temperature of something.
The surface and lower atmosphere (the part people live in and are concerned about) are WARMER than they would be without the thermal IR properties of the atmosphere. In this sense thermal IR is “warming” the atmosphere, NOT “cooling” it.
**********************************
If the starting point is an atmosphere that has already had its temperature raised due to the presence of GHGs, then with this definition of “to cool”, then GHGs are currently cooling (causing net outward heat flow) the atmosphere.
If you at this point magically got rid of IR properties of the atmosphere, there would be a (very brief) warming of the atmosphere (especially at the top) as the IR flow out decreased. However, this would soon be offset by the rapid cooling of the surface, which would then cool the atmosphere by conduction (and also pretty much stop evaporative transfers as well).
The changes in IR properties would lead to both “decreased cooling” (initially, as less IR left the atmosphere) and “increased cooling” (in the long term, as the atmosphere actually gets much cooler overall).
(and the reverse would be true if you stated with a IR-transparent atmosphere; adding GHGs would cause warming (higher temperatures) while causing cooling (an outflow of IR heat where none existed before). )
Tim Folkerts says: September 17, 2016 at 8:05 PM
“I am starting to get the feeling that we are really just going around and around based on an ambiguous definition of to cool! (Or perhaps based on transient vs steadystate effects.)”
Tim this is precisely the confusing effect intended by AlGorestas!
“#1: to cool = to remove thermal energy.”
Yes! known by old farts as the eternal, removing “sensible heat”!
“#2: to cool = to lower the temperature of something.”
OK! That is done throughout the land by ‘swamp coolers’ evaporating liquid water. Converting ‘sensible heat’ into ‘latent heat’, requiring a lower temperature of the ‘surround’.
“The surface and lower atmosphere (the part people live in and are concerned about) are WARMER than they would be without the thermal IR properties of the atmosphere. In this sense thermal IR is warming the atmosphere, NOT cooling it.”
With the variable amount of airborne ‘water’ in this atmosphere,
you cannot have any evidence of your non-defined ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’!! All you ever promote Timmy, is the SCAM for profit!!
**********************************
Tim Folkerts (September 17, 2016 at 8:05 PM),
“If you at this point magically got rid of IR properties of the atmosphere, there would be a (very brief) warming of the atmosphere (especially at the top) as the IR flow out decreased. However, this would soon be offset by the rapid cooling of the surface, which would then cool the atmosphere by conduction (and also pretty much stop evaporative transfers as well).”
The continetal low latitudes surfaces could still reach very high temperatures when the sun is at its zenith. These are the temperatures that will dictate those of the atmosphere with the exception of a thin cold contact layer. We can assimilate the top of this cold layer with a tropopause probably located at about a hundred meters. The hot surfaces area easily feed this tropopause through convection which then remains at very high temperature and cools slowly by conduction downwards and, if the remainder of the atmosphere is not yet isotherm, by conduction upwards.
Phi writes “The continental low latitudes surfaces could still reach very high temperatures when the sun is at its zenith.”
Yes. As Tim shows, and even Kristian agreed, if the IR properties of Earth atm. were reduced to those of N2 alone, Earth surface global Tmedian thermometer field would be about 33K lower at the same albedo, phi, and the brightness temperature from UAH about the same.
Note the reduced evaporation & reduced conduction/convection would have the same global Tmedian effect as today, zero.
Tim Folkerts says, September 17, 2016 at 8:05 PM:
No, we’re not, Tim. We’re going around in circles because you absolutely refuse to even address/acknowledge my central argument, and rather concentrate fully on 1) simply restating, over and over, your original postulate, the one I specifically dispute by introducing a different perspective on issues such as “cause & effect” and “enforcing vs. enabling” in the climate system, and 2) laying out a trail of red herrings in order to avoid having to address, much less discuss, the merits of this particular perspective, the latest instance of which being your “cooling” vs. “cooling” elaboration.
No, Tim. Thermal IR doesn’t WARM any layer of the troposphere. The Sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air above, and atmospheric circulation distributes the internal energy transferred to the atmosphere as heat in accordance with tropospheric pressure/density gradients. What the thermal IR does is allow the energy transferred to the atmosphere as heat to escape to space. The fact that the lower troposphere is warmer and the upper troposphere is colder is a result of this simple process: heating down low, cooling up high, convective transport in between.
The radiative properties of the atmosphere thermodynamically connect the surface with the atmosphere above and the atmosphere with space outside. And that’s it, Tim. The actual surface WARMING once this connection has been established is caused by the MASSIVE properties of the atmosphere: Its ability to warm, its air column pressure, density and viscosity, plus its total weight on the surface.
Ball4,
The issue is about the temperature of an atmosphere without greenhouse gases. Given the very significant difference in efficacy between conduction and convection, this temperature would be much closer to the maximum surface temperature than to the average surface temperature. In addition, except a thin troposphere generally in situation of inversion, the great mass of the atmosphere would be isothermal. The addition of greenhouse gases will cause a rise in the level of the tropopause, a decrease in inversions situations and an increase in average surface temperatures. It’s conventional thermodynamics.
phi says, September 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM:
Yes. In order for the bulk atmosphere to become finally more or less thermodynamically disconnected from the surface, it will have to reach an average temperature high enough so as to prevent hot air rising convectively from the solar-heated surface during the day from ever being able to penetrate the effective thermal tropopause, which would essentially be equal to the top of the nighttime inversion layer developing from the surface up, the boundary between the narrow, dynamic surface air layer and the thick, static bulk atmosphere above.
This bulk atmosphere T_avg would clearly not be as high as the surface T_max on this peculiar Earth, but it wouldn’t be too much lower either. And it most definitely would be way higher than the surface T_avg.
Yes. By basically obliterating the narrow, dynamic surface air layer separating the surface itself and the bulk atmosphere higher up, effectively connecting the two thermodynamically.
However, even though the surface (and the surface air layer) T_avg would go up in this situation, that of the bulk atmosphere wouldn’t. It would drop.
phi says: September 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM
“The issue is about the temperature of an atmosphere without greenhouse gases. Given the very significant difference in efficacy between conduction and convection, this temperature would be much closer to the maximum surface temperature than to the average surface temperature.”
Seems like conjecture only! Do you claim no pressure, density, temperature lapse from gravitational compression of Earth’s atmosphere?
“In addition, except a thin troposphere generally in situation of inversion, the great mass of the atmosphere would be isothermal.”
Perhaps you mean an isopotential troposphere, with the gravitational lapse? Every part of the troposphere remains self buoyant, inspite of the mass of bugs,birds,bees,dust,aircraft, water remaining aloft in this atmosphere. No ‘work’ is done in relocating airmass from location to other location. This is maintained as the isentropic exponent of this atmosphere at 7/5.
“The addition of greenhouse gases will cause a rise in the level of the tropopause, a decrease in inversions situations and an increase in average surface temperatures. Its conventional thermodynamics.”
Can you explain that further please? Water and radiative gas can only radiate power from the atmosphere to space. As the atmosphere’s sensible heat is reduced via EMR exitance, both its temperature and it volume must decrease. There must exist some thermal equilibrium between insolation and atmospheric EMR exitance that the whole volume of the atmosphere must tend. This equilibrium state likely never manifests, as the point source insolation is too extreme.
Will,
“Do you claim no pressure, density, temperature lapse from gravitational compression of Earths atmosphere?”
Yes. A temperature gradient is always associated with a heat flux. No greenhouse gas, no heat flux in the atmosphere and no gradient.
“Every part of the troposphere remains self buoyant…”
Free convection can only happen if the gradient exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate and an isothermal atmosphere effectively prevents any significant vertical movement. Without greenhouse gases, we must therefore expect only a very limited convection balancing the little downwards conductive flow through the contact layer.
For the remainder, I think I agree with you.
phi writes incorrectly: “Given the very significant difference in efficacy between conduction and convection, this temperature would be much closer to the maximum surface temperature than to the average surface temperature.”
Very significant? Hardly. Zero is more accurate.
phi, you just haven’t paid enough attention, show your numbers. If you do, then you will find conduction/convection and evaporation have no effect on global Tmedian as neither have a window to space, the rain and downdraft energy comes back all inside the atm. That’s why they call it a water CYCLE. And why it is not drafty/turbulent at CERES orbit.
phi says: September 18, 2016 at 6:55 PM
Will, (Do you claim no pressure, density, temperature lapse from gravitational compression of Earths atmosphere?)
“Yes. A temperature gradient is always associated with a heat flux. No greenhouse gas, no heat flux in the atmosphere and no gradient.”
Just what heat flux is present at 3am Sahara Sahel, With that -10 c/km temperature lapse and the exact 7/5 insetropic exponent of density/pressure all the way to 11km a altitude? Why could never Maxewell, Boltzmann, Loschmidt not ever agree as to the why of no power available from the readily measurable atmospheric pressure temperature lapse.
(Every part of the troposphere remains self buoyant)
“Free convection can only happen if the gradient exceeds the adiabatic lapse rate and an isothermal atmosphere effectively prevents any significant vertical movement.”
Meteorologic terms “free convection” an “adiabatic lapse rate” remain undefined in the physical sciences! What do you mean by them? Can you show any part of Earth’s atmosphere that remains isothermal?
What does my claim of tropospheric self bouyancy have to do with any convection, except make the relocation in any direction need no power? Archimedes demonstrated that atmosphere exhibits ‘no weight’ in 271 BC.
“Without greenhouse gases, we must therefore expect only a very limited convection balancing the little downwards conductive flow through the contact layer.”
Why do you claim any convection or conduction at all? Why are the potential differences of lapse not always suppressed by the potential difference of gravitational compression?
phi says, September 18, 2016 at 6:55 PM:
In the final steady state, that is.
Ball4 says, September 18, 2016 at 7:15 PM:
Ball4 once again displays his utter ignorance. The water and the air comes back to the surface, Ball4. The excess energy originally brought up from the surface doesn’t …
Kristian says: September 18, 2016 at 10:41 PM
phi says, September 18, 2016 at 6:55 PM:
(“No greenhouse gas, no heat flux in the atmosphere and no gradient.”)
“In the final steady state, that is.”
You too Kristain? The gravitationally induced pressure, density, temperature lapse is the distinguishing feature of any planitary atmosphere with pressure above 20kPa. such lapse is a thermostatic feature, not one induced by convection. The compressive gravitational potential maintains both pressure and temperature gradients against the opposing potential of gas expansion and thermal conduction. This Earth’s atmosphere has no steady state. All is fluid dynamics induced by insolation and angular momentum.
Will,
“Can you show any part of Earths atmosphere that remains isothermal?”
One can observe such situations in winter high pressure areas or in the stratosphere.
“…except make the relocation in any direction need no power?”
Forced convection request work because it reduces the entropy (cooling the upper part and warming the lower part).
Will Janoschka says, September 19, 2016 at 12:20 AM:
That’s because every massive planetary atmosphere that we know of has heat constantly flowing into it, through it and out of it.
No. The atmospheric pressure and density gradients are gravitationally sustained physical phenomena. An atmospheric temperature gradient, however, isn’t.
“Ball4 once again displays his utter ignorance. The water and the air comes back to the surface, Ball4. The excess energy originally brought up from the surface doesn’t…”
Their energy balance cycles too Kristian, dumped in the atm., as even you show in your graphs, their up/down energy net is zero, no effect on global Tmedian – this is what steady state means. You will have to cite a study showing it rains in space dumping LH directly to 2.8K sink and CERES hits & neglects substantial wind turbulence for their energy being released into space and not in the observed atm. I haven’t seen one of those papers yet.
All the LH and SH energy is released in the system meaning that energy just moves itself around inside that system, no global balance is affected. That is why Dr. Spencer’s simple model works so well in the top post w/o LH and SH. Kristian has no different model.
Kristian says:
September 19, 2016 at 4:04 AM
Will Janoschka says, September 19, 2016 at 12:20 AM:
wj:(“The gravitationally induced pressure, density, temperature lapse is the distinguishing feature of any planitary atmosphere with pressure above 20kPa.”)
kristian:”Thats because every massive planetary atmosphere that we know of has heat constantly flowing into it, through it and out of it.”
Nice to have your opinion. Both EMR and convection can change the measured lapse, all three, but all three are sustained be gravitational compression with an columnar time constant of approximately 6 minutes.
wj:(“such lapse is a thermostatic feature, not one induced by convection.”)
kristian:”No. The atmospheric pressure and density gradients are gravitationally sustained physical phenomena. An atmospheric temperature gradient, however, isnt.”
Maxwell, Boltzmann, Lowschmidt, plus (Herapath and Waterston, the originators of the Kinetic Theory of gas) all agreed that all three, along with the isentropic exponent (chem, gamma) are expressed statically in Earth’s atmospheric profile. None had a good reason as to why pressure and temperature gradients did not work as expected. It would be interesting to have you carefully explain your disagreement.
phi says: September 19, 2016 at 3:09 AM
Will,(Can you show any part of Earths atmosphere that remains isothermal?)
“One can observe such situations in winter high pressure areas or in the stratosphere.”
There are isotherms (2D contours) but no 3D isothermal!
except make the relocation in any direction need no power?
“Forced convection request work because it reduces the entropy (cooling the upper part and warming the lower part).”
Any acceleration/deceleration of mass requires work. The mere relocation of atmospheric mass within the tropospheric ‘isopower’ requires no work. You seem to neglect the power storage in gas pressure. The total power storage (energy) divided by temperature remains constant with altitude in Earth’s troposphere.
Ball4 says, September 19, 2016 at 5:43 AM:
Q.E.D.
Evidently Kristian has no better model than the one Dr. Spencer used in the top post showing LH and SH energy recycles, stays in system with no effect on global surface Tmedian. Evaporation, updraft energy surface loss exactly balances the returned energy gain of downdraft, rain energy release as Dr. Spencer simply shows.
The radiation of IR active constituents, composition of the atmosphere effect on its optical depth can account for global surface Tmedian changes as confirmed by observations and measurements.
Ball4 says, September 20, 2016 at 5:54 AM:
And Ball4 continues to show off his utter cluelessness.
Spencer’s model in the top post specifically disincludes all NON-radiative energy transfer modes. How can this possibly have escaped you!? He very carefully states:
“(the model is radiative only, no convection, no conduction, so without any atmospheric absorp tion of radiation, the atmosphere cannot warm)”
But you could have a look at this:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
Energy transferred as heat (net transfer) from the surface to the atmosphere through conduction and evaporation/condensation clearly DOES NOT return to the surface. It escapes the surface, thus cooling it, and ends up in the atmosphere, thus warming it. It can only escape the atmosphere via LW radiation to space.
Here’s how the atmosphere is dynamically warmed
(-> 220 W/m^2):
Release of LH of vaporisation from the surface: 40%
SW radiation directly from the Sun: 34%
LW radiation from the surface: 15%
Conduction from the surface: 11%
And here’s how the atmosphere is dynamically cooled
(220 W/m^2 ->):
LW radiation to space: 100%
The transfer of heat (net energy) via conduction and evaporation/condensation ONLY cools the surface and ONLY warms the atmosphere.
The transfer of heat (net energy) via radiation BOTH warms AND cools the atmosphere, but it cools it MUCH more than it warms it. To make up for the large and exclusive warming from conduction and WV condensation.
Kristian, that Dr. Spencer left out evap. and convective energy did not escape me, it is the whole point that they balance up and down. LH and SH have no effect on global Tmedian for that reason as Dr. Spencer demonstrates in top post for which you have been unable to find any fault.
Ball4,
You should stop unnecessary comment and read a thermodynamics textbook. Dr. Spencer claims obviously not what you think. The surface temperature is determined by all involved heat flow in the system. What is this idolatry of radiative phenomena? Alone, they determine only the average emission temperature in space and nothing else.
phi, Dr. Spencer’s work in the top post is classic thermodynamic text book. Evidently phi can not fault his science.
Ball4,
“Dr. Spencers work in the top post is classic thermodynamic text book.”
No, this is a purely radiative model that gives erroneous results and Dr. Spencer is well aware of that. Read Manabe, Ramanathan or another and you will see that no one says that the surface temperature can be explained only by radiative fluxes. The big problem is elsewhere. The current theory poses an absurd hypothesis that divide the roles: convection alone would set the gradient and radiative phenomena would be confined to translate the thermal profile.
phi, it is your task to show where exactly does Manabe or Ramanathan find fault with the top post, your assertion carries no credibility. Cite page number, edition, pub. date, essential facts needed for verification.
You will not find these authors you name fault the top post. If you need verification of Dr. Spencer’s science from an actual atm. text book see Bohren 2006 p. 33. True, this analogue can not be pushed too far, however you have yet to point out a fault in top post.
Ball4,
Take some rest and learn thermodynamics.
Dr Spencer in the top post :
“If the model had dozens of atmospheric layers all interacting, it would produce much higher surface temperatures, and much lower temperatures in the upper atmosphere, producing a strongly super-adiabatic temperature profile (Manabe and Strickler, 1964). This is what causes atmospheric convection, which provides a net transport of heat from the surface to the middle and upper troposphere (not contained in this radiation-only model).”
phi, the science in the top post we are discussing is NOT multilayer, it is a single layer: “…meant to demonstrate the most basic components of the atmospheric “greenhouse effect”, which act to: 1) make the Earths surface warmer than it would otherwise be.”
It shows at the most basic level components LH and SH energy in/out of surface are balanced as shown in the link that Kristian last cited. If you want, add an arrow to top post up from surface for the 112 and another arrow down to surface for the 112 returning to surface. No effect on Tmedian.
Perhaps it is phi that should take some time to actually read M&S 1964 where fig. 4 shows pure radiative equilibrium surface T much higher than the simple midlatitude emissivity standard atm. of Dr. Spencer’s top post (290K).
Ball4,
You do not understand what writes Dr. Spencer, I thought it was in English?
Your delusions are quite symptomatic of the climate pseudo-science : zero logic, zero thermodynamics. All in the phlogiste faith.
Ball4 says, September 20, 2016 at 8:05 AM:
Yes. Sure. Folks, this is Ball4 flailing.
All you’re doing from this point on is digging a deeper hole for yourself, buddy. For your own sake, stop it!
So Kristian and phi, just what error do you find in the top post? You are both very quiet on this point.
The fact is there is no error. Dr. Spencer is correct and the result isn’t to your liking. Deal with it, his science is sound, classic text book atm. thermodynamics.
phi says: September 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM
“Ball4, You should stop unnecessary comment and read a thermodynamics textbook. Dr. Spencer claims obviously not what you think. The surface temperature is determined by all involved heat flow in the system. What is this idolatry of radiative phenomena? Alone, they determine only the average emission temperature in space and nothing else.”
I agree, but Ball4, aka Trick, cannot stop, like Norman cannot stop, both are SKS religious zealot trolls. They religiously promote some opposing thermal EM flux, that spontaneously transfers power in violation of 2LTD, only to continue the SCAM of CAGW! This religious claim of opposing thermal EM flux like that of Dr.Roy, has never been observed or measured, such claim must be unfalsifiable, as the split S-B equation arithmetically still works for the “fantasty net flux”, as measured. The potential for such flux remains as normalized field strength “radiance”, easily measured, but without any such opposing flux. What is worse, and perhaps criminal, in testimony to congress, is the failure to tell the truth, that the two stream conjecture, is well known to be unverifiable thus unphysical!
Norman, ” The only way the energy can leave via radiation is from the surface molecules.”
Planck 1914 p.6: “It is true that for the sake of brevity we frequently speak of the surface of a body as radiating energy to the surroundings, but this form of expression does not imply that the surface actually emits the rays. Strictly speaking, the surface of a body never emits rays, but rather it allows part of the rays coming from the interior to pass through.”
Ball4
Have you read this paper?
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF
It examines some of Planck’s claims. It seems Planck was a theorist not an experimentalist. Experiments were done to prove that the surface did absorb incoming thermal rays (Planck thought they transmitted through the surface). That is the thing about science, one can have an idea or theory about how things work but it does not make the theory true. Empirical evidence must always be the judge, not a person’s standing in the science community.
Not yet but I will. The abstract discusses Kirchhoff’s law not Planck law. I have looked into the carbon particle in the past. Planck’s et. al. experiments did not use that artifice experimentally only to resolve the singularity found theoretically that was not found experimentally.
Norman, this paper has some obvious issues to discuss. Worthy of a top post somewhere, probably there is one, if interested look around for it, I have no interest in this paper. The authors try to make the case a black body must reflect radiation in their eqn. (7), Max Planck did not make that mistake, his eqn. (1) their (4) is correct for a BB.
But there can never physically exist of anything anywhere close to your fantasy “blackbody”, such a profound refutation of any possible philosophy!
Ball4
Here is another source.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nx6N4dq7zJgC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=penetration+depth+of+infrared+on+most+solids&source=bl&ots=xqvJzVqvM_&sig=1Zc86KQYIzXM4Gc1tkJffJPuGxU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvjL62mpHPAhVn0oMKHYLaD0MQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=penetration%20depth%20of%20infrared%20on%20most%20solids&f=false
The claim is that most solid surfaces are not penetrated deeply by IR, less than 10^-4 m. You will have energy coming up from a few layers down and out the surface but most the action takes place at the surface layer.
The double << means much less than 10^-4 m
It is << than 0.1 mm
Norman, that work supports Planck statement, consider how many layers of molecules in the 10^-4 m. Sure, Planck’s work has been extended.
Kristian
You know what would help you alot in understanding physics is actual testing. I have done it and it, and it confirms my accepting multiple IR fluxes. Each source with its own IR emitted from its own surface (or as Ball4 points out, also a little below the physical surface for a few layers).
Buy, borrow or rent an IR measuring device. I have used one at work multiple times to check for leaking valves (valves shut but hot water still getting by). You point a red dot laser at a target and it gives you a temperature reading.
I point it at an object that is 385 F and another one at ambient 80 F. I could take a thermometer and get similar readings. Each surface you point the IR thermometer at gives a temperature equivalent to the surface you are pointing the device at. Individual fluxes that do not care what the surrounding surfaces are doing, they radiate based upon the surface temperature and the surrounding fluxes do not change this rate. What the other fluxes around will do is add energy to a cooler surface but the cooler surface will only radiate based upon its temperature regardless if there is a 300 F object near it.
If you took a ball and heat it to 80 C. Your IR device will give you this number. You go on the much colder dark side of the moon and heat the same ball to 80 C and your IR device will give you this number. Fluxes are independent. You need to test it out yourself and you will see that you have reached a wrong conclusion for many years. Let empirical evidence correct those flaws and grow from them. It will aid you much in the long run.
Norman seems like another SKS bot troll! The writing is all of magnificent fantasy of what may be elsewhere. Instead anywhere in this Earth’s physical are gremlins that ‘must eat your face off if you ever want to measure anything’. The only way around that is to enlist cute ‘girly gremlins’ that wink, and offer ‘wanttogosomewereand messarround’.
Will Janoschka
You come back and post your strange and unconnected thoughts. I think you are a real lunatic from the content of your posts. Disjointed gibberish that are more than difficult to follow and you make no coherent point.
Posts like these really make me question your sanity or do you live in Colorado?
YOUR strange and twisted thought process: “Instead anywhere in this Earths physical are gremlins that must eat your face off if you ever want to measure anything. The only way around that is to enlist cute girly gremlins that wink, and offer wanttogosomewereand messarround.”
That is how you reply to a simple request to get an IR thermometer and start pointing it at various objects at different temperatures?
I really fail to see how your post connects rationally to anything I have said. Maybe you can help decipher your strange and twisted rants and explain how your post has any connection to reality or to what I had requested Kristian try.
Whereas I think Kristian may have flawed thinking in his self-taught method, I think you don’t even have flawed scientific thinking you have warped delusional thought process.
I think if you reread your posts in a more lucid state you will wonder “What the heck is wrong with me, I need help!”
Norman says: September 16, 2016 at 4:57 AM
NOTHING
Who cares what Norman BOT spouts!
“That is how you reply to a simple request to get an IR thermometer and start pointing it at various objects at different temperatures?”
The kiddy bot has no idea of how a ‘radiometer’ may operate.
Please go buy a clue, any clue!
Will Janoschka
Are you a Schizophrenic? Your posts sound similar to the thought process of interviews with this type of mental disorder.
Will Jaonoschka,
Here is a clue:
“The design essentially consists of a lens to focus the infrared thermal radiation on to a detector, which converts the radiant power to an electrical signal that can be displayed in units of temperature after being compensated for ambient temperature.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_thermometer
What I do know is that these devices can accurately (the error is plus or minus 4 F) determine a surface temperature and it will be the same regardless of all the other surfaces around. It will only depend upon the surface temperature of the target you are aiming your IR gun at (and its emissivity). If someone cools the target and you reaim it will have less IR and give you a lower temperature.
If you are standing in front of a warmer surface that is facing the surface you want to measure, the IR from the warmer surface will not determine the IR coming off the target surface. Only its own temperature will. With one o these devices you can clearly see that each surface is radiating IR independent of the other surfaces.
Norman says: September 15, 2016 at 7:19 PM
‘Kristian, You know what would help you alot in understanding physics is actual testing. I have done it and it, and it confirms my accepting multiple IR fluxes. Each source with its own IR emitted from its own surface (or as Ball4 points out, also a little below the physical surface for a few layers).’
Norman Bot SkS troll! It is painfully obvious that you or none of your bot controllers have ever done any physical testing/measuring whatsoever. Where and when have you ever done such? Who still alive of empiricists would ever admit that such as this Norman idiot was ever close to any measurement.
Kristian
No doubt you have read the steel ball around a heated interior ball thought experiment (which probably would not be to hard to do as a real one…similar to what Roy has done…use a light source).
You have an interior ball heated by a constant incoming stream of energy of 240 joules/sec (the surface area of the inner ball is one square meter so at equilibrium with space it would radiate at 240 W/m^2 and if black-body the surface temperature would be a steady 255 K (-18.15 C).
If you completely surround the interior heated ball with a steel sphere that is close to the original ball so that its surface area is only slightly larger than 1 square meter and let the process go on what happens?
The interior ball will send out continuously 240 joules to the exterior sphere. The outer sphere will begin to warm. It will keep warming until it emits close to 240 W/m^2 from its outside surface.
But it has two surfaces and for the outside surface to be able to emit 240 Watt/m^2 the inner surface must also emit this much which is directed all back to the inner heated sphere. Now the inner sphere is receiving its steady 240 joules/second plus it is absorbing 240 joules/sec from the interior surface of the outer sphere. The only way the outer sphere can have two energy streams of 240 W/m^2 is to be receiving 480 Watt/second. That means the heated surface will raise to a temperature where it will be emitting 480 Watts/m^2. It will be able to do this because it is receiving 240 from external source and 240 from interior surface of exterior sphere.
So the new equilibrium temperature will be 303 K (29.85 C) for the surface of the heated ball.
I could try this experiment and document the results but Roy has done more than one and the like of your mind does not accept them. Only if you do them yourself will you come to understand science. Empirical rules the roost, hypothetical can guide but will never answer the question.
I encourage you to try a simplified test with minimal cost to you.
Norman says: September 15, 2016 at 7:35 PM
Norman NEWEST SKS Bot Troll!
“I encourage you to try a simplified test with minimal cost to you.”
The Bot has nothing remotely physical. All is pink unicorn fantasy. Now political/religious dogma for control ‘(Bots think)’ over stinky
serfs, peons, all lesser!
The all lesser are not likely to be violently thrown into the volcano. The lesser are selling, seats, pretzels, beer, to watch just what detritus is pitched into where, so Gods grumble less!!
O. M. G. And if you place multiple “shells” you could melt steel or run a steam turbine from a 240 Watt light bulb.
Anything is possible in this make-believe world where the laws of thermodynamics are ignored.
Please by all means continue the calculation for 100 shells to see what temperature we can obtain. If you do the multiple shell experiment, make sure you are miles away from any population center.
SkepticGoneWild
YOU: “Anything is possible in this make-believe world where the laws of thermodynamics are ignored.”
Just exactly which laws of thermodynamics are being ignored?
You are astonished a 240 Watt bulb could melt steel, well 100 watts of power will raise the temperature of a tungsten filament to 2550 C which is well above the melting point of steel. So obviously 100 watts has the ability to raise the temperature to quite high levels.
You are the one who lacks any understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. I suppose you are one of those who thinks only the input energy somehow determines the ultimate temperature of an object even though real evidence (tungsten filament) will show how far from any real understanding you have.
From Article on light bulbs: “The filament’s temperature is very high, generally over 2000 degrees Celsius, or generally
over 3600 degrees Fahrenheit. In a “standard” 75 or 100 watt 120 volt bulb, the filament
temperature is roughly 2550 degrees Celsius, or roughly 4600 degrees Fahrenheit. At high
temperatures like this, the thermal radiation from the filament includes a significant amount
of visible light.”
Source:
http://www.iar.unicamp.br/lab/luz/ld/L%E2mpadas/The%20Great%20Internet%20Light%20Bulb%20Book.pdf
Norm:
See the attached reference for a worked-out problem of concentric spheres with radiation. This is the exact same situation as your example:
https://www.scribd.com/document/15665685/Concentric-Spheres-with-Radiation
Did the inner sphere raise in temperature?
Be my guest if you want to continue your fantasy.
SketpticGoneWild says, September 17, 2016 at 3:08 AM:
Did you read about the boundary conditions, SGW? “Inside sphere temperature fixed at 1000 K.”
If you keep the INPUT constant while reducing the OUTPUT, you will see a rise in temperature.
Kristian says: September 17, 2016 at 4:40 AM
SketpticGoneWild says, September 17, 2016 at 3:08 AM:
(“Did the inner sphere raise in temperature?”
“Did you read about the boundary conditions, SGW? Inside sphere temperature fixed at 1000 K. If you keep the INPUT constant while reducing the OUTPUT, you will see a rise in temperature.”
Kristian,
You have it correct then mess it up!
SGW claims a entirely different situation from Norma. Please note that back to sgw. Norman like, ball4, are but SKS auto-bot trolls, notable by never clearly defining any situation. To be ignored for that reason alone. To sgw question ‘raise temperature’. Answer No, temperature is defined to be 1000K, no change is possible by definition. OTOH Scribd is only selling ‘product’ nothing about knowledge.
The temperature must rise only if the power is kept constant!
Even Normans light bulb will not achieve constant power nor constant temperature under a variable surround.
BTW phi seems real and interesting. Joel Shore and Tim Folkerts are both college ‘lecturers’ that have been brainwashed by the fantasty sub-microscopic quantum nonsense. Tim is starting to learn a but. Anyone that references the Feynman lectures has not attended them.
Will Janoschka
I asked this upthread and seems like it needs to be asked again.
Will Janoschka
Are you a Schizophrenic? Your posts sound similar to the thought process of interviews with this type of mental disorder
There is no way to clearly define anything with your incoherent mixed up thought process.
I can ask but if you respond to what you think is a bot (that is how your Schizoid mind works if you think something is real or true then it must be, I guess since you have concluded I am an SKS bot it is a factual reality and nothing will change that in your thought process). Do you know anything at all about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and what it states?
I guess you do not. You really need some help but I don’t think you will seek it.
Dr. Spencer,
Is it permissible on your blog, to ignore trolling SKS auto-bots like Norman and ball4?
If you place your lamp inside a reflective vacuum enclosure without sufficient thermal conductivity to disapate the applied power the tungsten filament must evaporate to shout off that applied power. The more vacuum shells about a fixed power source the higher the temperature of the source. This is not from some opposing flux from a lower temperature shell, but just that each shell must rethermalize and each unidirectional flux to the next lower temperature must be separately done or calculated. This however is not at all how Earth’s atmosphere physically operates as many other heat transfers are in operation.
Dr. Roy,
Thank you for your new wonderful ‘free for all’ blog! Much new discussion, fighting, destroying, stomping, so much needed for any possible learning of this physical is! Some day perhaps we can enjoy fishing in the same cove. Then discuss why they always do that!
ONly 39 now 38 more opinions till 1000. If you cannot support your opinion why even have one?
All most no effect of having ‘folk’ at “home” in the ‘fall’. HA HA. so much for your forlorn fantasy ‘science’ Dr. Roy. Science and engineering, has potential for much! So far such mostly, accrues for illicit profit, and contempt for most clever earthlings. Nither earthlings nor roaches will ever forget just what some academic ‘Skyintests’ have tried to pull!!
Ha, only six away from thousand! Dr. Roy how ’bouts hunnrt tousand?
We can start with ‘polite discourse’ about CAGW. With TV and internet now, we can build a Colosseum where the Lion AlGoreistas can politely debate (discourse) with the skeptic ‘slaves’, ha ha! This must soon get to personal hateful insults in every direction. An opportunity for selling many more tickets. You have my bid for the local Beer and Pretzel concession. -will-
Will Janoschka says: September 16, 2016 at 5:01 AM
“All most no effect of having folk at home in the fall. HA HA. so much for your forlorn fantasy science Dr. Roy. Science and engineering, has potential for much! So far such mostly, accrues for illicit profit, and contempt for most clever earthlings. Nither earthlings nor roaches will ever forget just what some academic Skyintests have tried to pull!!”
All must be exposed as the Climate Clown AlGoreasta horrific SCAM.
Dr. Roy you willingly participated. Guilty or not. You will be remembered. Children will piss on your grave!
Kristian
Why/how is atmospheric temperature and/or mass affecting the radiation differently inside the atmospheric window compared to the rest of the band?
http://virakkraft.com/Modtran-surf.pdf
lgl says: September 18, 2016 at 1:32 PM
“Why/how is atmospheric temperature and/or mass affecting the radiation differently inside the atmospheric window compared to the rest of the band?”
That region from 780-1250 wavenumbers, 8-13 microns that shows the surface, is only present on 18% of the globe. The rest is covered by clouds that radiate to space at their own temperature. the ‘window’ changes radiative exitance to space very little!
This model should be discarded for the following reasons:
1. You cannot dilute the sun’s power by a factor of 4. That does not represent reality in any way, shape, or form.
2. The atmosphere is not a black body.
3. The atmosphere is not a power source:
a. It is painfully obvious that 333 W/m2 of back radiation is not the equivalent of 333 W/m2 of solar insolation. (refer to Kiehl/Trenberth Energy Balance diagram) Solar insolation of 333 w/m2 actually warms surfaces, can be concentrated by a magnifying glass to burn objects. 333 W/m2 of back radiation does NOTHING. It does not warm surfaces during the day in the shade. It cannot be concentrated with a magnifying glass to burn objects. At night backradiation cannot warm surfaces. Backradiation cannot warm the oceans at night, and can only penetrate the ocean surface a few micrometers. When was the last time you’ve seen solar panels working at night?
The above issues alone should be reason enough to reject the model presented above.
It is a radiative only model from a meteorologists! Meteorologists have no training in electromagnetic anything, so all comes from Wikipedia. By arrangement with the Meteorologists Guild, meteorologists may only present what is simple, straightforward, and wrong!!
Will Janoschka
You might have the monopoly of arrogance on this post. You downgrade PhD meteorologists without having a clue what they have to study and you yourself have studied nothing and your posts are moronic scrambled words that have little meaning and are very valueless.
You are so conceited you think the entire body of science is wrong but you alone possess all knowledge and truth even though by your posts you know less than nothing. At least if you knew nothing one could maybe feel a little for you but you think you know so much but really are just a goofus posting for no real reason. You contribute nothing but nonsense and you really know nothing at all about any physics, a phony pretender.
SkepticGoneWild – Your comment really is wild.
1. The 4 is from simple HS geometry apparently you haven’t mastered that subject since the sun’s rays come in parallel, the rays go out radially.
2.Of course the atm. is a not a black body since no thing is a black body. However black body radiation has been found to exist and easily made by simple experiment.
3. Of course the atm. is not a power source it uses up no fuel as does the sun.
It is painfully obvious the sun’s rays come from a small area overhead during the day and the 333 comes from a hemisphere of directions day and night. Dr. Spencer’s lab and in situ experiments showed LW can raise the temperature of an object over an object not in view of the same LW. You apparently haven’t paid enough attention.
“It is painfully obvious the suns rays come from a small area overhead during the day and the 333 comes from a hemisphere of directions day and night. Dr. Spencers lab and in situ experiments showed LW can raise the temperature of an object over an object not in view of the same LW. ”
Not all sun’s energy comes from a “small area overhead”.
One could say all the direct sunlight comes from a “small area overhead”.
You say 333 [average] comes from a hemisphere of direction day and night.
Not sure why this could matter to a square meter of surface- if it were true. But it seems unlikely were it true that 333 would be a constant and uniform rate- or must be stronger or weaker at different times and different places.
Also it seems unlikely that the 333 would uniform over the entire area of the hemisphere.
What are rules that describe the non uniformity of 333?
Rules? Some global 333 non-uniformity “rules” (gbaikie term) would consist of measured temporally and spatially avg.d all-sky “glow” emission toward the surface, a diffuse LW bath.
“What are rules that describe the non uniformity of 333?”
Most use the absolute precision of mathematical solid geometry!
It should be noted that squirrels, after the very last mulberry, and most all Climate Clowns ignore this precision. The squirrels claim “arms, legs, and any other appendage must go in every direction for some purchase! Perhaps some here can state the excuse that the Climate Clowns Claim!
We continue to see illustrations here of how scientific ignorance knows no bounds and how the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) is alive and well!
“1. You cannot dilute the suns power by a factor of 4. That does not represent reality in any way, shape, or form.”
Good God…THe factor if 4 is simply a geometric factor necessary to convert the sun’s irradiance on a flat surface to the average power falling a m^2 of the Earth’s actually spherical surface. Are you aware of the fact that the sun is not shining over all 4*pi^R^2 of the Earth’s surface at any one time and that even over the half of the surface that it is shining, it is hitting at an angle (except at the one spot where the sun is directly above).
“2. The atmosphere is not a black body.”
And, it is not treated by one in this model unless you sit the emissivity equal to 1. And, at any rate, this is a “toy model” to qualitatively illustrate the effect, not a precise quantitative model. But, those line-by-line radiative transfer codes are available and used to do the quantitative job and they are very successful, e.g., at replicating what instruments on satellites actually see.
“3. The atmosphere is not a power source.”
Every object that has at temperature emits thermal radiation and is in that sense a power source.
“It does not warm surfaces during the day in the shade… At night backradiation cannot warm surfaces.”
And you have the evidence of this how exactly? You have done the calculations of what the temperature is for these surfaces in the shade and what it would be without such radiation.
You clearly haven’t even been a student of the weather enough to observe the difference in how much the temperature drops at night when there is good radiational cooling vs. less good radiational cooling (e.g., due to cloudiness).
“It cannot be concentrated with a magnifying glass to burn objects.”
There is a significant difference between diffuse and collimated sources in regards to their ability to be focussed by a magnifying glass. That does not mean that one is not energy and the other is.
“and can only penetrate the ocean surface a few micrometers.”
That is because the ocean is an extremely efficient absorber of IR. Only in such a politicized environment would the argument that a material is such a good absorber that it can’t absorb something be taken as a serious argument by so many!
Joel Shore says: September 18, 2016 at 7:30 PM
sgw(1. You cannot dilute the suns power by a factor of 4. That does not represent reality in any way, shape, or form.)
“Good GodTHe factor if 4 is simply a geometric factor necessary to convert the suns irradiance on a flat surface to the average power falling a m^2 of the Earths actually spherical surface. Are you aware of the fact that the sun is not shining over all 4*pi^R^2 of the Earths surface at any one time and that even over the half of the surface that it is shining, it is hitting at an angle (except at the one spot where the sun is directly above).”
To apply such geometrical nonsense can only be a deliberate intent for disinformation and SCAM The entire volume and temperatu7re of Earth’s atmosphere is much larger in the direction of insolation and remains so near permanently! Any renormalization over greater area must so grossly distort any radiative effects that any analysis must be intentionally false.
sgw:(2. The atmosphere is not a black body.)
“And, it is not treated by one in this model unless you sit the emissivity equal to 1.”
That is precicely what Dr. Spencer did with this model!
“And, at any rate, this is a toy model to qualitatively illustrate the effect, not a precise quantitative model.”
Where does Dr. Spencer say what you claim?
“But, those line-by-line radiative transfer codes are available and used to do the quantitative job and they are very successful, e.g., at replicating what instruments on satellites actually see.”
The models have never been published anywhere only the HiTran data base is readily available. The NASA Goddard and NOAA models have never ever been able to predict what any satellite may measure.
sgw:(3. The atmosphere is not a power source.)
“Every object that has at temperature emits thermal radiation and is in that sense a power source.”
Not you or anyone else has ever been able to demonstrate ‘any’ thermal EMR flux (physical W/m^2) being emitted in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency. This is but another Joel Shore deliberate SCAM!!
sgw(It does not warm surfaces during the day in the shade At night backradiation cannot warm surfaces.)
“And you have the evidence of this how exactly? You have done the calculations of what the temperature is for these surfaces in the shade and what it would be without such radiation.”
sgw may not have measurements, but I do! Your calculations are always based unobserved fantasy.
“You clearly havent even been a student of the weather enough to observe the difference in how much the temperature drops at night when there is good radiational cooling vs. less good radiational cooling (e.g., due to cloudiness).”
Both nightime surface radiative exitance and surface convection is measured to be lower with cloud obscuration of space. This is never any indication whatsoever of any atmospheric convective or radiative power flux in the direction of the surface.
sgw:(It cannot be concentrated with a magnifying glass to burn objects.)
“There is a significant difference between diffuse and collimated sources in regards to their ability to be focused by a magnifying glass.” Joel Shore clearly demonstrates that has not bothered to look up some meaning for thr words ‘diffuse’ or ‘collimated’. All blab and no science.
“That does not mean that one is not energy and the other is.”
Neither can be energy EMR flux can only be a power with no temperature as EMR has no mass.
sgw:(and can only penetrate the ocean surface a few micrometers.)
“That is because the ocean is an extremely efficient absorber of IR.”
Only at incidences near normal!
Joel states:
“That is because the ocean is an extremely efficient absorber of IR. Only in such a politicized environment would the argument that a material is such a good absorber that it cant absorb something be taken as a serious argument by so many!”
OMG Joel. And you accuse ME of scientific ignorance? The ocean IS an efficient absorber of SOLAR IR. SOLAR. It is almost a completely useless absorber of DLWR (backradiation), which falls within far infrared region of the EM spectrum (8 to 14 micrometers).
I see that Ball4 has treaded much the same ground. He interpretted the term “power source” differently than I did…and, yes, if by power source one means an object that is converting some other form of energy into thermal energy (as the sun is), then the atmosphere is not a power source. Rather, it is just an absorber and re-emitter of energy.
And, of course, as we have discussed before, the net heat flow is from the warmer Earth to the cooler atmosphere…But, in the steady state, the fact that the atmosphere returns some of the terrestrial radiation back to the Earth rather than allowing all of it to escape to space means that the surface temperature is higher than it would otherwise be, just like having insulation in your attic allows your furnace to keep your house warmer than it otherwise would be able to on a cold winter day (or, alternatively, as regulated by your thermostat, to keep it at the same comfortable temperature but with less power input because it doesn’t have to run as constantly as it would otherwise)
Blah Blah Blah! Joel Shore academic nonsense!
Joel,
On the other hand, my house is insulated to keep it cooler than it would be otherwise. I have no need for a heater, and have no fireplace or furnace.
Air conditioning, certainly. I keep the heat from the Sun out as much as possible – keeps the cost down.
GHE enthusiasts bang on as though insulators make things warmer. The more insulation you place around liquid nitrogen or dry ice, the cooler it stays.
Insulation merely impedes the transmission of heat – from warmer to cooler, in line with the laws of thermodynamics. It still can’t be stopped.
Cheers.
Joel Shore,
“…just like having insulation in your attic allows your furnace to keep your house warmer than it otherwise would be able to on a cold winter day…”
Yes, and it does not allow to introduce ludicrous notions as back conduction or insulation forcing.
Sure and nobody ever did, except you, in your delusional beliefs
You again !
Should I make you a drawing?
There is no conceptual difference between back conduction and back radiation, nor between radiative forcing and insulation forcing.
Still infuriated ?
“A drawing?”, come on, no thanks !
Already done, and no need to twist yourself in a pretzel again
phi write incorrectly “There is no conceptual difference between back conduction and back radiation, nor between radiative forcing and insulation forcing.”
Radiation, conduction ARE different concepts phi, governed by different laws. phi really is the only writer here suggesting Planck’s law should apply to conduction. Not so phi, Fourier’s Law is the correct concept for conduction, insulation so forth. Planck would not have had much of a career if he could have simply used your back conduction for explaining his instrument readings.
Ball4,
There is no conceptual difference, no difference from the standpoint of thermodynamics. That’s why thermodynamics textbooks do not give expressions calculating indepently two oppsed energy flows for radiative transfers. Qnet, only Qnet, for radiative transfers as for conduction.
Ahhh…Q”net” must have TWO gross components to be net of as shown in texts and in top post up and down arrows phi which Planck found by experiment as the only possible explanation for his data which is why he could not use Fourier law one component to explain his readings. Your back conduction concept would not explain the readings phi, Fourier conduction law was not useful, Planck had to develop his own law showing the two components to explain his data.
Ball4,
But of course conduction and radiative transfer are two different physical phenomena governed by different laws, here is really not the issue, conduction is also a net flow. You make trench warfare. It’s the hour to acknowledge your erring ways. Goodbye.
phi correctly writes: “conduction is also a net flow.”
Well done phi, nice progress, “also” means you have now learned conductive transfer is “also” two independent gross flows which superpose to get Q”net” as Fourier, Newton established for conduction, in addition, similar to Planck’s work for radiation.
Fourier, Newton for surface, stagnant air q = Hc*(Tsfc-Tair)
The sign of q will point in the direction of KE flow by 2LOT. Similar to 1st law for radiative transfer with Planck, S-B.
Note: This is valid at the interface only, Fourier law not generally valid further out in a fluid as boundary layer reduces fluid motion to v=0 at a stagnant boundary.
First, that’s actually merely wrong in these specific cases with phase transitions since the temperature of liquid nitrogen, for instance, stays constant at 77 K whatever it’s insulation might ever be. With less insulation it just boils off faster.
Second, it obviously never occurred to anti-GHE zealots like Mike Flynn that if insulation between cold object A and “warm object B keeps A cooler” it generally and simultaneously also “keeps B warmer.”. Obviously both things are necessarily concomitant and one can’t have one without the other and so violate the first principle of thermodynamics.
Now if object A (outer space) is very big (large heat capacity and so constant temperature) as compared to object B (earth surface) this implies that B (earth surface) ends up with a definitely higher temperature with than without insulation.(provided solar heating of earth surface is at work)
On the other hand if it is object B ( Mike’s house surroundings) that is large ( large heat capacity and so constant temperature) as compared to A (Mike’s house ) this implies that A (Mike’s house) ends up with a lower temperature with than without insulation. (provided air-conditioning is at work)
alphagruis,
You agree that more insulation around liquid nitrogen doesn’t make it warmer. I’m happy with that. More insulation around the Earth follows the same physics. You can nitrogen well below its boiling point if you so desire. Just like water, or iron.
Keeping B warmer doesn’t raise its temperature, unless you employ magic to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Time for you to talk about internal heat sources and houses, and change the subject.
The Moon gets hotter than the Earth, for the same exposure time. No insulation to speak of. The hottest places on Earth are those with the least amount of the most important GHG in the atmosphere – the arid tropical deserts.
My house is small in relation to the Sun, that’s why I use insulation. The Sun gets no hotter as a result, as far as I know. Neither does the rest of the Earth.
No heating due to surrounding an object with CO2. Not even a falsiable hypothesis proposing such a an apparently ridiculous thing!
Good luck with CO2 heating. Maybe you can use it to,warm your house, and make a fortune! I wish you every success.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn writes: “No heating due to surrounding an object with CO2. Not even a falsiable hypothesis proposing such a an apparently ridiculous thing!”
Incorrect Mike, as usual for you, surface warming by the sun due to surrounding an object with added CO2 ppm is shown in the top post, 255K warmed up to 290K.
There is even a falsifiable hypothesis given in top post proposing such an apparently ridiculous thing! Falsify it Mike. Here is your opportunity. Seize it. Use experiment not assertion and win the day!
Ball4,
Please state your hypothesis and the nature of the experiment which is capable of falsifying your hypothesis.
Otherwise, you can assert the existence of unicorns, and simply ask non believers to prove they don’t exist.
Just like asserting the planet heating properties of CO2. If you can’t devise an experiment capable of falsifying your hypothesis, you’re being supremely unscientific. You demonstrate that your hypothesis is useless, as it cannot be experimentally demonstrated to be correct or incorrect.
Correlation and wishful thinking don’t count. Model results are not experimental data.
Your proposed experiment to demonstrate the heating ability of CO2 is eagerly anticipated by the scientific community. Only joking, I know you haven’t got one.
Cheers.
Mike, your requested falsifiable hypothesis has already been pointed to in the top post. Prof. Tyndall’s experiments have already proven to you the planet surface heating properties of CO2. You evidently have no way to falsify the science.
The more Mike Flynn fails to do so, the better the experimental science case becomes. Keep up the good work, Mike, here and elsewhere.
Ball4,
You allude to Tyndall. By all means, please provide specific quotes from Tyndall’s paper that support your contention.
For example, Prof. Tyndall 1861 p. 29 “…as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid (CO2) diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”
Meaning, in the context of the top post, the emissivity of the current global atm. is shown from observations as 0.8. As the IR active constituents of the atm. (that Tyndall tested for their extinction coefficient) change ppm, the atm,. emissivity changes. You can play with changing atm. emissivity and find the resultant effect on temperature in Dr. Spencer’s simple spreadsheet.
More generally, the ppm of the IR active gases is only one driver of at least 9+ on UAH global Tmedian anomaly.
Mike Flynn
Your request is for falsifiable hypothesis. Rather than focus on just one GHG (carbon dioxide) it would be better to just test the hypothesis of GHE period. Does the atmosphere emit IR that will act to allow the surface to reach a higher equilibrium surface temperature than it would without such gases. I know you don’t understand averages or like them. You see the day get hot and the night cool so you can’t see a sine wave equilibrium in this data. It is too bad you limit your thinking so drastically but there is little to be done for that flaw in your conscious reasoning abilities.
Anyway that is a side point. The major point is falsifying the GHE.
The claim is that GHG’s cannot warm or that they do not even radiate IR towards the surface.
You cannot falsify the GHE with ambient conditions or with a surface radiating away more energy than it is receiving.
To test the hypothesis you would need to start at a much colder temperature than the atmospheric IR.
In this case:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e1b73355e25.png
Night DWIR is between 375 and 380 W/m^2 so it should work to set up the experiment.
http://www.optotherm.com/emiss-table.htm
This lists ice with emissivity of 0.95-1.00.
So an ice block in a thick Styrofoam container (to minimize conduction with warmer ambient environment…Possibly stacked on top of an upside-down Styrofoam container to minimize heat flow from the warmer surface) say at 0 C. The ice block will be emitting around 309 W/m^2 at this temperature so it will be much lower than the atmospheric measured DWIR.
If you have enough thermometers around your test you should be able to determine where the energy is coming from that warms the ice.
If GHE is real or works the ice should melt and reach an equilibrium temperature of around 14.5 C. If GHE is the culprit for the ice temperature to raise and melt, the ice surface should be the target that is warming the fastest and slowly via conduction the rest of the ice should then melt. If the temperature is raising from another location or does not reach the expected 14 C (not sure how long this will take but it could be calculated based upon the mass of ice and using the conduction formulas to see how quickly heat energy will move through the ice to warm the block).
Anyway, you requested a falsifiable experiment and this one should do it. Glad to help. If anyone but yourself performs such experiments you will not believe the results. Roy Spencer has already done many but it does not change the hard-core antiscience crowd that likes to post on his blog.
Ball4,
Two points.
You might care to read Tyndall’s works completely. Tyndall established the insulating properties of gases, and provided a graphic explaining why this is so.
He points out that the LACK of GHGs in the atmosphere results in far colder nighttime temperatures, and higher daytime temperatures. He gives examples around the world, and verified his suppositions experimentally.
As he says, the atmosphere affects the temperatures we experience. Just not the way you imagine.
The other point is you still have no hypothesis at all. Just bald assertion that CO2 etc. can heat a planet by surrounding it. Assertion, without even a hypothesis.
Cheers.
Norman,
You’re just being silly.
You have no hypothesis that could be disproved by experiment.
Every experimenter from Tyndall onwards has discovered that gases possess opacity to light. Light covers all wavelengths. All matter interacts with light, to a greater or lesser degree.
Your foolish attempt to demonstrate the heating properties of GHGs is just that, foolish.
No hypothesis at all. You can’t even clearly state what the GHE is supposed to be, how it is supposed to work, how to verify whether your experimental measurement support your hypothesis.
Tyndall measured the insulating properties of various gases, and published his results. He repeated and refined his experiments, with different wavelengths, and discovered many interesting things.
Keep believing you can raise the temperature of an object by wrapping it with GHGs. I know it sounds impossible, and that’s because it is. Sorry, but that’s fact.
Cheers.
Mike, those are your asserted words, not the words written by Prof. Tyndall.
As pointed out 3 times now, the falsifiable hypothesis is in top post, Mike Flynn once again, for a 3rd time strengthens that hypothesis by failing to falsify it.
No assertions Mike, the experiments described in Prof. Tyndall’s own written words published 1861 and replicated since then demonstrate on the surface CO2 etc. can heat a planet by surrounding it.
Ball4 stated:
“No assertions Mike, the experiments described in Prof. Tyndalls own written words published 1861 and replicated since then demonstrate on the surface CO2 etc. can heat a planet by surrounding it.”
All Tyndall did was take some absortivity measurements of various gases. He then make some conjectures. He never PROVED anything. He provided no theoretical calculations. It was not a scientific experiment that remotely meets the tenets of the scientific method.
Proper experiment IS the scientific method. Prof. Tyndall’s data speaks for itself, no assertions, showing the difference in extinction coefficient for simple molecules H2, N2 up through more complex IR active gases H2O, CO2 et. al. Later work confirmed his results and added the reasons, can be found in your favorite modern beginning atm. thermodynamics text or any thermo. text chapter on the physics of atm. constituent gas molecules.
Ball4,
I am not interested in your pseudoscience.
You need to read up on the scientific method. It’s more than taking a few measurements.
Mike Flynn says:
September 20, 2016 at 1:36 AM
“Ball4, Please state your hypothesis and the nature of the experiment which is capable of falsifying your hypothesis.”
Trick cannot, nor can Dr. Roy! Both have a perhaps an innocent illusion, Dr. Roy, does know, or should have known, better!
“Just like asserting the planet heating properties of CO2. If you cant devise an experiment capable of falsifying your hypothesis, youre being supremely unscientific. You demonstrate that your hypothesis is useless, as it cannot be experimentally demonstrated to be correct or incorrect.”
So true, but without such SCAM, where would the CAGW Climate Clowns be now?
Mike Flynn
Not sure what you are actually trying to say with this point:
“Every experimenter from Tyndall onwards has discovered that gases possess opacity to light. Light covers all wavelengths. All matter interacts with light, to a greater or lesser degree.”
In reality the atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light.
Where you referring to this material?
https://books.google.com/books?id=Xm1YAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=Tyndall+found+all+gases+have+opacity+to+light?&source=bl&ots=2ipSh349LI&sig=RnScMpl84GN0OUTxN4cUDvB39i4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTjqetoJ_PAhUIHD4KHUquBTYQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=Tyndall%20found%20all%20gases%20have%20opacity%20to%20light%3F&f=false
These experiments were performed with “dark light” infrared. He also found out heating a gas caused it to emit “dark light”.
Mike Flynn
YOUR POINT: “Your foolish attempt to demonstrate the heating properties of GHGs is just that, foolish.
No hypothesis at all. You cant even clearly state what the GHE is supposed to be, how it is supposed to work, how to verify whether your experimental measurement support your hypothesis.”
I think I did clearly state it and even gave predictions on what value the GHE should warm the water to if you know the DWIR (I used one case as an example, with an actual experiment you would have to probably get an instrument that measures it).
To make it more clear for you since if you even read my post (which is highly doubtful):
What GHE is supposed to be: Energy from the Sun warms the Earth’s surface. This energy enters the atmosphere via radiation, convection, latent heat, conduction. Some of the radiation given off by the surface is absorbed by GHG in atmosphere warming the overall atmosphere. This warmed air with GHG present now will radiate IR in all directions. Some reaching the surface.
GHE is supposed to work by reducing the NET IR radiation leaving the surface. Without GHG present the much more radiation will leave straight to space. With GHG present some of this radiation will be absorbed, warm the air and cause it to radiate some of the energy back to the surface.
That is the hypothesis. If the test is run at night, no solar energy will be absorbed by the ice block so it eliminates this as a source of energy to warm the ice block. With thick Styrofoam insulation between the ice block and the surrounding material it will greatly limit energy flow by this path. With the top open the ice will cool the air immediately above it to the ice ambient temp so it will not be heating the ice by conduction (thermometers located around the ice can verify this). The open top will be in line to receive DWIR from a warmer atmosphere (warmer than the ice block). Since only the Top of the Styrofoam container is open and radiant energy travels in straight lines, the only radiant energy it will receive is from the atmosphere above.
If the ice melts and reaches a temperature that is in equilibrium with the measured value of DWIR that would indeed be a proof that DWIR exists. It can indeed warm colder objects than itself, it is an actual source of energy that can have real effect on objects.
I do not know why you fail to grasp my explanation. I do not think it was that difficult of an explanation.
Mike Flynn
YOU Make an absurd claim for unknown reasons and seem to attribute it to my understanding of GHE:
YOU: “Keep believing you can raise the temperature of an object by wrapping it with GHGs. I know it sounds impossible, and thats because it is. Sorry, but thats fact.”
Why do you think I believe this? Why do you think anyone who posts physics like Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts or Ball4 believe this?
Not one has said anything even close to your conceptualization of what you perceive them to be saying.
If you wrap or put a radiation barrier around something that is receiving a constant input of energy, the case with the radiation barrier will reach a higher equilibrium temperature than a heated object without any restriction on radiation loss.
Are you stubborn for a reason? If at least you understood what was being said and had some legitimate objection then you could still be considered reasonable. When you make up stuff no one claims and you have zero to negative ability to understand or comprehend what is actually being said, you lose any value to an intelligent discussion.
SkepticGoneWild says:
September 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM
Ball4,
You allude to Tyndall. By all means, please provide specific quotes from Tyndalls paper that support your contention.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/weekend-unthreaded-134/#comment-1839007
Norman says, September 20, 2016 at 7:17 PM:
See, this is what you don’t get, Norman. Making the atmosphere radiatively active will not warm it. It will cool it. (See below.)
No, the atmosphere will acquire a temperature high above that of space with or without possessing any radiative properties, but this temperature cannot thermodynamically affect the surface temperature before you make the atmosphere radiatively active. And that’s it. Before this happens, it would be – thermodynamically, and in the steady state – as if the atmosphere weren’t there. The surface couldn’t thermally “see” it. And so in that initial ‘equilibrated’ situation, the effective thermal/thermodynamical surroundings of the solar-heated surface would simply still be space. At 2.7 K.
The radiative properties of the atmosphere are simply a “tool” thermodynamically connecting the solar-heated planetary surface and the warm massive atmosphere above it, and the warm massive atmosphere with cold space outside, basically allowing heat to dynamically flow into, through and out of the bulk atmosphere even in the steady state.
But once this connection is made and atmospheric circulation has become operative and stable, it is the atmosphere’s MASSIVE properties that actually force the surface T_avg up, while the radiation cools the atmosphere to space. These properties include the ability to warm, the air column bulk pressure, density and viscosity, and the total weight on the surface. It doesn’t matter HOW radiatively active the atmosphere is, how large is the atmospheric portion/percentage of radiatively active constituents. Only that it IS radiatively active.
No, it will NOT warm the air overall. It will cool the air overall. The atmosphere being warm doesn’t have anything to do with the atmosphere being radiatively active. It only has to do with the atmosphere possessing (thermal) MASS, the ability to hold internal kinetic energy.
Energy transferred as heat (net transfer) from the surface to the atmosphere through conduction and evaporation/condensation, and drawn up into the atmosphere by convection, can only escape the atmosphere via LW radiation to space.
Which means, the transfer of heat (net energy) via conduction and evaporation/condensation ONLY warms the atmosphere.
On the other hand, the transfer of heat (net energy) via radiation BOTH warms AND cools the atmosphere, but it cools it much MORE than it warms it. To make up for the large and exclusive warming from conduction and WV condensation.
Heres how the atmosphere is dynamically warmed
(-> 220 W/m^2):
Release of LH of vaporisation from the surface: 40%
SW radiation directly from the Sun: 34%
LW radiation from the surface: 15%
Conduction from the surface: 11%
And heres how the atmosphere is dynamically cooled
(220 W/m^2 ->):
LW radiation to space: 100%
Kristian says: September 21, 2016 at 12:02 AM
“On the other hand, the transfer of heat (net energy) via radiation BOTH warms AND cools the atmosphere, but it cools it much MORE than it warms it. To make up for the large and exclusive warming from conduction and WV condensation.”
Indeed! If you really examine the amount of current airborne water Column water (2.4-2.7)cm, 14cm in parts of the tropic ocean, all cannot be WV. Surface evaporation especially tree WV expiration in the northern hemisphere is huge! OTOH direct insolation evaporating the already airborne water condensate (clouds) is, or can be even greater! All can certainly be dispatched to very low radiance space, in every direction except to the Sun, and Jupiter!
“Here is how the atmosphere is dynamically warmed
(-> 220 W/m^2):
Release of LH of vaporisation from the surface: 40%
SW radiation directly from the Sun: 34%
LW radiation from the surface: 15%
Conduction from the surface: 11%”
My possible numbers are:
Here is how the atmosphere is dynamically “heated” both LH and SH
(-> 190 W/m^2):
Convective migration of LH of vaporization from the surface: 40%
SW radiation airborne H20 evaporation directly from the Sun: 50%
LW radiation from the surface: 5%
Conduction from the surface: 5%
And here is how the atmosphere is dynamically cooled
(190 W/m^2 ->):
LW atmospheric exitance, mostly LH powering EMR exitance,constant temperature: 95%
Direct surface EMR exitance to space 5%.
The gravitationally induced atmospheric thermal lapse is significantly reduced by that wonderful atmospheric water. This cools the Earth to livable! Why do we not hire some to try to understand all this, and throw self appointed academic Climate Clowns into the volcano.
Kristian,
“But once this connection is made and atmospheric circulation has become operative and stable, it is the atmospheres MASSIVE properties that actually force the surface T_avg up…”
Why go out of thermodynamics at this point? Temperature continues to depend on all heat flows including radiative flux. Convection imposes a local limit on the gradient and affect average temperatures according to the strength of its overall activity. But no more than radiative flux, it alone can explain the surface temperature.
phi says: September 21, 2016 at 3:12 AM
Kristian, (But once this connection is made and atmospheric circulation has become operative and stable, it is the atmospheres MASSIVE properties that actually force the surface T_avg up)
“Why go out of thermodynamics at this point? Temperature continues to depend on all heat flows including radiative flux. Convection imposes a local limit on the gradient and affect average temperatures according to the strength of its overall activity. But no more than radiative flux, it alone can explain the surface temperature.”
Indeed phi! Radiative exitance alone through this atmosphere would have a atmospheric thermal lapse of 17C/km. The surface would boil all of the oceans. It is the vast amount of airborne water in all 5 phases, that limits Earth’s surface temperatures to ‘livable’.
phi says, September 21, 2016 at 3:12 AM:
I don’t. What makes you think I do? I fear you might have misread me somehow …
Of course it does.
And I never said nor implied that it does.
Kristian,
I may have misread, but I do not understand this passage:
“It doesnt matter HOW radiatively active the atmosphere is, how large is the atmospheric portion/percentage of radiatively active constituents. Only that it IS radiatively active.”
phi says, September 21, 2016 at 9:41 AM:
phi, could you please explain exactly what it is that you object to here?
Because it simply means what it says … I need to know specifically what in or about the quoted statement above it is that you don’t understand before I can even try to give you an answer.
Kristian,
What I understand of your words is that from some quantity of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would be globally and thermally connected to the surface and that increasing concentrations would make no effect on temperatures. Is this what you think?
phi says, September 21, 2016 at 12:29 PM:
Sort of, yes. And I’ve been referring to observational data now for quite some time, both from our own planet and from various other celestial bodies within our solar system, as rather obvious empirical support for such a perspective.
What is your specific objection, and why?
Kristian,
I have no objection if you present these characters as arising from observation. I think that convection in the atmosphere is far too complex and poorly understood to be able to deduce such a behavior from theory.
phi writes: “that increasing concentrations would make no effect on temperatures.”
That’s correct phi, above some amount of GHG, given the sun very close to a constant, means as the ppm of GHGs go up there are less and less to no photons left that haven’t already been intercepted in the window. Many GHG molecules thus remain unmarried above a certain ppm.
As the ppm of GHGs goes down, more and more photons go through un-intercepted until the surface would be doing the bulk of the radiating to space. Meaning Kristian’s 220 from the atmosphere to space would decrease below 220 while the 20 window amount from the surface would increase all the while keeping 240 total OLR in balance with the sun at the same albedo.
Keeping B warmer doesnt raise its temperature, unless you employ magic to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Time for you to talk about internal heat sources and houses, and change the subject.”
Mike,
Are you aware that the Earth is heated by the sun?
Joel Shore says: September 19, 2016 at 7:44 PM
(“Keeping B warmer doesn’t raise its temperature, unless you employ magic to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Time for you to talk about internal heat sources and houses, and change the subject.”
“Mike,Are you aware that the Earth is heated by the sun?”
Please demonstrate that the Earth’s surface temperature is “not” determined by transfer of angular momentum from/to all solar system bodies of noticeable mass!
For those who can’t accept each heated surface has its own unique IR flux. Please refer back to the previous thread with Roy’s actual experiment.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2nd-law-exp-fig-02.jpg
If you look at this image the FLIR camera gives a reading of 24.1 F for the ice. The camera itself is warmer than this so how is this cold ice moving upstream of the hotter flux within the camera and get absorbed giving an intensity of current that is converted to a reading of 24.1 F?
If there were only a one-way heat flux from hot to cold, how does this warm camera determine the temperature of the colder ice?
If Roy put a thermometer in the bath the temperature of the camera and thermometer would be close. I have read the lower quality IR cameras will be within 4 F.
That is not the point. The point is if the ice is not sending a lesser flux to a warmer camera how can the camera determine its temperature, what is it picking up that is converted to this number? I think the camera temperature is accounted for in the software and the lower intensity of IR that hits the sensor array is then converted to a digital number.
Norman says: September 20, 2016 at 7:31 PM
“For those who cant accept each heated surface has its own unique IR flux. Please refer back to the previous thread with Roys actual experiment.”
Norman troll, will you ever stop with your drivel? Every mass with any power input must have a thermal exit flux (dissipation) that times its own exit area ‘must’ equal such power input, or the temperature ‘must’ adjust in a direction to achieve such. Any mass in a N2 gas above 35kPa ‘must have most all ‘dissipation’ via conduction/convection unless the measurable ‘mass radiance’ minus the measurable ‘surround radiance’ Will “allow such one way EMR exitance to be greater! No experimental (proof) can ever demonstrate any thermal EMR flux in a direction of ‘higher radiance’ (temperature). None of this need affect surface temperature of any part of planet Earth.
Will Janoschka
Until you can prove different it would appear the IR camera that Roy uses does prove you incorrect. The cold ice is emitting a thermal EMR flux in the directiion of higher temperature (the camera itself) that is detected within the camera array and gives out a reading that would be similar to an actual thermometer placed in the ice.
Norman says: September 21, 2016 at 5:33 AM
“Will Janoschka Until you can prove different it would appear the IR camera that Roy uses does prove you incorrect.”
Not at all, I claimed “radiance”, easily measured. It is you that claims flux in a direction of higher radiance.
“The cold ice is emitting a thermal EMR flux in the directiion of higher temperature (the camera itself) that is detected within the camera array and gives out a reading that would be similar to an actual thermometer placed in the ice.”
Again you claim wrong way flux with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Norman and the rest,
Nowhere is a disprovable GHE hypothesis stated. Anywhere.
Unfortunately, placing a barrier of anything around the Earth reduces the amount of energy reaching it from the Sun. NASA states that about 35% of solar radiation does not even reach the surface.
And of course, at night, the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface is even less – 0 % or thereabouts. The surface cools, of course.
No GHE. No heating due to GHGs. Surrounding the Earth with an insulator, and then it will be hotter because less solar radiation is allowed to reach the surface is simply bizarre.
As a matter of fact, as Tyndall showed by observation, the less atmosphere between the Sun and the surface, the higher the ground temperature. Read it for yourself, rather than take my word for it, if you wish.
This why the hottest temperatures on Earth are found in arid tropical deserts. Less GHG (water vapour) between the Sun and the surface. Check it for yourself if you wish. And, of course, nighttime temperatures drop quickly, due to faster energy loss.
People such as Mann, Schmidt and Hansen are plainly delusional. Saying you cannot state a disprovable GHE hypothesis clearly because it can only be understood by true believers is not science.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. As long as the core is several thousand K hotter than its environment, it will continue to do so.
Believe as you wish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn writes incorrectly: “Nowhere is a disprovable GHE hypothesis stated. Anywhere.”
There is the disprovable hypothesis stated right in the top post Mike. 4th time you are unable to falsify, disprove that hypothesis making it even more solid. Keep trying Mike, you make the hypothesis ever more sound for your effort.
GHE and heating due to GHGs proven by replicable experimental data in 1861, since improved, and all Mike Flynn has been able to do since is assert his opinion, unsupported by any test. At all. Sure the earth surface was once molten, now it is frozen solid & liquid water. Climate changes.
Deserts are regions of descending air stripped of its moisture Mike, no wonder they are dry. Lotsa’ sunshine, few clouds makes for a hot, bad day at Black Rock. Mike has been out in the sun way too long.
Mike Flynn
I think actual data does not support your hypothesis.
Your claim: “This why the hottest temperatures on Earth are found in arid tropical deserts. Less GHG (water vapour) between the Sun and the surface. Check it for yourself if you wish. And, of course, nighttime temperatures drop quickly, due to faster energy loss.”
Using some points Kristian used in CERES for the Sahara (dry tropical desert).
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
In the Spacial Resolution field for Sahara I used the values:
-15 West
36 East
20 North
14 South
For the Tropical Atlantic I used values:
-30 West
-10 East
5 North
-5 South
You can click on the Map Icon to get a visual image of the global position of the area of concern.
I clicked on the “Visualize Data” Tab
Moved over to June for both locations clicked the image and in the new window clicked on the “Area Mean Time Series” tab to get some real values. They fluctuate in the graphic but you can get some mean values.
From this look I had a mean value of 260 W/m^2 for Sahara All-Sky
and a 275 value for Clear Sky.
Over the equatorial Atlantic I got values of 240 W/m^2 All-Sky but a much higher 290 W/m^2 value for Clear-Sky conditions.
I do not think real world data supports your conclusion that the desert is hotter than the jungle because less solar energy is absorbed with less GHG’s present.
Mike Flynn
At my place of work we use a FLIR to measure sulfuric acid stored in an outdoor plastic material tank. The heat of the Sun warms the plastic surface without sulfuric behind it faster than the acid portion and you can see a clear line with the FLIR then use a tape measure to determine remaining amount.
I took this camera and did some temperature checks. The concrete in the Sun was reading 103 F. The black plastic material acting as secondary containment for the acid tank was reading 131 F. There was some water in the secondary containment from earlier rains. It read around 95 F.
The reason the desert is so much hotter is because evaporating water removes a lot of heat from solar heating keeping the temperature much cooler.
I have already done a long analysis of Kristian’s debate that GHG’s cool because the Tropical Congo is cooler than the much hotter Sahara.
I was able to calculate that the Congo would lose 114 W/m^2 from evaporation while the dry desert was losing almost no energy to evaporation. It turns out that GHG do not cool the surface. Water can in the form of clouds and by evaporation. Those forms of water are not GHG. Water vapor will lead to a warmer surface with an energy input.
Mike Flynn
If you don’t want to play around with CERES web material I will post other data that really does not help your hypothesis about GHG’s somehow absorbing so much Solar energy. They absorb some but it is accounted for by the scientists who study the atmopshere.
I really see no evidence of a wetter area having more solar energy absorbed by GHG’s.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e1f82cd787e.png
Dry Desert, peak not quite at 1000 W/m^2 located at 36.62 North.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e1f8fac2c9c.png
Wet Mississippi location about 150 miles further south than desert location (34.13 N…approx 69 miles for every degree latitude). It should have a bit higher solar energy reaching the surface as it is more directly South and it peaks around 1000 W/m^2.
You can check other dates to verify this. I see zero evidence that GHG in the atmosphere are responsible for keeping the surface cooler by absorbing more incoming solar energy.
Mike Flynn
I am also curious as to why the experiment I described with ice in a Styrofoam insulating container does not meet the criteria for falsification of GHE?
If the ice does not warm than it would prove GHE is non-existent.
If the ice warms it indicates back=radiation can warm objects that are cooler than it.
Since your understanding of atmospheric physics is really off (I proved that in two posts above). The GHE works because most solar energy is indeed transparent to atmosphere.
http://mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov/images/earth_radiation_budget_18.jpg
Also if you would consider Ball4’s arguments. They are based upon the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The 77 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere does not just disappear. It goes into warming the atmosphere so that it will emit a higher IR flux. Just as Ball4 points out the energy of latent heat does not disappear but goes to warm the atmosphere and in turn some of that energy is then returned to the surface as part of the DWIR that keeps the Earth’s surface warmer than it would be without such a flux as long as you have a continuous source of incoming energy.
Mike Flynn
All the global budgets are not just figments of climate scientists imaginations. They are based upon real values that are then smeared over the entire Earth’s surface.
You can object to this but it is mainly for trending purposes.
If you want to know if a teaching method is effective and you have millions of students you really cannot tell much by looking a a couple students test scores or other performance based abilities.
You can see trends by taking large averages of students and then monitoring changes in the larger average body.
This type of study works well in many applications when numbers are large. Casinos use this large number statistics to stay in business.
Insurance companies hire actuaries to look at statistical trends to set competitive policy prices.
You really cannot tell much about Global temperatures by measuring one location. You try and monitor as much as you can and then average all the data and create anomaly graphs to monitor changes.
Norman
The GHG H2O is not liquid. It’s a gas, just like CO2.
As to ice, it melts if it the environment rises above the freezing temperature. It remains frozen if below.
The coldest place in the world, in Antarctica, also has almost no H20 in the atmosphere. A cold, arid, desert. Same physics.
Stick with the gullible and delusional if it makes you feel better. The universe unfolds regardless. The Earth continues its inexorable cooling.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: September 20, 2016 at 10:21 PM
Norman
Why keep feeding the trolls?
Mike Flynn says: September 20, 2016 at 10:21 PM
“The GHG H2O is not liquid. Its a gas, just like CO2.”
OK
“As to ice, it melts if it the environment rises above the freezing temperature. It remains frozen if below. The coldest place in the world, in Antarctica, also has almost no H20 in the atmosphere. A cold, arid, desert. Same physics.”
The atmosphere above Antarctica has relative humidity so close to zero to be seldom measurable, so no liquid water either! Lots and lots of snow some days! Gots to keep da glacier going!!
Mike Flynn
You point out: “The GHG H2O is not liquid. Its a gas, just like CO2.”
Yes indeed same thing I had already stated.
ME: “It turns out that GHG do not cool the surface. Water can in the form of clouds and by evaporation. Those forms of water are not GHG. Water vapor will lead to a warmer surface with an energy input.”
YOU: “As to ice, it melts if it the environment rises above the freezing temperature. It remains frozen if below.”
That statement really is so vague as to be meaningless. In the experiment I described above with the ice and GHE, I clearly stated you put the ice in a thick Styrofoam container so that it is isolated considerably from the environment (kind of like a freezer is isolated from the environment which can be many degrees above freezing).
I am not sure you understand the experiment or what it is trying to prove. You try to isolate as much as the environment from your ice surface as you can only exposing the ice surface to the DWIR which is a product of the GHG’s present in the atmosphere and relates to the GHE.
Norman,
Surrounding ice with any amount of the finest insulation known to man will not stop the ice melting, if the surrounding environment is above freezing. I’m sorry if this appears unclear to you.
Maybe you are deficient in your understanding of physics.
Your poorly thought out “experiment” is completely pointless. You generally need to out least propose a falsifiable hypothesis to be considered worthy of attention. Pointing out that ice melts in an environment above the melting point of ice is characteristic of the GHE adherents.
Climatology is Cargo Cult Scientism, not science.
Water vapour is a gas. It does not lead to a warmer surface. Arid deserts are called arid, because they are water deficient. Look at pictures on the Internet if you don’t believe me. Less GHG, higher temperatures in sunlight. Fact.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It seems you only can think of one possible cause and will exclude all others. In your post you make the declarative statement.
YOU: “Water vapour is a gas. It does not lead to a warmer surface. Arid deserts are called arid, because they are water deficient. Look at pictures on the Internet if you dont believe me. Less GHG, higher temperatures in sunlight. Fact.”
You are neglecting the fact that water removes large amounts of energy when it evaporates. You can only conclude that less GHG are what cause the desert to be hotter in sunlight. You do not consider that in areas with lots of water vapor there is also lots of liquid water that loses lots of energy when evaporating.
Also you need to consider the reality that in deserts there still is a significant GHE going on.
Here are a couple examples for you if you ever get bored.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e31fc378e01.png
Mississippi site, the wet area. Local conditions September 10, 2016 when DWIR graph was compiled.
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KUOX/2016/9/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Batesville&req_state=MS&req_statename=Mississippi&reqdb.zip=38606&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=99999
Dry desert conditions:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e320ae59fed.png
Also local weather data:
https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KDRA/2016/9/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Desert+Rock&req_state=NV&req_statename=Nevada&reqdb.zip=89023&reqdb.magic=3&reqdb.wmo=99999
Mike Flynn
Again if you do get bored and want to click on the links I provided you will be able to see the Mississippi Day-time DWIR is around 440 W/m^2 (fluctuates). You can also see the Desert Rock, Nevada location Day-time DWIR is around 380 W/m^2.
Even with the drier conditions the GHE in Desert Rock is only 14% less than the Mississippi wetter location. It is not like it is a huge difference as maybe you might think it is within your own belief system.
If you play with CERES
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
You will find the DWIR in the Sahara averages areound 375 W/m^2 and over the tropical Atlantic it averages around 405 W/m^2 so the GHE is not reduced so greatly that the other mechanism water has, evaporative cooling, overwhelms the GHE in wet areas with lots of evaporation.
Hope all this helps! I can only hope you get bored and take a look.
Cheers also to you.
Mike Flynn
I am not sure you understand the concept behind the experiment I have proposed even though I did explain it. I know my posts are too long for you to read. Sorry about that but I have included the scope of the test in my posts.
Maybe use this type of cooler: “One brand of plastic cooler mentioned numerous times in reviews, in blogs, and in articles, is the Coleman Xtreme Cooler. The Xtreme can keep ice frozen for up to five days in 90 degree F heat.”
Source of Quote:
http://www.desertusa.com/dusablog/how-to-keep-ice-cold-in-the-desert.html
Okay with a block of ice it would last 5 days in 90 F heat. This should be more than enough time to falsify the GHE. As I explained you have thermometers in various locations so you can determine where heat is coming from.
When you open the cooler to the desert night the GHE, Downwelling IR should then warm the ice surface exposed to it. Keep a thermometer positioned above the ice surface and on the actual surface, then you can see if the surface is actually warming faster than the air above it. If you were able to record this, ice surface warming faster than air (melting and getting warmer while the air above stayed colder as it is only warmed by conduction which is slow in air) you would then be able to confirm or reject the GHE which makes it a falsifiable theory. There are better tests this is one that is actually doable with normal materials.
Norman says: September 21, 2016 at 6:34 PM
“When you open the cooler to the desert night the GHE, Downwelling IR should then warm the ice surface exposed to it. Keep a thermometer positioned above the ice surface and on the actual surface, then you can see if the surface is actually warming faster than the air above it. If you were able to record this, ice surface warming faster than air (melting and getting warmer while the air above stayed colder as it is only warmed by conduction which is slow in air) you would then be able to confirm or reject the GHE which makes it a falsifiable theory. There are better tests this is one that is actually doable with normal materials.”
Even a 4 year old could do much better! The surface of the block of ice must remain at 0C or less. Besides much convective power transfer from the ice powered be heat of fusion, the ice also emits via thermal EMR to space, atmosphere and clouds, all at a lower temperature than the ice.
At night there is no insolation so none of your fake downwelling IR flux. The ‘radiance’ of the sky however will always limit the thermal EMR exit flux. The ‘ice’ will melt somewhat more slowly with overcast sky! You have again failed to present any falsifiable hypothesis in regard to downwelling anything, or any fake GHE!
Will Janoschka
I cannot comprehend your garbled scrambled post. I really am not sure of what you are saying or if you are saying anything.
I can’t respond to what makes no sense.
What is this: YOU: “Besides much convective power transfer from the ice powered be heat of fusion,” ??? Say what? What are you trying to relate with that?
Where do you come up with this false notion: YOU: ” the ice also emits via thermal EMR to space, atmosphere and clouds, all at a lower temperature than the ice.”
Why exactly is the atmosphere at a lower temperature than the ice? IR is emitted by all parts of the air and the air near the ground is much warmer than the ice during a summer night. So what are you trying to claim and more importantly why?
This one: YOU: “At night there is no insolation so none of your fake downwelling IR flux. The radiance of the sky however will always limit the thermal EMR exit flux. The ice will melt somewhat more slowly with overcast sky! You have again failed to present any falsifiable hypothesis in regard to downwelling anything, or any fake GHE!”
How did I fail to present a falsifiable hypothesis?
Do you know what falsifiable means? It means you can set up an experiment to disprove the notion of GHE. The ice block test does set up a falsifiable test of DWIR. If there is no DWIR to warm be absorbed and warm the ice surface, it will not melt any faster than a control Ice container that is not exposed to the night sky with the DWIR. That makes it a falsifiable experiment and the GHE a falsifiable hypothesis.
Norman says: September 21, 2016 at 9:25 PM
“Will Janoschka I cannot comprehend your garbled scrambled post. I really am not sure of what you are saying or if you are saying anything. I cant respond to what makes no sense.”
OK You can not co0mprehend! That is exactly what I say in all my posts about you and Ball4. I will let some other attend to y-our education of just what a falsifiable hypothesis may or may not be!
Will Janoschka
Maybe this will help you.
“What is Falsifiability?
In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.”
https://explorable.com/falsifiability
The experiment I describe with ice and thermometers does allow the GHE theory to be disproved. The contention is that DWIR from the atmosphere cannot heat or may not even exist. My experiment set the surface temperature of the ice at a lower temperature than the emitting atmosphere. Desert Rock, Nevada in summer was the choice.
The cooler is claimed to be able to keep ice solid for five days so you can use this claim as the control.
The falsifiability of this test will reveal if DWIR exists and can heat a surface. That is the point of it.
Does that make sense to you?
Norman says: September 22, 2016 at 4:48 AM
Norman says:
September 22, 2016 at 4:48 AM
“The experiment I describe with ice and thermometers does allow the GHE theory to be disproved.”
What is the GHE hypothesis and how can that be falsified?
Please include in the hypothesis the hypothesis that “exists thermal EMR flux in a direction of higher radiance, how can that be falsified?
“The contention is that DWIR from the atmosphere cannot heat or may not even exist”
that is not a GHE hypothisis!
“My experiment set the surface temperature of the ice at a lower temperature than the emitting atmosphere.”
Thermal power can always spontaneously transfer to a lower temperature potential via conduction, convection the open ice surface would melt even in your basement. No experiment whatsoever No EMR at all is needed to melt the ice.
Will Janoschka
YOU: “Thermal power can always spontaneously transfer to a lower temperature potential via conduction, convection the open ice surface would melt even in your basement. No experiment whatsoever No EMR at all is needed to melt the ice.”
A basement at 60 F still has a large amount of IR flux directed at the ice. The goal of the test is to minimize conduction. Convection will not be a problem since the air over the ice is colder and heavier than the air above. The goal of the test is to see where the energy is coming from. If you have a thermometer in the air above the ice surface and it is warmer than the surface you may conclude the air is warming the ice, if you extend the sides of your ice container high enough to trap cold air then this factor can be reduced.
The goal of the experiment is to verify that DWIR exists and it is absorbed by a surface and it can increase the energy of the surface and melt the ice. The DWIR is the key element of the GHE. If no DWIR exists then the theory does not exist. It is the DWIR that gets absorbed by the Earth’s surface and greatly reduces the net IR the surface is losing (note: not emitting…the surface continues to emit the same amount as it is only based upon the surface temperature). The NET IR lost by the surface is reduced considerably.
On the global budgets the NET energy loss changes from 398.2 W/m^2 with no DWIR to a mere 57.9 W/m^2 with an active DWIR. With the same input energy the one surface losing less energy will be warmer than the one losing more energy. It is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
That is basically the gist of GHE. DWIR which comes from a warmed atmosphere, and as Ball4 points out, all the energy fluxes into the atmosphere warm it to produce the DWIR which reduces surface NET loss of IR. Latent heat warms the atmosphere when the moisture condenses, convection moves energy upward, surface radiation is absorbed by GHG that in turn warm the atmosphere, IR from the Sun is absorbed by the GHG in atmosphere and that warms it. All these sources of energy then are responsible for the DWIR.
Norman,
Calculating the surface temperature is a thermodynamic problem and it is resolved by determining heat flux. DWIR are not heat flux, so they are absent of the issue. Textbooks only give the flux resulting from the IR radiation field and no two opposit energy flows. A thermodynamic calculation is always done in this way for two reasons:
1. This avoids the possible omission of the application of the second principle which does not allow the separation of the two energy flows.
2. The value of energy flows is often unknown or senseless and is anyway useless.
The concept of radiative forcing, for example, is the result of the omission of the second principle.
You can still have fun with DWIR but it’s useless and misleading.
phi, see the IR in your DWLWIR?
The IR stands for the photons each having energy h*f in the infra-red bands. Incident on the surface the photons are annihilated and their conserved energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of the L&O constituent molecules. That phi misses this is inexcusable in this field. 1LOT governs it and the 2LOT gives the kinetic energy flow its direction.
phi WILL find this discussed in ALL the basic introductory thermo. text books upon looking. After that course it is assumed that participants in this field already know these facts found from hard work and proven by experiment.
The IR energy is easily and routinely measured by radiometer as Kristian pointed out for you. Dr. Spencer measured the night time IR energy deposited on the surface by thermometer last summer. The DWLWIR amounts are well known, measured 24/7.
“The goal of the experiment is to verify that DWIR exists and it is absorbed by a surface and it can increase the energy of the surface and melt the ice. The DWIR is the key element of the GHE. If no DWIR exists then the theory does not exist. It is the DWIR that gets absorbed by the Earths surface and greatly reduces the net IR the surface is losing (note: not emittingthe surface continues to emit the same amount as it is only based upon the surface temperature). The NET IR lost by the surface is reduced considerably. ”
Hah! “The goal of the experiment is to verify”. Where is the scientific goal of the experiment is to Falsify some premise, never, verify some nonsense whatever?
Will Janoschka
Since you involve me in yet another one of your mindless and really pointless posts I feel I have the right to defend my positions.
YOUR RANT from way up: “phi says: September 20, 2016 at 9:22 AM
Ball4, You should stop unnecessary comment and read a thermodynamics textbook. Dr. Spencer claims obviously not what you think. The surface temperature is determined by all involved heat flow in the system. What is this idolatry of radiative phenomena? Alone, they determine only the average emission temperature in space and nothing else.
I agree, but Ball4, aka Trick, cannot stop, like Norman cannot stop, both are SKS religious zealot trolls. They religiously promote some opposing thermal EM flux, that spontaneously transfers power in violation of 2LTD, only to continue the SCAM of CAGW! This religious claim of opposing thermal EM flux like that of Dr.Roy, has never been observed or measured, such claim must be unfalsifiable, as the split S-B equation arithmetically still works for the fantasty net flux, as measured. The potential for such flux remains as normalized field strength radiance, easily measured, but without any such opposing flux. What is worse, and perhaps criminal, in testimony to congress, is the failure to tell the truth, that the two stream conjecture, is well known to be unverifiable thus unphysical!”
First I am not an SKS religious zealot troll. This conclusion only exists in your paranoid Schizoid mental state.
Second: The back flux is measureable (just because in your deluded thought process you think it is not, does not verify your faulty conclusions). So we have a measureable IR flux (instrument pointed toward Earth’s surface, hard to understand how radiation from above is supposed to curve around and get read) going upward UPIR. They also measure an IR flux when they point the instrument upward which is known as the DWIR.
It is not only measureable but rational and logical at the same time. Your unfounded unproven assertions are not based upon reason, logic or measured values. They come to you in dreams so must be true.
Molecules in objects vibrate and move and jiggle about. These vibrations will emit IR in the electromagnetic environment of molecules. Alone and isolated each surface emits IR based upon its temperature and emissivity. Suddenly you believe if another radiating surface is added the molecules of one surface stop emitting and only a one way flux now exists. Really stupid physics, poor logic, not rational. And it goes against empirically measured values. Go back to your prophet Joe Postma and let those who are rational debater science issues.
Norman says, September 21, 2016 at 10:34 AM:
Only – for the 564th time – it ISN’T MEASURED, Norman. As in ‘physically detected’. Only the net lw flux, the radiant heat, is ever physically detected. The conceptually/mathematically surmised atmospheric downward component of the actually measured net lw flux is ONLY EVER CALCULATED from two specific inputs: 1) the net lw flux value, and 2) the temperature of the instrument sensor. If you don’t have both of these inputs, you cannot ‘find’ the DWLWIR. You are in no position of ‘knowing’ what it is. Hence, it is a mathematically DERIVED quantity.
You, Norman, seem to be in utter DENIAL of this simple fact. It’s not like it’s in any way a secret.
Kristian writes: “If you dont have both of these inputs, you cannot find the DWLWIR.”
We do have both the inputs so we CAN find the DWLWIR and the OLR and any other LW,SW flux. Just like temperature is mathematically derived quantity. A thermometer and a radiometer are very useful calibrated precision instruments in the routine study of atmospheric science.
Actually Dr. Spencer even detected the night time added DWLWIR from passing cirrus clouds with a thermometer last summer. This is routine science Kristian.
NORMAN: “The back flux is measureable”
KRISTIAN: “Only the net lw flux, the radiant heat, is ever physically detected.”
The truth is somewhere between these two.
Many IR meters are *designed* to only measure net flux (or more specifically, the temperature of the detecting elements caused by the net flux). This includes many IR thermometers and IR cameras. This also includes the pyrgeometers used to determine the UWLWIR from the ground and DWLWIR from the atmosphere. So Kristian is right that in *practice*, only the net flux is detected.
But this does not mean that only net flux CAN be detected, nor that only NET flux is physically significant. If the two fluxes “cancelled” each other, then all sorts of predictions based on the idea of a “photon gas” would be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas Photons exist. Two-way fluxes exist. It is just rarely worth the extra effort to measure anything other than the net flux.
(In much the same way that is is easy and useful to measure winds speed -> the net flux of air molecules. No one bothers to measure the speed distributions of the individual air molecules heading left vs heading right, but in principle it could (and has been) be accomplished. )
Tim Folkerts says: September 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM
“But this does not mean that only net flux CAN be detected, nor that only NET flux is physically significant. If the two fluxes cancelled each other, then all sorts of predictions based on the idea of a photon gas would be wrong.”
There is no cancellation of opposing flux. There exists only the measurable flux as limited by the opposing field strength (not a flux), as per Maxwell’s equations. All of your predictions are based on the configurations of electromagnetic field strength, never on any physical flux, nor on any photon gas. Tim you seem to refuse to accept the definition of ‘flux’ and refuse the concepts of a field.
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas Photons exist. Two-way fluxes exist. It is just rarely worth the extra effort to measure anything other than the net flux.”
Timmy uses Wikipedia as a reference but has absolutely no evidence of thermal EM flux in a direction of higher ‘radiance’ at any frequency. If such opposing flux were physically manifest such would have been published long ago.
“(In much the same way that is is easy and useful to measure winds speed -> the net flux of air molecules. No one bothers to measure the speed distributions of the individual air molecules heading left vs heading right, but in principle it could (and has been) be accomplished. )”
They do not measure, as such statistical noise, is meaningless as is most all of your ‘statistical mechanics’. Such are sometimes useful concepts, but seldom have physical existence.
In your microscopic ‘statistical’ even ‘thermal radiance’ has RMS variance proportional to kT/t, so when temperatures are equal there can still be noisy exchanges that are so small as to be eliminated in any concept of flux or physical power transfer. Please demonstrate your claim of thermal EM flux proportional only to T^4 in any physical situation without a zero temperature surround. Equal value connected resistors at different temperatures can and do demonstrate the electrical propagation of sensible heat via electrical noise, but ‘only’ in the direction of lower temperature. When temperatures equalize any potential for such power transfer ceases to exist. Motion of physical air molecules is way way different than the relativistic, with no rest mass, and so far has not been used as the fake basis of the CAGW scam
I don’t generally respond to Will, and statements like this illustrate exactly why.
Timmy uses Wikipedia as a reference but has absolutely no evidence of thermal EM flux in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency. If such opposing flux were physically manifest such would have been published long ago.
1) His most effective debate technique is insults (and we all know how valid insults are for settling scientific debate).
2) He misconstrues others’ posts. (The irony here is that I was using wikipedia just as a background source for those not familiar with the concept of photons gases, but Will actually DOES go on to quote wikipedia as a reference!)
3) He has no idea what has actually been published, yet acts as if he is the ultimate authority for all of physics.
4) He insists on others providing evidence, yet never provides any himself. His expertise is unquestionable, even when it disagrees with textbooks and professors everywhere.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for that assessment of Will Janoschka. I feel the same way. He posts things with no supporting evidence, he has scrambled incoherent thought processes from time to time.
He thinks all physics is wrong except the material he has chosen to believe is correct. He does not know that Textbook data had been acquired by many tests in the past that he could find if he spent some time in a Library.
But from time to time he does bring up interesting and thought provoking ideas. I do no have the depth of knowledge of thermodynamics that you enjoy but I do like to learn new things (old but still like learning). His posts do get me researching on the points he brings up. Most are garbage but to be safe I want to make sure there is not a diamond hiding in the junk pile.
Tim Folkerts says: September 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM
“I dont generally respond to Will, and statements like this illustrate exactly why.
Timmy uses Wikipedia as a reference but has absolutely no evidence of thermal EM flux in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency. If such opposing flux were physically manifest such would have been published long ago.”
I claim no no expertise whatsoever, I only punch holes in fantasy like that of thermal EMR in a direction of higher radiance. I do have 45 years of trying to measure thermal EMR including being part of folk verifying the HiTran database in situ, from surface to 60,000 ft. I still have sufficient friends that if any had ever claimed to have physically measured thermal EMR flux in a direction of higher radiance I would have been on that like stink on s**t!
“4) He insists on others providing evidence, yet never provides any himself. His expertise is unquestionable, even when it disagrees with textbooks and professors everywhere.”
I have only my numbers from measurement. I feel no need to reference any other especially any that claim to be academic skyintest, professor, or textbook writer. May I die before accepting any such malevolent title. Where is any physically measured thermal EMR ‘flux’ in a direction of higher radiance?
Tim Folkerts says: September 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM
“If the two fluxes cancelled each other, then all sorts of predictions based on the idea of a photon gas would be wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas ”
Looking at your wiki blurb:
“BoseEinstein model of a photon gas
In 1924, Satyendra Nath Bose derived Planck’s law of black-body radiation without using any electromagnetism, but rather by using a modification of coarse-grained counting of phase space.[65] Einstein showed that this modification is equivalent to assuming that photons are rigorously identical and that it implied a “mysterious non-local interaction”,”
That “mysterious non-local interaction”, has been long known as opposing thermal ‘radiance’, the opposing field strength independent of distance or time. All neatly arranged in Maxwell’s 22 equations, which some still claim are over constrained. They are not. They cover many more valid points of view. Some POVs can do without all 22.
Tim Folkerts says, September 21, 2016 at 2:46 PM:
LOL! And this is the point from where you proceed by actually SHOWING us that “two-way fluxes” (inside SINGLE radiant heat transfers) exist. AND informing us what instruments actually detect these two separate fluxes inside one and the same radiant heat transfer.
Arguments by assertion, just stating things as Truth, are of no use in science, Tim. I thought you knew that …
‘Photons exist. THEREFORE two-way fluxes exist.’ Really!? THAT’S your level of reasoning? I hope you’re not being serious …
Tim IS being serious, incoherent photons are continuously emitted at all frequencies at all temperatures by any object be it gas, liquid, solid, plasma as Kristian well knows. These incoherent photons do not interact, reach death by annihilation incident on an object, their life is extended by reflection and transmission by the object.
Kristian also writes: “AND informing us what instruments actually detect these two separate fluxes inside one and the same radiant heat transfer.”
Radiometers and thermometers work fine to actually detect separate fluxes inside one and the same radiant energy transfer. So does our skin. Just like Prof. Planck, Prof. Tyndall et. al. used in their labs to develop this field of radiant energy transfer.
If the bath of flux was net only one way, photons would HAVE to interact and added DWLWIR from passing clouds could not be detected but these instruments routinely detect the clouds separate LW IR flux (even during the day!) despite the UWLWIR bath. Proving incoherent photons do not interact and can be routinely measured.
Ball4 says, September 22, 2016 at 12:19 PM:
Mmm, no they don’t. Seems you don’t even understand what we’re talking about here …
Kristian now writes thermometers and radiometers do not work fine.
Kristian’s position will be news to many labs in many diverse fields calibrating these very same instruments. I’d say more probably it is Kristian’s view that does not work fine. The top post works fine with all the radiometers and thermometers in every lab Kristian.
What does/did Kristian use in his thermo. lab if not radiometers and thermometers?
Ball4 says:
September 23, 2016 at 10:23 AM
“Kristian now writes thermometers and radiometers do not work fine.”
Ball4 claims that both measure/indicate thermal radiative flux that does not exist! Ball4 never bothered to check with the manufacturers of such to check what they do indicate! Ball4 gets all his spouting direct from SKS.
“What does/did Kristian use in his thermo. lab if not radiometers and thermometers?”
When has Ball4 ever bothered to use any measuring instrument before spouting nonsense!
Kristian
You might be interested to know there are items that can be directly measured and others are derived. You cannot directly measure them but must use a combination of fundamental measurements to derive the value.
Here is the list from my Chemistry book. There are many more.
Fundamental direct measured items:
Length
Mass
Time
Electrical Current
Temperature
Luminous Intensity
Amount of Substance
Derived items (no direct measurement possible must be calculated from the fundamental items):
Volume
Force
Pressure
Energy
Another item in physics that you cannot directly measure but is derived is speed. You need the two fundamental measurements of length and time and then you derive the speed of an object, a mathematical construct which has a real effect.
I do not know if your points are really valuable or useful in considering if a GHE is real or not.
Ball4 already linked to the calibration of pyrgeometers. You can use these in a controlled setting to derive temperatures of known material (measured with calibrated thermometers). When the temperatures end up matching it is good to go. The derived values are accurate in determining what flux will be in the field.
I think you are the outside of believing they do not accurately derive the IR energy produced by the atmosphere GHG’s that is being directed back to the Earth’s surface.
Where it is than absorbed by surface molecules and become part of the overall surface energy.
Norman says: September 21, 2016 at 3:07 PM
“You might be interested to know there are items that can be directly measured and others are derived. You cannot directly measure them but must use a combination of fundamental measurements to derive the value.
Here is the list from my Chemistry book. There are many more.
Fundamental direct measured items:
Length
Mass
Time
Electrical Current
Temperature
Luminous Intensity
Amount of Substance”
And Norman, in spite of his keepers efforts, keeps publicly insisting that ‘Luminous Intensity’, is a flux rather than a field strength! One cannot get anything more wrong.
“The derived values are accurate in determining what flux will be in the field.”
Only if you have knowledge of how to determine said flux! Kristain has such knowledge! Norman, and Ball4 lack such knowledge, so instead they only spout religious nonsense.
phi
I am bringing your post down here because the thread is getting too long to follow:
YOU: “Norman,
Calculating the surface temperature is a thermodynamic problem and it is resolved by determining heat flux. DWIR are not heat flux, so they are absent of the issue. Textbooks only give the flux resulting from the IR radiation field and no two opposit energy flows. A thermodynamic calculation is always done in this way for two reasons:
1. This avoids the possible omission of the application of the second principle which does not allow the separation of the two energy flows.
2. The value of energy flows is often unknown or senseless and is anyway useless.
The concept of radiative forcing, for example, is the result of the omission of the second principle.
You can still have fun with DWIR but its useless and misleading.”
Not sure what text books you look at to form your conclusions.
Read through this one it says over an over there are multiple fluxes. Each surface produces its own flux. Nothing in textbooks says different.
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/352/_352-posted/Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf
Look at page 21.
phi
YOU: “2. The value of energy flows is often unknown or senseless and is anyway useless.”
Either I am not understanding your point or you lack any knowledge of the most basic physics. Law of energy conservation. There is no energy flow that is useless. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. If there is a flow of energy it has to be accounted for.
This one: “Textbooks only give the flux resulting from the IR radiation field and no two opposit energy flows. ”
Here look at this material.
It even breaks it down for you into individual “energy flows”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Read the text as it explains it quite well.
The standard radiant heat transfer equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac (3)
where
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object
Has two temperatures. Each temperature is equivalent to an individual energy flux. The difference between the two make up the net.
Now you can use the equation to show that the flux of the second term is significant. If you increase Tc4 the net radiant energy loss goes down.
If the net loss of your surface goes down and you are adding the same amount of energy in, the surface will then warm up.
I used to be in the stupid PSI camp for a short while. It seemed amazing. Then reading Roy’s blog and doing my own research I found out they were a cult of people who could mislead the ignorant and the gullible.
Most people who subscribe to the views of PSI have never taken college level thermodynamics and so can be lulled by the siren song of cranks like Postma. I think you are on the right track to read textbooks. I just don’t think it has sunk in yet what they are telling you.
Norman,
“Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
A net flux includes everything you need to meet the first and second principles. Two energy flows only respect the first and you have to add a condition of dependency which is often forgotten inadvertently (sometimes deliberately?).
The sign of q points its top post resultant arrow up or down in direction of net internal kinetic energy flow, phi, always will be consistent with 2LOT.
In the top post at the global surface, net LW internal kinetic energy flows surface to atm. when q sign is positive, meaning the left red up arrow is larger than the down right red arrow. For example, a local inversion layer, q sign would be negative, KE flows atm. to surface in that localized case.
What total nonsense! The whole troposphere remains an isopotential. There is no change in tropospheric atmospheric KE with altitude. The compressive potential of Earth’s gravitational field always maintains such atmospheric isopotential. This is why convection works so very, very well.
Norman,
Yes, as I said, it is always the net flow which is given. Nothing else is used in a thermal calculation.
phi,
I’ve given up on Norman. You can try to talk to him, discuss with him, reason with him, explain things to him. But he’s simply made up his mind. Closed it off. His mental block on this matter is complete, it seems. He won’t come out of his bubble if his life depended on it …
Good luck.
Norman cites the work of others accomplished in the field, Kristian self cites. Kristian really does need an experiment to support his views since they are different than the top post – for which he has not pointed out any errors.
Ball4 says, September 23, 2016 at 6:42 AM:
My “experiment” is Earth itself plus other celestial bodies in the solar system, like Venus, Mars and Titan. They all strongly suggest I’m right and you’re wrong, Ball4.
Kristian, really? The existence of the Earth supports your claims over others’ claims?
Well, I guess that settles it, then.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says, September 23, 2016 at 8:46 AM:
Do you know at all what I’m referring to …? I’ve told you before. I’ve shown and discussed the data. I could try once more.
If Kristian tries in the same way, he will get the same unnatural results.
Better to improve and actually line up with Dr. Spencer’s natural experiments, Kristian.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: September 23, 2016 at 8:46 AM
“Kristian, really? The existence of the Earth supports your claims over others claims? Well, I guess that settles it, then.”
Dr. Spencer finally replies to nonsense, with satire!
Does not settle anything, instead brings the scam to the forefront.
The notion, premise, conjecture, hypothesis, that is logically unfalsifiable is precisely; “All mass bodies radiate thermal flux proportional to ‘only’ their own absolute temperature raised to the forth power, and independent of any radiative surround!”
Such is of course logically unsound; the S-B equation is composed of the linear subtraction of two opposing proxies of radiative potential (radiance) combined to give one differential potential resulting in some measurable resultant thermal radiative flux. Since only the resultant sometimes called ‘net’ is measurable, The fantasy secondary claim of two opposing thermal radiative flux, cannot be logically falsified, And must be scientifically rejected as meaningless!
The opposing notion, premise, conjecture, hypothesis, that is logically falsifiable is precisely; “All mass bodies radiate thermal flux proportional to their own absolute temperature raised to the forth power, (radiance), minus of any ‘radiance’ from each directional surround!” To falsify; measured thermal radiative flux in excess of that difference, or measured thermal radiative flux in the direction of higher thermal radiance, need be provided in any ‘one’ repeatable demonstration.
Why can we not get down to scientific physics, Dr. Spencer?
Ball4 says: September 23, 2016 at 6:42 AM
“Norman cites the work of others accomplished in the field, Kristian self cites. Kristian really does need an experiment to support his views since they are different than the top post for which he has not pointed out any errors.”
Dr.Roy’s top post clearly indicates Thermal EM flux in opposing directions. This is the error and has been for 40 years of SCAM! Such notion of opposing thermal EM flux is UN-supportable, UN-falsifiable, and must be rejected as UN-scientific: a SCAM.
Just as a matter of interest, the fact that the Earth has cooled since its creation shows that it has lost energy overall.
More than you might think, considering the internal heat generated by radioactive decay, as most of the shorter half life elements have been consumed, and converted quite a lot of mass to energy. e=mc^2 and all that.
There is no energy balance or equilibrium in an open system, and the Earth is one such.
There is no energy balance in regard to the Sun, either.
Anyone whose support for the GHE depends on the conservation of energy is rushing full speed down a blind alley.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You may have struck out on your prized theory that the Earth is cooling and has been since it creation and it has cooled more than one might think.
Here is a counter to your own pet theories. I think this one is very difficult to prove right or wrong but your view is certainly not the “True One” by any standard.
Here is the discussion by scientists:
http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2523/how-long-until-earths-core-solidifies
This is an area I have not studied but this is enough to put your posts in considerable doubt.
Here is a quote from article:
“Verhoogen gives 5000 K as the core temperature now, and a 250 K cooling since the formation of the Solar System, 4.5 billion years ago. If it really does cool at that rate (55 degrees per billion years), it would take something like 91 billion years to cool to 0 Kelvin.”
I would not call 250 K loss from 5000 K much in 4 billion years. It seems to be a near equilibrium from this view. The rate of cooling would be 5.56 x 10^=8 K/year. That is about as close to an equilibrium temperature change as you can get.
Norman,
If you wish to deny the Earth’s surface was once molten, be my guest.
If it was, it’s dropped about 5000 K since creation.
The fact is, that if it has cooled at all, over the period, it has lost more energy than it absorbed.
No equilibrium, no conservation of energy, in an open system.
What is it that you don’t understand?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
With your arguments about equilibrium I think it is clear where gaps in your reasoning about the issue exist. You may not realize that radiation is an exponential heat transfer based upon the 4th power of temperature. A very hot surface will radiate away much more energy than a cooler one so the surface would rapidly cool with a very high radiant flux. But now it is at a cooler temp it has reached a relative steady state with the Sun. It fluctuates a few degrees over a long period of time but stays within bounded limits of a few degrees. This is reasonable equilibrium conditions. The cores seems to be very stable temperature wise. What of the entire volume of Earth for stable temperature. The Earth’s surface cooled very rapidly in the early years and has had a temperature that supports life for billions of years. Not sure what your points are about. But Cheers.
Perhaps I With no expertise, can help a bit for understanding! Consider a unwound steel coat hanger one meter long, with thermal conductivity 0.1W/(m x kelvins). (LC) ‘kelvins’ here are in the (form of delta C). If there is a difference (delta C) of 100C in that one meter the power flux must be 10 Watts, normalized by the cross sectional area of the coat hanger wire. At 50 cm from either end, exists a coat hanger temperature the exact average of the endpoint temperature.
Please notice that no ‘absolute’ temperature was ever used here. But importantly, if one end was at 273.15K the other at 373.15K there is never 37.315 watts/(cross-sectional area) thermal flux and a reverse 27.315/(cross-sectional area) opposing thermal flux, for some ‘net’ of 10 Watts! With conductivity that per meter decides the value of only one way flux.
Such is not the case for EMR (in space). Normalized EMR flux in space is independent of distance. Within a dispersive atmosphere, not space, no one has figured what is going on. All remains fantasy, especially among academic research Skyintests!
phi
YOU: “Yes, as I said, it is always the net flow which is given. Nothing else is used in a thermal calculation.”
If we go with this you can still see that both surfaces within the thermodynamic heat transfer equation effect the NET flux.
I went through a series of calculations on another thread to demonstrate this and show how the GHE works to make a surface warmer than one without a “back-radiation”.
You should do the calculations yourself and then you will understand what Roy Spencer is saying about GHE.
It is rather long posting and I do not know if you want me to go through with it but it does demonstrate how the GHG in the atmosphere lead to a warmer surface state and that it definitely does matter.
phi
Here is the situation. Hope I make it clear enough for you to follow.
I will use the equation (q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac (3))
Which is the accepted radiant heat transfer equation for two objects at different temperatures.
I will use an emissivity of 1 since this post is to demonstrate a concept based upon the equation.
The initial condition is a one meter square sphere in the vacuum of space located where no other radiant energy has much effect (like a shadow of a crater near the poles of the moon that have a temperature of -247 C).
Into this sphere a constant source of energy is added in such a way that it is spread evenly at the surface. For this calculation I will pick 500 Watts. So you have 500 joules/sec being added to the sphere. It will warm up until it reaches a temperature where it is emitting 500 Watts of power to the vacuum of space.
Plugging into the equation provided to find the surface temperature of the heated sphere:
500 watts = SBC (Stefan-Boltzmann Constant or 5.67 *10^-8 W/m^2 K^4)(Tsurf…Temperature of the spherical surface emitting 500 Watts)
Moving the numbers around to calculate the unknown:
(500/SBC)=T^-4
T=306.44 K or 33.29 C
phi
Now comes the GHE in action:
With the sphere still receiving a constant input energy of 500 Watts (500 joules/sec) put a larger sphere totally around the first sphere and keep its temperature at 0 C or 273.15 K.
Now we want to find out how much Net Flux the heated sphere loses with the 0 C surrounding sphere around it.
q (is the unknown) = (5.67 *10^-8)(306.44^4 – 273.15^4)
q=(5.67 *10^-8)(8,818,237,972 – 5,566,789,756)
q=(5.67 *10^-8)(3,251,448,216)
q=184.36 Watts
Sorry for all the digits. I am just copying the output of the windows calculator.
You can see that the NET watts now leaving the heated surface sphere has dropped from 500 Watts/m^2 down to 184.36 Watts/m^2
You are still adding 500 joules/second to the sphere but it can only get rid of 184.36 joules/second. That means energy is being added to the sphere since more energy enters than can leave.
Norm,
I am not following your logic.
You have an inner sphere with a very small radius since the surface area is only 1 square meter. You have a uniform power of 500 Watts. So the flux density is 500 Watts/square meter.
You surround this sphere with a larger sphere (that would be a shell). You have to specify the radius, otherwise the flux density striking the outer shell cannot be calculated. You have 500 Watts now being spread over the larger surface area of the outer shell/sphere.
500 J/sec of energy is still leaving the outer shell. You failed to account for the larger surface area of the outer shell/sphere.
SketpticGoneWild says: September 23, 2016 at 3:22 AM
“You have an inner sphere with a very small radius since the surface area is only 1 square meter. You have a uniform power of 500 Watts. So the flux density is 500 Watts/square meter.”
Intentional intent to deceive and misdirect. Do that for something the size of the Earth with that flux and calculate total power!
“You surround this sphere with a larger sphere (that would be a shell). You have to specify the radius, otherwise the flux density striking the outer shell cannot be calculated. You have 500 Watts now being spread over the larger surface area of the outer shell/sphere.”
For something the size of the Earth even 100`km larger radius has negligible increase in surface area.
“500 J/sec of energy is still leaving the outer shell. You failed to account for the larger surface area of the outer shell/sphere.”
500 Watts x (total same surface area) of power is still leaving the outer shell. This requires exactly the same radiance and temperature, to generate the same thermal exitance to space.
In order to get the power transfer to that external opaque shell there must be a difference in ‘radiance’ between the sphere surface and the inner shell surface (same as outer surface), sufficient to create a one way flux of 500W/m^2 outward. This requires a spontaneous root 2 increase in sphere temperature. The outer shell must re-thermalize to be able to radiate that 500W/m^2 to space through the impedance of space, 377 reactive Ohms.
Even if the sphere and shell had only 1 meter difference in radius the 1 meter ‘space’ between, creates an additional, 377 reactive Ohms impedance to any thermal EM power transfer. Anyhow this Earth’s atmosphere operates in a completely different manner than just ‘radiative’ but how such does operate remains ‘unknown’ to any and all mankind.
SGW,
Do not think this scam and misdirection of the public and governments worldwide was in anyway UN-intentional! Or perhaps that is exactly what the UN intended all along.
Norm,
You are violating both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
The outer shell/sphere is colder than the inner one. Heat, per the Second Law only transfers from hot to cold. The radiant heat flow equation also indicates the direction of heat transfer: from the higher temperature to the lower temperature. So per the radiant heat flow equation, heat is being transferred from the inner sphere to the outer.
Secondly, you’ve created energy out of nothing by raising the temperature of the inner sphere. A new higher inner sphere temperature would also raise the temperature of the outer sphere. The radiant heat flow equation demands this (Thot minus Tcold is higher now). When does this self heating cycle stop?
Can’t tell if you are right Sketptic as you present no experimental evidence, same for Norman. Pretty sure either of you could find an existing experiment or do an experiment supporting your assertions. Then let us know what nature says. Dr. Spencer has done many past experiments to support top post atm. thermodynamics.
Ball4
In the example I gave above an experiment is not required. I am using the established equation for radiation heat transfer. The calculation is more for demonstration purposes, also any experiments done will not change the beliefs of those who know so much more than the established scientists.
Also that heat equation is used in technology and industry. It is valid so I really do not see the need to prove it is valid or works. All that is required is to plug values into it. It has already been experimentally verified by many, that is why it is established and used to determine the effects of radiant heat transfer in many applications in the real world.
Testing in vacuum conditions and limiting all forms of radiant energy but the objects in the tests are very difficult and beyond my means to perform.
I might try the ice melting experiment I suggested above to prove DWIR exists and can heat an object, that it is a real energy flow and if the object it is hitting is at a lower temperature then what is emitting it (the warmed atmosphere) it will then even be a heat flux transferring its energy to the cooler target.
A proper experiment IS necessary Norman, words are not persuasive.
Proving DWIR takes experiment, is as easy as using an IR thermometer. Even your skin can detect the UW over a sun warmed hot pavement vs. sky DW IR. Those would be the two red arrows emitted toward/away surface in top post. Easily experimentally detectable as individual photon streams not just a net.
Ball4
Thanks for the useful advice but as you have seen even the experiments run by Roy Spencer (and he has done more than one) does not persuade any in that Camp. I was in that camp for a little while but started to read and study and saw it was very poor science in all manners. You can only stick with it with stubborn religious belief.
Kristian calls me closed minded. I have already told him I will accept the standard textbook explanations as valid until someone can prove (with experiment) that the conclusions and equations of textbooks are not correct.
He has strong beliefs that go against accepted physics but he considers my thought process closed. It will open with good evidence not endless opinions on how he believes things work.
I have seen many of your posts refer to Dr. Spencer’s experiments but it does not change their view in the slightest.
“I have seen many of your posts refer to Dr. Spencer’s experiments but it does not change their view in the slightest.”
The proper experiments do demonstrate when commenters are wrong, beyond doubt. My views line up with proper experiments, not necessarily studies which can be mistaken.
I thought I saw a view change once, but I was mistaken.
To prove you are right vs. sketptik, an experiment is the only way. Even though no view will change, we will know who is right. You should be able to find one already done, or modify to one already done.
Ball4 says: September 23, 2016 at 10:08 AM
“A proper experiment IS necessary Norman, words are not persuasive.
Proving DWIR takes experiment, is as easy as using an IR thermometer. Even your skin can detect the UW over a sun warmed hot pavement vs. sky DW IR. Those would be the two red arrows emitted toward/away surface in top post. Easily experimentally detectable as individual photon streams not just a net.”
Thermal EM flux in a direction of higher radiance is never detectable or measurable. A different theory that does not require the UN-measurable is required. No photons are ever needed for EM flux. Nothing with energy is needed. Power is transferred not energy.
Can you even explain the difference in power\energy\action to anyone? Are they not just a different point of view of the same thing?
Backyard experiments.
phi
Now we have a situation where a the heated sphere will reach a new equilibrium temperature. The surface temperature will continue to rise until it is emitting 500 W/m^2. It is gaining 500 joules/sec and will keep warming until it reaches a new state where it loses 500 joules/sec. What new temperature will that be with the 0 C sphere around the heated sphere?
It can be calculated.
The inner ball will heat until it is again emitting a NET flux of 500 W/m^2
So you use the same equation. Your unknown will be the temperature of the heated sphere.
q is 500 watts. The NET watts from the surface must equal the rate of energy added to the heated sphere.
500=(5.67 *10^-8)(Tsur^4 – 273.15^4)
500/(5.67 *10^-8)=(Tsur^4 – 273.15^4)
8,818,342,151=(Tsur^4 – 273.15^4)
8,818,342,151=(Tsur^4 – 5,595,376,605)
8,818,342,151+ 5,595,376,605=Tsur^4
14,413,718,756=Tsur^4
346.49 = Tsur
The new equilibrium temperature the heated sphere must reach in order to be able to have an outgoing NET flux of 500 W/m^2 is now 346.49 K or 73.34 C.
The addition of the cold 0 C sphere surrounding a constantly heating sphere results in a temperature increase of 44.05 C.
The heated atmosphere with IR active gases will be the second factor in the equation.
Norman says: September 22, 2016 at 8:55 PM
“The heated atmosphere with IR active gases will be the second factor in the equation.”
Except that this wonderful Earth’s atmosphere never works in such a childlike manner! Go ask any child.
“The addition of the cold 0 C sphere surrounding a constantly heating sphere results in a temperature increase of 44.05 C.”
Roughly what describing is why human in spacesuits don’t need
heaters in the space environment- rather they need a way
get rid of heat generated by the human body [100 watts].
And if a planet had an internal source of heat it would be
applicable. But as we know the internal geothermal energy of Earth is not adding much to the 15 C average temperature of
Earth.
It’s possible that reason Venus is hot is due to it’s internal
heat- but I don’t think it is. Rather I think Venus is heated where 75% of the sunlight is reflected- it’s acid clouds.
On Earth what causes and what is Earth average temperature of 15 C is the oceans.
Or what causes Earth to be warmer is not it’s land surface- or the average temperature of Earth land surfaces is colder than 15 C. And average temperature of ocean surface is 15 C [or higher].
The land surface are the regions with the highest air temperature during the day and the coldest air surfaces.
On Earth the ocean regions warm the land regions and land region don’t warm the ocean regions.
The highest land ground temperature is 70 C and highest land surface air temperature is about 50 C.
Without a condensable gas [H20], land ground temperature of 70 C and air temperature of 50 C, would cool to 0 C [or lower] at night.
In planets which was not a water planet, large area of land would heat up and become very dry places. Much drier than any place on Earth, including the driest region which is in the dry deserts of Antarctica.
And on this non water planet these large land region would get 70 C surface and 50 C surface air temperature and each night plunge well below 0 C. And in regions which had seasons- a Fall, Winter, and Spring- the daytime temperature would be much cooler then the “70 C surface and 50 C surface air temperature” and at night and/or winter
could reach night time temperature below -100 C.
So the half of the sphere of planet which receives the most sunlight would have average daytime temperature much higher
than Earth AMD have a colder night time temperature in same region as earth has- resulting in about same average temperature [or lower] in this region [near and including the tropics]. But the other half of the sphere of the planet
would have near the same daytime highs, but have much colder nights. Therefore it’s average temperature would be
around 0 C.
And adding 100 trillion tons of CO2, would do little to warm this non water planet average temperature- though the CO2 probably would freeze in polar regions, and add some warming from the latent heat of freezing CO2, as it does on Mars.
“Therefore its average temperature would be
around 0 C.”
It’s average global temperature would be around 0 C.
That half of the world’s average temperature would be
about -30 C
phi
I suggest going through different calculations yourself using the equation.
Kristian is very wrong with his flawed reasoning that the amount of GHG does not matter, just that there is some.
He must have not heard of Hottels work with GHG.
Here is a link:
http://web.iitd.ac.in/~prabal/gas-radiation.pdf
To see Hottels work scroll down to “Emissivity Charts” and you can see his work. The emissivity of GHG are dependent upon their concentration and beam path. Carbon Dioxide does not get much above 0.2 emissivity even at complete saturation (that is because CO2 only absorbs and emits a fraction of the IR spectrum. Two primary wavelengths).
Norman says, September 22, 2016 at 9:00 PM:
Well, I have the empirical evidence from Earth, from Venus, Mars and Titan to support me. The AMOUNT of GHGs doesn’t matter. Only that there ARE GHGs present.
You’re basically back to the idea – probably without even knowing it – that the surface heat loss (and thus the surface temperature) is somehow ruled by LW radiation. It’s not. As the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel data clearly shows. Same average heat IN from the Sun, ~175 W/m^2, and consequently the same average total heat OUT from the surface (LW+cond+evap) also, ~175 W/m^2, but a MUCH larger radiative heat loss in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo (~100 vs. ~50 W/m^2). And where is the surface T_avg higher? In the Sahara-Sahel, by several degrees. Even when having a radiative heat loss twice as large on average as the one in the Congo.
What does this tell us? That there are OTHER processes within the Earth system that render the air column IR opacity variable completely powerless in determining the surface T_avg. If these other processes were indeed either unchangeable/static in space and time, and/OR if they only changed as a RESPONSE to a change in “radiative forcing” (like making the surface radiant heat loss smaller by making the air column more opaque to outgoing IR), that is, if they could only ever work as either constants or as feedbacks to radiative changes, then the surface T_avg in the Congo SHOULD’VE been much higher than the T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel. It’s not. The OPPOSITE is true.
I could move on to Venus, Mars and Titan …
Kristian says: “then the surface T_avg in the Congo SHOULDVE been much higher than the T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel. Its not.”
Or Kristian made a mistake in his study which is not possible to confirm as he just claims results out of nowhere.
For example the regions could have different surface emissivity & albedo or even atm. emissivity. Accurate studies do not show the issue Kristian claims. In any case, these two regions can not falsify the global results.
Ball4 says, September 23, 2016 at 6:36 AM:
*Sigh*
If Ball4 had simply paid attention, he would’ve seen that all referred values have been confirmed before, and he can easily do it for himself too: TSI, total reflected SW (atm + sfc), net SW at ToA, net SW at sfc, OLR (net LW) at ToA, UWLWIR and DWLWIR at sfc, net LW at sfc, sfc T_avg, regional coordinates already provided on multiple occasions.
All readily accounted for in the radiative flux values above.
What “accurate studies”?
What “global results”? Do we have an Earth II to compare with?
I say it again: Venus, Mars, Titan. Global averages.
Kristian
Scientists have Titan thermodynamics figured out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-greenhouse_effect
Titan has a strong GHE but the haze restricts incoming solar energy. They take everything into consideration.
Most good scientists are fairly smart and thorough. It is unlikely you have stumbled upon something not already considered and explained.
You are a reflection of the one and only D*o*u*g as you fly off to Venus, Mars and even Titan to try to prove some unsupportable position.
Then provide them Kristian not just the results. I see no mention of precipitable water in the column which a more accurate comparison would necessarily include. No mention of surface emissivity differences etc.
Earth I global is readily observable and both Sahara and Congo are included.
Kristian writes: “TSI, total reflected SW (atm + sfc), net SW at ToA, net SW at sfc, OLR (net LW) at ToA, UWLWIR and DWLWIR at sfc, net LW at sfc..”
All data from calibrated radiometers, Kristian, for which you above wrote do not work for this purpose. Yet Kristian purports to use their data to draw conclusions. Quite interesting if you ask me. Maybe Kristian can explain.
Norman says, September 23, 2016 at 9:31 AM:
Sorry, but that’s not what I’m referring to at all.
Yeah, only I have actual data. He doesn’t. Come to think of it, neither do you … You only have your little bubble.
Kristian
Oh D*o*u*g had plenty of data. He did a study similar to yours to prove water vapor cooled. He had I think 30 cities around the world for his study. He also had the nominal surface temperature of Uranus and Venus he just did not mention Titan so he likes Uranus and you like Titan.
So yes you are both quite similar in thought process. You both feel like you have uncovered some new scientific insight that all others in the field somehow missed. Then when people in the field (Roy Spencer) explain very well to both of you why you are wrong, you reject his expert view and just go right along with your own pet beliefs trying hard to convince the gullible and ignorant how smart you are and how the rest of the scientific community missed some very basic ideas that only you are aware of.
I will stick to textbook science until it is proven wrong with valid experiments.
PSI is like a cult, they offer the people “the secrets” that the whole scientific world never saw (like pseudo-scattering) and make nonscientists feel so smart and superior. Then when the real scientists point out all the flaws in your thought process you ignore them and go right along with your flawed reason and unscientific view points.
Kristian
I have spent considerable time discussing the Congo VS Sahara study you did and it was quite easy to explain why the Congo surface temperature was cooler than the Sahara.
The evaporation from Congo is upward of 114 W/m^2 while the evaporation of the Sahara is negligible. That difference easily explains the difference.
I have already pointed out that water complicates a thermodynamic study of the surface temperature. Water vapor acts as a GHG that will absorb surface radiant energy and warm emitting DWIR. But it also takes enormous energy to evaporate so it will keep a surface much cooler as the energy absorbed by the surface is lost in evaporation. In the form of clouds it is even complex. Thick clouds reflect a large amount of solar radiation but have there own GHE so it depends on when the clouds form and the type of cloud. Different cloud types have different radiation balance equations.
I have already demonstrated the complexity of water with an IR thermometer. A black tarp with some water in it and exposed to full Sun, will have very different temperatures between the dry surface and the water part. I measured 131 F for the dry part of the tarp and only 95.6 F for the water filled part. Both are exposed to the same energy from the Sun. They both emit IR radiation. The dry tarp a much higher amount. The dry part primarily cools by radiant energy loss (maybe some convection) while the water cools by both radiant energy loss and evaporation.
I really wish you would reread what I have discussed with you on this so you quit bringing it up like it is an amazing revelation that no other scientist is aware of.
Norman says, September 23, 2016 at 9:02 AM:
Explains what difference? How?
Like I’ve been pointing out now for some time, the TOTAL heat OUT (equal to the heat IN) is practically the same in both regions, ~175 W/m^2.
What you seem to proclaim is that as the IR opacity of the air column increases, the radiant heat loss (the net LW) from the surface is reduced, which means that in order for the surface to regain its heat balance (heat IN = heat OUT), the surface MUST WARM. Whether this extra heat output to make up for the reduced radiant heat loss comes via radiation itself, via conduction or via evaporation should make no difference. The surface MUST WARM in order to give off more heat.
So why isn’t the surface T_avg much higher in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel, when there is good reason to assume that the air column IR opacity in the former is in fact MUCH higher than in the latter, making the average surface radiant heat loss rate in the Congo much lower than in the Sahara-Sahel (~50 vs. ~100 W/m^2). Why hasn’t this considerable reduction in radiant heat output forced the Congo surface T_avg up and way beyond the Sahara-Sahel surface T_avg.
You keep avoiding this point, Norman. Just saying “evaporation” doesn’t help your case one bit.
How are these empirical observations in any way supporting the notion that the DEGREE of air column IR opacity matters to the surface T_avg, Norman!?
“when there is good reason to assume that the air column IR opacity in the former is in fact MUCH higher”
Assume? See! As I have more than once pointed out, Kristian’s conclusion on Congo and Sahara is suspect, merely assumed despite all the claimed data. Kristian has to actually tell us from data the precipitable water in the column or go to each site and point a radiometer up and find the median emissivity of the atm. in each region. Another, simpler, way is published observations of precipitable water in the region from instruments.
Then a reasonable assessment of the all sky radiation to surface might be made. The median emissivity of the desert surface is important too. I recently saw a report on that, will try to find.
Kristian
YOUR results: “Like Ive been pointing out now for some time, the TOTAL heat OUT (equal to the heat IN) is practically the same in both regions, ~175 W/m^2.”
That is radiant heat only from the CERES data. It does not include any other forms of heat transfer.
YOU: “You keep avoiding this point, Norman. Just saying evaporation doesnt help your case one bit.”
It helps it completely. It is the explanation for the reason the Congo is cooler than the Sahara.
I gave you a real world example that you maybe did not see.
HERE it is again for you: “I have already demonstrated the complexity of water with an IR thermometer. A black tarp with some water in it and exposed to full Sun, will have very different temperatures between the dry surface and the water part. I measured 131 F for the dry part of the tarp and only 95.6 F for the water filled part. Both are exposed to the same energy from the Sun. They both emit IR radiation. The dry tarp a much higher amount. The dry part primarily cools by radiant energy loss (maybe some convection) while the water cools by both radiant energy loss and evaporation.”
That is similar to the Congo and Sahara. Both areas receive the exact same amount of energy (both solar and DWIR) but the water is considerably colder than the tarp.
This is even a better example than the Congo and Sahara as there are no other variables to consider (like effects of clouds, winds, convection).
What am I lacking in explaining it to you? Evaporation. It is why a desert gets hotter than a moist area. It is why the water in the tarp is considerably colder than the dry part. Since both water and tarp are at equilibrium temperature…not changing over time. They both have to get rid of the same amount of energy. The dry part is mostly via IR radiation the wet part is both IR radiation and evaporation. If you add the energy in and out they will be the same but the temperature of both is much different.
Kristian says:
“Youre basically back to the idea probably without even knowing it that the surface heat loss (and thus the surface temperature) is somehow ruled by LW radiation. Its not. ”
And you, Kristian, seem to basically be at the idea probably without even knowing it that if LW radiation does not explain 100% of the heat loss, then it explains 0% of heat loss. This ALSO is not true.
Changing the IR heat flows — or the incoming solar or the evaporation or cloud cover or ocean currents or the mass of the atmosphere or any number of other things — any of these would impact surface temperature. But your supposition that “if [these other process] could only ever work as either constants or as feedbacks to radiative changes” is inaccurate — this is not how people think
* cloud cover does not ONLY respond to changes in CO2.
* evaporation does not ONLY respond to changes in CO2.
* convection does not ONLY respond to changes in CO2.
Your Sahara vs Congo example does clearly show that factors other than CO2 do impact temperatures (especially locally where other factors can vary greatly). But this does NOT precude the possibility that — for example — more CO2 in the atmosphere might make BOTH areas warmer than they are now.
Tim Folkerts
I enjoy your logical analytical technique in describing the conditions.
I have already mentioned to Kristian that, even though the Congo is cooler than the Sahara, both would be much cooler without GHG’s present. I linked to Hottel’s work on gases and radiant emission to show him the amount of IR active gases is super important to determine radiant balance but it had no effect on his established thought process.
He is not an evidence based thinker.
Norman says, September 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM:
See, it is mindless statements like this that have made me conclude that you are either an ignorant fool, or a duplicitous fool, Norman.
We are not talking about whether the solar-heated surface would be warmer or cooler on average without a radiatively active atmosphere on top. We are talking about, once the atmosphere becomes radiatively active, does it matter HOW ‘radiatively active’ it becomes?
You yourself started this, Norman, by instructing phi:
“Kristian is very wrong with his flawed reasoning that the amount of GHG does not matter, just that there is some.”
So when I refer to empirical evidence from the real Earth system to show that my reasoning ISN’T flawed, that it is in fact spot on, then all of a sudden you pretend to have forgotten what we’re actually talking about, and rather scurry back to your “Yes, but it would be colder without GHGs altogether” argument. Which we have already agreed on this entire time. That has never been a controversial point. And so IT IS NOT AND NEVER WAS THE MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION!
Not IR activity in itself, Norman. The DEGREE of IR activity. You need to show us how the DEGREE matters to the surface T_avg.
Kristian says: September 24, 2016 at 12:49 AM
“Not IR activity in itself, Norman. The DEGREE of IR activity. You need to show us how the DEGREE matters”
Correct! Mars has an emissive atmosphere, just not emissive enough to greatly outweigh surface emissivity like the others that you mention.
The Earth with 180ppmv CO2 is already effecting the atmosphere all it can do. Water with all that latent heat is a whole different ballgame again, and a completely different approach is required.
— But this does NOT precude the possibility that for example more CO2 in the atmosphere might make BOTH areas warmer than they are now.–
Maybe, But CO2 addition does not increase the surface temperature of the sand in Sahara or Congo during the hotter part of the day.
Nor has the 25 trillion tons of CO2 on Mars increased the land surface temperature on Mars during the day on Mars.
Nor less than 1 trillion tons of CO2 make hotter days on Earth. It will not make tropics hotter during the day nor
make other regions have hotter days, hotter days- but in particular it does not make the hottest regions hotter.
What does make hotter regions hotter [higher air temperatures] is UHI effects [days and nights] and people mostly live in urban areas and it requires more energy to cool such area heated by UHI effects.
Or if worried by it getting hotter, amd energy use one should focus on reducing the UHI effects, rather than be distracted by CO2 emissions, especially since there well known that there is beneficial effects of increasing global CO2.
UHI effects aren’t going to end the world, nor do they require a world government to be created to impose a vast bureaucratic oppression upon it’s subjects.
Tim Folkerts says: September 23, 2016 at 12:53 PM
“Your Sahara vs Congo example does clearly show that factors other than CO2 do impact temperatures (especially locally where other factors can vary greatly). But this does NOT precude the possibility that for example more CO2 in the atmosphere might make BOTH areas warmer than they are now.”
Correct! Atmospheric CO2 may/might do anything, or nothing! What your favored Climate Clowns fail to do is give any evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 does anything, except increase plant growth!
Tim Folkerts says, September 23, 2016 at 12:53 PM:
Er, no, Tim. What I’m doing is SHOWING that a reduced surface RADIANT heat loss (as an assumed expression of a higher degree of atmospheric column IR opacity) DOESN’T by physical necessity make the surface T_avg higher, which is the basic premise behind the whole idea of the “enhanced GHE”. As I tried to explain to Norman above (as usual, to no avail):
“What you seem to proclaim is that as the IR opacity of the air column increases, the radiant heat loss (the net LW) from the surface is reduced, which means that in order for the surface to regain its heat balance (heat IN = heat OUT), the surface MUST WARM. Whether this extra heat output to make up for the reduced radiant heat loss comes via radiation itself, via conduction or via evaporation should make no difference. The surface MUST WARM in order to give off more heat.
So why isn’t the surface T_avg much higher in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel, when there is good reason to assume that the air column IR opacity in the former is in fact MUCH higher than in the latter, making the average surface radiant heat loss rate in the Congo much lower than in the Sahara-Sahel (~50 vs. ~100 W/m^2)? Why hasn’t this considerable reduction in radiant heat output forced the Congo surface T_avg up and way beyond the Sahara-Sahel surface T_avg?”
And:
“How are these empirical observations in any way supporting the notion that the DEGREE of air column IR opacity matters to the surface T_avg?”
OK? So what you’re saying is that no one in their right mind really believes the “All Else Being Equal” mantra to have any kind of real-world relevance? Even though it is an absolute requirement for assuming that an increase in atmospheric CO2 could in fact make the global surface T_avg higher at all.
You see, Tim, this is the basic premise behind the idea of the “enhanced GHE”: Everything else remains unchanged during the initial “radiative forcing” from more CO2 in the atmosphere, upon which everything else MUST change … in order for the Earth system to REGAIN its radiatively perturbed heat balance, and this MUST happen through a general WARMING of the system.
So all other processes are assumed to just remain constant (even the solar input) until there is a change in the “radiative forcing” from an “enhanced GHE”. And when all other processes DOES change, it is solely as a RESPONSE to the initial “radiative forcing” from the “enhanced GHE”. But all the other processes will NOT – it is assumed – be able to negate the necessary WARMING from the initial “radiative forcing” …
Yes, it basically does. Empirically. If you think otherwise, you should SHOW us rather than just ASSERT, ASSUME and GUESS. But that’s what you CO2 warmists do, after all. That’s the name of the game, isn’t it …?
It is Kristian that just assumes rather than using measurements as Kristian writes “when there is good reason to assume that the air column IR opacity in the former is in fact MUCH higher than in the latter”.
Actually there are observations of that air column opacity in Congo and Sahara, Kristian should use those for his conclusions not merely assume atm. science. Then employ the methods in the top post to learn what the observations are really telling us.
Norman,
I do not blame your calculation and I have never claimed that adding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had no effect on temperature. The problem is that adding CO2 changes the radiative structure of the atmosphere and is absolutely not a forcing because there are other thermal flow than radiative fluxes that determine the surface temperature.
Never out of climatology, a thermal calculation is conducted with a notion as silly as radiative forcing. This is a very safe way to get a completely wrong result.
Again, the concept of radiative forcing and the use of two opposite flows by climatologists is only justified by an absurd hypothesis giving to convection the sole role to fix the gradient and to radiative transfers that to translate the thermal profile. This is thermodynamic heresy.
a radiative “forcing” is any imposed change in an average radiative influence on temperature. Just because there are “other thermal flows than radiative fluxes that determine the surface temperature” doesn’t mean radiative forcing doesn’t exist. (Although I am curious how, in your mind, a radiative “flow” is different from a radiative “flux”.)
If you have a stove in your living room and you insulate your roof, you can not equate the insulation to an increase of power of your stove because temperatures distributions are different in both cases.
This is exactly the same with radiative forcing and atmospheric CO2.
phi, you seem to believe that an “increase in power of your stove” is the only way to change its temperature. The temperature of anything is a function of the rates of energy gain AND energy loss, which is basic thermodynamics. If you don’t agree that the insulation in a heated house affects the temperature in the house (as well as the temperature of the stove), then there is no common ground to discuss thermodynamic concepts with you.
Dr Spencer,
“phi, you seem to believe that an increase in power of your stove is the only way to change its temperature.”
I have absolutely not claimed anything like that!
What I am saying is that the relative temperature distribution in your house, if you increase the power of your Stove or if you isolate your roof, will be different in both cases.
Nobody does, except, as usual, you, in your delusional beliefs.
What happens is just that now, after insulation, temporarily the energy flux into the room exceeds the energy flux out of the room and it is of course that imbalance in climate system counterpart, as long as it persists, that is called a “forcing”. After a while this “forcing” makes the room or earth surface temperature increase until energy out increases enough to equal energy in again and then there is of course no “forcing” anymore.
phi: “What I am saying is that the relative temperature distribution in your house, if you increase the power of your Stove or if you isolate your roof, will be different in both cases.”
Because both cases are thus forced to be different phi. A forcing exists.
— phi says:
September 23, 2016 at 5:39 AM
If you have a stove in your living room and you insulate your roof, you can not equate the insulation to an increase of power of your stove because temperatures distributions are different in both cases.–
If put aluminum foil on the ceiling, one will increase the heating “power” of the stove [by a modest amount- the closer the foil the better the increasing power of reflective surface of the stove in terms of heating your living room.
But CO2 is not a reflective surface- unlike clouds are reflective surface [or comprised of billions of reflecting surfaces].
Also if use a fans to circulate the heated air from stove one
can heat more volume of living area, and have a more uniform
temperature requiring less insulation of the roof to make room warmer.
What obviously matters is the temperature distribution once the balance recovered.
At this stage of steady state, there is no match in the temperature distribution between a case with increasing power of the stove and another with roof insulation.
Even so, increasing the power of the stove and adding roof insulation are both independent forcings on the initial steady state phi.
except that in both cases the temperature in the house increases. So, since you have changed what you appeared to be claiming originally, I will assume we are now in agreement…until you find something new to object to.
Well really! Isolation is not a forcing, to begin with, they have not even conmpatibles units!
And nobody has ever calculated the insulation of a building by assimilating it to a forcing.
Dr Spencer,
“except that in both cases the temperature in the house increases.”
Yes. The whole matter is that no one knows how much and where.
And this is obviously crucial when one claims to know how calculate the surface warming.
I agree that given a certain amount of radiative forcing, we really don’t know how much surface warming will occur, because of the many feedbacks in the system which can change both energy gain and energy loss. I’ve been saying this for many years.
Dr Spencer,
Yes I know. This is however not what I mean. What I say very precisely is that a change in the radiative structure is not comparable to a forcing. Such a change can not be expressed in W / m2 for the reason that its effect on the gradient is a priori different from an increase of the amount of energy entering the system.
by definition a positive radiative forcing can be either an increase in the rate of energy entering the system, or a decrease in the rate of energy leaving the system. You obviously want to redefine radiative forcing. You can call it whatever you want, but the equations and temperature changes remain the same no matter what you call it. If you say that the temperature response is different in the two cases, well the climate community has always known that’s a possibility, and they have run modeling experiments to see how increasing sunlight is different from decreased IR cooling (the results are typically pretty similar). But, again, both are considered “radiative forcing”.
Dr Spencer,
“the results are typically pretty similar”
Of course, since this is part of the premises: only convection sets the gradient.
well, changes in convection in response to radiative forcing can lead to all kinds of outcomes:
1) If precipitation efficiency increases with warming, there might be very little surface warming.
2) Also, how much vapor is detrained into the upper troposphere affects the resulting lapse rate.
So, I don’t think that “convection sets the gradient” means what you think it means.
phi writes: “Isolation is not a forcing, to begin with, they have not even conmpatibles units!”
Same units phi. When phi adds a m^2 of insulation to his roof, the rate at which kinetic energy and radiant energy transfers is reduced in joules/sec (watts). Internal kinetic energy U is forced up each second increasing temperature until a new steady state q (rate of energy transfer by virtue of a temperature difference) is established.
delta U = q + w
Dr Spencer,
All this obviously concerns the calculation before feedback.
A purely radiative calculation, thus including the calculation of the gradient, gives far too high temperatures. The problem is we do not know how to calculate a correct gradient because we can neither calculate nor model convection. The trick used is to assume that only convection sets the gradient, radiative structure is supposed to have no effect on it. So empirical profiles can form the basis for modeling.
To realize how strange this trick is, you can test MODTRAN removing all GHG.
No, nothing’s strange at all because that situation is quite irrelevant.
As long as there are not enough GHG to establish a radiative vertical temperature gradient large enough (larger than wet adiabatic lapse rate) to trigger convection the situation cannot be compared to the actual atmosphere we live in.
As I told you once, convection sets the vertical gradient only when this condition is fulfilled and that is of course not at all the case when “removing all GHG”
“As I told you once, convection sets the vertical gradient only when this condition is fulfilled…”
Well, so there is a kind of circuit breaker for the laws of thermodynamics. Interesting.
No there isn’t.
What you apparently don’t realize is that in thermodynamics there are systems at thermodynamic equilibrium ( the fundamental aspect usually taught in introductory courses), systems close to thermodynamic equilibrium (a linear regime in fluxes-forces relationships as in a simple thermal conduction or diffusion experiment with Fourier or Fick laws), and systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium (as in an atmosphere with convection and oceans with a gulf stream where non-linearity now makes such wonderful things as trade winds or El Ninos to happen)
The presence of convection in atmosphere precisely demonstrates that we are definitely in the latter case. Far from thermodynamic equilibrium new remarkable organization principles emerge. They do not break the well known first or second principle of thermodynamics yet result in self-organization of matter such as trade winds, gulf streams, El Ninos or… they set the lapse rate in atmosphere.
http://libguides.lindahall.org/c.php?g=218588&p=1444235
alphagruis,
Yes, yes, of course, it’s so complex that we can allow weird hypothesis, obviously not checked.
You’re playing roulette, rather go to Las Vegas.
phi
Of course it is “checked”.
It’s not because you’re illiterate in these matters that it isn’t.
Obviously you have not the slightest idea of what has been done in far from equilibrium thermodynamics.
Nonsense! Give me the reference of a single study that shows that the GHG concentration has no effect on the gradient.
You must be joking phi.
No further reference can change your mind, you obviously don’t even read those you were already given or merely try to understand what they are talking about.
Furthermore nobody claims that the amount of GHG has “no effect on the gradient”. As Dr;Spencer already told you, relative humidity is expected to increase with temperature and thus the mean lapse rate is expected to change a little bit since the numerical value of wet adiabatic temperature gradient decreases with increasing humidity.
Yet the attractor still remains the wet adiabatic whatever the amount of GHG provided it lies above the threshold that makes the atmosphere unstable with respect to convection.
By the way there are also the plain facts. In spite of CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 400 ppm no serious change in lapse rate has been evidenced up to know as far as I know. Obviously, even nature seems quite reluctant and stubbornly ignores your version of out worldly “thermodynamics” .
alphagruis,
Who is joking?
The absence of effect on the gradient is only the foundation of the concept of radiative forcing.
The absence of effect on the gradient before feedback is only the basis of modeling.
And of course, you are unable to cite a single paper which would verify this hypothesis.
“In spite of CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 400 ppm no serious change in lapse rate has been evidenced up to know as far as I know.”
Nobody understand anything to the evolution of the temperature gradient, this evolution is not zero and does not match any expected form. Multiple papers and debates on the subject.
phi says: September 24, 2016 at 5:23 AM
“Nonsense! Give me the reference of a single study that shows that the GHG concentration has no effect on the gradient.”
Why do you need a reference? Why is some study important? Where is your hypothesis/evidence that concentrations, without phase change, do effect such gradient (assuming thermal lapse gradient)?
phi says: September 24, 2016 at 7:54 AM
“The absence of effect on the gradient is only the foundation of the concept of radiative forcing. The absence of effect on the gradient before feedback is only the basis of modeling.”
This only indicates that the whole concept of ‘radiative forcing’ is but a deliberate SCAM!
In spite of CO2 increasing from 270 ppm to 400 ppm no serious change in lapse rate has been evidenced up to now as far as I know.
Should that not be enough direct evidence that “that concentrations, without phase change, do not effect such gradient (assuming thermal lapse gradient)?
“Nobody understand anything to the evolution of the temperature gradient, this evolution is not zero and does not match any expected form. Multiple papers and debates on the subject.”
Do you claim that you do understand the thermal lapse gradient? Why is such almost linear with altitude to a pressure of 20kPa? Where are these multiple papers and debates on the subject? Who has evidence that such lapse is not created and strictly maintained via gravitational compression, as modified by atmospheric convection but never (conduction of non convecting atmospheric molecules)?
Nothing but even more wishful thinking.
What’s obvious is thatyou do not “understand anything as to the evolution of the temperature gradient”
Because you don’t know anything about far from equilibrium thermodynamics that is the framework in which these matters have to be discussed. So you are stuck forever and try to apply near equilibrium thermodynamics with linear local flux-gradient relationships similar to the Fourier law. Such laws and relevant constraints do not exist anymore in actual far from equilibrium atmosphere except for simple conduction which is quite negligible. Neither radiation, no latent heat or convection simply transfer energy upwards in such a simple way. It’s most obvious with convection with a highly non linear Heaviside step like heat flux versus temperature gradient response.: No heat flux if gradient below wet adiabatic and a finite yet variable heat flux when gradient exceeds wet adiabatic. It is variable because it depends on specific global convection pattern that is established and is not just a local property of the system.
So, mathematically, there is not even a one-to-one relationship between heat transfer and temperature gradient.
alphagruis,
I do not ask you such a long speech, just give me the reference to a single paper justifying the radical simplification for gradient.
Come on, phi, you’re still kidding;
First you’re not asked to tell me what I have or don’t have to discuss or comment here. I’m afraid I won’t bother anyway.
Second I already provided all the necessary references in French Forum since long. Unfortunately, you neither read nor understood what they talk about by then nor will you do today. The first reference was even work done before WW2 !
Nothing, of course, you have nothing to offer.
Thank you, alphagruis, for this nice demonstration.
Because it is indeed the crude reality, there is no scientific justification for the extraordinary assumption underlying the anthropogenic global warming theory.
No, wrong.
Too funny.
Agreed !
Roy W. Spencer, PhD. says:September 23, 2016 at 5:07 AM
“a radiative forcing is any imposed change in an average radiative influence on temperature.”
Why would any thinking person accept some fraudulent phrase such as “radiative forcing”? What change do you claim is ‘mposed’?
“Just because there are other thermal flows than radiative fluxes that determine the surface temperature doesnt mean radiative forcing doesnt exist.”
That’s true, nor does some fantasy claim mean that the term does physically exist. Where is your
evidence of such physical existence?
“(Although I am curious how, in your mind, a radiative flow is different from a radiative flux.)”
‘Thermal flow’ (from fluid dynamics) is the relocation of mass with sensible heat via convection. This is not remotely like thermal EM radiative flux, that requires no mass at all!
Will Jaonoschka,
Help with your post: YOU: “Hah! The goal of the experiment is to verify. Where is the scientific goal of the experiment is to Falsify some premise, never, verify some nonsense whatever?”
Did you scramble some words or mix up your thoughts. I really do not know what you are trying to say or what your point is with this.
Are you saying science does not have the goal to verify?
If so you would be totally wrong (nothing unusual for you though)
Goal of science: “Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.”
Since I am not exactly sure what you mean it is really hard to determine if your point is good or bad, true or false.
Maybe others still posting can interpret what you mean and phrase it in such a way that I can understand the point being made.
Norman says: September 22, 2016 at 9:22 PM
“Will Janoschka, (Help with your post: YOU: Hah! The goal of the experiment is to verify. Where is the scientific goal of the experiment is to Falsify some premise, never, verify some nonsense whatever?)
“Are you saying science does not have the goal to verify?”
Exactly, only religions have need to verify belief! Science OTOH rejects any premise that cannot be logically falsified as religious belief. Those premise or hypothesis that remain after ‘every’ attempt to falsify, are considered for increased scrutiny until falsified, or replaced by some more general hypothesis! The definition of science!
“Goal of science: Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.”
So you say! If you wish to go to philosophy which must accept all concept, including tiny green unicorns with pink spots never observed, I can do that! I prefer science instead.
Please posit a falsifiable hypothesis of what some GHE acronym may be! If someone, anyone, can do that, falsifying such will be easy!
SCAMS abound!
Norman et. al.,
If you haven’t got a falsifiable (by reproducible experiment) hypothesis, you have nothing but strident hand waving assertions. That’s Cargo Cult Scientism, or religion if you prefer.
Appeals to the authority of a lunatic minority, claiming consensus, is about as rational as the adherents of a religion claiming they are the One True Faith, and everyone who doesn’t fall into line is a blasphemer and heretic.
Where’s your falsifiable hypothesis explaining the claimed planet heating properties of CO2?
With Trenberth’s missing heat? With Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize, perhaps. With Gavin Schmidt’s “Hottest year EVAH”? – well, since the last time it was hotter, of course!
Might as well just move along. No science to be found here.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: September 22, 2016 at 10:53 PM
“Appeals to the authority of a lunatic minority, claiming consensus, is about as rational as the adherents of a religion claiming they are the One True Faith, and everyone who doesnt fall into line is a blasphemer and heretic.”
Fellow blasphemers and heretics lend me your ear! I hab many of the consensus willing to pay top dollar for certified heretic ears! You may want to keep the other ear! Kinda like “do not look into laser beam with remaining eye”!
Mike Flynn asks yet again: “Wheres your falsifiable hypothesis explaining the claimed planet heating properties of CO2?”
In the top post and Prof. Tyndall’s paper explaining the planet heating properties of CO2 by experiment. Mike once again reinforces their work by not offering any falsification.
SkepticGoneWild
I guess this thread is running out of steam. I did want to respond your comment way above so I am bringing it down here.
YOU: “Norm,
You are violating both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
The outer shell/sphere is colder than the inner one. Heat, per the Second Law only transfers from hot to cold. The radiant heat flow equation also indicates the direction of heat transfer: from the higher temperature to the lower temperature. So per the radiant heat flow equation, heat is being transferred from the inner sphere to the outer.
Secondly, youve created energy out of nothing by raising the temperature of the inner sphere. A new higher inner sphere temperature would also raise the temperature of the outer sphere. The radiant heat flow equation demands this (Thot minus Tcold is higher now). When does this self heating cycle stop?”
I do not think I will get anywhere with you if I use two objects. I will simplify. Then you do not have to worry about the Second Law and how you think it works in the situation I described above.
You can raise or lower the surface temperature of a single object all by itself in the cold vacuum of empty space.
Okay the first item is once again to have a 1 square meter sphere in a very empty part of space. It is being heated by a continuous 500 watt input (can be any source you like, just has to be a constant)
Using this established equation.
q = σ T4 A (1)
where
q = heat transfer per unit time (W)
σ = 5.6703 10-8 (W/m2K4) – The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
T = absolute temperature in Kelvin (K)
A = area of the emitting body (m2)
SketpicGoneWild, do you accept the above equation as valid? If not my thought process will not be of any use to you. If you consider it valid than we can move on.
SkepticGoneWild
Putting the description of the ball into the equation we can find its surface temperature.
Power In 500 Watts which is q
500 W = (5.67*10^-8 W/m^2 K^4)(1 m^2)(T^4)
All the units will cancel to K
500/5.67*10^-8 = T^4
8,818,342,151 = T^4 = 306.44 K = 33.29 C
Does that seem reasonable to you? A one meter square sphere in the middle of deep space with a 500 Watt continuous power supply will reach an equilibrium temperature of 33.29 C (just assuming black-body for ease of calculation…if you put in an emissivity number it will not change the process I am working out)
Norman says: September 23, 2016 at 9:16 PM
“(just assuming black-body for ease of calculationif you put in an emissivity number it will not change the process I am working out)”
A very low emissivity must result in a very high temperature even with a few milliwatts of power!
Will Janoschka
A true statement. For my case it would not matter though because it was not a variable I was changing. If you chose a very low emissivity it would be the same low value in all the cases, you would still get the same results with different numerical values. A smaller sphere would still have a hotter surface than a larger sphere if the energy input was the same.
See my Will Janoschka September 23, 2016 at 7:57 PM
Even if there is no change in surface area but still only EMR flux coupling, the inside sphere’s temperature must increase because that is the way the S-B equation must work according to Dr. J. C. Maxwell!
SkepticGoneWild
Now you take the same 500 watt power supply but the sphere is reduced to only 0.5 square meters. You have the same energy input but less surface area. What now happens?
500 Watt = (5.67 *10^-8 W/m^2 K^4)(0.5 m^2)(T^4)
500/5.67*10^-8 = (0.5 m^2)(T^4)
8,818,342,151 = (0.5)(T^4)
8,818,342,151/ 0.5 = T^4
17,636,684,303 = T^4 = 364.42 K = 91.27 C
You can see the surface of the sphere increases and is not in violation of the 1st law. No energy is created or destroyed.
A smaller surface area allows less energy to be lost via radiation so the surface heats up until the new radiant flow emitted by the surface carries away 500 Watts.
You can go the other way as well and the surface will cool.
Make the surface area 10 square meters with the same 500 watts input
500 =SBC (10 m^2)(T^4)
T = 172.32 K = -100.83 C
Go further on the heating (all the same energy input)
Now go to 1/10 meter squared surface
T = 544.94 K = 271.79 C
Do you see how this works? It is the same think Roy Spencer has said many times. Temperature is determined by both energy in and energy out and these examples, using a valid radiant energy equation, clearly show this is the case.
You can see the 1st Law would be violated if the surface did not heat up or cool down as you changed the surface area with a constant energy input.
Just what does this have to do with some claim of back radiation, thermal EM flux in a direction of higher radiance as Dr. Roy posits,or how Earth’s atmosphere operates?
Will Janoschka
The point is to clarify Dr. Roy’s point that radiation output is a critical component of surface temperature. Not just radiant energy in.
Back radiation will effect the outgoing Net radiant flux from the surface using the standard equation:
q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac
The temperature of the emitting atmosphere (and its emissivity based upon total concentration of GHG present) will be the second term in the equation. The larger the number the less Net radiation will leave the surface. If it is receiving the same energy input from the Sun, its temperature will rise until a new equilibrium temperature for Tsurf radiates enough energy to compensate for the reduced NET.
That is what changing the size of the spheres sets out to demonstrate. Have the same input energy but change the output and the surface temperature rises or falls based upon the change in the energy output.
Norman says: September 23, 2016 at 11:06 PM
“The point is to clarify Dr. Roys point that radiation output is a critical component of surface temperature. Not just radiant energy in.”
Just where did Dr. Roy make such a point? Dr. Roy’s model has nothing to do with how this Earth’s atmosphere works, as this Earth ‘needs’ no surface thermal EM radiant exitance at all to keep operating as it always has! The variable airborne water in all phases has more than sufficient potential to affect surface temperature by much more than any and all of the Climate Clowns are spouting. Not even one of those Clowns has a clue as to how much and where this airborne water may be.
“Back radiation will effect the outgoing Net radiant flux from the surface using the standard equation:”
Dr. Roy’s whole point on this post is to again promote the UN-falsifiable premise/claim of opposing flux and back radiation. Such logically UN-falsifiable premise ‘must’ be scientifically rejected as meaningless.
“q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac”
Try the actual: Flux p(W/m^2) = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4)!! Note that the interior of any enclosing parenthesis ‘must’ be evaluated prior to any exterior algebraic operation including assignment! There has always only been one flux. The sign of the parenthesis evaluation give the direction of flux in all cases.
“The temperature of the emitting atmosphere (and its emissivity based upon total concentration of GHG present) will be the second term in the equation. The larger the number the less Net radiation will leave the surface.”
Backwards again emissivity is an unsigned multiplier! For the Earth and its atmosphere the only useful emissivity is (1-1/e) 63% the emissivity of one optical depth at each frequency.
“If it is receiving the same energy input from the Sun, its temperature will rise until a new equilibrium temperature for Tsurf radiates enough energy to compensate for the reduced NET.”
There is no measurable reduction in atmospheric exitance via CO2 levels in excess of 180 ppmv. The normalization from power to flux makes your argument about radius meaningless, as a larger radius both receives and emits proportional to the square of such radius.
Will,
Look at the bright side. At least Norm is not out looting and pillaging with all the time he spends here. Just leave him alone with all his fantasy thought experiments
SkepticGoneWild
I think I should correct you. These are not really thought experiments, they are derivations of established thermodynamics equations. The only thought experiment in them is to create the ideal conditions of no radiant sources around (which can be found in deep space but can’t easily be reached)
It could be done on Earth but not by me. Vacuum chambers that are cooled by liquid helium would do the trick but the experiment would be very expensive.
I think you have a very strange understanding of science. Once experimental evidence can find proper equations (which then are rigorously tested) the equations are applicable. How do you think scientists can predict where a total eclipse will occur years in advance? They do it by using gravitational equations that have been proven valid and work then plug in numbers.
That you call calculations using actual equations a fantasy really indicates you are lost in some unscientific illusion of reality. I would like to break you out of this prison but the door is open and you are comfortable where you are. Enjoy the antiscience make believe world you live in. I will stay in the real world of actual science.
Norman says: September 24, 2016 at 5:59 AM
“SkepticGoneWild I think I should correct you. These are not really thought experiments, they are derivations of established thermodynamics equations. The only thought experiment in them is to create the ideal conditions of no radiant sources around (which can be found in deep space but cant easily be reached)”
Correct! Not thought experiments as no observable thought went into your ranting of your religious version of science. Have you ever actually accomplished even one physical experiment?
“It could be done on Earth but not by me. Vacuum chambers that are cooled by liquid helium would do the trick but the experiment would be very expensive.”
All has been done! Honeywell has a vacuum chamber that can maintain less than 10 Kelvin. The Appolo module fit inside it! Lockheed has a vacuum chamber that a whole F-15 fits inside! I have been in it. Itek has a 150 ft chamber that can maintain a vacuum better than space half way between Earth and Mars. Good vacuum 18″ bell jars number in the millions! TI has more than a thousand in the US, while most production is overseas! They own 35 scanning electron microscopes.
“I will stay in the real world of actual science.”
It is you Norman that must remain in fantasy land as you have no science. All you spout comes from SKS and Wikipedia!
Will Janoschka
Are you being serious with your post or is it an attempt at humor?
It is most strange and twisted thought process you display.
YOU: “Correct! Not thought experiments as no observable thought went into your ranting of your religious version of science. Have you ever actually accomplished even one physical experiment”
q = σ T4 A (1)
So are you saying this equation is a religious version of science?
Let me know because that is what it seems to be.
Either you are trying to be funny in your own way or you are so far gone in your own created reality none will guide you back.
I think strongly you are Schizophrenic with clear and lucid moments sometimes that devolve into scrambled messed up thoughts.
Anyway have a nice life in your own self created Universe.
Norm,
Everything about your fantasy sphere and outer spherical shell thought experiment is wrong. You did not give any data on the radius of the outer spherical shell. How can you calculate heat transfer to the outer shell without this information? You are misapplying the equation you are using. What if the outer shell is 1 million kilometers from the inner sphere? Please see the worked out problem I referenced earlier.
The equation you are using is a heat transfer equation. “q” is always from Thot to Tcold. Heat only transfers in the direction from hot to cold, also per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The colder outer shell cannot transfer heat to the warmer inner sphere.
You cannot raise the temperature of the inner sphere without adding external energy to the system. And that is what you are doing, in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Please perform your little shell magic with an inner sphere and say 100 outer shells. See what kind of temperature you can achieve!
Your silly model does not represent the alleged GHE anyway.
If you want to perform an experiment, see if you can get backradiation to heat up a pool of water at night. Good luck with that.
Last summer Dr. Spencer showed how to get a pool of water to measure higher temperature from cirrus LW than a pool of water not in view of the cirrus LW. By experiment in situ.
Ball4,
It was a backyard experiment. Both pools of water cooled. And the temperature difference between the two pools was minor (0.3 degrees). Different temperature probes used for each pool.
360 W/m2 of SOLAR insolation would have heated the pools. In the presence of DLWR (backradiation) the water cooled.
Backradiation can only penetrate the water surface a few micrometers. Studies indicate the surface ocean layer to be cooler by about 0.5K to 1.0K than the ocean layer 500 micrometers below. If backradiation was heating the oceans, the gradient would be the opposite.
This experiment, if anything, proves that treating Atmospheric flux and Solar Flux identically as does the model presented by Roy above, is without merit.
Yes, sketptic, you are correct – the extra DWLWIR energy added to Dr. Spencer’s night time water pool from the passing cirrus bands had enough photon energy to show a minor (as expected) higher temperature over the water not viewing the cirrus. Using Dr. Spencer’s words a cooler object (cirrus) caused a warmer object (the surface pool of water) to become warmer still (than the pool of water not viewing the cirrus). The pools of water detected the passing cirrus – great high cloud detectors.
“Studies indicate the surface ocean layer to be cooler by about 0.5K to 1.0K”
Yes, for example the water viewing the cirrus would be 0.4K to 0.9K temperature over the 0.5K to 1.0K water in the pool not viewing the cirrus.
In this case, the temperatures were measured a few inches deep in the water though so proves the ocean temperatures can detect passing night time cirrus DWLWIR several inches deep not just in the top 500 micrometers.
Sketptic is incorrect though in that the top post model does NOT treat solar SW and DWLIR the same, you can see by inspection the solar SW arrow is yellow and the terrestrial LW arrows are red.
Ball4,
No. The minor difference in the two pools of water could be related to temperature detection issues or minor differences in the containers themselves.
Detection of passing clouds is not the issue. The issue is whether DLWR on a clear night can actually warm a pool of water, as does solar energy during the day. Spencer even conceded the issue by saying, “It may be that sunlight is more efficient, Joule for Joule, than infrared due to the depth of penetration effect (many meters rather than microns).”
The experiment unfortunately was too crude to definitively answer the questions he was seeking to answer. With DLWR penetration of water only a little more than 10 micrometers, his instruments could not detect what the temperature gradient looked like in the top millimeter of water. What was clear from the experiment is that DLWR could not warm the pool of water. From this, it is clear that the warming effect of 1 Watt of solar energy is not the equivalent of 1 Watt of DLWR. Not even close.
Don’t be silly about the red/yellow color of the model arrows.
“could be”
Waffling. You need to prove it by replication sketptic. Actually, the data is in accord with 1LOT and the simple analysis Dr. Spencer performed. Results are the same as others have found, the test is replicable all the instructions are given. You have some work to do to back up your assertions.
“Detection of passing clouds is not the issue. The issue is whether DLWR on a clear night can actually warm a pool of water, as does solar energy during the day.”
These are one and the same thing. The solar SW energy AND the energy in LW can modulate temperature, this seems so basic but too many miss the introductory science thru misuse of the heat term.
“The experiment unfortunately was too crude to definitively answer the questions he was seeking”
The experiment worked, a priori.
“With DLWR penetration of water only a little more than 10 micrometers, his instruments could not detect what the temperature gradient looked like in the top millimeter of water. What was clear from the experiment is that DLWR could not warm the pool of water.”
DWLWIR did create a higher KE in the pool of water as its temperature was higher being in view of the added cirrus radiation over the pool of water not in view of the cirrus. And several inches deep proving the water temperature at that depth was able to be modulated by the added cirrus cloud LW, as the clouds were obviously detected by the thermometer.
No silliness, the arrow colors represent the spectrum associated with the SW and LW.
Ball4,
It was a crude backyard experiment. No point in replicating.
Even though the experiment was crude, it worked in that it showed DLWR was not capable of warming a pool of water.
“Even though the experiment was crude, it worked in that it showed DLWR was not capable of warming a pool of water.”
Sketptic is simply proven wrong by experiment. Night time:
Pool of water with warmer shield radiation incident = 74F
Pool of water with no shield cooler sky radiation view = 73.6F
Apparently sketptic cannot read actual data.
——
High cirrus come into view of the no shield water adding its incident photons transformed into water KE as measured at the thermometer several inches deep:
Pool of water with warmer shield radiation incident = 72.5F
Pool of water with no shield cooler sky radiation view = 72.2F
As the analysis shows, as expected, the added amount of LW from the cirrus increased the KE of the no shield water over with shield water as no shield water temperature differential warmed to only 0.3K a warming of 0.1F.
Dr. Spencer writes it out too, sketptic should simply read the data. But I expect no view change, only that Dr. Spencer experimental data proves sketptic wrong.
Apparently Ball4 has invented a new definition for warming. Typical for climate pseudo science
No new definition of warming, sketptic, if the internal KE of an object rises, temperature increase shows the object warmed. This should be simple enough for sketptic and the application to Dr. Spencer’s work is straightforward. If not, let someone know, sketptic.
“temperature increase shows the object warmed.” [Ball4]
Each pool of water DECREASED in temperature. Hello! McFLy!
Yes, each water pool showed a steady decrease all night yet the one in view of the extra LW cirrus energy absorbed transformed into water KE is at a higher temperature measured by thermometer several inches deep than the other water pool.
That is why a cooler object (the cirrus) made a warmer object (the surface water pool in view) warmer still (than the surface water pool not in view of the added energy).
Try real hard this time to think that thru Sketptic, all in accord with 1LOT consistent with 2LOT. You can learn this, it is not all that hard. Might be something up at the 6th grade level now. someday you will make HS level if you work it at. Radiation? That is HS Jr./Sr. level for college bound.
His keepers will not let him out! Why they let him near a computer connected to the internet is beyond me. Perhaps some sort of political correctness. Maybe he just drools less!
Can someone please explain why most folk posting here think that the atmospheric pressure, density, temperature lapse is created by dynamic convection rather than static gravitational compression as was clearly demonstrated by John Herapath and John James Waterston who both commented on increase in temperature with compression but deemed such to be only of interest to meteorology?
Even Kristain admits the pressure and density gradients with altitude are a result of gravitational compression but not the temperature gradient. Why? All three gradients are always evident in a gas centrifuge even with no mass flow (closed). From what I can find convection if allowed can only lower the magnitude of the statically induced temperature lapse.
Will,
A temperature gradient is always linked to a heat flux. You can imagine filling a column with an isothermal gas, depending on the way you proceed, you effectively will observe an initial temperature gradient due to pressure. Then, by thermal radiative flux or conduction, you will tend towards an isothermal column.
Many people think that a gravito-thermal profile exists spontaneously, especially climatologists, but it goes against what we know of thermodynamics and against what is observed. When flows are low (winter high pressures areas), we often find temperatue inversions.
Convection is not the cause of the gradient but only limits its value. The sun and greenhouse gases create the gradient.
phi says: September 24, 2016 at 3:41 AM
“Will, A temperature gradient is always linked to a heat flux. You can imagine filling a column with an isothermal gas, depending on the way you proceed, you effectively will observe an initial temperature gradient due to pressure. Then, by thermal radiative flux or conduction, you will tend towards an isothermal column.”
I understand that is the standard thermodynamics! Where oh where does thermodynamics ever include gravitational compression of the atmosphere? Why did the originators of the kinetic theory of gas consider this? Why did both Clausius and Boltzmann both consider that temperature is an expression of the combination of both sensible heat power accumulation but includes the power accumulation expressed by differential pressure? Why did Newton express KE as the rate of change of momentum delta mv rather than just (mv^2)/2?
As a gas mean free path decreases, even with a constant rms molecular speed the rate of change in molecular momentum must increase as the rate of collision must increase. What is wrong with a premise that gravitational compression statically maintains a temperature gradient preventing classical spontaneous conductive heat transfer in the direction of lower temperature? Clearly gravitational compression statically maintains a pressure gradient preventing classical spontaneous gas mass flow in the direction of lower pressure!
There is just so much claimed known by academics that just ain’t so! Perhaps the gravitational thermostatic temperature lapse is sufficiently high enough so that convection can lower the magnitude of thermal lapse, but never result in anything approaching isothermal for a planetary atmosphere. Who has even looked? Inversions can always be mechanically induced by Earth’s rotation.
“Convection is not the cause of the gradient but only limits its value.”
I agree!
“The sun and greenhouse gases create the gradient.”
I disagree! Both really, really, mess up the understanding though!
phi says, September 24, 2016 at 3:41 AM:
Whoa!! Hold your horses, mister! Where in the world did you get this idea?
No convection, that is, no vertical turbulent mixing of air masses, no negative temperature gradient, phi. This is quite elementary.
Yes, you need the Sun to heat the surface and for the surface in turn to heat the lowermost air layer of the atmosphere, and you also need for the atmospheric column to simultaneously cool radiatively to space, in order to sustain an operative and stable atmospheric circulation running in a steady state.
But it is the rising and falling air as a result of this ‘low’ heating and ‘high’ cooling that “creates” and “maintains” the actual temperature gradient. It is very important here to separate between the heat INPUT and OUTPUT to/from the “troposphere system” on the one hand, and the heat THROUGHPUT from the heating to the cooling end of the system itself. Energy moves INTERNALLY within the troposphere by the movement of the air itself, but energy is never convected into or out of the troposphere.
Whenever air rises (or falls) without condensation of WV taking place at the same time, it cools (or warms) along the dry adiabatic lapse rate (-/+9.75 K/km). Whenever we have simultaneous condensation going on, the cooling/warming rate will be less, down to ~5 K/km. But the adiabatic lapse rates (the dry and the saturated) are ALWAYS associated directly with the vertical movement of air.
Kristian,
“No convection, that is, no vertical turbulent mixing of air masses, no negative temperature gradient, phi. This is quite elementary.”
Surprising statement. The gradient is evidently the cause of free convection. Forced convection creates a gradient but with work.
Regarding the existing gradient in the troposphere, it is nearly the wet adiabatic only in strong low pressure areas. For the majority of the troposphere, it is a compound of dry compression and radiative cooling.
“Regarding the existing gradient in the troposphere, it is nearly the wet adiabatic only in strong low pressure areas.”
In midlatitude tropics the standard atm. committee voted an avg. of 6.5K/km looked about right from many soundings in real weather. Not just in low pressure areas, phi. Still, for calm hydrostatic atm. conditions the 9.8K/km dry rate is commonly found from soundings.
“Whenever air rises (or falls) without condensation of WV taking place at the same time, it cools (or warms) along the dry adiabatic lapse rate (-/+9.75 K/km).”
The air won’t rise or fall if it is on the DALR which is why they call it neutral stable. The parcel only rises or falls if its T is NOT on the DALR. The DALR is often stated to be what the atm. is or should be, that is not true, the DALR simply establishes whether the air parcel at a T is stable or not, which is why they call stable conditions hydrostatic.
Ball4,
You confuse the value of a thing to its nature.
And you forget your photons, they have resigned?
phi says, September 24, 2016 at 4:05 PM:
The only ‘surprising statement’ here is yours, phi: “The sun and greenhouse gases create the gradient.”
No. The only thing needed to initiate convection inside a fluid subjected to gravity is heating at the bottom. You don’t need a temperature gradient already present within the fluid. That gradient will emerge as the heat is taken from the bottom (the heating end) up to the top (the cooling end) by way of … convection.
The gradient, however, is what constrains convective uplift. When there is no surface heating (and no continued evaporation going on), convection will end at the point where it has finally managed to distribute the heat transferred from the surface up through the air column in such a way that the gradient is no longer superadiabatic anywhere, aided of course by radiative cooling to space (although radiative cooling in the troposphere will in effect only be relevant when and where there is no turbulent mixing of the air, when and where the air is stable and stratified). Then in the morning, as the Sun starts heating the surface, the surface will also start heating the lowermost air layer of the troposphere. This heating will eventually make the surface/air gradient superadiabatic, and convection will result.
I’ve had this conversation with far too many people, and there seems to be a lot of confusion out there regarding this particular subject. People tend to start their reasoning right in the middle of things rather than at the beginning. You need to start with the fundamentals: Would there even BE a troposphere, a tropopause, without buoyancy and convection, phi? Once everything is purely run by radiation, you risk ending up with an atmosphere looking like our stratosphere, stable, stratified, and with a positive temperature gradient (temps increasing as you go up). Or worse, you risk ending up with no atmosphere at all. An exosphere at best. Because what would bring the air molecules sufficiently fast, sufficiently high up from the surface, in large enough numbers, for them to have the time to assemble into a real gas held up by its own internal pressure, in the first place? If there were no such thing as buoyancy in the world …?
And as the buoyancy phenomenon (-> convection) in this way – from the very beginning – brings the air (and the surface energy held inside it) up and away from the solar-heated surface, essentially ‘building’ the atmosphere, it sets the tropospheric temperature gradient at the same time. Because as the heated air rises from the surface, it expands and cools at a very specific rate, set by the planet’s “gravity” and the atmosphere’s “specific heat”: the adiabatic lapse rate. If there is condensation going on as the air rises, this lapse rate will be lower than if there is no condensation going on as the air rises:
The DALR: dT/dz = g/c_p
The SALR: dT/dz = g/c_p (L_v * dq_vs)/(c_p * dz)
where the “(L_v dq_vs)/(c_p dz)” term is simply describing the release of latent heat of vaporisation inside the rising and thus adiabatically expanding (-> cooling) air, reducing the temperature falloff rate with altitude.
No. It is primarily a compound (an average) of dry and saturated adiabatic cooling/warming of air masses moving up and down the air column, but yes, with some contribution from radiative cooling as well. The global average environmental lapse rate (ELR) is estimated at 6-6.5 K/km, the DALR is 9.75 K/km, the SALR is ~5 K/km.
One might wonder, why isn’t the ELR much steeper on average in the dry polar regions than in the moist tropical regions? Why is it in fact the other way around? Because, in the latter regions, there is strong and persistent convection going on, while in the former regions there are only sporadic/intermittent events of weak convection occurring. As a result, most of the cooling to space occurs directly down low via radiation in the polar regions, but way up high in the tropical regions, the surface energy transported there via convection.
Ball4 says, September 24, 2016 at 9:01 PM:
Hahaha! People here claiming that Ball4 has a good grasp of physical concepts obviously aren’t reading what he’s writing.
Good one, Ball4. Thanks for the laugh!
That should be simple enough for even Kristian to understand.
Evidently not. Kristian prefers to simply assume the facts are as he presents them. This would work if labs and atm. soundings did not exist to the contrary, but they do and show nature itself disagrees with Kristian no matter the pretzels Kristian twists for us.
Citing the work of the masters, showing sounding data, allow for simple explanations of nature Kristian, not the pretzels you twist yourself into. No view change expected, the actual atm. data and simple experiment are sufficient to prove Kristian’s inaccurate, wrong comments that do not agree with what others have found in nature.
Ball4 says, September 25, 2016 at 8:03 AM:
Hehe, I do understand that we’re talking about completely different things, Ball4. You apparently can’t see it. And accordingly you attempt to lecture me on something that doesn’t even concern what I discuss. Hence my outburst.
Will Janoschka says, September 24, 2016 at 2:34 AM:
I have yet to see a single commenter claiming that the atmospheric pressure and density gradients are somehow “created” by dynamic convection rather than static gravitational compression, Will.
When it comes to the atmospheric (or, most relevant to our discussion, the tropospheric) temperature gradient, however, phi is right – this is all to do with the heat constantly flowing into it, through it and out of it, and – significantly – HOW this dynamic flow of heat is accomplished.
Ever noticed how the atmospheric pressure and density gradients continue perfectly along the same curve from the bottom to the absolute top of the atmosphere, while the atmospheric temperature gradient changes (even reverses) with each layer of the atmosphere, Will? What distinguishes the troposphere from the stratosphere? It’s in their very names. The troposphere is the domain of convection, of turbulent mixing, both vertically and horizontally, of the air masses. The stratosphere isn’t. It is instead radiatively run. The temperature gradient in the former is negative (temps decreasing as you go up), the one in the latter is positive (increasing temps going up). Main difference? The troposphere is mainly heated from below and thoroughly run by convection/atmospheric circulation, the stratosphere is mainly heated from above and thus has no convection to speak of. Even so, they both have ONE thing in common: they both have heat constantly and dynamically flowing into, through and out of them …
Norman
“That is radiant heat only from the CERES data. It does not include any other forms of heat transfer.”
JMAs JRA-55 atlas does. All this nonsense from Kristian et al again made me waste some time.
virakkraft.com/Fluxes-Africa.pdf
Global data here: virakkraft.com/Fluxes-from-JRA55.xlsx
lgl
Thanks for the links.
“Ever noticed how the atmospheric pressure and density gradients continue perfectly along the same curve from the bottom to the absolute top of the atmosphere, while the atmospheric temperature gradient changes (even reverses) with each layer of the atmosphere, Will? What distinguishes the troposphere from the stratosphere? Its in their very names. The troposphere is the domain of convection, of turbulent mixing, both vertically and horizontally, of the air masses. The stratosphere isnt. ”
One can’t have vertical air movement without horizontal air movement, but you could have horizontal air movement without vertical air movement-
“The stratosphere is a region of intense interactions among radiative, dynamical, and chemical processes, in which the horizontal mixing of gaseous components proceeds much more rapidly than does vertical mixing.”-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere#Circulation_and_mixing
So you *could* choose say the Troposphere has much more vertical air movement than the Stratosphere.
One also say getting enough buoyancy for balloon to float is harder to do above the troposphere. The stratosphere would be good place to fly balloons- but one has a shortage of lift. Balloons do go higher than airplanes, but they have to be bigger to make up for the reduced buoyancy.
Heavier than air vehicles create lift, balloon have lift- or school children can send a balloon to 80,000 feet [or higher] which may be higher than military jets can fly- or certainly higher than commercial airliners can fly. These balloon can go higher because one can use helium or hydrogen, and by using light structural mass and small payload- the heavier than air are limited by speed they go in relation to the lift they can generate. Though U2 and SR-71 were specifically, designed to fly very high- about 70,000 and 100,000 ft, respectively [and these spy planes flew cameras rather than weapons].
“The energy input from the sun is fixed at an assumed 240 Watts per sq. meter.”
The solar constant is 1.362 kW/m, why is input to the surface only 240 W/m2?
All due to the miracle of climatological averaging!
Just assume that all of the Earth is exposed to the Sun at one time, assume that the sunlight is every where the same, make more assumptions as necessary, and you can come up,with any figure you like!
The fact that the Earth has cooled since its creation shows that any figure you come up with was insufficient to prevent the Earth cooling.
Only half the Earth is exposed to the sun at any one instance, so how does the solar constant get reduced to 240 W/m2?
Don’t confuse the GHE true believers with facts!
It makes them uncomfortable, and prone to outbursts of irrational handwaving.
The GHE crew assume that the Earth is a flat disc, not a sphere, and assume that the sunlight is evenly spread out. They think that because the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of a circle of equal radius, then only 1/4 of the sunlight reaching the surface of a sphere impinges on the disc seen by the Sun.
Foolish, I know, but that’s the nature of true believers. Incident angle falloff, the Fresnel effect, mean nothing to the GHE mob.
Cheers.
Agreed, surface area of sphere is 4 x that of a disk. But insolation imposes on only half the Earth surface…so shouldn’t the fixed radiation 1/2 of the solar constant. That is, the constant solar radiation of 1.362 kW/m divided over a hemisphere is 681 W/m2. So what is the rational for establishing a model on a 240 w/m2 solar input?
“So what is the rational for establishing a model on a 240 w/m2 solar input?”
The sun is always on, there is no shade in space. And the approx. 240 is what is measured post albedo.
Ball4,
The sun may be always on, but the only time you can measure 240 W/m2 of solar energy on the earth’s surface is twice a day. Once in the early morning shortly after sunrise, and once in the evening shortly before sunset. So you are just making stuff up.
LJ Ryan:
The rational for using 240 W/m2 is twofold:
1. Climate scientists are too stupid to come up with a model that represents reality.
2. The pseudo scientists want you to think the sun is only capable of warming the earth to -18 C.
L.J. Ryan says, September 24, 2016 at 8:05 PM:
And that’s all you need to know. If you picture yourself a flat, round BB disc at 1AU from the Sun, with Earth’s radius, and with the same side always facing the Sun, then all the square metres on this sun-facing side of the disc would receive ~1361 watts at all times.
But Earth isn’t the eternally sun-facing side of a flat, round BB disc in space. It is a spinning sphere. And so, to figure out how many watts each square metre of this spinning sphere has received on average after one full revolution, one diurnal cycle, then you will have to divide the disc value above by … four.
And what do you get when dividing 1361 W/m^2 by four? NOT 240 W/m^2, but 340.25 W/m^2.
The 240 W/m^2 value is arrived at only AFTER having taking the average global albedo (~0.3) into account:
Q_sw = TSI(1-α)/4 = (1361*0.7)/4 = 238.18 W/m^2
This is Earth’s average heat input (Q_sw, or ‘net sw’) from the Sun, at the global “Top of the Atmosphere (ToA)”, also called “Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR)”.
There is absolutely nothing controversial about this. No one claims that this value is anything but the global AVERAGE. However, if you want to know how much energy the Earth system absorbs from the Sun in total each day, all you need is this average value, plus the global area (in m^2) at the ToA, plus the number of seconds in a 24h period. How you then want to spread that total amount of energy around, temporally and spatially, is totally up to you. But it will never change the total. And the total is all that matters to a GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET.
“..but the only time you can measure 240 W/m2 of solar energy on the earth’s surface is twice a day.”
That is weather sketptic, not climate.
Ball4,
No. It’s not a difference between weather and climate. It’s the difference between reality and fantasy.
Reality is found from proper experiment sketptic, not simply your assertion. The 240 is global measured over many annual periods and the ~whole globe. You know, by experiment. Basic theory shows why the experiment finds the global TOA 240 in/out. The theory was known a priori, the various satellite intrumentation confirmed.
OMG Ball4, you don’t understand the concept of a “measurement”. Like I said, you will only find a measurement of 240 W/m2 twice in one day. 240 is an CALCULATED AVERAGE, a phony construct where the sun alleged shines 24/7 over the whole earth at one time.
If you can’t understand simple concepts of measurement, how can you make an informed decision on the pseudo science of climate change.
“240 is an CALCULATED AVERAGE, a phony construct”
sketptic, 240 was calculated a priori, it is now confirmed by experiment as 240 is measured by radiometers on various satellites looking down. Give or take.
Ball4,
Are you drunk or stoned?
Hello! McFly! We are talking SOLAR input. And you are measuring from satellites looking “down”??
What planet are you on?
The LW is from looking down Sketptic, the SW is from looking up.
LW out=SW in at about 240 steady state. A 1st grader should be able to understand that – as they would know to look up toward the sun and down at the ground just like the satellites. The energy flux are both ~240 steady state at TOA with maybe a little higher SW absorbed in the ocean energy content as shown by & (still sparsely) measured by Argo thermometry.
From time to time, there seems to be slight confusion about temperature, heat, and energy, with many people firmly mired in the period before the 20th century.
This is very evident in discussions of atmospheric temperatures.
For starters, the surface of the Earth is nowhere lower than 175 K or so.
Free space, being free of matter has no temperature. The space surrounding the Earth does contain enough matter to be considered to have a temperature of 4 K or so.
It follows that the temperature gradient between the surface of the Earth and outer space through the atmosphere is at least 170 K, and is often much greater. Any matter between the surface of the Earth and outer space will be colder than the surface of the Earth, and hotter than outer space, under normal conditions.
What about the thermosphere and the tropospheric inversion, I hear you ask? At low pressures, conventional notions of temperature become nonsensical. Nominally high temperatures do not generate much heat, and little absolute energy is present, compared with denser gases.
EMR does not result from atoms “banging together”. Atoms are not like little billiard balls.
Feynman said every non nuclear physical reaction can be explained by the following –
An electron moves from place to place.
A photon moves from place to place.
An electron absorbs and emits a photon.
A falsifiable hypothesis, if you like. So far, nobody has managed to demonstrate that Feynman’s hypothesis has ever been shown to be wrong.
SO THERE!
Cheers.
“An electron absorbs and emits a photon.”
An electron getting kicked up a quantized energy level absorbing a photon takes about 100x the molecular collisional energy available at normal Earth temperatures. Earth solar and terrestrial photons are therefore more normally absorbed by molecules in their much lower quantized rotational and vibrational levels. Translational KE motion is of course not quantized.
Ball4,
You’re wrong of course.
The paradoxes involved in Maxwell’s wave theory of light – the “ultraviolet catastrophe”, for example, gave rise to quantum theory, and hence things like a photon – having a specific “quantum” of energy dependent on its wavelength.
As I said, your thinking is mired in the 19th century. No little “billiard balls”. Energy is transferred as Feynman said.
In the physical sense, light covers all energies from the infinitely large, to the infinitely minuscule.
A photon of one of these infinitely numerous individual frequencies has a particular energy associated with it.
Whether you like it or not, that’s the way it is.
If you don’t believe in quantum physics, just pretend it doesn’t exist. Maybe it will go away.
Cheers.
“In the physical sense, light covers all energies from the infinitely large, to the infinitely minuscule.”
Yes, Mike you have that right. So too for radiation.
“A photon of one of these infinitely numerous individual frequencies has a particular energy associated with it.”
h*f, right again Mike. You are 2for2.
“If you dont believe in quantum physics, just pretend it doesn’t exist. Maybe it will go away.”
Like Mike pretending, wanting us to believe the falsifiable hypothesis he seeks doesn’t exist in the top post and Prof. Tyndall’s experiments?
No. Like Feynman wrote the easiest person to fool is oneself.
I like the conclusions from experiment Mike. Quantum physics for example, experiments which show the energy levels in a photon to be absorbed kick up an atm. molecule’s electron level at Earth’s atm. STP rarely happens, instead the rotational, vibrational and translational molecular energies are the important atm. ones found from experiment.
Mike Flynn says: September 24, 2016 at 5:53 PM
“From time to time, there seems to be slight confusion about temperature, heat, and energy, with many people firmly mired in the period before the 20th century. This is very evident in discussions of atmospheric temperatures.For starters, the surface of the Earth is nowhere lower than 175 K or so.”
OK
“Free space, being free of matter has no temperature. The space surrounding the Earth does contain enough matter to be considered to have a temperature of 4 K or so.”
The average surround ‘radiance’ equivalent temperature is 6.8 Kelvin
Only the rare CMB equivalent ‘temperature’ less than 4 Kelvin. But thermometric or thermodynamic ‘temperature’ applies only to the sensible heat density of mass! The two (or more) different temperatures are never equivalent nor comparable.
“It follows that the temperature gradient between the surface of the Earth and outer space through the atmosphere is at least 170 K, and is often much greater.”
What lets you claim some gradient? A gradient implies a linear function with some other independent variable?
“Any matter between the surface of the Earth and outer space will be colder than the surface of the Earth, and hotter than outer space, under normal conditions.”
Since outer space ‘temperature’ is not comparable matter ‘temperature’, such is nonsense!
“What about the thermosphere and the tropospheric inversion, I hear you ask? At low pressures, conventional notions of temperature become nonsensical. Nominally high temperatures do not generate much heat, and little absolute energy is present, compared with denser gases.”
OK! Who asked?
“EMR does not result from atoms banging together. Atoms are not like little billiard balls.”
Thermal EMR exitance from this atmosphere is totally powered by the sensible power (nkT/t) of atmospheric molecules/atoms banging against each other creating the required delta momentum (nmv)!
“Feynman said every non nuclear physical reaction can be explained by the following
1.An electron moves from place to place.
2.A photon moves from place to place.
3.An electron absorbs and emits a photon.”
Where O where did Dr. R. Feynman ever claim such? What were his strict limitations of such statements? Why has no Photon been displayed as ‘physical’? Only the EMR effect has been demonstrated. number 3 is a complete fabrication and not from Feynman!
“A falsifiable hypothesis, if you like. So far, nobody has managed to demonstrate that Feynmans hypothesis has ever been shown to be wrong.”
In what possible way is that nonsense falsifiable? It is not even a hypothesis, but a claim of some method of explaining never expressed. Electrons are motionless? A “”photon”” moves in zero proper time? Electrons somehow change mass or velocity with interaction of EM flux?
Will,
I don’t need to claim a gradient. Temperature is from high to low.
Any contiguous matter – (I’m treating the atmosphere as such, if you don’t mind), will experience a thermal gradient unless isothermal. Contiguous matter at say 288 K at one point, and say 4, 6.8, or 20 K at another, will find itself at a temperature somewhere in between.
Just as there is a geothermal gradient within the Earth.
Atoms are not indivisible.
Feynman wrote it in his book “QED, the strange interaction between light and matter.”
The Wiki reference will allow you to follow it up, as you seem to doubt me.
“The key components of Feynman’s presentation of QED are three basic actions :
A photon goes from one place and time to another place and time.
An electron goes from one place and time to another place and time.
An electron emits or absorbs a photon at a certain place and time.”
As I said, covers all non nuclear processes.
Photons can be emitted, and detected, individually.
Maybe you might care to read Feynman’s books and lectures, and make up your own mind.
Electrons do indeed change mass and velocity from interaction with photons. Photons have no rest mass of course, but can transfer some or all of their momentum to an electron. “Collisions” between atoms simply do not occur. Basic quantum electrodynamics.
Feynman explains it far better than I can in a couple of lines.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: September 24, 2016 at 10:02 PM
“Will,I dont need to claim a gradient. Temperature is from high to low.Any contiguous matter (Im treating the atmosphere as such, if you dont mind)”
Earth’s atmosphere can never be considered contiguous (immediately adjacent) for more than a nanosecond.
” will experience a thermal gradient unless isothermal. Contiguous matter at say 288 K at one point, and say 4, 6.8, or 20 K at another, will find itself at a temperature somewhere in between.”
Only in your fantasty! never ever in Earth’s atmosphere! Please show any evidence of your continuum claims?
“Atoms are not indivisible.”
Who says? Under what conditions? Baby says dats my nucleus, dos are my electrons! Fuck off idiot!
“Photons can be emitted, and detected, individually.”
Oh ya! please identify even one physical example of emission or detection of your fantasy ‘photon’.
“Maybe you might care to read Feynmans books and lectures, and make up your own mind.”
Perhaps you can get Mommy to read and explain to you!
Will,
“Using pulsed laser excitation of a single quantum dot, a single-photon turnstile device that generates a train of single-photon pulses was demonstrated.”
Just the first one that came to hand. You may not believe it, but it exists in spite of what you imagine.
As to the indivisibility of the atom, I can’t believe you haven’t accepted nuclear fission.
As to the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, it’s generally known as the “environmental lapse rate”. I am surprised you don’t believe it occurs.
Facts don’t care what we think – they just are.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: September 25, 2016 at 6:38 AM
“Will,Using pulsed laser excitation of a single quantum dot, a single-photon turnstile device that generates a train of single-photon pulses was demonstrated.”
Just how many cycles of flux are in each of your claimed ‘photons’? A (hf) is a quantum not a photon!
“As to the indivisibility of the atom, I cant believe you havent accepted nuclear fission.”
Spontaneously in Earth’s atmosphere. Please state the probability in events/second?
“As to the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, its generally known as the environmental lapse rate. I am surprised you dont believe it occurs.”
The only use for environmental lapse rate in in the calibration of barometric altimeters. Meteorologists love the term tho! such exists nowhere in this atmosphere for more than 6 minutes.
“Facts dont care what we think they just are.”
QED is applicable for quantum scale. For Earth’s atmosphere a quantum is the size of an aircraft carrier!
Cheers.
Will,
I just checked my copy of QED. I forgot the three interactions described by Feynman don’t account for gravity either. Just everything else in the physical world.
Maybe experiment will prove him wrong one day. So far, everything seems to be behaving as predicted.
Clever chap, Richard Feynman.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: September 25, 2016 at 12:49 AM
“Will,I just checked my copy of QED. I forgot the three interactions described by Feynman dont account for gravity either. Just everything else in the physical world. Maybe experiment will prove him wrong one day. So far, everything seems to be behaving as predicted.
Clever chap, Richard Feynman.”
I agree Dr. Feynman was almost as good as Rudy Clausius or Ludy Boltzmann. Seriously challenge any of these and expect to get stomped down to a grease spot in the sand!
This is wrong of course.
Even free space contains photons and a photon gas that has a well defined temperature. It’s the cosmic background radiation with a temperature about 2.7 K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
alphagruis,
Free space, to me, is a vacuum. It emits no EMR, as it has no existence whatever. It is the absence of anything at all. Photons travelling through it were emitted by something else, obviously.
Free space exerts no gravitational force, but does not impede the force.
A vacuum, not being matter, has no temperature. GHE enthusiasts may disagree. They would be wrong.
As I pointed out, the background temperature is not 0 K. You agree. I rounded the generally agreed nominal temperature of 2.7 up to 4 or so, to avoid criticism. I apologise for this.
Cheers.
There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, Mike. If you find one, be sure to let someone know.
“The actual density of hydrogen as it exist in interstellar space is on the average of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. In the extremes, as low as 0.1 atom per cubic centimeter has been found in the space between the spiral arms and as high as 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter are known to exist near the galactic core.”
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml
100,000 Hydrogen atoms per cubic meter = 0.1 atom per cubic centimeter.
Within our solar system it’s generally much higher
Well, even the vacuum of space is not “nothing” as the naive idealized concept of Newtonian background space vacuum might suggest and Mike Flynn seems to believe it is.
Actually we now know that empty space is not really empty since it has spectroscopic properties more like a piece of transparent glass. For instance, a high energy photon that traverses it may hit it and knock out parts in the form of an electron-positron pair. Much like a visible light photon creates an electron-hole pair in the semiconductor of a photoelectric cell.
Moreover, even stone cold (0 K) it contains energy in the form of quantum-mechanical zero-point light that plays a major role precisely in quantum electrodynamics.
Roy,
The only suggestion Eli would make about your model, is that the specific heat of the surface and the atmosphere should differ, with the specific heat of the atmosphere being much lower.
In general, the model comes to equilibrium too quickly because, in any case, the specific heats are too mega orders of magnitude too low (OTOH this is, freely admitted, a quibble)
Eli Rabett
Eli Rabett says: September 24, 2016 at 6:42 PM
As usual nothing!
Worse even than trying to raise the sensible heat of the earth from 0 Kelvin is trying to supply the latent heat of sublimation required to even form an atmosphere. Dr. Roy shows that he considers doing algebra on formula from stupid folk to be some evidence for his fantasy. This physical Earth exists completely outside his realm of consciousness!
Did you take your disagreeable pills this morning? As Einstein said, everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. One can add any measure of complication anybunny wishes, but most of what you are spouting adds nothing significant to the example.
“Roy,
The only suggestion Eli would make about your model, is that the specific heat of the surface and the atmosphere should differ, with the specific heat of the atmosphere being much lower.”
Air is about 1.
Atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg
1 x 5.1 x 10^18 is 5.1 x 10^18 kJ
Or per square meter, 10,000 kJ
But on Earth what do count as specific heat of surface.
Do mean ocean- since covers most of planet.
Do count the depth sunlight shines thru the ocean.
About 100 meters. Or where most of sunlight shines thru the
ocean- less than, say 10 meters. Or somewhere around 90% of sunlight, say about 2 or 3 meters.
1 meter depth per square meter is about 4.18 per kg so 1 meter cube is about 4180 kJ
SkepticGoneWild
I just saw your post way up there. You had some complaints about my two shell example.
Here is your POST:
“Norm,
Everything about your fantasy sphere and outer spherical shell thought experiment is wrong. You did not give any data on the radius of the outer spherical shell. How can you calculate heat transfer to the outer shell without this information? You are misapplying the equation you are using. What if the outer shell is 1 million kilometers from the inner sphere? Please see the worked out problem I referenced earlier.
The equation you are using is a heat transfer equation. q is always from Thot to Tcold. Heat only transfers in the direction from hot to cold, also per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The colder outer shell cannot transfer heat to the warmer inner sphere.
You cannot raise the temperature of the inner sphere without adding external energy to the system. And that is what you are doing, in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Please perform your little shell magic with an inner sphere and say 100 outer shells. See what kind of temperature you can achieve!
Your silly model does not represent the alleged GHE anyway.
If you want to perform an experiment, see if you can get backradiation to heat up a pool of water at night. Good luck with that.”
SkepticGoneWild
Your first complaint:
YOU: “Everything about your fantasy sphere and outer spherical shell thought experiment is wrong. You did not give any data on the radius of the outer spherical shell. How can you calculate heat transfer to the outer shell without this information? You are misapplying the equation you are using. What if the outer shell is 1 million kilometers from the inner sphere? Please see the worked out problem I referenced earlier.”
The view factor is one with a sphere surrounded by a sphere. This means all the energy the inner sphere can emit will reach the outer sphere and likewise all the energy from the outer sphere that can reach the first sphere will even if a large distance exists between them. An equilibrium temperature will still take place at some point in time.
SkepticGoneWild
YOUR next complaint: “The equation you are using is a heat transfer equation. q is always from Thot to Tcold. Heat only transfers in the direction from hot to cold, also per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The colder outer shell cannot transfer heat to the warmer inner sphere.”
And it doesn’t and I never stated it does or will. It will transfer energy but not heat as heat is defined and how I am using it. It is the NET radiant energy between the two surfaces. The colder surface does not transfer HEAT as from its view, but it does send energy in the form of IR to the warmer one making the NET energy loss of the hotter sphere go down relative to a state with no outer sphere.
SkepticGoneWild
YOUR complaint: “You cannot raise the temperature of the inner sphere without adding external energy to the system. And that is what you are doing, in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”
I clearly stated in the initial conditions that the inner sphere was receiving a constant input of 500 Watts (500 joules/second)
Here is what I had stated: “Into this sphere a constant source of energy is added in such a way that it is spread evenly at the surface. For this calculation I will pick 500 Watts. So you have 500 joules/sec being added to the sphere. It will warm up until it reaches a temperature where it is emitting 500 Watts of power to the vacuum of space.”
So there is no violation of 1st Law. Only violation I see is you did not read my post but are jumping in to complain about it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-225761
SkepticGoneWild
Your final complaint: “Your silly model does not represent the alleged GHE anyway.”
Yes it actually does. The IR energy coming down from the warmed atmosphere would do exactly the same thing as the outer sphere. It will lower the amount of NET energy leaving the surface. With a constant input of energy (solar flux) the surface temperature will rise to a higher equilibrium temperature because less NET energy is leaving the surface than in a non greenhouse gas case (like the Moon’s surface, considerably colder overall than the Earth’s)
And at night? Or over four and a half billion years, day and night?
Cooling isn’t heating, except to a GHE true believer.
Cheers
Mike Flynn
I have already commented on your phony idea of the Earth cooling 4 and a half billion years as a stupid idea in all ways but you persist with it. Since you are stuck in that loop it seems pointless to repeat. The Earth’s surface cooled very rapidly in the first few million years and has cooled or warmed very little after that as provided to you by evidence and also that life has continued to exist on the surface for those billions of years.
You do not seem to possess logical thought process.
Logic: Surface cooled very rapidly because of the 4th power of radiant energy loss from a molten state (some believe a few million years). Then surface started fluctuated between a finite bound states of a few 10 degree C at most.
You: “The Earth has cooled for 4.5 billion years”
Norman,
Temperature then : higher than molten rock.
Temperature now : less than molten rock.
GHE enthusiasts love cherry picking – or claiming that cooling is heating!
Logic, mathematics, and reality are dismissed in favour of furious attempts to deny, evade and obscure.
Good luck with that. You can’t even provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis! Maybe Hansen, Schmidt, or Mann had one, but lent it to Jones – he probably threw it out with the rest of his missing data. Pity.
It would have come in handy.
Cheers.
“You cant even provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis!”
The falsifiable hypothesis is in top post found from experiment. It is Mike Flynn that can’t provide falsification.
The universe has also cooled since inception Mike, it is still cooling by expansion. The Earth has reached approx. steady state with the sun for now, this climate too will change.
SkepticGoneWild
I missed this complaint: “How can you calculate heat transfer to the outer shell without this information? ”
Again you complain without actually reading what I had stated. I did try to be quite clear in my original post. If you want to complain at least read what is stated and then make your objection. You don’t read my post and then make several complaints about it.
Here is what I stated. “With the sphere still receiving a constant input energy of 500 Watts (500 joules/sec) put a larger sphere totally around the first sphere and keep its temperature at 0 C or 273.15 K.”
It does not matter how much heat transfer from the inner shell the outer shell receives. The condition is to maintain the outer sphere at 0 C (either removing energy or adding energy but maintaining 0 C).
My calculation is not exactly the same as the one where the inner shell heats the outer shell until it reaches some equilibrium temperature. In this case the size of the outer sphere would be critical to the calculation, it is not critical if you keep the outer sphere temperature constant. Do you understand now? You are assuming things not stated and then complaining about them.
phi
I think I have a system that might convince even you of a multiple energy flux with radiation and a most certain way to prove such a multiple flux is a physical reality.
In our Universe astronomers are finding ever more planets around stars and star systems.
Consider this possibility. A planet exists within a two star system. One star is 100 times brighter than the other. This planet moves between the two stars. On one side is the super bright star shining on its surface. Now what happens on the other side facing the much weaker star?
If I am to believe the thought process of Kristian and Will Janoschka (who both are beyond certain they are right) it would be impossible for the weaker star to send radiant energy to the side of the planet facing it. If it were to do so it would mean it has its own unique flux and it is moving against a EMR gradient 100 times stronger. The only possible flow of EMR is from the hotter brighter star towards the dimmer little start (in their opinions on how they believe radiation works).
How could any energy from the weaker star fall on the planet’s surface that faces it. So according to the one-way flux theory the planet’s surface facing the weaker star would be pitch black!
I find this sort of reasoning absurd and nonsensical. It is why Kristian can tell me it works this way 600 times and I will reject it every time.
Multiple energy flux with radiation? Really?
Can you explain a bit more? What is a single energy flux, for example? Maybe it’s a super-climatological secret science term. Let us know, if you feel like it.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
If you really are interested in wanting to know the argument runs several posts.
But since you asked. Some posters mix up energy flux and heat flux and interchange them and say you can only measure a heat flux not an energy flux.
What I post if based upon current science understanding, it is not my opinion or belief.
The gist: Each surface in a group of surfaces will emit its own and unique IR spectrum based upon its own unique temperature and emissivity. The IR spectrum is an energy (not heat) flux given in Watts/m^2 and can seemingly be measured by a variety of instruments (as Ball4 has already pointed out by a normal thermometer…you can put thermometers on each surface and read a unique temperature for each of those surfaces).
These fluxes are not heat fluxes. In order to get a heat flux you add all the fluxes together (cooler surfaces are negative) and you can see in what direction the heat flux will flow.
Norman says, September 24, 2016 at 10:58 PM:
But I am NOT telling you it works this way, Norman.
After having been explained 600 times, you’re still inside your little bubble thinking I’m saying something that I’m not. So you keep on putting up your very own straw men, representing YOUR particular stereotypical view on how these “one-way fluxers” see radiation. Still completely oblivious, it seems, to what has ACTUALLY been written.
It’s quite amazing to behold. You are a true lost case, Norman. There is just no talking to you, no way of reasoning. You have simply shut your mind down, closed it up and thrown away the key. It’s exactly the same with the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel issue. You simply do not – and apparently don’t want to – see what it’s all about. You are incapable of changing your perspective, of seeing matters from more sides than one, your own. In other words, you come off as a dogmatic fool.
Kristian
YOU: “Its exactly the same with the Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel issue. You simply do not and apparently dont want to see what its all about. You are incapable of changing your perspective, of seeing matters from more sides than one, your own. In other words, you come off as a dogmatic fool.”
I think this is your refection looking at yourself. I have explained you Congo Vs Sahara to you and you can’t understand it. You do not like to reason if it goes against an idea that is yours.
Evaporation is why Congo is cooler than Sahara. I even told you of an actual test I did with water on a tarp and how the temperature between dry and wet tarp were over 30 F different. Talk about a dogmantic fool. You are one to talk.
Norman says, September 25, 2016 at 5:05 AM:
You haven’t explained anything, Norman. You’ve just said “evaporation” in the hope that the whole problem will go away. But it doesn’t. Upon which I have tried to make you see and address the following:
“What you seem to proclaim is that as the IR opacity of the air column increases, the radiant heat loss (the net LW) from the surface is reduced, which means that in order for the surface to regain its heat balance (heat IN = heat OUT), the surface MUST WARM. Whether this extra heat output to make up for the reduced radiant heat loss comes via radiation itself, via conduction or via evaporation should make no difference. The surface MUST WARM in order to give off more heat.
So why isn’t the surface T_avg much higher in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel, when there is good reason to assume that the air column IR opacity in the former is in fact MUCH higher than in the latter, making the average surface radiant heat loss rate in the Congo much lower than in the Sahara-Sahel (~50 vs. ~100 W/m^2)? Why hasn’t this considerable reduction in radiant heat output forced the Congo surface T_avg up and way beyond the Sahara-Sahel surface T_avg?”
Norman, for the nth time: The average surface heat INPUT from the Sun (net SW) is basically the same in both regions (~175 W/m^2). I have shown you the CERES plots confirming this. And since both of these two regions are in a relative thermal steady state, seen from one year to the next, then it is safe to assume that the TOTAL heat OUTPUT from the surface is also the same in both regions, equal to the surface heat INPUT in both regions: ~175 W/m^2.
And so we have an equal heat balance at the surface in both the Congo and the Sahara-Sahel: 175 W/m^2 IN = 175 W/m^2 OUT.
So when you’re invoking “evaporation” as somehow your magical escape clause variable, it just goes to show that you do not understand what we’re talking about even at the most elementary level, Norman.
The average TOTAL heat (net energy) loss from the surface in the Congo looks something like this: 175 W/m^2 = 50 W/m^2 (net lw) + 125 W/m^2 (evap+cond).
The average TOTAL heat (net energy) loss from the surface in the Sahara-Sahel looks something like this: 175 W/m^2 = 100 W/m^2 (net lw) + 75 W/m^2 (cond+evap).
Do you see where I’m going with this? The TOTAL is the same in both regions. The only difference is how the various available heat loss mechanisms contribute to the total. The radiative portion is much larger in the Sahara-Sahel than in the Congo, while the NON-radiative portion (conduction and (mainly) evaporation) is similarly much larger in the Congo than in the Sahara-Sahel.
So what your appeal to “evaporation” really amounts to, is just accounting for the surface heat loss that ISN’T radiative. It does NOTHING to explain why the surface T_avg in the Congo is considerably lower than in the Sahara-Sahel. They both have the same TOTAL heat input AND output, for crying out loud! Evaporation or no evaporation. Radiation or no radiation. Conduction or no conduction. The TOTAL is the same!
And so I will have to ask you again: “How are these empirical observations in any way supporting the notion that the DEGREE of air column IR opacity matters to the surface T_avg?”
Read what I write above, Norman. The idea of the “enhanced GHE” goes like this: 1) You increase the air column IR opacity by putting more IR active gases into the atmosphere, 2) you thereby reduce the net LW from the surface, that is, the surface radiant heat loss, 3) this forces the surface energy budget out of balance – there is now more energy/heat coming IN from the Sun than what is going OUT from the surface per unit of time, 4) in order for the balance to be restored, the surface MUST WARM so as to increase the total heat loss back to where it was before the radiant was reduced. Whether this increase in heat loss comes via radiation itself, or via evaporation/conduction, is irrelevant. What matters is that in order for the surface heat loss mechanisms to become more effective at ridding the surface of energy/heat, at the same heat INPUT from the Sun, the surface MUST WARM.
That’s the idea in a nutshell.
So what is being said here is simply that as you reduce the surface RADIANT heat loss, you will force the surface to warm to regain its energy balance.
If someone were to say at this stage: “Yeah, but evaporation! It will keep the surface T_avg the same, or even lower! No matter if the radiant heat loss is reduced.”
Then proponents of the idea above would just say: “OK. But how will the evaporation be able to do this? How will the evaporation become more effective, so as to make up for the reduced RADIANT loss? It cannot, until the surface warms FIRST. Surface warming -> strengthened evaporative loss.”
Norman, this is your problem. You invoke “evaporation” as somehow the solution, but forget that it shouldn’t be ABLE to be the solution without the surface T_avg being higher in the first place. According to the logic behind the “enhanced GHE” idea: If you reduce the surface radiant heat loss, then there MUST be surface warming, in order for total heat loss to grow back to where it was, whether radiation itself, evaporation, or conduction ends up doing the work.
So why isn’t the surface T_avg in the Sahara-Sahel considerably lower than in the Congo, Norman? Why is it rather higher? Remember, 175 IN = 175 OUT in both regions, but a much larger RADIANT heat loss in the former …
Kristian
Your reasoning is so poor I do not know where to start. You think you can determine surface temperature with just taking the solar energy in and net energy out?
The Earth’s balance of Solar in and LW out is 240 Watt/m^2 which would give you and average surface temperature of 255 K but the Earth surface is much warmer than that.
You have 175 Solar in and 175 leaving and from that you determine the surface temperature?
There is not enough information to determine a surface temperature just based upon how much energy is entering or leaving. If you did just that than a 175 solar input with a 175 exit LW would give you a surface temperature of 235 K
Obviously Congo and Sahara are both much warmer than this.
Norman says, September 25, 2016 at 8:38 AM:
No. I’m specifically saying you can’t. You need to start reading what I’m actually writing, Norman, rather than making up your own prejudiced versions of it.
No. That’s YOUR way of finding the surface temperature. By simply adding everything into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.
And here we go again. Norman: All we’re discussing here is the DEGREE of atmospheric IR opacity, how this is apparently much higher above the Congo than above the Sahara-Sahel, and how the surface T_avg is STILL lower in the former than in the latter region.
And you still cannot for the life of you get yourself to address this specific issue. You HAVE TO deflect. You HAVE TO find ways to avoid it. It seems.
Remember this statement of yours, Norman:
“Kristian is very wrong with his flawed reasoning that the amount of GHG does not matter, just that there is some.”
I replied to it here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-225858
The Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison unequivocally shows that there is no direct link to be found between the amount of GHG in the atmospheric column and the relative level of the surface T_avg below.
You appear utterly incapable of relating to this simple circumstance. You don’t even understand it, it seems. What the data shows. What it’s telling you. You don’t want to understand. Because it undermines your entire world view, it would seem.
And this is why you come off as a dogmatic fool, Norman.
Cognitive dissonance and its methods of reduction, is that something you’ve heard of? You should read about it. You’re up to your neck in it …
“The Congo vs. Sahara-Sahel comparison unequivocally shows..”
Because Kristian assumes so, just as Kristian tells us.
No, because the data shows it, Ball4.
“The data shows it…”
It? Kristian told us “to assume the air column IR opacity” differences so now Kristian has data on the air column IR opacity at his two sites?
Great, post it up Kristian that might lead to some interesting science. Precipitable water in the column would be a component of the IR opacity. The all sky emission to surface would be reasonable to deduce from that precipitable water data (or calculation from humidity) AND climate recorded temperature differences at your two sites.
Kristian
From Above YOU (several times you say this type of point): “You still see two separate, opposite arrows when you look at a thermal radiation field. Those arrows are mathematical constructs only In reality there is but ONE movement of radiant energy through the thermal radiation field the net, the probabilistic average, of ALL microscopic (quantum) movements through ALL points in its threedimensional space.”
YOU clearly state with a capitalized word “One”. In your case you use thermal but visible and IR EMR are the same basic thing only with different wavelength.
For the stars you could have used two IR stars that emit most their light in the IR spectrum generating a thermal flux more than visible.
There are two radiant energy fluxes moving from each star surface to the planet’s surface. Each exposed planet surface receives the flow of energy from the star it is facing as unique and individual flows.
If the planet surface moves in a position that faces both stars each will contribute its own radiation to the planet surface as an individual flux that will have a combined effect on the planet’s surface.
So now you seemingly want to take this ‘discussion’ back to the start, again. Seriously, Norman. I can’t be bothered. I have written too much on this as it is. If you haven’t understood my perspective on how to account for and describe the radiation within a radiation field in a radiant heat transfer up until this point, then it’s clear you won’t ever understand it. And I strongly suspect that the reason why is that you simply don’t want to …
This is SOOOOOOO simple and yet you insist on making it SOOOOOOO hard.
Norman doesn’t want to assume results as does Kristian. Still, Norman should provide a test eliminating any assumptions.
Ball4
I should provide a test but I probably won’t. It will not matter so I would consider it a waste of time. My main goal is not to prove things to Kristian or Will or Mike. It is to try and keep the thought process grounded in science and not opinion. I think the established equations are already tested enough that no other testing is needed at this time. If someone constructed a boiler using the current equations and it did not work as expected then I think more testing would be required. Thanks for you suggestion.
A couple years back I did a test with a hot plate and IR bulb to demonstrate that the IR lamp would add heat to a hotter plate surface. I logged all my data but it did not have any effect on the minds out there so I kind of lost interest in doing tests and posting the results as it takes time and effort and has zero impact. Look at Roy’s many tests. Still does not reach them. You refer to his experiments in your posts but it does not change their opinions.
My concern is people who might view this blog and start thinking that unscientific opinions are correct. Already we live in a scientific illiterate world and the many nonscientist posters who believe they are experts can help make the illiterate rate even higher or confuse many.
Yup.
Norman says, September 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM:
What evidently confuses the most people today regarding climate is the IPCC-endorsed “back radiation explanation” of the so-called “GHE”, where apparently independent macroscopic energy fluxes from cooler regions can freely be added to warmer regions to directly make these warmer regions warmer still, without anyone so much as blinking an eye.
THIS is what confuses people. Into thinking that the atmosphere actually HEATS the surface. That THAT’S the reason why Earth’s global surface T_avg is higher than the Moon’s.
Norman here: “A couple years back I did a test with a hot plate and IR bulb to demonstrate that the IR lamp would add heat to a hotter plate surface.”
IOW, Norman did a test to demonstrate that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics could quite naturally be violated.
This is how confusion arises, Norman …
Kristian
YOU: “IOW, Norman did a test to demonstrate that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics could quite naturally be violated.
This is how confusion arises, Norman ”
NO, my test did not demonstrate that at all. It did demonstrate that a hot plate would reach a certain equilibrium temperature with its environment based upon its energy input. When you add an IR lamp which adds energy to its surface it will be warmer. Heat flux is still flowing from the hotter plate to the IR lamp surface not from the lamp to the hot plate. Energy is flowing in both directions, not heat.
“I should provide a test but I probably wont. It will not matter”
It WILL matter, the test will prove if you are right Norman, there is no other way. You can find one already done. Like Dr. Spencer’s tests prove who is right/wrong in this thread. Beyond doubt.
Lab work is essential or Prof.s would have an even easier less disciplined life. You know, like Kristian, as he demonstrates very easy to just assume one is right about Congo and Sahara. The easiest person to fool is oneself, a near quote from an inquisitive lab guy that almost blew himself up at least once.
“where apparently independent macroscopic energy fluxes from cooler regions can freely be added to warmer regions to directly make these warmer regions warmer still, without anyone so much as blinking an eye.”
Not apparently, Kristian, this was proven to be good physics in the lab and in situ by Dr.Spencer. Deal with it.
“THIS is what confuses people. Into thinking that the atmosphere actually HEATS the surface.”
That is only Kristian’s confusion, the easiest to fool is himself, thermodynamics pro.s like Zemansky, Bohren, et.al. would not write it that way or even get confused by it, only amateurs on blogs, or thrill seekers – such as Kristian just did – would dare do so.
The sun warms Earth global surface ~33K above N2 atm. given the current atm. constituents mixing ratios, 1bar surface pressure and measured extinction coefficients of those individual gas constituents, at the same albedo.
Norman says, September 25, 2016 at 11:38 AM:
*Sigh*
So why did you write what you wrote, Norman? “A couple years back I did a test with a hot plate and IR bulb to demonstrate that the IR lamp would add heat to a hotter plate surface.”
A cooler IR lamp cannot add heat to a hotter plate. And you know that. So why write it?
It creates confusion. This is what I’m talking about. You’re so far into your bubble that you don’t even notice when you make these claims …
Same with the atmospheric energy that is apparently added to the surface to make the surface T_avg higher, but it somehow still doesn’t heat the surface, no. Even though that is exactly what “heating” is all about.
You need to get your concepts straight, Norman. Confusion.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: September 25, 2016 at 9:12 AM
“Yup.”
Yup what? That you have proposed a falsifiable hypothesis? That you have shown in this post something that demonstrates other than fantasy?
“The model is the simplest I could come up with to demonstrate how an atmosphere that absorbs and emits IR radiation ends up warming the surface, and itself as well, while maintaining an atmospheric temperature below that of the surface.”
Your model presupposes thermal EMR flux in opposing directions both supposedly measured in W/m² as per below:
“Here are the basic energy fluxes included in the model. The illustration is just schematic.”
Such flux has never been observed nor measured, as such does not physically happen. Can your two stream fantasy be falsified? No it cannot be falsified as it is entirely based false assumption and mathematical deliberate error. To illustrate:
The misuse of the Stephan Boltzmann equation Try the actual: Flux p(W/m²) = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Or Kristain’s q/A = σ (Th^4 Tc^4)
If Tc goes up and Th remains unchanged, q/A will naturally go down.
The S-B equation indicates the maximum unidirectional flux p(W/m²), between two infinite flat parallel surfaces, separated only by vacuum. Such has nothing to do with any gas. To falsify one needs only to demonstrate a greater thermal EM flux or such flux in the reverse direction. Such falsification has yet to be accomplished.
You need to keep the two temperature terms on the right together at all times. That is why Ludy Boltzmann put them in parenthesis! Mathematically you must evaluate inner parenthesis before any other operation. Because physically theyre inseparable. Inside the radiative unidirectional power transfer. That is also why Ludy used only one epsillon (complex) ε As the two emissivities add as conductivities if each surface has ε = 0.5, composite ε = 0.333!
The notion, premise, conjecture, hypothesis, that is logically unfalsifiable and physically unverifiable is precisely; All mass bodies radiate thermal flux proportional to only their own absolute temperature raised to the forth power, and independent of any radiative surround!
Such is of course logically unsound; the S-B equation is composed of the linear subtraction of two opposing proxies of radiative potential (radiance) combined to give one differential potential resulting in some measurable resultant thermal radiative flux. Since only the resultant sometimes called net is measurable, The fantasy secondary claim of two opposing thermal radiative flux, cannot be logically falsified, And must be scientifically rejected as meaningless!
The opposing notion, premise, conjecture, hypothesis, that is logically falsifiable is precisely; All mass bodies radiate thermal flux proportional to their own absolute temperature raised to the forth power, (radiance), minus of any radiance from each directional surround! To falsify; measured thermal radiative flux in excess of that difference, or measured thermal radiative flux in the direction of higher thermal radiance, need be provided in any one repeatable demonstration.
Why can we not get down to scientific physics, Dr. Spencer?
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: August 31, 2016 at 7:39 AM
“The Eppley PIR instrument is the most widely used one for measuring downwelling IR from the sky.”
It does not measure downwelling anything! Such instrument only calculates a partial ‘radiance’ (EM field strength) over a band from 3-9 microns through a silicon window/dome.
“My understanding is that DWIR cannot be measured directly, but as a residual. The instrument measures the NET IR flux, which impacts the surface temperature of a thermopile. They compute the upwelling flux based upon the instruments temperature and emissivity.”
They measure the powerflux in W/m² conducted from the body of the instrument to the outwardly radiating surface of the thermopile/bolometer. This flux must will always be limited by any opposing ‘radiance’ in that measurement band normally WV in the 5-8 micron waveband.
“The downwelling flux is then the difference between the two.”
Only if the intent is to scam both the public and government officials not behind that very scam.
“Over the years papers have been written about small corrections needed to the measurements, on order of 5%. But its hard to imagine something as large as 350 W/m2 or more being totally fictitious.
Others can correct me if Im wrong about any of this.”
Here I is! If something on the order of 1-3W/m² were claimed even someone with a PHD might overlook such claim. The claim of such large surface exit flux is just as bogus and obvious even to someone with only a BSEE in academic brain washing.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says: August 31, 2016 at 11:49 AM
“except that if you use a cooled detector, you will get much closer to a direct measure of DWIR, because the detector is emitting so little of its own energy.”
And at the same temperature no thermal EM flux at all. Your scam would require a ‘flux’ equal to your claim of T^4 BS.
“Use liquid nitrogen, even better.”
Now still one way but correction for 78K still needed!
Use liquid helium, even better still.
Now still one way but correction for 4K still needed!
And the DWIR would STILL be about the same magnitude.
The ‘radiance’ would remain the same, but the physical flux in the direction of the cooled detector now is physical, not a fantasy!
“The reason it isnt measured so directly W/m² in practice is that its expensive.”
Such is measured every day except by academic meteorologists!
“And Im sure there are many things in nuclear physics and other fields that can only be measured rather directly with expensive equipment. Are these things not science either?”
Some are, and some are misinterpreted fantasy! Most are not a scam!
“A cooler IR lamp cannot add heat to a hotter plate.”
The cooler lamp can however add energy to the hotter plate, since EMR is not heat – heat does not exist in an object only internal constituent KE causes its temperature. As in the experiment by Dr. Spencer.
Ball4 says: September 26, 2016 at 6:03 AM
(A cooler IR lamp cannot add heat to a hotter plate.)
“The cooler lamp can however add energy to the hotter plate, since EMR is not heat heat does not exist in an object only internal constituent KE causes its temperature. As in the experiment by Dr. Spencer.”
There is absolutely no evidence of any thermal EM power flux transfer in a direction of higher ‘radiance’!! Why don’t both you and Dr. Roy ever even try to ‘get’ the difference between ‘radiance’ and radiative flux? Clear intent to scam, by calling whatever radiation!!
phi
I just thought an experiment on Earth could be done to prove the one-way flux theory wrong. Falsify it.
In a room have a 10,000 watt light source on one side of the room and a 100 watt light source on the other side.
In between the two light sources have a small mirror. According to a one-way flux mentality the only flow of EMR is from higher flux to lower so it means none of the 100 watt bulb light can move upward toward the 10,000 watt light source. If this idea was correct it would mean the only light reflection would be from the 10,000 watt light, there would be no reflected light from the 100 watt bulb, the mirror facing the 100 watt bulb would be dark (if the room was painted in highly absorbing paint so that no stray light was able to reflect of room walls to the mirror).
Nope. You have to propose a falsifiable hypothesis – poorly thought out irrelevant and pointless thought bubbles are not science.
Still no GHE hypothesis to be found. Telling everybody it exists somewhere else doesn’t work to well.
What the heck is the one-way flux theory, anyway? Did you just make it up?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am not sure how many times I have posted these links to responses you your posts but I will do it again. Not that it will matter.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e7b1db2345a.png
This graph demonstrates a GHE. The NET radiation leaving the surface is reduced considerably by GHG.
Norman,
And still you cannot produce a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Cargo Cult Scientism is not science.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I have already provided a falsifiable GHE hypothesis with the block of ice experiment. If the ice melts at a calculated predicted rate for a GHE over a control the GHE effect is verified if it does not do this it is falsified.
“And still you cannot produce a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, can you?”
Yes. Dr. Spencer can. Falsifiable hypothesis is in the top post and the experimental data Prof. Tyndall published 1861. Mike Flynn still offers no falsification of the hypothesis which must be a good one.
Mike Flynn
Here is one you may have missed. Roy Spencer performed a test over 3 years ago and posted the results. He took care to control for other heat loss mechanisms and posted his results. You can read through this and see that he did an actual test that falsifiable GHE hypothesis.
I have much doubt it will do much to change your established view.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/#comments
Based upon the way you reason I guess you would conclude that the surface of Hawaii is still cooling since its formation since it was thousands of degrees when it was in the process of becoming an Island Chain, even though it seems the surface temperature does not vary much.
Ball4,
Gee. Everybody knows there’s a falsifiable GHE somewhere, but someone else has always got it. Pity its so long and complicated that you can’t find the time to cut and paste it for everyone to see!
Oh well.
Cheers.
Norman,
It seems that the surface of Hawaii is no longer totally molten. Any magma reaching the surface form the interior seems to cool. Sunlight doesn’t seem to stop the cooling, neither does the GHE.
You seem convinced that the Earth is slowly heating. As Christine Lagarde said, unless we mend our evil CO2 producing ways, we will all be boiled, baked, toasted or fried.
And she’s not even a good economist, judging by the results of the IMF’s efforts!
I believe she’s being prosecuted for negligence at present. Is she a typical GHE believer?
Cheers.
“you cant find the time to cut and paste it”
Mike Flynn, only your gullible and ill-informed can not find the top post.
Hint for 1st graders: there is a scroll up key and another useful tool in the vertical bar over there on the right for Mike “can’t do” Flynn.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “It seems that the surface of Hawaii is no longer totally molten. Any magma reaching the surface form the interior seems to cool. Sunlight doesnt seem to stop the cooling, neither does the GHE.”
It is as I said in a previous post. You absolutely do not understand radiation physics and the what an exponential factor means.
Molten rock emits so much more radiant energy (around 90,000 W/m^2) than what it receives by the Sun (around 1000 W/m^2 on a sunny Hawaiian day).
I think there is a lot of evidence showing the Earth’s surface has warmed and cooled over the ages unless you think that huge glaciers in the US meant the Earth’s surface was the same temperature as it is today. You can think that way if you absolutely need to but I am sure you will not convince many logical or reasonable people with your point of view.
Mike Flynn
Maybe read this as it might help you understand why scientists and others use averages for things.
You seem to have an utter lack of understanding Global mean temperature or why anyone would try to find such a number.
This will help you in your struggle to learn science. Knowledge is a good thing.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/numerical-data/averages
Attempt to post at Jonova’s wonderful weekend-unthreaded site! But what to post?
Consider the Oliver K. Manuel incessant ‘something is wrong’!
The Climate Clown ‘we all gonna die unless you do what I say’
The Witch, do as I say! The Donald, do as I say!
The increase in police brutality! Comply or die!
The increase in violence against any non-believer!
The sacking of any that do not conform!
Now go back in history a bit. Prior to 1900 all Physics was physical! With struggle to express such to any other!
1900 Symbolic algebra, a precise compact way of expression of concept, to others who understand the limitations of the physical.
1905 Einsteins expression of theoretical relativity, (weird), hard, hard to understand even with symbolic algebra!
1921 the Emmy Noether abstract algebra, specifically designed to separate anything physical from conceptual mathematics. Conservation of energy disappears from all physics. But not from engineering that just love ‘entropy’ as a way to explain ‘why’ that did not work as expected!
1941 All academics use ‘abstract symbolic algebra’ as the replacement for anything physical. No longer any need for measuring anything physical! The numerical solution of the ‘abstract symbolic algebra’ becomes the replacement for physical Conceptual nonsense like photons, quantums, neutrinos, flourish!
1946 Oliver K. Manuel discovers ‘something is wrong’!
Now what?
Kristian
“And the total is all that matters to a GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET.”
I understand how to get to the 240 W/m2, but I don’t understand why would models use this value to describe the GHE. Energy input to the system is, on average, twice this value applied to half the surface.
So when calculating the magnitude of the warming effect, it’s irrational to start with an surface temperature much, much colder than actual?
I love the graphic with Trenberth’s name on it, showing all the continents being lit by the Sun equally at the same time.
It appears on Government web sites, so somebody thinks it must be true.
Maybe the gullible or ill-informed?
Cheers.
I love the people who complain about the graphic with Trenberths name on it, showing all the continents being lit by the Sun equally at the same time, as if the graphic represented anything other than a summary of annual global averages.
Such complaints appear on blogs everywhere, so somebody thinks it must be true.
Maybe the gullible or ill-informed?
Cheers.
Tim,
I love the graphic because it shows what lengths people like Trenberth and the rest of the GHE crowd will go to push a scientific falsehood.
The gullible and ill informed, such as most politicians, fall for this nonsense.
Luckily, even the dimmest is slowly starting to realise that lies are not truth.
A summary? Thats another lame attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. It’s about as silly as claiming that there is a GHE heating the Earth – on average. You may have not noticed that the Earth doesn’t seem to be heating, whether you look at the longest term or over the period that satellites have bee in use for near surface temperature measurements.
Cheers.
And are you next going to tell us that the diagram also clearly shows that the sun only shines in central Asia and water only evaporates from Alaska? Only the “gullible or ill-informed” would interpret the diagram that way.
BTW, have you ever read the actual paper from which that diagram is taken? It is here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
The diagram is not propaganda. It is not misleading. It is a diagram from a journal article with the caption:
Fig. 1. The global annual mean Earths energy budget for the mar 2000 to may 2004 period (W m2). The broad arrows indicate the schematic flow of energy in proportion to their importance.
So yes, it IS a summary — it even says so! It is global mean values summarized from a variety of sources. The sources are given in the paper and the numbers are written out in tables.
Cheers.
Tim,
“In our analysis, the biggest uncertainty and bias comes from the downward longwave radiation.”
It’s apparently so uncertain they can’t even guess at error bars. Read it and weep.
This is the same Trenberth who couldn’t find the “missing [non existent] heat”, and proclaimed
“. . . it’s a travesty.”
Now, his diagram, as you say purports to be an average over the whole Earth. This is interesting in the sense that the Earth only has one side exposed to the Sun at any given time. So his average insolation of 341.3 W/m2 needs to be doubled, as he is including the half that is not receiving any insolation – at night.
This gives 682.3 over the daytime Earth. But this is an average of readings from places receiving maximum insolation, and the Poles, where sunlight barely grazes the surface.
So the maximum isolation might be twice the average – say 1342 W/m2. This might seem OK, but NASA says around 30% of incoming radiation never reaches the surface. And all the other maximum figures need to be doubled, except where they show outgoing radiation, where the maximum occurs at night, when the surface is cooling.
Trenberth doesn’t care – even though he knows it’s all unrealistic rubbish, based on guesses – hence his remark about a “travesty”.
So come up with more complicated excuses. The proponents of epicycles and the luminiferous ether had to do the same thing.
Facts trump fantasy.
Cheers.
PS A written falsifiable GHE hypothesis might help.
“So his average insolation of 341.3 W/m2 needs to be doubled”
Only one sun irradiates Earth to 341.3 Mike, go out in the clear sky daytime sunshine and find your shadow – only one.
PS: A written falsifiable GHE hypothesis is in the top post once Mike Flynn learns how to actually find the top post.
“I dont understand why would models use this value to describe the GHE.”
The TOA steady state is approx. 240 in and 240 out as you agree. 255K planet brightness temperature.
The global surface thermometer field steady state is approx. 288K, a difference in steady state global T due to atm. 1bar GHE of 33K, the 1LOT energy balances are as shown in the top post consistent with 2LOT.
Same calculation (sparser surface T fields) for other planets with atm.s much less than 1bar at surface and much more than 1bar at surface.
L.J. Ryan says, September 25, 2016 at 6:49 AM:
Because the “GHE” is supposed to be an average effect.
“GHE.
“Because the GHE is supposed to be an average effect.”
Averaging solar radiation over the entire surface creates a false baseline. It is false to imply isolation only raises surface temperature 255 K. It’s false to presume the GHE raises the average temperature to 288 K. So why do proponents use these two falsehoods to buoy the GHE model?
“So why do proponents use these two falsehoods to buoy the GHE model?”
Because they aren’t falsehood, 255K, 288K derived from 1LOT consistent with 2LOT as in top post and found by calibrated thermometer and calibrated radiometer instrument measurement. Best case there is, 1st principle theory and experiment in agreement.
It is some assertions that are falsehoods when not experiment based.
“Because they arent falsehood, 255K, 288K derived from 1LOT consistent with 2LOT as in top post and found by calibrated thermometer and calibrated radiometer instrument measurement.”
A surface temperature of 255K is measured? According to this very post, Dr. Spenser says this a calculated temperature based on a flux of 240 W/m2. Is the 240 W/m2 measured or calculated?
“A surface temperature of 255K is measured?”
Sure on any given day or night somewhere. But not globally, temporally and spatially, so no. That would be the approx. 288K over say 4-10 annual periods.
240 both measured currently AND was calculated a priori.
Practical silliness.
Ice is capable of emitting more than 300W/m2.
Go into freezer room just below 0 C.
Take mirror.
Set up large block of ice – read emission. Verify >300 W/m2.
Set up mirror in front of block of ice.
Mirror reflects 300 W/m2 back to ice – verify with IR reading device.
Ice now receiving additional 300 W/m2 – surface should heat up.
Bad luck.
Even placing another block of ice emitting 300 W/m2 close to and opposite to the first doesn’t help. 300 + 300 does not equal 600.
Ice keeps emitting 300 W/m2.
This is the sort of nonsense GHE followers promote.
Silly, isn’t it?
No wonder all the GHE crew have got is a distinct lack of falsifiable GHE hypothesis!
Cheers.
“Mirror reflects 300 W/m2 back to ice verify with IR reading device.”
The device won’t verify that Mike as that is impossible. Try the experiment, like Dr. Spencer did. Otherwise Mike Flynn has nothing but assertion.
“300 + 300 does not equal 600.”
Mike Flynn should have learned in grade school 300+300 does equal 600 when adding apples and apples. This is the sort of nonsense Mike Flynn promotes. And Mike can’t even find the falsifiable GHE hypothesis in the top post, talk about silly!
Keep floundering around Mike, no progress yet. Take two experiments, call us in the morning.
Ball4,
There is no falsifiable GHE hypothesis anywhere.
Otherwise you would have copied it here. Or are you just doing your best to be obstructive and unhelpful? Are you saying you have this falsifiable GHE hypothesis, but you’re not going to help anybody seeking knowledge by showing it.
Maybe you could let the IPCC have a copy. They haven’t got one either!
By the way, if you’re claiming that a normal mirror won’t reflect IR, you better tell the people at places like Ivanpah who use heliostats (moveable mirrors) to concentrate IR from the Sun onto a boiler to generate electricity.Sunlight is over 50% IR.
Point your IR camera at a mirror. It takes pictures using reflected IR.
Cheers.
“if youre claiming that a normal mirror wont reflect IR”
Not claiming that Mike. Ask for help if you can not see why your device can’t measure the impossible, or you know, do the experiment.
“Or are you just doing your best to be obstructive and unhelpful?”
The IPCC already has a copy of the hypothesis Mike. It is not my best, it is effortless watching Mike Flynn flounder around trying to find the top post. Kinda’ humorous also. To think someone tries to comment on thermo. yet can not handle a browser.
Ball4,
Nope. The IPCC don’t have a falsifiable hypothesis relating to the GHE either. Maybe you can provide a link. Not a link to an assertion that the GHE exists – any fool can do that, and many do.
Done the experiment. Blocks of ice in a below freezing environment radiate EMR at each other. It warms them not at all. In the freezing desert, at night, ice remains frozen, regardless of back radiation.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis – just claims that the IPCC, Dr Spencer or any number of people have one. You just can’t actually find it. You can’t believe it doesn’t exist, but nobody can show it to you. Maybe you believe unicorn exists, because nobody can actually produce one.
Unicorns, falsifiable GHE hypothesis – take your pick.
When do the seas start boiling?
Cheers.
“The IPCC dont have a falsifiable hypothesis..”
Mike can not even find the top post, how are we supposed to believe Mike can find the IPCC to know this? We can’t.
“Done the experiment.”
That was quick. Now show us the data your device measured, careful here as you will be showing folks that know how to calculate approx. what the device measured.
“Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis”
Mike admits still can not find the top post, so there is no hope of Mike Flynn ever finding the IPCC or possibly even a good text on thermo. from which to quote the hypothesis he seeks. This is why Mike resorts to discussing unicorns and seas boiling.
Mike Flynn
I wish you would stop and THINK before you post. You are not making brilliant points with your posts, just exposing you really do not understand radiation physics or heat transfer at all. You are just writing stuff off the top of your head with no real thought or understanding behind it.
YOU: “Mirror reflects 300 W/m2 back to ice verify with IR reading device.
Ice now receiving additional 300 W/m2 surface should heat up.”
How is the ice receiving an additional 300 W/m^2? Where was it receiving energy from before? That it is emitting 300 W/m^2 does not mean it is absorbing any IR it is losing energy and cooling unless something resupplies the loss. If the ice is in a room at room temperature is is receiving more than 300 W/m^2 from the environment around it. A mirror would block that IR and would act to keep the ice at its own temperature.
If you have two ice blocks radiating 300 W/m^2 at each other they do not gain 600 Watts/m^2. The thought process you are using to even think any scientist is attempting to say this is why you haven’t got any idea of what scientists are talking about.
You act like a kid in an adult conversation that hears a few words he understands and then butts in with some childish thought and he is so proud of himself.
In your ice surface example. One block of ice is LOSING (emitting) 300 W/m^2. It is receiving 300 W/m^2 from the other ice surface.
It is losing 300 and gaining 300 which equals 0 loss or gain and the temperature remains the same. I haven’t go the foggiest idea of why you believe climate scientists add fluxes like that.
A far better situation is to have a block of ice that you are heating adding some energy to it. In outer space in a shadow, the block of ice that is emitting 300 W/m^2 will not stay at 0 C it will cool and keep cooling until it reaches the temperature of cold space.
If you supply a small heater to the ice so that you are adding 300 watts of energy to the ice in the dark of space it will remain indefinitely at 0 C. It won’t warm or cool since the energy you are adding is the same amount as the energy leaving.
Now if you put another ice block near the first ice block’s surface that is at 0 C and emitting 300 Watt/m^2 to the first ice block, the heated ice will get warmer and start to melt because it is no longer losing 300 watts/m^2 from it surface, it is losing no energy with the second block of ice near its surface so the heater starts building energy in the ice until it melts and reaches a new equilibrium temperature.
I really feel you have no understanding of radiation physics but keep posting as if you did. I do not know your education background but I do not think science was much a part of it.
Ball4 “Sure on any given day or night somewhere. But not globally, temporally and spatially, so no. That would be the approx. 288K over say 4-10 annual periods.
240 both measured currently AND was calculated a priori.”
So a temperature which may or may not be current at any location on the planet is used as a base line for demonstrating GHE? You see no problem with this assumption?
“So a temperature which may or may not be current at any location on the planet is used as a base line for demonstrating GHE?”
It IS current! Up to the most recent month anyway. Or most recent 10year study period. Papers don’t come out daily on it, L.J.
“You see no problem with this assumption?”
No assumption, measured data. By thermometers and radiometers. Calibrated ones!
Where have calibrated thermometer read 255 K? Which radiometers have read surface emission at 240 W/m2?
Again, the global 255 is not surface, L.J. The radiometers on ERBE measure the 240, various CERES instruments too. You could look on a weather map to find thermometers reading 255K on the surface today if you want, pretty cold.
“Again, the global 255 is not surface,…”
My point exactly! Why is the GHE model based upon a 255 K surface via solar radiation?
Solar flux impinges on half the Earth’s surface at any given instance, confering a temperature much higher than 255 K. If a model is used to predict the effects of additional GHG, shouldn’t it be grounded in the physical, not in the theoretical?
“Why is the GHE model based upon a 255 K surface via solar radiation?”
255K isn’t surface. The data is physical L.J., surface data 288K which is not planet 255K brightness temperature data. Do try to keep these straight.
I do have this straight. You need only look at this very post, 4th paragraph, just under Figure 1; “The energy input from the sun is fixed at an assumed 240 Watts per sq. meter. The radiative fluxes use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (sigma T^^4), where T is either the surface or atmospheric temperature.” With 240 W/m2 input, what is the resulting temperature at the surface…255 K!
So again, why is the solar flux input assumed to be 240 W/m2? The solar input is twice that at any moment, it’s irrational to assume the input 240 W/m2 simply to propagate the GHE.
The 240 is not assumed L.J., the 240 is measured. Varies a small amount.
As L.J. Ryan noted, Spencer SPECIFICALLY stated:
“The energy input from the sun is fixed at an assumed 240 Watts per sq. meter.”
Here are some measured values:
http://www.instesre.org/papers/globe9/WaterlooMar24.gif
As I tried to patiently explain to Ball4 earlier, 240 W/m2 generally occurs twice a day, once in the morning, and once in the late afternoon. One could have more than 2 occurrences of a 240 W/m2 measurement if one has passing clouds.
Ball4 appears to have a mental block and is not comprehending the issue at hand.
I assume you know that “fixed” referred to it’s assigned average value for the model calculation.
So, “assumed to be constant at…”.
Also, “fixed” should not imply it was broken and I repaired it, either.
Context, folks.
L.J. Ryan says, September 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM:
Is it? Where? When? On the sunlit hemisphere, you say. Well, only ON AVERAGE. And on the dark hemisphere, at the same time, there is 0 W/m^2 coming in from the Sun.
So how do you average the two?
“As L.J. Ryan noted, Spencer SPECIFICALLY stated: “The energy input from the sun is fixed at an assumed 240 Watts per sq. meter.””
Yup. Dr. Spencer got the values to assume in his spreadsheet from the various satellite TOA radiometer measurements made 24/7 over 4-10 annual periods which are reported out in many & various papers.
“Ball4 appears to have a mental block and is not comprehending the issue at hand.”
Twice a day is weather not climate which sketptic denied above! Showing his lack of understanding. Try to use the energy flux data from ALL day (night and day) ALL week over ALL 4-10 annual periods sketptic, that will get you closer to climate. Longer periods even closer.
Ball4 says: September 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM
“The 240 is not assumed L.J., the 240 is measured. Varies a small amount.”
240 W/m² Earth surface Solar irradiance is measured only when the Sun is 75 degrees from zenith. Happens twice per day in some places.
Ball4,
Are you saying that Trenberth’s averages don’t include night time? You said “global mean values”.
Do you really mean “half global mean values”? Or maybe “only when the Sun is shining brightly” average?
By the way, Dr Spencer’s post was titled “Simple Time-Dependent Model of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”
Not quite a falsifiable hypothesis sort of thing, is it?
I’ve no doubt people have searched his post for mention of a falsifiable hypothesis – only to be disappointed.
Maybe the your unicorn ate it!
Cheers.
“Are you saying that Trenberths averages dont include night time ?Do you really mean half global mean values? Or maybe only when the Sun is shining brightly average?”
No, no, & no. Just that there is only one sun. Always on. Running on H2 not AC.
“Ive no doubt people have searched his post for mention of a falsifiable hypothesis only to be disappointed.”
What about Mike Flynn? Mike is the only one looking for that hypothesis from comments I’ve read. It really is readily available up there Mike. Prove me wrong that you can not find it.
Mike Flynn
Has an aversion to averages. Does not know how to use them or why they are used and what is the point of doing it.
Mike I can help you a bit (NOT). Why averages? It is a way to see trends, like if you want to start a store somewhere selling goods you may look to see what the average income is for the areas you are interested in setting up shop. Or even better maybe the median income for an area. That way you have an idea of what your potential customers have to spend.
Or if you want to start farming you might want to check up average rainfall amounts for the area you are interested in to see if you may need to invest in expensive irrigation equipment or not.
If you want to farm in Nebraska you may need irrigation, in Iowa probably not. Average rainfall cannot predict a drought but it can help determine the overall status for long term conditions.
It is amazing you do not understand this or why they are using averages for a global budget. Why Dr. Spencer is running his temperature data. The purpose is for trending so people can get informed opinions on what may take place in the future and take action ahead of time.
Ball4,
Who believes there is more than one Sun? Maybe a GHE enthusiast whose pretty graphics show all part \s of the Earth being in sunlight all the time.
Very hard to achieve with only one Sun, I would think!
So nobody else is interested in a falsifiable hypothesis, you say. That’s because GHE enthusiasts believe in Cargo Cult Scientism, rather than science. Not being able to provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, you now seem to be claiming that it’s not necessary. Deny, divert, confuse.
I can’t disprove that you own a hypothesis eating unicorn, either. If you claim a falsifiable GHE hypothesis exists, you should be falling over yourself to prove it, making me look extremely foolish in the process.
But you can’t. So sad. Too bad.
Cheers.
“Who believes there is more than one Sun?”
Mike Flynn who suggests doubling the solar SW to 682.3. No Mike, there is only one sun, on all the time. No need to discuss unicorns only experiments. Free your data! Why keep it hidden?
Ball4,
Complain to Trenberth, not me.
You can’t even find a GHE hypothesis. Surprise, surprise!
You claim it exists, but it’s mysteriously gone missing. How convenient!
Deny, divert, and confuse! Maybe that will work – who knows?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
As I had already posted,
Here is Roy Spencer experiment measuring GHE in air trapped in boxes.
Read through his experiment and what he found.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-ii-first-results/#comments
Please quit making a statement that no one has provided any evidence. Here is evidence. You do not have to accept it and the odds are good you will NOT accept it but it is proof and evidence so you should maybe look at it before posting that there is no experiment yet.
Please. Okay
Cheers to you.
Mike Flynn still can’t find the top post. And Mike is hiding his experimental data, must not have agreed with his 300 reflected. Free your data Mike!
Norman and Ball4,
Deny, divert, change the subject.
No falsifiable GHE hypothesis, no science.
Cargo Cult Scientism – no more, no less.
Anybody else will notice that neither of you can produce the non-existent falsifiable GHE hypothesis, any more than Trenberth can produce the “missing heat”. At least Trenberth admitted that the lack of “missing heat’ was “a travesty”.
The GHE adherents seem to positively revel in the fact that they cannot produce the missing falsifiable GHE hypothesis. They seem to be convinced that strident unsupported assertions, and demands that others provide alternative proposals to explain things which aren’t happening, will keep the foolish and gullible disciples satisfied.
Dimwits will demand proof of a particular hypothesis. That’s not the way it works. A thousand experiments may appear to support a well accepted theory, but as Einstein pointed out, it only takes one repeatable experiment to cause a theory to be dismissed.
Maxwell’s wave theory of EMR, the indivisibility of the atom, the existence of the luminiferous ether, were all shown to be either incomplete or totally erroneous.
The GHE doesn’t even have a clearly stated hypothesis. Not a good start. Even its most ardent supporters reluctantly agree the the surface cools at night, in the winter, in the shade, or in the absence of an energy source generally. Not a good start at all.
You’ll notice that Dr Spencer’s experiments are quite amateurish, and even Dr Spencer accepts that they don’t demonstrate anything other than that gases can be heated, like other forms of matter. Try to stop ice from forming in sub zero temperatures outside at night using the miracle of back radiation, and you’ll appreciate reality.
Try and formulate a falsifiable GHE hypothesis yourself. You’ll quickly discover why nobody else has managed to do it.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn whines: “Try and formulate a falsifiable GHE hypothesis yourself. Youll quickly discover why nobody else has managed to do it.”
Even Mike Flynn can do it easily, just refer to top post. Mike won’t do that as he knows the falsifiable hypothesis is readily available there which proves he is wrong.
Mike flounders around, mentions Einstein? Unicorns? Maxwell? Mirrors? Two suns? Ice? Seas boiling? Talk about: Deny, divert, change the subject!
What will Mike Flynn try next? Smoke? Already tried mirrors. Post your test data Mike! Free the data! What has Mike got to hide? The data must tell the truth.
Mike Flynn
Since you do not know what the GHE is it is very hard to demonstrate for you any test. The ice block I suggested would falsify the GHE but not what you believe it is.
So because you have incorrectly understood the GHE you now are asking for a test to falsify it. It is not possible since your conceptualization of the effect is in violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is not what I am claiming or any climate scientist.
YOU: “The GHE doesnt even have a clearly stated hypothesis. Not a good start. Even its most ardent supporters reluctantly agree the the surface cools at night, in the winter, in the shade, or in the absence of an energy source generally. Not a good start at all.
Youll notice that Dr Spencers experiments are quite amateurish, and even Dr Spencer accepts that they dont demonstrate anything other than that gases can be heated, like other forms of matter. Try to stop ice from forming in sub zero temperatures outside at night using the miracle of back radiation, and youll appreciate reality.”
These statements are more than proof that you really do not know what you are talking about. You have made up your own personal version of a GHE that is wrong and then you want people to falsify it for you.
Mike Flynn
I know you never click on my links. I will provide them if anyone is interested.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e9c8d5e3c5f.png
This is the Nevada desert in the winter. The back-radiation only reaches 223 W/m^2. If you had a block of ice the back-radiation is lower than the freezing point of ice so it can’t melt it but it will warm something colder than -30 C. Because you do not know what the GHE is you come up with these mindless conclusions that are absurd and no one is arguing in favor of it, they are based upon your flawed understanding. If you try to understand the actual theory maybe you would have some less absurd conclusions.
If you put a block of ice in the desert and did your best to eliminate the other forms of heat transfer at this time of year…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_57e9ca5970ca9.png
The lowest back-radiation at this time is 360 Watts/m^2 and will melt the ice and raise the water temperature to about 8 C.
” The average incoming energy from the sun at the earth’s surface is about four times higher at the equator than at the poles. The average infrared radiation heat loss to space is more constant with latitude. As a result there is a net input of heat to the earth’s surface into the tropical regions,
and this is where we find the warmest surface seawater. Heat is then transferred from low to high latitudes by winds in the atmosphere and by currents in the ocean”
http://ocean.stanford.edu/courses/bomc/chem/lecture_03.pdf
Ball4 says:
September 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM
The 240 is not assumed L.J., the 240 is measured. Varies a small amount.
Not true. That is, in some areas the input may be 240 W/m2, but the solar energy available at the Earths surface at any moment is at least twice that value.
240 w times 24 hours is 5.76 kW hours of energy.
Roughly, only an ocean surface can absorb this amount of energy in a 24 hour period.
Solar panels absorb and convert to electrical power about
20% of sunlight energy. Most designed Solar thermal systems can absorb about 60% of the energy of sunlight and convert it to useful heat [warmed water]. So if region had 8 kw hours of solar energy per day per square meter: 8 times .6 is 4.8 Kw hour of warmed water per day [warmed high enough to be useful as hot water].
A typical land surface does not absorb 5.76 kW hours of thermal energy per day. In terms of joules of heat, 5.76 kW hours = 20736 kJ.
A 1 meter cube of water is 1000 times 4.8 kJ per K
20736 / 4800 kJ = 4.32 K
2 meters depth of water could be warmed by 2 C in 24 hours,
and 1 meter depth of sand can not absorb this much energy in a day- only top several inches of sand warms up in a day.
So say 10 cm of square meter is 200 kg of sand per square meter, it take about .8 kj per kg= 160 kJ:
20736 / 160 = 129.6 C.
And top 10 Cm of sand can’t warm by 129.6 C in a day – or highest top couple of inches of any Earth sand gets to is about 70 C.
“Roughly, only an ocean surface can absorb this amount of energy in a 24 hour period.”
True, but this misses the point. The rest of your post is also mostly true but also misses the point.
As a minor point, only about 160W/m^2 (of the the 240 W/m^2) is absorbed by the surface. So your number would apply to the entire column of surface and air, but just to the surface.
But much more importantly, while the earth is ABSORBING about 5.76 kW hours of energy per m^2 each day (incoming sunlight), it is also EMITTING about 5.76 kW hours of energy per m^2 each day (outgoing thermal IR). The net gain is approximately zero. There is no need at all to worry about how some square meter is absorbing 5.76 kWh of energy.
Sure in some locations on some days during some seasons, there are large net gains. But there are also net losses in some locations on some days during some seasons. The estimated goal average net gain is on the order of 1 W/m^2, or 0.024 kWh/m^2 — a quite manageable amount resulting in less than 0.01 K of warming of that hypothetical 2 m of water you discuss.
” Tim Folkerts says:
September 26, 2016 at 4:28 PM
Roughly, only an ocean surface can absorb this amount of energy in a 24 hour period.
True, but this misses the point. The rest of your post is also mostly true but also misses the point.
As a minor point, only about 160W/m^2 (of the the 240 W/m^2) is absorbed by the surface. So your number would apply to the entire column of surface and air, but just to the surface. ”
I believe this 160W/m^2 refers to direct sunlight.
Oceans are warmed by any type of Shortwave energy coming from the Sun whether direct or indirect or re-radiated, clouds likewise [though of course, clouds reflect a lot].
But for land surface to warm to say 70 C, I believe this requires direct sunlight.
“But much more importantly, while the earth is ABSORBING about 5.76 kW hours of energy per m^2 each day (incoming sunlight), it is also EMITTING about 5.76 kW hours of energy per m^2 each day (outgoing thermal IR). The net gain is approximately zero. There is no need at all to worry about how some square meter is absorbing 5.76 kWh of energy. ”
For understanding of global climate it matter what type of surface is absorbing sunlight.
Or global average ocean temperatures of ocean are about 17 C
whereas land surface have much lower average temperatures.
Europe is can’t be understood if one imagines it’s being only warmed directly by sunlight- or significant reason Europe is warm, is due to Gulf Stream. All regions poleward are being warmed by the tropical ocean absorbing most the the sunlight reaching Earth.
The land surrfaces though can be hotter [or because they are hotter] are cooling Earth whereas the oceans warm Earth.
L.J., 240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
Ball4,
You still don’t get it. It’s an averaged assumed value. You don’t MEASURE “240” at the TOA. And you don’t measure it looking down:
“as 240 is measured by radiometers on various satellites looking down.” [Ball4]
Sketptic, 240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
The 240 is CALCULATED. The satellite does NOT measure “240”. TOA Solar flux is NOT 240. That is the point. The 240 does not reflect reality in the model.
Really, are you this dense?
Perhaps sketptic has forgotten about or is confused by albedo. The 240 is measured (and calculated a priori) from the INPUT to the system, nearly same as the system OUTPUT 240 in near steady state, the reflected sun light (albedo) is measured as SW photons that continue to live on looking to be consumed (death) back on the sun or deep space.
240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
Ball4,
Wow! Quit digging yourself in a hole. See:
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_rsdt_CERES-EBAF_L4_Ed2-6r_20120606.pdf
From the paper:
“The CERES science team provides monthly regional mean TOA incident shortwave radiation derived from the Total Solar Irradiance (TIM) instrument aboard the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. The TIM instrument measures the absolute intensity of solar radiation, integrated over the entire solar disk and the entire solar spectrum reported at the mean solar distance of 1 astronomical unit (AU)”
TSI is measured, which is not 240. Your “240” is a derived and calculated quantity.
Another quote from the above paper:
“CERES uses geodetic weighting to average the zonal fluxes into a global mean. This assumes the earth is an oblate spheroid with an equator radius of 6378.137 km and polar radius of 6356.752
km. This increases the annual global incoming solar flux by 0.29 Wm-2 over weighting assuming a spherical earth (Loeb et al 2009).”
BUMMER.
Perhaps sketptic missed this: “The TIM instrument measures..”.
240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
OMG. Get with it. 240 is not measured directly. That’s the whole point. TSI is the measured quantity from the SORCE satellite. The rest is CALCULATED.
“TSI is the measured quantity from the SORCE satellite.”
Yes sketptic, you do have it right now – key word measured. You can even find solar SW measurements from high altitude rockets discussed as far back as Johnson 1954 “The Solar Constant” J. Met.
Latest 3 telescopes on CERES looking down measure by scanning surface for the SW (broadband) and LW too so 240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
I’m done dealing with this absolute moron.
Well let’s see, sketptic jumped into this sub-thread started by L.J. Along the way he changed from “The satellite does NOT measure” by research learning about specific satellites to “the measured quantity from the…satellite.” and I did not change from the start: “The 240 is not assumed L.J., the 240 is measured. Varies a small amount.”
Sketptic even changed his name to Skeptic along the way, does show obvious improvement from hanging in there & researching my stuff. Good work SGW.
I suggest changing your moniker from “Ball4” to “Strike3”. You are continually striking out
L.J. Ryan says: September 26, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Ball4 says: September 26, 2016 at 8:57 AM
(‘The 240 is not assumed L.J., the 240 is measured. Varies a small amount.’)
“Not true. That is, in some areas the input may be 240 W/m2, but the solar energy available at the Earths surface at any moment is at least twice that value.”
Can you not even try to get even 9th grade geometry correct? Approximate Earth surface normal insolation through one atmosphere is under 1kW/m² say 960W/m²! At any instant most of the ‘spherical’ planetary surface is not normal to insolation. Half has no direct insolation at all. The whole other half surface receives 960cosine(theta)W/m², less the additional attenuation of the longer atmospheric path (theta is surface angle from normal insolation). The average over any 24hr period can never approach 240W/m² The 240W/m² by Trenberth NCAR/UCAR is but a wee part of the SCAM! The poles receive and emit much less thermal EMR flux than most of the planet. Penguins and dirty white bears love it! The biggest part of the SCAM is that some global average of anything presented by NCAR/UCAR has any physical meaning whatsoever!!!
Will Janoschka
So you don’t like averages either. Is there a cult that you belong to that finds average a satanic influence? Averages are used whenever you have many individual items that you want to find a trend about.
Is there an unknown toxin in a water system? Well you can use averages to find out (or means or medians or other statistics tools).
Insurance companies use the number of people affected by some item by 100,000 total to get trends.
Is the stock market going up or down? Well you would have to develop a long term average to determine it. Daily fluctuations would not help. You are so antiscience it is hard to understand what motivates you to post.
Ball4 says:
September 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM
Sketptic, 240 really is measured at the top of the atmosphere, continuously, 24/7 reported out over 4-10 annual periods. Varies a small amount.
Again you are mistaken Ball4. Let’s try this:
What is the value of the solar constant?
What portion of the solar constant radiates to the Earth’s surface?
What is the value of the portion radiating to the surface?
I urge L.J. 5:36pm to look up the answers sought in a good text on Atm. Radiation.
For example, “solar constant” (L.J. term) is outdated, really is an inappropriate name given the interest in and effort put into measuring its changes. Modern term is now the solar irradiance, usually denoted So. Averaged over the year, it is the solar radiant energy of all wavelengths crossing a m^2 with a normal toward the sun. Various measurements over various periods give various values. Pick your favorite.
Radiation reaching Earth? One can easily find sprectra comparing radiation measured from the sun TOA and the earth surface (300K), pick your favorite source. Where the two spectrum curves intersect may be interpreted as the wavelength at which a photon is equally likely to be solar as of terrestrial origin. The value radiating to surface is measured from several sources, several periods, pick your favorite.
Ball4 says: September 26, 2016 at 6:18 PM
“For example, solar constant (L.J. term) is outdated, really is an inappropriate name given the interest in and effort put into measuring its changes. Modern term is now the solar irradiance, usually denoted So. Averaged over the year, it is the solar radiant energy of all wavelengths crossing a m^2 with a normal toward the sun. Various measurements over various periods give various values. Pick your favorite. Radiation reaching Earth? One can easily find sprectra comparing radiation measured from the sun TOA and the earth surface (300K), pick your favorite source. Where the two spectrum curves intersect may be interpreted as the wavelength at which a photon is equally likely to be solar as of terrestrial origin. The value radiating to surface is measured from several sources, several periods, pick your favorite.”
An excellent illustration that No one knows! All is but various political and religious beliefs/fantasies. There is no science or physics to be found anywhere!!!
L.J. Ryan
Since you seem to be a person who wants to learn perhaps I can be of help. I know where and why Ball4 is making his claims. They are the Global measured values. They are not regional or individual locations. When you add up all the measured values they come up with the same values in the Global Budget diagrams.
This is the resource I believe Ball4 uses.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/imageGenerator?command=gridOnly&iminlat=-1&imaxlat=-1&iminlon=-1&imaxlon=-1&gridSize=1
This one will give you surface fluxes for the globe for all types of energy. Incoming and outgoing.
L.J. Ryan
Sorry not the correct link. I will try again.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSFCSelection.jsp
L.J. Ryan
That link is set for the globe and surface fluxes. It covers many years of data.
I will try to post individual graphs. If it does not work you will have to click on the visualize data at the bottom of the page (left side). It will bring up global maps and let you know the date and type of radiation under consideration.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/imageGenerator?command=gridOnly&iminlat=-1&imaxlat=-1&iminlon=-1&imaxlon=-1&gridSize=1
If the link works it is a global map of solar energy down to the surface. What is not absorbed by the atmosphere and all sky so cloud effects are in this graph.
I.J. Ryan
Sorry the graph image does not transfer correctly.
If you go to a map click on it and it brings up a box. In the box click on Area Mean Time Series. This will bring up a graph of all the years in the study and give a radiant energy amount on the left side of the graph.
For solar energy to the surface the amount reaching the surface is 185 W/m^2 average and the light reflected off the surface not absorbed seems to be around 22 W/m^2 so the surface on a global basis receives 160+ Watts/m^2
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1280px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
That is where they get the 160+ W/m^2 for every meter of the Earth’s surface. They are measured values that are then figured out globally. Something scientists do often.
I.J. Ryan
This CERES graph is for top of atmosphere over the entire globe.
https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp
You can see from the graphs that the values vary from month to month based upon location but the global mean is 340 W/m^2 and if multiply that by 0.7 (the albedo from clouds and other is considered about 30% so the actual value that is not reflected away from Earth is around 240 W/m^2.
“You can see from the graphs that the values vary from month to month based upon location but the global mean is 340 W/m^2 and if multiply that by 0.7 (the albedo from clouds and other is considered about 30% so the actual value that is not reflected away from Earth is around 240 W/m^2.”
Thanks for the links. Couple of questions:
How does a satellite measure solar radiation on the surface…measure radiation moving away from it’s sensors.
Back to my original question, why take the instantaneous isolation and average it over the entire surface? That is, only half the earth is receives insolation at any one moment so shouldn’t all averages be based on a hemispherical surface?
If the energy budget is used to develop a Simple Time-Dependent Model of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect, accurately representing the solar input should be paramount? Flux in one side, LW out over the entire surface.
“Back to my original question, why take the instantaneous isolation and average it over the entire surface? That is, only half the earth is receives insolation at any one moment so shouldnt all averages be based on a hemispherical surface?”
That would be quite reasonable for an earth that didn’t rotate. Then, for example, only the Eastern Hemisphere would receive sunlight and averaging only over that hemisphere for incoming sunlight would be the correct approach. But every 24 hr the sun light is spread out over both hemispheres, so any long-term average would reasonable average over the whole surface.
“But every 24 hr the sun light is spread out over both hemispheres, so any long-term average would reasonable average over the whole surface.”
Thanks for your explanation, and I understand your point about averaging over a 24hr period, it makes sense conceptually…sort of. When looking at the energy budget equation, output = input: σT^4 x (4πR^2) = SπR^2 x (1-A) there is no reference to time period, it’s a continuous equality. That said, the equation does not accurately describe the physical. The output side is correct, but energy input side is wrong. Radiation is absorbed hemispherically not as a flat disk. The equation should read: σT^4 x (4πR^2) = S2πR^2 x (1-A)…479.5 W/m2.
No, LJ
The incoming sunlight is indeed absorbed over an area 2πR^2, but it does not have an intensity S over that whole area. In fact, only where the sun is at the zenith is the intensity S. Everywhere else the sunlight hits at an angle and the intensity is less than S. Try shining a flashlight bean on a sheet of paper at an angle and you will see the intensity on the surface is less. The *average* intensity over the hemisphere will be less than S — it will indeed be S/2 if you can do the calculus.
So you have an area 2 x πR^2 with an average intensity of S/2, or exactly what people have been telling you.
L.J. Ryan
I am not sure they are measuring the data for the Surface emissions.
Here is an explanation. Sounds as if they calculate them.
https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/islscp-ii-surface-radiation-budget-srb-radiation-data-11ef5
The ESRL data is actual measured values with instruments.
I agree with Tim Folkerts on why you use a 24-hour average.
Thanks again for the link.
“The surface and TOA Shortwave (SW) radiative parameters were computed with the Pinker and Laszlo (1992) radiation model.
Agreed, sounds as if the values are calculated. Without reading through it at all, I would guess the model is based on abledo and an assumed solar input….
L.J.,
They are calculated. See the following paper:
http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/cmip5-data/Tech-Note_rsdt_CERES-EBAF_L4_Ed2-6r_20120606.pdf
From the above:
“The CERES science team provides monthly regional mean TOA incident shortwave radiation derived from the Total Solar Irradiance (TIM) instrument aboard the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite”
“CERES uses geodetic weighting to average the zonal fluxes into a global mean. This assumes the earth is an oblate spheroid with an equator radius of 6378.137 km and polar radius of 6356.752
km. This increases the annual global incoming solar flux by 0.29 Wm-2 over weighting assuming a spherical earth (Loeb et al 2009).”
So TSI data is used from the SORCE spacecraft. TSI is what’s measured. The rest is calculated.
Tim Folkerts says:
September 27, 2016 at 9:05 PM
“No, LJ
The incoming sunlight is indeed absorbed over an area 2πR^2, but it does not have an intensity S over that whole area. In fact, only where the sun is at the zenith is the intensity S. Everywhere else the sunlight hits at an angle and the intensity is less than S. Try shining a flashlight bean on a sheet of paper at an angle and you will see the intensity on the surface is less. The *average* intensity over the hemisphere will be less than S it will indeed be S/2 if you can do the calculus.
So you have an area 2 x πR^2 with an average intensity of S/2, or exactly what people have been telling you.”
Again, your response make sense conceptually. I think of it to be somewhat analogous AC voltage half rectified. To find the average voltage, you simply divide the peak voltage in half. In this situation, if S represents the peak, then the average = S/2. So S = 479.5 W/m2?
Will Janoschka
Your long antiscience rant above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/simple-time-dependent-model-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-226033
Your absolute hate of science is so intense did you get an F when you were in high school in a science class?
YOU: “The notion, premise, conjecture, hypothesis, that is logically unfalsifiable and physically unverifiable is precisely; All mass bodies radiate thermal flux proportional to only their own absolute temperature raised to the forth power, and independent of any radiative surround!
Such is of course logically unsound; the S-B equation is composed of the linear subtraction of two opposing proxies of radiative potential (radiance) combined to give one differential potential resulting in some measurable resultant thermal radiative flux. Since only the resultant sometimes called net is measurable, The fantasy secondary claim of two opposing thermal radiative flux, cannot be logically falsified, And must be scientifically rejected as meaningless!”
Why do you believe it is logically unsound to think all bodies radiate thermal flux in proportion to their absolute temperature (and emissivity) raised to the fourth power?
I think it has been experimentally verified but my question is why do your think is is not logical? And more importantly what do you base your opinion upon?
Your have your own screwy idea of what causes radiant IR to be generated and emitted. The standard atomic theory is that molecules vibrate on or near the surface and will change the electromagnetic fields of the molecules and then emit IR in proportion to the energy of the vibration from a higher state to a lower vibrational state. It is verified by many spectrographic experiments. They use this data to determine unidentified compounds because of unique energy emitted by different materials.
Logically all surfaces with temperature should emit IR based upon their temperature and absorb according to the nature of the surface.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/img2314.png
Before the terms are put in parenthesis look at the equation.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Science. Something you hate not sure why.
You claim the science is a SCAM but offer no explanations for your opinions. You do not have a logical explanation of WHY you feel a surface will change its emitting properties based upon its surroundings. How is your hypothesis supposed to work. How are the two surfaces communicating with each other to suppress the amount of radiation they will emit.
You have zero logic. You make tons of statements with no proof, no explanation, most in violation of science. You throw out some names of famous scientists as if this is supposed to give your illogical and mindless points and conclusions credibility.
I just really think when you call established science SCAM, religion, illogical, fantasy…that you make yourself into a babbling idiot. If you want to reject science that is your choice but you make some nonscientists think you know what you are talking about because you add some names of scientists.
Fuck off institutionalized Norman, And your keepers too!
Will Janoschka
So that is your response to my complaints about your completely antiscience posts. Now you are most unsocial as well.
Still NO explanations for any of your positions or counters only a blunt statement that is also completely false. “Keepers” What a crackpot you are!
Norman says:
September 27, 2016 at 4:38 AM
“Will Janoschka So that is your response to my complaints about your completely antiscience posts. Now you are most unsocial as well. Still NO explanations for any of your positions or counters only a blunt statement that is also completely false. Keepers What a crackpot you are!”
Still not even one comment or indication of any technical or scientific error on my part! Only wild handwaving rants that I refuse to comply with your orders!
Will Janoschka
Obviously you did not read my longer post. You call it “wild handwaving rants”.
I clearly addressed your scientific and technical errors. I really do not know how to be clearer with your fogged thinking process.
I asked you to explain with atomic theory why a surface at a certain temperature would alter its emission because you move another emitting surface into the first’s vicinity.
Asking this question to you caused you to use an “F bomb”.
Norman says: September 28, 2016 at 9:35 AM
Will Janoschka Obviously you did not read my longer post. You call it wild handwaving rants.
Where is any scientific or technical error in what “I” wrote?
I merely defended the long established, verified, use of the whole S-B equation that predicts the maximun thermal unidirectional EM flux in W/m² between two flat parallel Lambertian surfaces separated by vacuum of any distance greater than a few significant wavelengths.
Where is any error in that?
“I clearly addressed your scientific and technical errors. I really do not know how to be clearer with your fogged thinking process.”
You asked stuff like this N:”Why do you believe it is logically unsound to think all bodies radiate thermal flux in proportion to their absolute temperature (and emissivity) raised to the fourth power?”I never mentioned such!
I did say W:”the S-B equation is composed of the linear subtraction of two opposing proxies of radiative potential (radiance) combined to give one differential potential resulting in some measurable resultant thermal radiative flux.”
Splitting that equation against all mathematical rules in two parts and calling each a flux, rather than each a radiance; makes the claim unfalsifiable and must be rejected from science. Such simply remain a false claim.
“I asked you to explain with atomic theory why a surface at a certain temperature would alter its emission because you move another emitting surface into the firsts vicinity.”
You never asked such a thing!! Nor would I try to explain any EMR effects from atomic theory. EMR is not atomic, it is relativistic. Dr. Bose tried that long ago (1924) and made the entire EE community throw up, in disgust!!! You OTOH cannot devise a theory as to why the fool concept of ‘temperature’ should generate any EMR flux at all!! Dr. Bose finally relented and agreed that both he and Dr. Planck were writing only of EM field strength never Thermal EM flux.
“Asking this question to you caused you to use an F bomb.”
I asked you long ago to not read my posts if you do not like them. You agreed!! I reiterate that request. I am not here to educate you!
Will Janoschka
As long as you post terrible science I will refuse to ignore your posts. Flawed and screwed up is your thinking.
I checked up on Bose and his work was verified with the Bose-Einstein condensate.
You seem stuck in a nether world of old physics ideas that were developed as hypothesis of brilliant men but have been refined, experimented and developed. Your stuck in the last century like a time traveler but can’t accept things have moved on.
You are one strange person I think. Hope you are not able to lead any young minds down the dark path of your twisted thought process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose
Will Janoschka
YOU: “Splitting that equation against all mathematical rules in two parts and calling each a flux, rather than each a radiance; makes the claim unfalsifiable and must be rejected from science. Such simply remain a false claim.”
Here. This one explains all the terminology in radiant physics
http://physics.gmu.edu/~hgeller/astr402/RadiometricTerms.pdf
Note: Radiant emittance
Please review this term.
This link will provide the proof you say does not exist. Shadows are not dark, but grey. That is because of diffuse light coming down from all directions illuminating the surface. If you have direct proof of this form of energy in the visible, it is the same phenomena in the IR region of EMR. You just do not grasp this fact. I think grey shadows blow your poor thoughts out of the science water.
Will Janoschka
Here is a great link for you to prove how wrong you are about measuring various radiations with certain devices. Read through it to correct your flawed and misguided thoughts.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy04/36831p.pdf
Norman says: September 28, 2016 at 10:01 PM
Will Janoschka
“As long as you post terrible science I will refuse to ignore your posts. Flawed and screwed up is your thinking.”
“I checked up on Bose and his work was verified with the Bose-Einstein condensate.”
Do you realize that such condensate is but fantasy! The extreme low temperatures, pressures, and wee probabilities are but the realm of wee green giraffes with pink spots. Did you bother to read his essay on thermal EM radiation without Maxwell’s equations. Even Einstein refused to consider that!
“You seem stuck in a nether world of old physics ideas that were developed as hypothesis of brilliant men but have been refined, experimented and developed. Your stuck in the last century like a time traveler but cant accept things have moved on.”
I understand the refinements. They are excellent where they may apply. They in no way apply to This Physical Earth, its oceans, its atmosphere, The Sun, The solar system, this Galaxy, or any of this physical. All you have is mindless jerking off in the cloakroom.
Will Janoschka
I know you are wrong but will not accept it that is you choice.
Yet you still have not explained the observed effect of a handheld FLIR camera that shows a wide variety of temperatures in a given area which you can see when you point the camera at a surface.
There are clearly multiple fluxes (as current theory states) with each surface emitting radiant energy at its own unique rate which the camera can clearly detect.
I cannot understand how you can view a multiple of surface temperatures with a FLIR camera. You can put thermometers on each surface and get actual temperature readings that will only be 4 F variance from the camera reading (this is primarily because of the emissivity used in calculating the temperature of a a surface).
The thing is that the thermometer has to be on the surface to gets a temperature reading. The FLIR can determine it at a distance so it obviously has to be picking up something in order to get a reading at all. What is it picking up and converting to a temperature reading that is fairly accurate? It would have to be unique IR fluxes radiated from each surface.
You are wrong and an FLIR camera will prove it.
Norman says: September 28, 2016 at 10:36 PM
———————————————————–
Will Janoschka
YOU: Splitting that equation against all mathematical rules in two parts and calling each a flux, rather than each a radiance; makes the claim unfalsifiable and must be rejected from science. Such simply remain a false claim.
Here. This one explains all the terminology in radiant physics
http://physics.gmu.edu/~hgeller/astr402/RadiometricTerms.pdf
Note: Radiant emittance——————————————
Interesting All of your BS refers to thermal EM flux after generation and that flux must do such! Not even one word as to how, why such flux is ever produced. Not even one word!!! The radiant terms intensity, radiant intensity, radiance, spectral radiance, specific intensity! all that deal with how, why, and how much, flux may possibly be expressed/generated. Is your intention truly to SCAM all rather than enlighten any?
Gee,
Comments now more than 1400. Where O where is any Consensus?
In an attempt to get any to agree, grumble, grumble, with others; perhaps just a preferred concept of Earth’s geometry within space and this Solar system can be agreed to. Not an absolute ‘is’ just some ‘refere3nce’ conceptual geometry that all others can deviate from.
WHAT would that be? Not is, but only as an agreeable conceptual starting point? I have my firm concepts, I promise to bend my firm into all ugly else to reach agreement! What say you? Must this mess go on to WAR?
We seem to have a spinning, orbiting, tilted Earth, difficult to comprehend WHAT would a comprehensible geometry be? Not is, but only as an agreeable conceptual starting point? To me some few Global statistical averages make no sense at all.
Some geometry based on latitude, local time of day, and day of year, with 100-200 individual area locations, may make this Earth sufficiently stationary that the time progression of each and every area may give a hint of what is, was, and may become.
Will Janoschka
Look at this link of an FLIR, it shows different intensities of IR seen from a house. You can see all these different surface fluxes reaching the camera. Why can you see this based upon your interpretation of IR emittance?
http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/musings/introduction-thermal-imaging
NOTE in the material itself: “Although many people assume that infrared cameras measure surface temperatures, thats not really how the tools work. An IR camera actually measures the intensity of infrared radiation (radiant energy) being emitted by the surface it is aimed at.”
They directly contradict your view. So now what do you have to say. Will you keep thinking you are right when wrong or learn and grow and admit you got it wrong!
Tim, Norman, Dr. Spenser
I hope one of you can square what I view as an inconsistency in the Global Energy Budget equation…output = input: σT^4 x (4πR^2) = SπR^2 x (1-A). The output side is correct, but energy input side is wrong. Radiation is absorbed hemispherically not as a flat disk. The equation should read: σT^4 x (4πR^2) = S2πR^2 x (1-A), so average input is 479.5 W/m2, not 240 W/m2 as stated in GHE models.
On September 27, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Tim Folkerts says:
“The incoming sunlight is indeed absorbed over an area 2πR^2, but it does not have an intensity S over that whole area. In fact, only where the sun is at the zenith is the intensity S. Everywhere else the sunlight hits at an angle and the intensity is less than S. Try shining a flashlight bean on a sheet of paper at an angle and you will see the intensity on the surface is less. The *average* intensity over the hemisphere will be less than S it will indeed be S/2 if you can do the calculus.
So you have an area 2 x πR^2 with an average intensity of S/2, or exactly what people have been telling you.”
On September 28, 2016 at 11:19 AM, I responded:
Again, your response make sense conceptually. I think of it to be somewhat analogous AC voltage half rectified. To find the average voltage, you simply divide the peak voltage in half. In this situation, if S represents the peak, then the average = S/2. So S = 479.5 W/m2?
It’s very simple, really. The sunlight is intercepted by the Earth’s disk, which has an area pi R squared, but that energy is spread over a sphere, which is 4 pi R squared (a factor of 4 difference). So, 1370 divided by 4 is 343 W/m2. Then, due to albedo, only 70% of that is absorbed, which is 240 W/m2.
But solar input radiation is not spread over the entire spherical surface, but rather it is incident on only half the surface, i.e. a hemisphere.
So incorporating this reality into the energy budget equation, output = input: σT^4 x (4πR^2) = S2πR^2 x (1-A), confering and insolation of 479.5 W/m^2 average
No, then you would be doing a portion of the energy budget for daytime only. The energy budget is for the whole day/night cycle…for example, IR cooling is occurring 24 hours a day. So, we compute what the 24 hour average solar insolation is, too. You have to divide your number by 2.
The energy budget equation is a continuous equality, it is not time dependent. The solar constant is just that, constant…it does not vary over 24hr or any period. At any and all instances, total radiant flux into the system equals total radiant flux out of the system. The flux density entering the system however, is 2 x the flux density out of the system, but the irradiance is over half the surface area.
To your example, aren’t satellite measurement of out going IR fairly consistent from night to day?
The average energy fluxes in global energy budget diagrams are time-averaged quantities, over day and night combined. The solar radiative flux absorbed by the system does indeed equal that lost by the system, around 240 W/m2…but that is averaged over day and night. Yes, IR loss at top-of-atmosphere is pretty similar day versus night. During the day, more is energy is absorbed by the system than lost. At night, the reverse is true.
Will Janoschka
Up above you write this: “Interesting All of your BS refers to thermal EM flux after generation and that flux must do such! Not even one word as to how, why such flux is ever produced. Not even one word!!! The radiant terms intensity, radiant intensity, radiance, spectral radiance, specific intensity! all that deal with how, why, and how much, flux may possibly be expressed/generated. Is your intention truly to SCAM all rather than enlighten any?”
This link will give you all the answers you ask for in extreme detail. Please read it to update your knowledge levels of EMR.
http://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory