Home/BlogAbstract: A simple time-dependent model of Earth surface temperatures over the 24 hr day/night cycle at different latitudes is presented. The model reaches energy equilibrium after 1.5 months no matter what temperature it is initialized at. It is shown that even with 1,370 W/m2 of solar flux (reduced by an assumed albedo of 0.3), temperatures at all latitudes remain very cold, even in the afternoon and in the deep tropics. Variation of the model input parameters over reasonable ranges do not change this fact. This demonstrates the importance of the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, which increases surface temperatures well above what can be achieved with only solar heating and surface infrared loss to outer space.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post regarding why climate scientists use ~340 W/m2 as the global average solar flux available to the climate system, here I present a model which includes how the incident solar flux (starting with the 1,370 W/m2 solar constant) varies across the Earth as a function of latitude and every 15 minutes throughout the diurnal (day/night) cycle.
I am providing this model to avoid any objections regarding how much solar energy is input into the climate system on average, how that averaging should be done (or whether it is even physically meaningful), whether the nighttime lack of any solar flux should be excluded from the averaging, whether certain assumptions constitute a “flat-Earth” mentality, etc. Instead, the model uses the actual variations of the incident solar radiation on the (assumed spherical) Earth as a function of latitude and time of day. For simplicity, equinox conditions are assumed and so there is no seasonal cycle.
This is not meant to be a realistic model of regional climate; instead, it goes beyond the global averages in the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget diagram and shows how unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon. The model “evolves” the final temperatures, from any starting temperature you specify, based upon a simple energy budget equation (energy conservation) combined with an assumed surface heat capacity. Imbalances between absorbed solar energy and emitted IR energy cause a temperature change which eventually stops (in a long-term average sense) when the daily rate of emitted IR energy equals the daily absorbed solar energy.
The time-dependent model has adjustable inputs: the solar constant (1,370 W/m2); an albedo (for simplicity assumed 0.3 everywhere); the depth of the surface layer responding to solar heating (using the heat capacity of water, but soil heat capacity is similar); and, the assumed broadband infrared emissivity of the surface controlling how fast energy is lost to space as the surface warms. I set the time step to 15 minutes to resolve the diurnal cycle. The Excel model is here, and you are free to change the input parameters and see the results.
Here’s how the incident solar flux changes with time-of-day and latitude. This should not be controversial, since it is just based upon geometry. Even though I only do model calculations at latitudes of 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, 65, 75, and 85 deg. (north and south), the global, 24-hr average incident solar flux is very close to simply 1,370 divided by 4, which is the ratio of the surface areas of a circle and a sphere having the same radius:
If I had done calculations for every 1 deg. of latitude, the model result would have been exceedingly close to 1,370/4.
If I assume the surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep, a global albedo of 0.3, and a broadband IR emissivity of 0.98, and run the model for 46 days, the model reaches very nearly a steady-state energy equilibrium no matter what temperature I initialize it at (say, 100K or 300 K):
Note that even in the deep tropics, the average temperature is only 29 deg. F. At 45 deg. latitude, the temperature averages -11 deg. F. The diurnal temperature variations are very large, partly because the greenhouse effect in nature helps retain surface energy at night, keeping temperatures from falling too fast like it does in the model.
There is no realistic way to remove the very cold bias of the model without including an atmospheric greenhouse effect. If you object that convection has been ignored, that is a surface cooling (not warming) process, so including convection will only make matters worse. The lack of model heat transport out of the tropics, similarly, would only make the model tropical temperatures colder, not warmer, if it was included. The supposed warming caused by atmospheric pressure that some believe is an alternative theory to the GHE would cause (as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out) surface temperatures to rise, making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldn’t want to violate the 1st Law).
I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included. The temperature (of anything) is not determined by the rate of energy input (say, the intensity of sunlight, or how fast your car engine burns gas); it is the result of a balance between energy gain and energy loss. The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.
Would teh meridional heat transport not change the picture a little bit? Due to the strongly nonlinear t^4 dependence of bb radiation, slight tropical cooling due to heat export can account for a huge warming at the poles… but then again, without ghe heat transport would be very inefficient; still could make some difference.
Yes, it would change it a little bit…anything that reduces the temperature range (which meridional heat transport would do) will make the global average surface temperature a little warmer. On the moon, the very long diurnal cycle (29.5 days) causes extreme temperature variations between day and night, which reduces the average surface temperature of the moon.
Convection cools the surface but it warms the atmosphere. Energy is being transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. The three primary heat transfer mechanisms (cooling of the surface) are convection, evaporation and LWIR.
Dr. Spencer will be very glad that you informed him of that.
Someoone intelligent would understand this doesn’t prove a radiative Greenhouse effect.
Svante, by the way I was referring to you.
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
But it doesn’t take into account the primary sources of atmospheric heating which are convection and evaporation.
Without GHGs Earth’s radiation balance must be settled at the surface. Given the solar input, that makes it a very cold place. With GHGs, that place is in the upper troposphere.
There’s a difference between science and speculation.
Which part of it is unclear?
Here’s a spectrum over the Niger Valley, taken from space.
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
Can you see that the integral is considerably less than the surface temperature (320K), because of GHGs.
Without GHGs the surface must produce a black body curve with the same area as before, that means a much lower temperature.
Can you see that?
But that doesn’t imply all the heat transfer is radiant. It doesn’t even imply that most of the heat transfer is radiant.
Also, it isn’t correct to say without GHGs. The correct statement would be without some process or processes warming the atmosphere.
Stephen P Anderson says:
All heat transfer to space is radiant, and in the long run it must be equal to the abzorbed solar radiation. If Earth runs a surplus it must warm until there is balance again.
For balance, the radiation must come from a very cold place,
and if the atmosphere does not radiate that cold place must be the surface.
The atmosphere is a dead end without GHGs, what goes up must come down, and what must rise must fall.
–The atmosphere is a dead end without GHGs, what goes up must come down, and what must rise must fall.–
When it falls there is less warming needed to warm to same temperature as when it rose and then falls.
Or same amount heating as first day, warms to higher temperature the next day.
And the falling make night less cold as compared to having nothing falling.
So increases daytime high temp and night time low temperature- or global warming as it is measured.
Also the cooling of the surface due to convective loss, makes the surface radiant less energy into space.
Convection will even out differences and raise the average by reducing the T^4 loss, as Dr. Spencer explained elsewhere.
Still, the surface must emit the same power to space.
I didn’t say to space. Stop trying to change my argument. I said from the surface to the atmosphere-to the troposphere. The Earth’s gravity doesn’t allow convection or evaporation into space. But, from the surface to the troposphere convection and evaporation are taking place.
You don’t understand, the surface must radiate the same regardless of what your non GHG atmosphere does.
That means it must be cold.
You’re the one who doesn’t understand. That static model doesn’t describe our planet. It is a dynamic process. There is no thermal equilibrium. Energy comes to the planet from the Sun and the Earth cools by emitting energy. There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the upper atmosphere where energy is emitted into space by LWIR. The lower atmosphere acts as a heat engine with the surface being the source and the upper atmosphere being the sink. The lower atmosphere cools at night and then warms during the day when more convection, conduction, evaporation take place. This sets up a circulation pattern. It is mostly convection that sets the temperature of the lower atmosphere not down welling LWIR and not CO2.
Stephen P Anderson says:
“There is a thermal gradient from the surface to the upper atmosphere where energy is emitted into space by LWIR.”
You forgot the topic here, we are discussing a world with no GHGs, in which case there is no LWIR from the atmosphere.
Take section of tropical ocean.
The warmest the surface gets is 35 C
Now cover ocean with black plastic.
Now ocean surface [the black plastic] can warm to 70 C.
And having ocean with higher temperature will cause global cooling.
70 C surface will radiate more energy into space- 35 C radiate less energy into space as 70 C surface will.
Though average tropical ocean is 26 C and rarely reaches 35 C or 35 C ocean radiate more than 30 C.
Anyhow one is only going to have the 70 C for a few hour of sunlight and might average of 60 C for 6 hours of day.
But another factor is the 70 to 60 C surface will not transfer much heat to atmosphere. And the surface will absorb much energy. You going to warm up a thin sheet of plastic and thin layer of surface water. And if black plastic is dry, then the surface which 60 C will only warm the air to about 30 C.
Whereas 30 C water warms air to 30 C.
And of course surface air temperature is what you measure for global air temperature. So it’s not even going to increase day time high temperature But it will lose more energy to space.
So doesn’t heat up air during day and lacks a huge of heat absorbed to warm the night. And when starts the next day, it starts out with colder air which can’t warm up as much as yesterday’s warmer air.
So, putting a significant amount of black plastic on the tropics causes global cooling. The larger the area, the more severe the global cooling.
Though also you reducing the amount of water vapor, or reducing amount of greenhouse gas.
And I think it’s likely greenhouse can cause some warming but it’s small amount and has not been measured yet.
If was a lot, we are not that incompetent that we could not measure it.
Whatever you do on the surface, it will emit the same power to space by adjusting its temperature.
WV is a GHG, it obscures the surface and radiates from aloft where it is colder. Output to space can be the same but the surface can be warmer.
I gave you a spectrum measurement up-thread, and Dr. Spencer just gave you a ball park calculation at the top of the page.
The effect is significant.
It doesn’t imply the mechanism is correct. The AGW mechanism is that greenhouse gases absorb and emit LWIR and increases and controls the surface temperature. This mechanism is wrong. Of course water vapor increases atmospheric temperature-just not the way put forth.
There is no equlibrium average climate state. It is a simplistic mathematical construct that doesn’t describe our planet-maybe your utopia somewhere.
What other mechanism do you propose for keeping our long term average surface temperature above freezing, other than preventing its LWIR from going straight to space?
Note, it doesn’t matter how you get the heat to the TOA (convection, latent heat, radiation).
The Earth’s radiation balance is determined by the TOA temperature.
For equilibrium, it has to be freezing.
The Earth’s radiation balance is determined by the TOA temperature.
For equilibrium, it has to be freezing.
Absolutely irrelevant. Also, it is always freezing somewhere all of the time. Thanks for making my point.
It’s not freezing on average, but you can go back to lala-land now, I’m sorry Dr Spencer disturbed you with his physics.
–Svante says:
June 11, 2019 at 11:17 PM
Whatever you do on the surface, it will emit the same power to space by adjusting its temperature.–
Let’s keep it simple. Urban heat island effect is something done on the surface.
Urban heat island effect increases temperature.
The whole point of bringing up a conduction example was to answer your statement:
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!’
which seemed to be a very general statement about heat flow, not specific to radiation.
Interior wall and exterior walls of a house. Sorry, but those are objects, separated by wood and drywall and air and insulation that the heat must conduct through. So what?
The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.
Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
The thing that you don’t seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.
That is one of the basic principles of heat transfer.
Arrgh wrong thread…
OK, stalker.
“You forgot the topic here, we are discussing a world with no GHGs, in which case there is no LWIR from the atmosphere.”
And apparently you don’t understand his point. Because the non-greenhouse atmosphere still has a way to warm (as before, through convection aided by latent heats), but if you pretend that radiation absorbtion/emission does not exist anymore, it has a very inefficient mechanism for cooling.
Svante’s busted again.
Adrian Roman,
It doesn’t matter if your non-GHG atmosphere is hot or cold, the surface must emit the same power to space anyway, which is the same as the abzorbed solar radiation.
Since the surface radiates according to its temperature, that means it has to be cold, just like Dr Spencer’s calculation shows at the top of this page.
Svante’s gone into one of his infamous loops on some semantic issue.
No I gave up, they don’t get it.
Do you also think Roy Spencer is wrong in his top post?
Question?
Aha, you didn’t read it.
He shows how “unrealistically cold temperatures are when you assume there is no greenhouse effect — even in the deep tropics during the afternoon.”
Do you agree?
I just asked you a question, Svante. Aren’t you going to answer it?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says Dr Roy is wrong, great.
Why don’t you tell him to stop trolling?
So you couldn’t answer my question. That means you didn’t read the article, you didn’t read any of the comments, you disagree with Dr Spencer, you think he should stop trolling, and it means I have “won” this interaction.
That’s the “law of questions asked on a blog”. Sorry. That’s just the way it is.
Yes you win, because you said “Question?”.
‘So you couldnt answer my question. That means you didnt read the article, you didnt read any of the comments, you disagree with Dr Spencer, you think he should stop trolling, and it means I have ‘won’ this interaction.’
Ha, Ha ha!
I’ll have to start counting the times DREMT couldnt answer my questions…so many!
They still can’t answer the question. Typical.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358414
Still waiting to hear what your mystery energy is, DREMT. It is not found anywhere in physics.
Neither you nor JD have an answer. In that case it actually does mean you have lost the argument.
Thats the way science questions are decided. Sorry. Thats just the way it is.
Nate, did you understand what he was on about here?
Nate goes into a loop on some semantic issue, and Svante’s busted yet again.
In your dreams.
‘some semantic issue’
No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.
That is a 1LOT violation.
And it leads you to wrong answers.
I challenged this claim. I ask you to explain this mystery energy. You cannot. Neither can JD.
That means it is wrong. It is fake physics.
They still can’t answer the question!
Ditto!
Nate’s never aware of when he’s the butt of the joke. I think that’s what makes him so funny.
“No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.”
The only possible way to interpret this statement is that you think heat flows between objects…at equilibrium! As for the “mystery energy”, I’ll let Norman explain it to you:
“I have stated so many times that I guess I will have to do so again. HEAT will not flow when two objects reach the same temperature. Energy will still flow back and forth between the two. EMR does not stop emitting from a surface just because the surfaces are at the same temperature. It is really clear and simple physics.”
‘The only possible way to interpret this statement is that you think heat flows between objects…at equilibrium! As for the “mystery energy”, I’ll let Norman explain it to you:’
Nope, I was talking about YOUR claims about the mystery Energy not being HEAT. Nowhere saying heat flows in equilibrium.
As usual you are twisting peoples words and straight up lying.
I have already explained to you several times that no heat flows in equilibrium, and you know that. I have never said otherwise.
Norman: ‘I have stated so many times that I guess I will have to do so again. HEAT will not flow when two objects reach the same temperature. Energy will still flow back and forth between the two. EMR does not stop emitting from a surface just because the surfaces are at the same temperature. It is really clear and simple physics.’
Nope, someday you will have to find your own explanations.
Norman is saying what we always have been saying. EMR flows per SB law. BUT NO NET ENERGY flows between objects at the same temperature!
You and JD claim NET energy flows, which is wrong.
JD: “No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:”
When are you going to learn this very basic principle behind heat transfer?
“No, DREMT, not a semantic issue. You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.”
Which clearly reads that you think heat energy flows at equilibrium. And that is exactly what you do think, only you call it “steady state”, not “equilibrium”.
Be honest about that, and a discussion can continue.
Lack that honesty, and we’re done.
DREMT says “heat energy flows”.
How hard can this be?
Heat is net energy.
Heat = EnergyIn – EnergyOut
If Svante’s going to “chip in”, we’re also done.
‘Be honest about that, and a discussion can continue.’
I have made it very clear what I believe.
You want to tell me I believe something else, just to troll and play games, not interested. Go troll your mom.
Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, T’s are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!
Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal.
That is the situation with the plates, which is a standard heat transfer problem.
No honesty, no discussion. Sorry.
You have no answers. You’re proven wrong. Nothing to discuss.
I agree there’s nothing to discuss, unless you are prepared to start being honest.
“Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, T’s are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!”
Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue:
1) Relating to the quote above, admit that you answered my question 2, incorrectly, as gbaikie pointed out here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358315
2) Admit that you think heat is still flowing at equilibrium, “steady state”, or whatever you want to call it (with plates at 244 K…290 K…244 K, the result from the heat flow equation is not zero, so heat is flowing).
3) Apologize for falsely suggesting that I’m twisting your words, or lying.
Do these things, and with no further interruptions at any point from Svante, then a discussion can continue. Until they’re done, forget it.
DREMT, JD,
If you have the facts on your side, there would be no need for all these games, distractions, demands, sad attempts at point scoring.
You would simply have answers.
Clearly you don’t have answers. The facts are not on your side.
That’s that.
If you won’t be honest, then I guess yes, that’s that. Why bother talking to someone dishonest?
I need to be ‘honest’ about something I never said, never believed, but you believe I believe for some reason?!
You’re deeply weird, DREMT.
I’ve clearly described what you need to be honest about. You can’t even be honest about what you need to be honest about.
I already told you what I believe.
‘Equilibrium has a clear meaning, that by now, you should know very well. Q = 0, Ts are equal. Equilibrium is boring-nothing to solve!
Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal.’
Steady state is the correct description of the GPE. It has steady heat flow thru the plates, and steady, but unequal temperatures.
You keep saying I believe ‘heat flows in equilibrium’ Nope. False. You know that is False. Therefore that is a lie. No apology needed!
Then you try to obfuscate by saying ‘equilibrium’ and ‘steady state’ mean the same thing.
Nope they don’t.
The idea that “steady state” means there can be a “steady heat flow” between the plates is dishonest in itself, and you cannot support it. Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!
OK DREMT, I will not “chip in”.
I have already explained why the surface must be cold in the absence of the GHE, so you can read it above if you didn’t get it, or you can read Dr Roy Spencer’s top post, it’s the same argument.
I think Nate is great so he can speak for me.
Nate isn’t speaking for you, Svante, he jumped in and completely changed the subject from what you were talking about. That you are not even aware of that is one of the reasons it’s best you don’t “chip in”.
That’s OK, I do not need to “chip in” because I repeated myself enough upthread, and Dr Roy Spencer says the same in his top post, so I can let Nate go on and explain how you can have a positive heat flow in one direction (e.g. with the sun) balanced by a heat loss in another (e.g. to space).
Remember to keep a clear distinction between energy and heat (net energy) flow though.
#2
Nate isn’t speaking for you, Svante, he jumped in and completely changed the subject from what you were talking about. That you are not even aware of that is one of the reasons it’s best you don’t “chip in”.
‘Steady-state means Ts and Qs are steady, not equal’
This speaks for itself, defining steady state.
It happens all the time.
Conduction of heat from inside your house at constant T1 to outside your house at constant T2, with a constant heat flux, Q, through the wall.
That is the Fourier’s law of conduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier's_law
There does not need to be steady state, Ts and Qs could be changing.
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!”
…and Nate has no such reference.
No honesty, no discussion.
I guess you cant read.
How is it that you could be unaware of the law of heat conduction all this time?
Nate fails to find a reference to support his idea of “steady state”, and so the condescension begins.
We’re done.
DREMT,
If you cannot see that the Fourier Law of heat conduction, that I linked to, is describing exactly that, steady-state heat flow, then you are just really really stupid, or trying very hard to remain ignorant.
Which is it?
I said, “show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a “steady state”, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future”.
Between objects, Nate. Via radiation. Not through objects, via conduction. The plates issue is about radiative heat transfer. Why on Earth would you bring up conduction? How deliberately misleading do you want to be?
This is your last chance. Admit that you can’t support your claims about “steady state”, re the plates, and go through the 1) to 3), or I’m off back down-thread, and you will have to obsessively stalk me wherever I comment and jump in to bait me into a discussion some other time.
‘show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’.
There is no mention of ‘radiation only’, in your question, asshole.
But for radiation, we’ve shown you MANY TIMES the radiative heat transfer equation for steady-heat flux between objects at T1 and T2.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Equation 19.3
‘Between OBJECTS’
‘Conduction of heat from inside your house at constant T1 to outside your house at constant T2, with a constant heat flux, Q, through the wall.’
Interior wall is an object at T1, exterior wall is an object at T2.
Yes Nate, I’m well aware of the heat flow equation. “Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue” point number 1), remember!?
And “asshole” again, seriously? Please become obsessed with somebody else.
‘Yes Nate, I’m well aware of the heat flow equation.’
OMG. You’re so full of BS!
Then you’re whole line of questioning makes absolutely no sense.
“Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a ‘steady state’, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!”
Nate, it’s not my fault that you don’t understand the heat flow equation.
“The idea that ‘steady state’ means there can be a ‘steady heat flow’ between the plates is dishonest in itself, and you cannot support it.”
shows that you had no idea what the Fourier Heat Conduction Law or the Radiative Heat Transfer equation are saying.
You have already demonstrated that you do not understand the radiative heat flow equation. Down-thread, I asked three questions about it. You got the second one wrong. gbaikie pointed out why:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358315
That’s why it was on my “Things you need to do, for a discussion to continue” point number 1), because it directly relates to this discussion.
You’re obviously not going to be honest, you’ve already wasted enough of my time, and I can’t be bothered to stick around to wait for whatever you’re going to cook up next.
“You have already demonstrated that you do not understand the radiative heat flow equation.”
False. And nice try at distracting from the fact that you were wrong about ‘steady state heat flow’, and about my ‘dishonesty’ was due to your confusion.
Your silly Q2, said view factor <1, not = 0. My answer was therefore valid.
Just stop playing games and pretending you understand heat transfer and 'splaining, when plainly you don't.
OK then, since apparently wherever I comment under this article you are going to appear, I may as well…
All people need to do to see that you’re wrong about everything you just said is to read through the above, and follow the links I provided to the previous discussion with gbaikie. Your answer to Q2 was incorrect.
You bring up conduction in a discussion about radiation, and even then, your link makes it clear that the “steady state conduction” is through an object, and not between objects. There is a whole section on it in the linked article entitled “steady state conduction” which makes that perfectly clear! Your description of the interior of a wall as one object and the exterior as a separate object is laughable.
On the radiative heat transfer equation, you are hopeless. You use it, and calculate a non-zero amount between two objects (which represents heat flow), but then you act like it’s going to stay like that. You just declare it’s at a “steady state”! No, the non-zero amount will spontaneously go to zero as heat flows from one object to the other.
Once again, I’m left wondering who it is you are trying to convince.
“You just declare it’s at a ‘steady state’! ”
Uhhhh…No. The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!
“No, the non-zero amount will spontaneously go to zero as heat flows from one object to the other.”
Now THAT is a just a declaration. And a dumb one. It has no relevance to the GPE problem, nor the Earth.
Why would it do that if 400 W/m^2 are constantly input?
DREMT,
The whole point of bringing up a conduction example was to answer your statement:
Show me any reference where it says there will be heat flow between objects, and yet that is a steady state, in other words has not changed, and will not seem to change in the future. The whole point of heat flow is that it is transitory, for crying out loud!
which seemed to be a very general statement about heat flow, not specific to radiation.
Interior wall and exterior walls of a house. Sorry, but those are objects, separated by wood and drywall and air and insulation that the heat must conduct through. So what?
The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.
Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
The thing that you dont seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.
That is one of the basic principles of heat transfer.
“The point I was making was that the heat flow and the temperatures can reach a steady state, and this is a familiar example of that.”
“You bring up conduction in a discussion about radiation, and even then, your link makes it clear that the “steady state conduction” is through an object, and not between objects. There is a whole section on it in the linked article entitled “steady state conduction” which makes that perfectly clear! Your description of the interior of a wall as one object and the exterior as a separate object is laughable.”
“Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.”
Wrong, the equation shows no such thing.
“The thing that you dont seem to get is that heat flow is driven by temperature differences, whatever the mechanism: convection, radiation, conduction.”
There is nothing I have said that would lead you to conclude I don’t understand that.
““You just declare it’s at a ‘steady state’! ”
Uhhhh…No. The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!”
Non-sequitur.
“Same goes for radiation between two objects. They can reach a steady state of heat flow and temperatures, as the equation from my cite clearly shows.
Wrong, the equation shows no such thing.”
The equation shows that with a constant heat flow (eg an input power to one plate is constant), the eqn requires a certain T1 and T2, that will be steady if the heat input is steady.
“The GPE problem requires it, because there is steady supply of heat of 400 W/m^2!”
“Non-sequitur.” ??!
Look have you solved heat flow problems for homework in a course or not??
If not, why do you make such declarations?
If 400 W/m^ are coming in to the system, from one side (or middle). That is called a ‘boundary condition’ on a heat flow problem.
The GPE problem has another boundary condition that the surroundings are at 3 K.
In that case, the system will ultimately reach a steady state condition, where 400 W/m^ is coming in and going out and the parts of the system will reach steady temperatures.
Thats what you get if you were to solve such a problem in a course!
This is no different from an incandescent light bulb. 100 W bulb, the filament reaches a steady temperature, then 100 W is flowing out as heat and light.
Or soldering iron. I have 60 W input soldering iron. It reaches a steady temp in a couple of minutes, then 60 W is flowing out as heat into the air.
In none of these cases do the objects reach equilibrium, because that means no heat flow in or out.
Look it up if you don’t believe me.
“In that case, the system will ultimately reach a steady state condition, where 400 W/m^ is coming in and going out and the parts of the system will reach steady temperatures.”
400 watts, yes. Not W/m^2. And there is 400 watts entering the system and 400 watts going out with temperatures at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
The rest is obfuscation.
‘240, 240, 240’
And how do you know that is correct? How do you find these numbers?
I gave you several real world examples of steady-state temps with heat flow in and out. Can you explain them?
Can you give a real world example that matches your ideas?
BTW,
‘100 W incandescent bulb’
Analogous to GPE. The filament is receiving the 100 W, and gets super hot, the glass shell, receiving radiation from the filament gets less hot, and finally the glass heats surrounding air releasing 100 W as heat and EM radiation.
Nate, you can’t give me a “real world example” of a situation where three identical objects are at the same temperature when pressed together, but when separated by even so much as a millimeter the middle one spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K. So, leave it out.
This all started because I said there could be energy flowing through a system at equilibrium. You demanded that I explain what that energy was.
You got your answers. I pointed out that as even Norman had explained, objects don’t stop radiating EM energy just because heat flow has gone to zero. EM still flows freely between the plates. The plates emit radiation to space based on their temperature and emissivity.
You seem to have a problem with the directionality of that energy flow, from the middle blue plate, to the green plates, and then out to space. So let me ask you one question, Nate, and see if you “have the answers”.
How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?
Oh, and the 244^3 (not 240^3) solution still runs in to this problem:
“You created a mystery energy that flows between objects in equilibrium, that is not heat nor work.
That is a 1LOT violation.
And it leads you to wrong answers.
I challenged this claim. I ask you to explain this mystery energy. You cannot. Neither can JD. ”
You still need to explain how energy flows between objects at the same temperature, and what is that energy?
If you cannot explain how that works within ordinary physics, then its wrong.
‘You got your answers. I pointed out that as even Norman had explained, objects dont stop radiating EM energy just because heat flow has gone to zero. EM still flows freely between the plates. The plates emit radiation to space based on their temperature and emissivity.’
No. Thats just the thing. I didnt get an answer, and you know that!
As I explained and as Norman explained dozens of times, EMR can be emitted by a plate, but there cannot be a NET flow of energy.
So no. That doesnt work. Try again.
An no there will be no net flow of energy from space to the plates because, as you should know, that would be a 2LOT violation.
How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?
‘You cant give me a ‘real world example’ of a situation where three identical objects’
I can, with the light bulb, and with Swansons experiment. It doesnt need to be 3, because you guys also dont like the two plate version.
But it doesnt seem to matter, you will always dismiss them.
There’s nothing remotely comparable to the absurdity of what you people think happens with the three plates, and you know it.
Can’t answer the question, Nate?
‘How much energy do you think flows from space, to the green plates, through the green plates, back to the central blue plate, converts itself from EMR back to electrical energy, and then heads back down the wire from the blue plate!?’
None.
And how do I know that?
Only if space were warmer than the green plate, would NET energy flow from space to it.
Only if the Green plate was warmer than the blue would NET energy flow from the green to blue.
Heat would never directly convert back to electricity.
All of these are because of the 2LOT. Which you guys also need to satisfy (but dont).
Lol, exactly. So how can you question the directionality of the energy flow!?
‘comparable to the absurdity of what you people think happens’
Why absurd?
It can’t be anymore absurd than your mystery energy that you speak of which is no where to be found in ordinary physics.
If you can’t show me where this comes from then its not real.
Sorry, you are not allowed to just make up new energies.
I don’t question the directionality. I question the temperatures, because if equal temps, the energy flow must be 0.
You said you understood that temperature differences drive heat flow?
Then that tells you that there must be temperature differences, because there IS heat flow, 400 W!
It’s absurd because you can’t find a single example from the real world where you have three identical objects pressed together, whereupon separation by even a millimeter the middle object spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K. It’s absolute nonsense. Ridiculous!
And it’s not “mystery energy”, Nate, it’s EMR!
“You said you understood that temperature differences drive heat flow?”
Indeed Nate, but it’s not heat flow, is it!? It’s energy flow!
And its not mystery energy, Nate, its EMR!’
Nope, as explained DOZENS of times, but you ignored, there can be no NET EMR!
If both objects have the same temp, and both emit the same EMR, then it should be QUITE obvious that there can be no NET EMR.
Both simple arithmetic, and the RHE make this quite clear.
If you try to say its not HEAT so the RHE does not apply, well
a. What is that mystery energy?
b. Its not EMR because as we saw, both plates are emitting the same amount of EMR.
‘Its absurd because you cant find a single example from the real world where you have three identical objects pressed together, whereupon separation by even a millimeter the middle object spontaneously rises in temperature by 46 K’
Not absurd at all. This has been explained to you many times, even a mm of vacuum is a fantastic insulator compared to metal.
I showed you the equations, the numbers, real science. That beats a feeling every time.
There are two directions that energy could flow in.
Nate freely admits that it is not possible for energy to flow in one direction.
Yet he does not accept that this must mean energy is flowing in the other direction.
Nate is in denial.
‘There are two directions that energy could flow in.
Nate freely admits that it is not possible for energy to flow in one direction.’
Yes I explained that, no NET energy will flow in either direction, without a temperature differential.
You must’ve missed ‘NET’ again.
‘Yet he does not accept that this must mean energy is flowing in the other direction.’
No and this does not follow. It can be 0 Net in any direction.
Nate is in denial.
Yep in denial of fake physics.
Nate, you can repeatedly say the word “NET” in capital letters, well done.
But regardless of “NET”, no EMR can convert itself back to electricity and head back down that wire from the blue plate. So that limits the energy flow to one direction immediately. No “NET” required.
And at the other end, how much energy is going to flow from space to the green plates, regardless of “NET”? A tiny amount. Negligible. So that limits the energy flow to one direction as well. No “NET” required.
Nate is in denial.
‘But regardless of NET, no EMR can convert itself back to electricity and head back down that wire from the blue plate. So that limits the energy flow to one direction immediately. No NET required.’
Look, there is a proper way to solve a heat transfer problem, and what you are doing, obviously, is not it.
You are twisting yourself into knots, trying any nutty argument you can think of, to justify an answer that you got how? By guessing?
That’s backassward of course, and is doomed to fail.
The electricity is simply the means to heat one of the plates. It could be heated with sunlight, a flame, steam or hot water in a pipe, a chemical reaction, or mechanical work.
No matter how the BLUE plate is heated, that heat must flow from the warmer objects to the colder ones (2LOT!). That determines directionality.
And it becomes a heat transfer problem. IOW a system with boundary conditions–certain heat inputs, outputs and temperatures. You need to solve it by applying heat transfer laws and 1LOT.
Nate twists, turns, and obfuscates, but the reality is too simple and straightforward for others to ignore.
‘the reality’ seems to be whatever your guess about it is, DREMT.
You are in denial that a good knowledge of heat transfer physics is essential to understanding a heat transfer problem and finding the right answers.
…here comes the standard Nate spiel…
The one you have never had a good answer for…
I don’t need to have a response to your endless appeals to your own authority, and knowledge, etc.I just have to roll my eyes and wait for you to accept that the discussion is over.
The eye rolling is from me, wondering why this person, who has so many science misconceptions, so little knowledge of basic concepts, yet mysteriously still believes that he knows what he’s talking about.
That still puzzles me.
Yet wherever I am, under any article, at any point in the comments, and whoever I am talking to, you are always desperate to pop up and bait me into a discussion.
Once in a while you do show signs of someone thinking..
OK, stalker.
Better than what you do to Ball4…
#2
OK, stalker.
I looked at your spreadsheet which appears to be similar to the one you published here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-radiative-EBM-of-sfc-and-NOatm-with-diurnal-cycle.xlsx
Your Excel based model is interesting because it is at least 500 times faster than FEA models and the model is more accessible to the general public as there so many people who are comfortable with spreadsheets.
Here are the results from your spreadsheet with the parameters provided:
256.3 Tsfc average (K) assuming a global average solar flux
252.7 Tsfc avg (K) over a sphere with a diurnal cycle (this spreadsheet)
The only problem is that both numbers are “Wrong” by which I mean that differ from what is observed. The average surface temperature of the Moon is 197.3 Kelvin.
yes, that was the whole point of the article you took the previous model from: because of the 29.5 day rotation rate of the moon, the day and night temperatures become extreme, thus making the nonlinearity of Stefan-Boltzmann curve very important. Multiply the model time step by 29.5 if you want the moon (as I say in the model input label).
Entering 26,550 seconds in cell $C$3 to adjust for the Moon’s rate of rotation changed the average temperature to 213.4 Kelvin.
While I am impressed to find that is much closer (213.4 – 197.3 = +16.1 Kelvin) my FEA model did a little better with an average error of +1.1 Kelvin.
As we have discussed “Off-line” the accuracy of your model would improve by replacing the “Bulk Heat Capacity” with a more complex function designed to model the Moon’s thermal properties as measured by the Apollo program:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/ashwin-vavasada-lunar-equatorial-surface-temperatures-and-regolith-properties-from-the-diviner-lunar-radiometer-experiment/
Once again you have shown us how real scientists operate. You are not afraid to engage with the public and don’t get upset when nit-picky people (like this camel) offer criticisms.
Thank you!
Standard radiative physics easily accounts for the moon’s average temperature:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
That calculate was done for the moon’s equator, but the extension to the entire surface is easy — I get 204 K. (That’s without any attempt to model thermal conduction through the dark side’s regolith.)
The procedure for the Moon’s sunny side is to apply the Stefan-Boltzmann law pointwise instead of globally, since the Moon has no atmosphere.
Very informative. Thank you.
Thank you for your effort Dr. Spencer. I’m afraid “who are still open minded” will be a limiting factor on this post.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
From Space.com: “When sunlight hits the moon’s surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).”
Your model removes the heat retaining effect of the atmospheric gases. Should not the daytime temperature increase, since the atmospheric effect has been significantly reduced. The moon with no atmosphere is much hotter.
For the Moon, see my post that uses the same model, which does a pretty good job of reproducing satellite measurements of lunar temperatures (the lunar example requires the model time step to be multiplied by 29.5): http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/
Anthony, you say: “The moon with no atmosphere is much hotter.”
No, it is not. While it reaches higher peak temperatures at “noon”, overall it is much colder than the earth, averaging less than 200K. The real earth surface averages ~288K, and Dr Spencer’s time varying model here averages about 250K.
Standard radiative physics gives 204 K:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-356694
Roy,
I can’t believe you’re giving this so much credibility, but I commend your patience and efforts.
This has nothing to do with lending credibility to ‘this’, whatever this is.
A simplified modell was proposed probably a longish time ago.
Then estimates were derived from it.
It is a valid question to ask how much the estimates could be off.
OK.
Thanks again. Dr. Spencer.
But wasn’t the point that the Kiehl/Trenberth global averaging modell (or flat earthing if you will) overestimates the non athmosphere situation temp, und thus underestimates the athmospheric IR effect?
I thought you gave a guesstimate of 5C in your moon post. It surely is small v. the absolute temps, but in terms of the greenhouse effect it would be in the order of 20%.
The radiative greenhouse effect is about 75 deg. C. It is reduced to 30-35C by convective heat loss (Manabe & Strickler, 1964).
So I take it to mean the 5C is in the 30-35C convection figure?
“Dr.Spencer thinks convection is a purely cooling effect which is the same mistake as Trenberth et al. in that they miss out the release of Kinetic Energy in the descent phase.
The reason for that being important is extensively described here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/02/modelling-the-climate-of-noonworld-a-new-look-at-venus/
from which one can see that convective overturning delays energy loss to space without any need for GHGs and thus accounts for the greenhouse effect.”
Philip, I can understand how you might think that makes sense conceptually, but as I say in the bog post, if you warm the surface to a higher temperature that than what it was at energy equilibrium (solar in = IR out), then the surface is emitting more energy than it receives from the sun, and it will cool back to energy equilibrium. You can pump all the energy into the atmosphere you want from surface convection, but that cannot RAISE the surface temperature. Time lags make no difference.
Yes, most of convective warming of the troposphere occurs in the subsidence regions being forced by convection, but you still run into the same energy conservation problem. For a given solar flux, the ONLY way to cause surface temperatures to rise more is to REDUCE the rate of IR cooling to space, which is what greenhouse gases do.
This has been well understood for many decades, and is fundamental to the weather forecast models you rely upon every day for your weather forecasts. It has been put in time-dependent models by hundreds of people independently, and it explains what we see.
Show me your time-dependent model that produces such an effect you describe. It can’t be done because it would violate energy conservation.
Roy,
“Time lags make no difference.”
Using some rough numbers, let us assume that the Hadley cell extends from the equatorial ITCZ to the horse latitudes. The fetch of the north east trade wind blowing from a direction of 45 degrees will be some 4,000 kilometres. Therefore, the total circuit within the Hadley Cell (there and back) will be some 8,000 kilometres (not including the 15 kilometres of rise to the TOA and then the additional 15 kilometres of descent). Let us assume an average wind speed of 10 metres per second (just pick another number if you don’t like this one) then the total circuit time for a parcel of air will be some 9 days.
Now the air within this circuit is delivering power from the surface at the equator to a surface point some 4,000 Kilometres away. But this is not an instantaneous transfer process. The Hadley cell is a gigantic capacitor, charged and maintained by a flux that is stored within it. This process of storage means that time lags make a huge difference. You cannot charge a capacitor without a time lag Air is a compressible fluid, so there is no possibility of instantaneous flux within the atmosphere by connected mass transfer.
Physics matters.
In all of these discussions about radiant power intensity the key factor is frequency of the electromagnetic radiation. The frequency of the insolation is not the same as that of the thermal radiant exhaust. Not all power intensity fluxes are equivalent. We see this most clearly when we observe that sunlight penetrates water to depths of more than 100 metres, whereas the thermal radiation from the air cannot traverse into the water more than a few microns.
The issue is one of quality not one of quantity.
When you say here: –
“I have tried to point out that evaporation, too, only occurs at the skin of a water surface, yet it is a major source of heat loss for water bodies. 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). But I would say it pretty clear that any heat source (or heat sink) like evaporation which only affects the skin is going to affect the entire water body as well, especially one that is continually being mixed by the wind.”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
You are clearly discussing the effects of a mass motion process (in this case water), you cannot then ignore the impact of the mass motion process of air movement, particularly when there is no phase change involved with the motion of the air. Because of phase change, the evaporation process is a heat sink, not a heat source.
Oh and just to be absolutely clear about the process of forced evaporation, the katabatic winds of Antarctica are at minus 50 C in winter. When they pass over the Weddell Sea, they force evaporation of the exposed surface seawater in the latent heat polynya, which has a temperature of circa minus 2C.
Is this an example of something cold heating something hot or is there a clue in the name?
–Roy W. Spencer says:
June 7, 2019 at 5:58 PM
Philip, I can understand how you might think that makes sense conceptually, but as I say in the blog post, if you warm the surface to a higher temperature that than what it was at energy equilibrium (solar in = IR out), then the surface is emitting more energy than it receives from the sun, and it will cool back to energy equilibrium. You can pump all the energy into the atmosphere you want from surface convection, but that cannot RAISE the surface temperature. Time lags make no difference.
If tropics was say 0 C in morning, it not going warm up in one day- it will not do it with or without greenhouse gases.
As I mentioned before, if mixed ocean so the surface temperature was the average volume temperature of the ocean: 3.5 C, then
Earth would become colder than Earth has ever been. The average temperature of earth would be less than 3.5 C.
And earth would take days or weeks to get warmer and years to return to present average temperature.
And your model seems have a requirement to making it a colder starting point, so naturally I would agree it would even colder, as compared to “merely” lowering the global average ocean surface temperature from 17 C to 3.5 C.
Can you make the model so Earth is always facing the same side at the sun?
If Earth only has one side facing the sun, Earth will be much colder in terms of average temperature. I think everyone would agree, but the wouldn’t the side which always facing sun get fairly warm?
Perhaps it’s average global temperature would lower, but mean would the side always in sunlight in the tropics be well above freezing?
Or Gulf stream warms Europe by about 10 C.
Europe average yearly average temperature is about 9 C.
If Atlantic ocean surface temperature had uniform temperature of 3.5 C.
Then Europe would not be warmed by 10 C. And Europe would be below freezing.
The tropical ocean is heat engine of the world, it heats the entire world, the tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C.
If the surface of tropical ocean was 3.5 C, then the tropical ocean would cease to be heat engine of the entire world.
Also if in summer, and you get cold weather, it’s predictable that it takes days to warm back up. And we have greenhouse gases.
Philup,
What is your response to this:
” but you still run into the same energy conservation problem. For a given solar flux, the ONLY way to cause surface temperatures to rise more is to REDUCE the rate of IR cooling to space”
Nate, please stop trolling.
Philip:
A non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere has no way of transferring energy to or from the external universe, because it is radiatively inactive. It can only transfer energy to or from the surface.
This means it cannot over the long term steadily transfer energy either to or from the surface. It can only execute short term localized transfers that overall balance out to net zero over time and area.
Such an atmosphere could increase the temperature of colder regions (polar, nighttime) by transferring energy from the warmer regions (equatorial, daytime). But it cannot explain the significantly elevated temperatures above Dr Spencer’s model that we actually see on earth.
–Ed Bo says:
June 7, 2019 at 7:27 PM
Philip:
A non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere has no way of transferring energy to or from the external universe, because it is radiatively inactive. It can only transfer energy to or from the surface.–
So, say “non-GHG (transparent) atmosphere” heats up but doesn’t lose it’s energy to space.
But it seems to me, water evaporating is doing a lot in regards to transferring heat to atmosphere.
Or if dry ground is heated to 30 C, it’s not transfering much heat to the atmosphere unless the atmosphere is quite cold- say below 0 C.
Of course if dry ground is 30 C and air is 0 C, the ground would warmer with same amount of sunlight if air was warmer, say 10 C.
Not saying it’s possible, but suppose only the top 1 meter of air was 20 C and ground was 40 C, that would situation of not absorbing much of sunlight energy. As compared to 1000 meter air being warmed to 20 C.
And if wet ground, there would have to be far more mixing of air.
This “model” was more complicated than the Institutionalized Pseudoscience version:
1370/4 W/m^2 –> 342.5 W/m^2–> 239.75 W/m^2 –> 256.3 K
But, it produced a lower temperature –> 252.7 K
Every 3.6 K helps, I guess….
JD, yes, but that was always known. The zero-order (e.g. Kiehl-Trenberth) model was always meant as a way to explain energy balance in the climate system using global averages. It was never meant to be accurate.
All the more reason it seems foolish to argue about the global average.
Just because it is simple doesn’t make it pseudo so long as you clearly communicate its limitations.
Dr Spencer,
You wrote –
” . . . making the surface lose more energy to space than it gains from the sun, and there would no longer be energy balance, violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The temperature would simply go back down again to achieve energy balance (we wouldnt want to violate the 1st Law).”
Hopefully, you will agree that if an object’s temperature is increasing, there is no energy balance. Conversely, if an object is cooling there is no energy balance.
Why should there be? Without an external energy source, an object will continuously emit light (EMR) at progressively longer wavelengths, all the way to 4 K or so (environmental temperature).
No energy balance there. The Earth started off as a big molten blob, and all sources of energy (internal and external) were insufficient to prevent the energy imbalance which resulted in cooling for four and a half billion years. Why should the operation of the physical laws cease to apply now?
Even your graph of solar input shows more energy absorbed than emitted for 6 hours (more in than out) and more energy emitted than absorbed for 18 hours (more out than in). No laws of physics require that energy emitted in an 18 hour period cannot be greater than that absorbed in the preceding 6 hours.
Fourier accurately stated that the heat received during the day is lost at night, plus a bit of the interior heat as well.
In the case of actual temperatures disagreeing with model outputs, as Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
You also wrote –
“The greenhouse effect reduces the rate of energy loss at the surface, thus causing higher temperatures then if it did not exist.”
This is irrelevant for a cooling body such as the Earth. The measured temperature is the measured temperature, regardless of what anybody thinks it “should be”. I notice that you avoided saying anything to the effect that temperatures rise, which I believe is the thrust of the GHE true believers. If you are implying that temperatures will not actually rise (after falling for four and a half billion years), then there doesn’t seem to be much point in saying that temperatures are falling more slowly than they would “otherwise”. The temperature at any point and time is a measurement of the existing temperature field – no more, no less.
If you feel like putting me in my place for disagreeing with your views, would you mind quoting the parts of my comment you wish to correct, and provide some facts in support.
Your blog, your rules, of course.
Cheers.
I once visited a cave and got told that the cave is at a barmy 15 deg C more or less all year round.
So how comes that a cave that never seens a ray of sun light keeps its air temperature at this 15 Deg C?
Come to think of it, how are other caves like around the equator and closer to the poles? Would we find them at equally 15 Deg C more or less?
Is it as you say just the temperature of the Earth body that we see, with the atmosphere just added mass with a temperature defined by the heat content of the Earth crust?
Mike:
Why do you say the earth is a cooling body? It is significantly warmer now than it was 20,000 years ago, at the time of the last glacial maximum.
It is far warmer now than at the times of “snowball earth”, hundreds of millions of years ago.
The thermal flux density from the earth’s interior is less than 0.1 W/m2, far less than many external flux densities, and completely insignificant even to the variations in those external flux densities.
EB,
The Earth radiates about 44 TW of energy continuously. The core is around 5500 K. The surrounding environment is around 4 K maximum.
The Sun illuminates the Earth from one side only, and any heat absorbed by the atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere is emitted each night. This is why the surface is no longer molten, and the seas are no longer boiling.
To raise the temperature of an externally heated object requires that the object receives more energy from another object at a higher temperature, than it emits. The Sun is obviously incapable of even maintaining a temperature 5 K higher than present, otherwise the present temperature would be 5 K higher.
You are confused. A molten blob of rock, hanging in space 300,000,000 kms distant from the Sun, does not magically heat up. Try placing a pot of boiling water in direct sunlight. The Sun cannot even stop water from cooling to below 100 C, nowadays.
Your gotcha has gone badly astray, it that was your intent. If not, you can find papers by real scientists (geophysicists and suchlike) who will confirm that the Earth as a whole is cooling. Slowly but inexorably.
If you disagree, feel free to quote the parts in question. Nonsensical assertions of the nature of “It is far warmer now than at the times of “snowball earth”, hundreds of millions of years ago.” are meaningless. You don’t even define “snowball Earth”. Care to try?
Cheers.
To raise the temperature of an externally heated object requires that the object receives more energy from another object at a higher temperature, than it emits.
False.
You just need to wrap a blanket around it.
DA,
Rubbish. That’s why firemen wear heavy insulated protective clothing. To keep their body temperatures down when exposed to external heat such as fires.
Try heating up a corpse by wrapping a blanket around it. Or making a thermometer left in the sun hotter, by using a blanket to shield it from the heat of the Sun.
Your stupidity and ignorance knows no bounds – maybe you should put a blanket between the Sun and your cranium to keep your brain form getting too hot!
Carry on.
Cheers.
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
Try heating up a corpse by wrapping a blanket around it.
Dumb. Corpses don’t generate heat.
Fireman get very hot in their suits. Why?
DA,
Oooooh! A gotcha. Or two.
Read what I wrote.
You wrote –
“Dumb. Corpses dont generate heat.” What a stupid thing to say. Of course they do, as they decay. And of course, they have remnant heat after life ceases. Not enough to heat them up if you wrap a blanket around them. Just like the Earth – internal heat production is quite small, due to the depletion of radiogenic heat sources, and remnant heat is being radiated away.
Why are you so stupid, David? Did you have to work at it, or does it just come naturally?
Keep trying to make a thermometer in the Sun hotter by shielding it from the Sun. Let us know it you can achieve this remarkable outcome.
Cheers.
Corpses come to thermal equilibrium.
Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night??
And do fireman get hot in their fire fighting suits?
How?
Begone troll.
‘ Thats why firemen wear heavy insulated protective clothing. To keep their body temperatures down when exposed to external heat such as fires.’
Ha!
I have a family member who is at fireman boot camp. He said under their coat during practices their clothes were thoroughly soaked with sweat! Some nearly had heat stroke.
And no fire was involved..
Ha!
MF is afraid to respond.
Nate, David, please stop trolling.
DA,
the fine detail is “Externally heated”
If you wrap a blanket around it you prevent the heat from getting to the object.
So your “false” is wrong.
Can you post links to these real scientists who present evidence that the Earth only cools? I’d like to review them.
bd,
No. Find them yourself, and review to your heart’s content.
Cheers.
No, MF can’t.
DA,
You are dim-witted. I said no. I mean no. What part of “no” do you fail to comprehend?
Cheers.
Name calling appears to be the best you can do. That’s weak.
Begone, troll.
Right on cue, you prove my point. 🙂
David, please stop trolling.
Mike, you have ignored his perfectly clear information, that renders moot all that you speculations,
‘The thermal flux density from the earths interior is less than 0.1 W/m2, far less than many external flux densities’
These are measurements. Remember your quote:
‘It doesnt matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesnt matter how smart you are. If it doesnt agree with experiment, its wrong.’
N,
Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling. As Fourier pointed out, all heat absorbed from the Sun each day, is emitted at night. All. No heat accumulation.
Even the finest technology employed at “solar” plants such as Ivanpah is unable to store heat overnight. The plant uses around 1.4 billion cubic feet of gas per annum to overcome heat losses at night. Insulation merely reduces the rate at which the molten salts cool.
You are confused.
As to –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wrong.”
Nature is conducting an experiment using the Earth. After four and a half billion years, it seems that nothing at all has stopped the Earth cooling to its present temperature.
Quote something if you wish to complain about it being wrong. Otherwise, people might assume you are just another pseudoscientific climate cultist whinger.
Cheers.
The Earth was cooler 20,000 years ago.
The Earth was cooler 150 years ago.
It is not constantly cooling. And you’ve never presented any evidence that it is.
DA,
Don’t give people reason to think you are more stupid than you really are. That would be quite enough for most ordinary people.
Making witless unsupported assertions, and posing witless gotchas does not impress. If you wish to disagree with something I wrote, quote me and present some facts to back of your mad assertions.
If you wish, of course.
Cheers.
Energy transport should take into account the operation of the winter stratospheric polar vortex.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_sh.gif
The surface temperature in medium and high latitudes depends on the height of the tropopause (convection height).
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2j0hy1g.jpg
For comparison, the current temperature in Idaho.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00984/lhzavfzg536f.png
Changes in circulation in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere depend on changes in ionizing radiation at these atmospheric levels.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/onlinequery.cgi?station=OULU&startday=08&startmonth=05&startyear=1989&starttime=00%3A00&endday=08&endmonth=06&endyear=2019&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&outputmode=default&picture=on
OK Mike, Here is a quote:
‘Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling.’
If the cooling output is 90 mW/m^2, and the solar input is 240 W/m^2, the solar warming is 2600 times larger than the cooling.
Only a delusional person would call the solar irrelevant.
Why isn’t it true that the 90 mW/m^2 is the irrelevant one?
Mike Flynn says:
…and posing witless gotchas…
Your schtick is obvious by now — any question that reveals you are wrong, you whine that it’s a “gotcha” and don’t answer it.
Fact is, you can’t defend your claims, we all see it, and you fold up like a cheap suitcase when you realize you’ve been had.
Mike, Mike, Mike? Where’d ya go?
I guess Mike agrees that only a delusional person would call the solar input irrelevant.
Nate, David, please stop trolling.
Mike, you say: “The Earth radiates about 44 TW of energy continuously.” (Speaking of internally generated energy.)
The earth receives about 176,000 TW of energy continuously from the sun. It reflects and re-radiates virtually this same amount continuously.
The 44 TW you cite don’t even count as rounding error in determining surface temperature levels.
EB,
You wrote –
“The earth receives about 176,000 TW of energy continuously from the sun. It reflects and re-radiates virtually this same amount continuously.”
As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day, – plus a little internal heat.
Hence the surface cooling since the Earth’s creation.
The 44 TW or so, is just an indication that the Earth continues to cool – researchers differ somewhat as to the amount. Somewhere between one and three millionths of a Kelvin per annum. No need to panic yet!
Sunlight doesnt accumulate. Four and half billion years of sunlight has not stopped the Earth from cooling to date.
No GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“As Fourier pointed out, during the night, the surface loses all the heat it received during the day, plus a little internal heat”
Did Fourier never go swimming? Water doesn’t lose all of the heat it absorbs during the day. Even the translator of Fourier’s On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space found it odd he would say that. He added this footnote:
“It is strange that Fourier neglects the effect of thermal inertia and atmosphere-ocean heat transports, which easily account for the moderation of polar and night-time cooling. Fourier mentions these effects further along, but dismisses them without having any quantitative reason for doing so.”
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf
Nope.
The Earth has an energy imbalance, inward, now of about 0.7 W/m2:
Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance,
Johnson, G.C., J.M. Lyman, and N.G. Loeb
Nature Clim. Change, 6, 639640, doi: 10.1038/nclimate3043 (2016).
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html
From the abstract:
Here, we update our calculations (Fig. 1), and find a net heat uptake of 0.71 +/- 0.10 W m−2 from 2005 to 2015 (with 0.61 +/- 0.09 W m−2 taken up by the ocean from 01,800 m; 0.07 +/- 0.04 W m−2 by the deeper ocean; and 0.03 +/- 0.01 W m−2 by melting ice, warming land, and an increasingly warmer and moister atmosphere).
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Ed,
which area are you using to come up with your number?
Just asking.
Begone, stupid troll!
Mike,
You are responding to yourself at June 7, 2019 at 8:07 PM.
How appropriate!
Svante, please stop trolling.
You’re making a fool of yourself, you know that, do you?
Svante, please stop trolling.
The geothermal flux through the crust is ~0,065 W/m^2 on average.
Yet the crust is hot:
https://www.mpoweruk.com/images/geo_temperature.jpg
Assuming you are not believing that CO2 heats the crust, how are the deep oceans heated?
And I believe the tidal transfer of energy from the Earth/Moon system is on the order of 0.01 W/m^2 so the combined geothermal and tidal energy sources is still only on the order of 0.1 W/m^2…hardly enough to account for the magnitude of changes in the climate system we observer. Nevermind that these quantities are, for the most part, static.
Apparently I need to spell it out:
if 0,065 W/m^2 flux can maintain a very high crust temperature, why shouldn’t a 0,1 W/m^2 flux at the ocean floor not be able to maintain their high (~275K) temperature?
The sun only warms a shallow layer a few degrees, and creates an impenetrable layer for bottom heated water.
Ben:
The substances that make up the earth’s crust are very poor conductors, which is another way of saying they are excellent insulators.
The fact that they are excellent insulators means that they are very good at “keeping the heat in”. This means that the internal heat generation has very little effect on the exterior.
But all you really need to know is that this power flux density is ~0.065 W/m2, absolutely trivial in any proper energy balance (1st Law) analyses of the surface zone, when compared to the inputs and outputs from space (and the thermal resistance is very low to these fluxes.
EB,
You wrote –
“The substances that make up the earths crust are very poor conductors, which is another way of saying they are excellent insulators.”
Rocks are not very good insulators at all. For example, plywood insulates about 25 times as well as granite. Vacuum insulated powder panels insulate up to 2000 times as well as granite.
Rock is certainly not an “excellent” insulator by any stretch of the imagination. However, given between 10 and 50 kms of rock, heat transfer is very slow. Only about 44 TW total from the surface, continuously. Cooling, not heating.
Cheers.
Mike:
While rock is certainly not as good an insulator as, say, fiberglass wool, it creates a far higher thermal resistance between the earth’s surface and the interior than there is between the surface and space. That is all that is needed to make the surface temperature more dependent on conditions above it than below it.
Consider two thermos jugs, one filled with water at 90C and one with water at 100C. Is the temperature of the outside surface more dependent on the room ambient temperature or the inside liquid temperature?
A couple more questions for you:
How much of the earth’s internal 44TW power flux is due to residual heat from the compression of earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago (so from “cooling”), and how much is from ongoing radioactive decay and tidal friction (so not from “cooling”)?
If the dissipation of the internal power flux is the dominant determinant of surface temperature, how do you explain the much warmer conditions now compared to those of the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago?
EB,
You wrote –
“If the dissipation of the internal power flux is the dominant determinant of surface temperature, . . .”
I don’t recollect saying such a thing. I don’t believe you can actually quote me to that effect, either.
Maybe you are questioning something you made up yourself?
Cheers.
Oceanic heat content is increasing at a rate of 10e21 joules/year and has been for decades. This works out to a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the ocean.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330399834_2018_Continues_Record_Global_Ocean_Warming
bdgwx, are you sure about your first number?
I do get 0.66 W/m2 for the 0-2000 region, since ARGO started measuring it in 1st quarter 2005.
But I find it to be 1.1e22 J/yr, about 10 times larger than your number….
1.1e22 is pretty close to 10e21
I usually do all of my e’s in multiples of 3. I just find it easier to do mental calculations this way…just personal preference.
They’re not close — they’re an order of magnitude apart.
I’d really like to know. The data are readily available. Are we each really that incapable of calculating a simple linear trend?
We agree. 1e22 = 10e21
I agree with bdgwx that your numbers are close. 10 * 10^21 would be equal to 1 * 10^22. As far as I can see David just used slightly different notation and rounded less.
Yeah, I just have a habit of doing scientific notation in multiples of 3…12,15,18,21, etc. I find it easier that way because conversion are often done in 3’s in the metric system. It just seems “right” to keep everything in 3’s. To each his own I guess.
Craig T says:
I agree with bdgwx that your numbers are close. 10 * 10^21 would be equal to 1 * 10^22. As far as I can see David just used slightly different notation and rounded less
You’re right, I misunderstood. I didn’t see the “10” in front of “10^21”. I thought that leading number was 1 — I thought it is always between 1 and 10, as is usual in scientific notation.
Nevertheless, my bad, and I apologize for getting it wrong.
‘Theyre not close theyre an order of magnitude apart.’
your display drops decimal points? or you have asperger?
flynn’s diagnosis is in making.
bd,
Nobody has the faintest idea how much heat is pouring into the oceans through the mid ocean ridges, thermal vents, and so on.
Even the disseminated heat from the crust is about 30 TW or so. This is continuous, day and night.
All heat entering the ocean is eventually radiated to space, of course. Warmer water rises, displacing colder water – no miracles involved – just basic physics. Water has peculiar properties. Frozen water floats, and the densest water at the bottom is above zero C.
As to the misleading paper you linked to –
“Note that relatively little is known about the deep ocean below 2000 m because observations at these depths are sparse (Argo data are mainly available for the upper 2000 m).”
The average depth of the oceans is >4000 m.
Argo temperatures are a bit silly in ways. Taking the temperature of water you are floating in is not going to say much about the water you are floating past, is it?
The oceans are no longer boiling. They have cooled. CO2 heats nothing. No GHE.
Cheers.
What is 30 TW per unit area?
< 0.06 W/m2
The oceans are no longer boiling. They have cooled.
The ocean is now warming.
Why?
https://is.gd/0iTZLA
“Taking the temperature of water you are floating in is not going to say much about the water you are floating past, is it?”
That is so zen!
DA,
You wrote, in your usual witless attempt at a gotcha –
“The ocean is now warming.
Why?”
Why are you so incompetent or stupid you cannot answer your own question?
If you do not understand what the word “warming” means, or why this phenomenon occurs, I suggest you obtain some educational assistance. You might also need to learn a bit of geography. There is apparently more than one ocean.
Off you go now. If you need more help, please let me know. It’s always a pleasure to assist those less capable than myself.
Cheers.
Dr. Roy,
Thanks for doing this. Clears up a lot of confusion hopefully.
Nate, please stop trolling.
I read this report of a near miss in the Pacific between russian and US warships.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48553568
The pictures show the two ships converging and then running parallel.
Th right of way rule in this case is that “If you are on the right, you have right of way.”
The ship on the right normally maintains course to remain predictable and the ship on the left manoeuvres to avoid conflict.
The ship on the right is the russian, yet she is the ship
forced to change course to avoid collision. I have heard that the quality of seamanship in the US Navy is in decline, but this is ridiculous.
If he approached through the 135 deg. aft sector he has to give way:
https://www.sailingissues.com/navcourse10.html
Is this less than 22.5 deg. aft of beam?
https://tinyurl.com/y6zqlvx3
He could easily have gone behind, this is the Pacific.
E-man gets it wrong again.
That would be a first.
We need the Aegis tactical recording to be sure.
Svante, please stop trolling.
The russian ship was filmed overtaking. A vessel overtaking has a duty to keep clear.
Maybe we can get a war out of this.
Do you think?
Hi Dr Spencer,
Over 1 year ago, I developed a spreadsheet model of the Earth’s daily temperature cycle, at different latitudes. The output is very similar to yours.
But I wanted to make it more realistic. So I added a simple Greenhouse effect. I did this by returning a fixed percentage of the outgoing energy back to the surface. I kept increasing the percentage until I got an average temperature of 15.0 degrees Celsius for the Earth.
The percentage of returned energy gave me an estimate of how strong the greenhouse effect is. And I tried increasing the percentage, to see what would happen with higher levels of CO2.
It is a fairly simple model. but it produces quite realistic results.
Very interesting. What was the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2 that you modeled?
I didn’t work out the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2.
I just worked out the percentage of energy returned to the surface, to bring the average temperature of the Earth to a particular value.
Here are the results. Remember, that it is only a model. All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
Avg-Temp CO2-ppm %-Returned
13.8 262 41.0
14.0 280 41.1
14.5 335 41.5
15.0 400 41.9
15.1 409 42.0
15.7 484 42.5
If you wanted to, you could work out the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from this data. But you would have to make assumptions about linearity etc.
ECS works out to be about 2.3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 level. This is at the bottom of the accepted range.
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
Youre likely a spoiler of Dr. Roys next instructive post….probably magnitude of GHE and effect of Albedo change using this model with a convective effect disclaimer….it will be good stuff…
Albedo change is a feedback, not a forcing.
DA,
Oooooh! Look! Pseudoscientific jargon of the climatological variety!
Deny, divert, confuse. Let the pointless argument about the differences between non-existent feedback and forcing commence!
No GHE. Nobody can even describe this non-existent effect.
Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
Do firefighters get hot in their fire fighting suits?
some people think firefighters are hot no matter what they are wearing. Just sayin’…
CT, agreed.
But MF can’t answer even this simple question.
Craig T, David, please stop trolling.
Good work Roy.
If we were to push this forwards:
We add an atmosphere of N2 & O2 with no radiative components.
The surface would conduct to the atmosphere, cooling temporarily until the atmosphere reached the same temperature as the surface.
The surface would return to the original temperature from the current simulation.
Now we add a choice of two gases:
H2O or CO2.
We could add 0.04% of H2O and measure the effect of the water vapor on the surface temperature.
We could add 0.04% of CO2 and measure the effect of the carbon dioxide gas on the surface temperature.
Taking into account that H2O has many more bands active in the IR range, I suspect that H2O would have a greater effect of surface temperature.
Taking into account that H2O is between 500 to 1000 times more common in the real atmosphere I suspect CO2 is a bit part player.
Steve, H2O is NOT 1000 times more common than CO2. At the top of the troposphere, CO2 is still 400 ppm, whilst the equilibrium water content at that T&P is only 200 ppm. The rest has rained and snowed out at lower altitudes.
% H2O appears to vary from 0.02% to 4% (ish) as an atmospheric column. It would suggest to me that water vapor response would overwhelm CO2 response comfortably.
Once H2O has reacted to some photons then there is less for CO2 to react with?
What is your view on the max level of H2O in the atmosphere, as the maximum will do the most of the heavy lifting in terms of effect?
Steve,
1) Yes, H2O is has a bigger impact overall.
2) CO2 absorbs in some bands that H2O doesn’t, so no amount of H2O can prevent CO2 from having an effect.
3) The most critical effect of GHGs is near the top of the atmosphere, where temperatures are coldest. There CO2 is more common, and this boosts CO2’s importance.
Yes, and as always, Tim: Where exactly in the real-world data do you see the clear impact of the atmospheric CO2 increase on Earth’s ToA heat budget?
Again you’re presenting “AGW theory” as if it were established also as an empirical fact.
H2O has a bigger impact … on the COOLING of Earth’s atmosphere. The so-called “GHGs” enable our atmosphere to COOL, not to warm.
Kristian, you have some good arguments, but the last sentence is not.
GHGs cool the upper atmosphere and warm the surface.
Dr. Spencer just showed us what happens if the radiation balance is settled at the surface.
Svante says, June 9, 2019 at 6:51 AM:
Did you notice I wrote: “The so-called ‘GHGs’ enable our atmosphere to COOL, not to warm.” ?
I never mentioned the surface.
Do you dispute the point I make? An atmosphere heated by a planetary surface needs to be at least partially IR-active in order for it to be able to adequately COOL, but it doesn’t need to be IR-active in order to warm.
It’s not the atmosphere’s IR-active constituents that warm the surface. It’s the atmosphere’s thermal presence, thermodynamically connected to the surface.
The atmospheric insulating effect on the solar-heated surface is a MASS-based one, not a radiation-based one. What we observe of radiation and radiative fluxes in the Earth system are mere EFFECTS of temperature.
“Modern Climate Science” manages to turn reality exactly on its head – it looks at an effect and think it sees the cause of what, in reality, caused it.
Everything we observe is real. People just happen to confuse cause and effect in what we see … The end result: The story of the “anthropogenically enhanced GHE causing global warming” (“AGW”).
But it’s an illusion. It does not exist.
‘Its the atmospheres thermal presence, thermodynamically connected to the surface.
The atmospheric insulating effect on the solar-heated surface is a MASS-based one, not a radiation-based one. What we observe of radiation and radiative fluxes in the Earth system are mere EFFECTS of temperature.’
OMG, weird. You are always on about the precision of words.
What is the physics behind these words ‘thermal presence’, ‘Mass-based’?
Also ‘radiative fluxes are mere Effects of temperature’ ?
So we are to understand that radiative fluxes, like that from the Sun on the Earth, cannot be the CAUSE of temperature change??
Kristian says:
OK, I don’t dispute that, although there’s a difference between the upper and lower atmosphere, and it can cool by shifting heat sideways, to the poles for example.
Suffice it to say that without GHGs there is no insulating effect at all, mass-based or otherwise, since the radiation balance must be achieved at the surface.
I expect there will still be a lapse rate due to convection, but it will be anchored at the surface instead of the TOA.
Equilibrium vapor pressure of water is .0234 atm at 20 C, and .0425 atm at 30 C. So aproximately 2.34% and 4.25% at 100% humidity respectively. Needless to say 42,500 ppm of H2O overwhelms 400 ppm of CO2 a few inches above the ocean, and CO2 slightly overwhelms at top of troposphere. Earths SB radiative temperature as viewed from outer space is way up in the troposphere, where the relative amount of H2O to CO2 starts to decline.
However, these radiative effects are insignificant compared to the albedo effects of cloud formation, clouds caused by water condensation, clouds reflecting hundreds of watts/sq M of sunlight. Clouds control the average temperature of the Earth via albedo. Just CliSci guys arent with the program yet.
I hear the sound of Chemical Engineers heads exploding. Yes I slightly oversimplify using vapor pressure to get 2.34 % and 4.25% water content at 100% RH in air at sea level. But nobody wants to study the non-idealities of Raoults law for this topic…
“However, these radiative effects are insignificant compared to the albedo effects”
That is a bit of a stretch. Albedo does have a huge effect, but that can’t eliminate the effect of GHGs. That would be like saying the calories from proteins are insignificant, just because they are less the the calories from carbs and fat.
CliSci guys arent with the program yet…..actually Ramanathan was with it in the 80s but has been backing some pretty sketchy papers written by others lately….
Tim,
Cloud albedo, say 0.6 over 55% of the planet , ocean say .08 over 70% of planet, continents about 0.15, clouds reflecting 50% of incoming solar back into space per square meter of cloud cover, thats hundreds of watts over a few cloudy hours per day, compared to C02 forcing of about 2 watts/sq.M, sort of continuously, as the increase since 1850…..OK, I can accept much less significant instead of insignificant. 🙂
Tim,
My original point was actually that CO2 has higher ratio compared to water vapor than some people think, when you consider altitude and equilibrium water content
DMacKenzie,
I agree that clouds & albedo are often under-appreciated. However, I think you should consider two points.
1) You are comparing *total* effects of albedo to *changes* in radiative forcing. To be more fair, you should consider only *changes* to cloud cover and albedo. A cursory search suggests that average cloud cover only changes a few percent from year to year, so your “hundreds of watts” would only be changing by a few percent — which is suddenly back in line with the changes due to GHGs.
2) Beside the cooing effect of clouds as they reflect away sunlight, there is a warming effect via IR radiation. See for example, https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/neteffect.html
This means that the albedo effect is largely countered by the IR effect.
DMacKenzie says:
Needless to say 42,500 ppm of H2O overwhelms 400 ppm of CO2 a few inches above the ocean
No it doesn’t — wavelengths matter more than ppms. CO2 and water vapor have some spectral overlap, but it’s hardly 100%:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
Plus, CO2 dominates where there is little water vapor, as in the polar regions.
DMacKenzie says:
CliSci guys arent with the program yet..actually Ramanathan was with it in the 80s but has been backing some pretty sketchy papers written by others lately.
Such as which papers?
David, please stop trolling.
Steve Richards says:
% H2O appears to vary from 0.02% to 4% (ish) as an atmospheric column. It would suggest to me that water vapor response would overwhelm CO2 response comfortably.
That’s wrong — you HAVE to look at the ab.sorp.tion across the full IR spectrum, where there certainly isn’t 100% overlap between CO2 and water vapor:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/Sun2.jpg
DA,
You wrote –
“Thats wrong you HAVE to look at the ab.sorp.tion across the full IR spectrum, where there certainly isnt 100% overlap between CO2 and water vapor:”
And if he ignores your demand to “look”, what then? Will you smite him with a colourful picture? Maybe flap a piece of paper in his face screaming “Evidence! Evidence!”
Oooooh! Scary! CO2 (like anything else) absorbs some infrared. It warms as a result (like anything else), and emits radiation (like anything else).
If you believe otherwise, you are more stupid and ignorant than you appear.
No GHE. You can’t even describe such a non-existent thing, can you?
Cheers.
MF finally wrote:
CO2 (like anything else) absorbs some infrared.
Half right, but right about the CO2 part.
Now, what are the consequences of CO2 absorbing some of the IR given off by the surface?
DA,
You wrote –
“Now, what are the consequences of CO2 absorbing some of the IR given off by the surface?”
Oooooh! Another witless gotcha! “Whatever shall I do?”, he said sarcastically?
The problem dear David, is that if the CO2 is hotter than the surface, radiation from the cooler surface will have no effect at all on the hotter CO2! You might just as well try to heat water using the radiation from ice!
If the CO2 is colder than the surface, then the CO2 will warm, just as any other matter in the universe of the same temperature.
CO2 has no special properties. It cannot warm anything hotter than itself, and it cannot fail to be heated by anything hotter than itself.
Stupid David. Stupid gotcha. Try getting a real job.
Cheers.
H2O definitely shunts a big portion of the spectrum. CO2 has a rather large response around 15 um that closes off more of the window.
Interesting side note…CO2 also has another, albeit far weaker, response around 13.3 um that is exploited by the ABI instrument onboard the GOES-R satellites. This “CO2” band at channel 16 is exploited for producing several of the GOES products. I believe the GHE in this part of the spectrum is insignificant however. Interesting nonetheless…
https://www.goes-r.gov/education/docs/ABI-bands-FS/Band_16FS_CO2_LW_IR_FINAL.pdf
That’s just one more way CO2 can cool the planet.
CO2 is increasing. But the planet isn’t cooling.
Well you’re only half wrong, DA.
Much improved from all wrong. huh?
Which half do you think is wrong? I will disprove it for you.
DA, the only thing you can “prove” is your ignorance of the relevant physics.
And you do that regularly.
Five years ago Scott Denning (Monfort professor at Colorado State) put a tool that calculated the Moon’s soil temperature on the web. It was even more nifty than a spreadsheet because you could enter parameters in boxes (on-line) and the answers would pop up.
Sadly this model no longer works the way it used to so I tried the “Wayback Machine”. Here is what I found:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141123151912/http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Moon/
Given that the “R” code is shown I am hoping that some bright spark here can figure out how activate the “Output Processor” that used to display the results.
Scott Denning and Roy Spencer don’t always see eye to eye. It would be fun to watch them discuss the GHE issue on TV. It could be entertaining.
Did you see that Denning/Spencer debate someone posted a few months ago?
@Svante,
I did see some sniping back and forth by Denning & Spencer here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
That was only a few weeks ago so if there was something going on before that please send a link.
Contrary to what I said in my last post, Denning’s Moon soil temperature model is working:
https://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Moon/
Ric Werme linked to a debate at the Heartland Institute.
It was worth watching I think:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/#comment-350110
The Moon soil temperature page may stir up the dust around here:
“The Moon is ‘tidally locked’ to the Earth so that the time required to rotate once on its axis is exactly the same as the period of its orbit around the Earth (that is, the length of the Moon’s ‘day’ is the same as the length of a Lunar ‘month:’ 29 Earth days, 12 hours, 44 minutes).”
Craig demonstrates his fascination with Institutionalized Pseudoscience, again.
Unable to think for himself, all he can do is falsely accuse others.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356856
Nothing new.
You’re right, Craig. Don’t listen to the gargoyles here who deny astronomy.
DA, have you found your “missing” 150 W/m^2, yet?
Well, keep looking.
Hopelessly looking is better than no future at all, huh?
Sure I have.
But ask camel. He’s still confused about that.
David, please stop trolling.
Why is it trolling to ask Gcamel to account for his missing 150 W/m2?
You notice he never addresses this issue.
#2
David, please stop trolling.
Now that Scott Denning’s Moon model is working again on my computer let’s kick the tires. Remember this is an equatorial model so the temperatures should correspond closely with Dr. Roy’s Lat=5 numbers.
The day time temperature looks fairly good for both Scott & Roy. Here is how the peak temperatures compare:
Dr. Roy……….361.9 K
Scott Denning….390 K
Gallopingcamel…387.4 K
Diviner LRE……388.0 K
When it comes to night time temperatures the situation is much worse. Here are the dawn temperatures:
Dr. Roy……….118.5 K
Scott Denning….135 K
Gallopingcamel….95.8 K
Diviner LRE…….93.6 K
All three of us use the same radiation equations. While we use different parameters for Albedo and IR emissivity the differences are too small to explain the variations shown above.
So what is wrong with the models? The main problem is the nature of the lunar regolith which is highly complex. Dr. Roy’s model is the simplest as it uses a constant (sfc) to represent the bulk heat capacity of the regolith. Changing this constant has a much greater effect on night time temperatures than day time temperatures.
For example changing the sfc from 0.1 to 0.0476 drops the dawn temperature to 93.6 K which is in exact agreement with observations (the Diviner LRE).
Problem solved? Sadly no…….this is just “Whack-a-Mole”. You can adjust parameters to get perfect agreement at one point but errors pop up elsewhere!
On the Moon, the focus is understanding the radiative half of the problem. Time spent on crudely modeling the dark side and heat conduction through the lunar regolith is time wasted. I just take it to be (the observed) constant. I then get a number for the average that is better than all of you.
Naturally your model will be perfect if you plug in the numbers published by the Diviner LRE.
Awesome! Brilliant! Great job!
I didn’t do that. I said it was a big waste of time for people like you to try to model thermal conduction through the dark side regolity, when the focus is on radiation.
Try reading again.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
David, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says:
The calculation must be repeated layer after layer, right?
If bands are saturated more CO2 still adds thickness.
Sorry Svante, CO2 does NOT add “thickness”.
All of your hopes and dreams rest on a false religion.
Don’t worry, probably no one is laughing at you….
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
Does the Earth emit it?
DA,
Does everything in the universe absorb infrared radiation?
Does everything in the universe above absolute zero emit infrared radiation continuously?
Are you still as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Does everything in the universe absorb infrared radiation?
No, of course not.
But GHGs do. Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
DA,
Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information. You are obviously just as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday, if not more so.
I assume you will ignore things such as vacuum, photons and other such irrelevancies.
I see you have essayed another stupid and pointless blanket gotcha.
If you want to use a blanket for a particular reason, just do it. Your attempt to conflate insulation with a GHE which you cannot even describe is just stupid.
Carry on attempting to deny, divert and confuse with stupid and irrelevant analogies. The Earth has cooled since the surface was molten – even since the seas were first created in the boiling state. Get used to it. No GHE. You cannot even usefully describe such an impossible thing! How hard can it be for a deluded GHE true believer?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information.
Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.
Now, again: why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
You’re afraid to answer.
DA,
Initially, you claimed that not everything in the universe absorbed infrared radiation.
I wrote –
“Try naming something in the universe that does not absorb infrared information.” Of course I meant infrared radiation. Sorry.
However, in your usual slippery, evasive, and misleading fashion, you responded –
“Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.”
Indeed, they absorb infrared radiation, don’t they? You still cannot back up your claim that not everything in the universe can both absorb and emit infrared radiation. Actually, because N2 and O2 are some 2000 times as numerous as CO2, they absorb more infrared radiation in total than the 4 molecules in 10,000 which represent CO2.
So you still cannot name anything which does not absorb infrared radiation. About normal for a deluded GHE true believer not used to being questioned.
As your dim-witted blanket gotcha, work it out for yourself. Look at the internet. If you are still totally bamboozled, you are not smart enough to understand the answer. Don’t expect me to do your thinking for you.
Now, again – are you still as stupid and ignorant as you were yesterday? Afraid to answer? I wouldn’t blame you.
Cheers.
MF:
Present the evidence that atmospheric N2 and O2 ab.sorp IR.
Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
DA,
You wrote –
“MF:
Present the evidence that atmospheric N2 and O2 ab.sorp IR.”
Oh, ye of small brain and short memory. You wrote before –
“Gaseous N2 and O2 are very poor ab.sorp.ers of IR.”
Maybe you should flap your answer in your face in front of a mirror, exclaiming “Evidence! Evidence!”
What a fool. You even manage to lose an argument with yourself.
Cheers.
DA,
You wrote –
“Again, why do you sleep under a blanket at night?”
Why do you want to know? Are you incompetent or lazy? Why ask me? Why would you think I sleep under a blanket in the tropics, anyway?
What a fool you are!
Cheers.
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
Why are you afraid to answer?
It’s relevant to the discussion here.
(Ironically, I know why you’re afraid to answer. We all do.)
Begone, troll!
JDHuffman says:
Optical thickness:
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Optical_thickness
Does CO2 not absorb infrared radiation?
Svante, I always enjoy clowns finding links they can’t understand.
As Mike Flynn says: “Carry on.”
Svante says: ” If bands are saturated more CO2 still adds thickness.”
That is one way to say it. If CO2 levels were only 10 ppm, then the radiation that escapes to space in the 15 um band would come from quite close to the surface. At 400 ppm, the radiation comes from higher elevations. At 10,000 ppm, the radiation would come from even higher.
So the “thickness” as regards radiation does depend on CO2 concentration. Which (I think) means we agree with each other.
Yes.
Tim Folkerts, Svante, please stop trolling.
You’re not quite right, are you?
Svante, please stop trolling.
I have read that right at 15µm the absorρtion is saturated at current levels of CO2 but increasing CO2 expands the wings on either side so more radiation is absorbed.
This isn’t the paper I was thinking of but it discusses the issue.
Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR
bands between 10 and 20 µm
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.618.6431&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Craig,
A simple way to explore some of these relationships is to play with MODTRAN. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This is not a full-fledged climate model, but it does show what happens (everything else being equal) when GHG levels are changed.
Craig,
A simple way to explore some of these relationships is to play with MODTRAN. http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This is not a full-fledged climate model, but it does show what happens (everything else being held constant) when GHG levels are changed.
Tim Folkerts says, June 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM:
Yes. Which tells us zero about what happens in the REAL world. “Everything else being held constant” are the operative words here, after all. The Earth system isn’t a controlled lab experiment, and so the “All Else Being Equal” premise ultimately remains a pointless one.
We have to actually OBSERVE the Earth system to see what happens when the composition of the atmosphere changes over time. And thus far, the relevant observational data strongly points to the conclusion that nothing of significance happens, at least not thermally. It all appears to neatly regulate itself.
I agree with the POTENTIAL effect. I (and the data) disagree with the claim/assumption that it’s being REALISED.
“It all appears to neatly regulate itself.”
Oh, how does it do that?
The clearest evidence we have is that the Earth was NOT able to ‘regulate’ its way out of the ~ 33K of warming that GHG have produced, relative to an Earth without them.
The 33K is bogus.
Same as the bogus “missing” 150 W/m^2.
Just more of the same pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
Oh is it, JD?
Then Dr. Roys post above, where he showed Earth is quite cold without them, is all wrong?
What did he do wrong?
Obviously you were unable to understand his spreadsheet.
Nothing new.
JD specialty, never having an answer to back up his claims.
Nate can’t understand why he has no relevance.
Nothing new.
DA
Ummm, that reference just proves what I said. Of course wavelength has lots to do with it, but water wins…
DMacK: What does “water vapor wins” mean, exactly?
You haven’t bothered to put up my comments, Roy … understandable considering the abuse from Joe Postma. He’s extremely frustrated , and you must forgive him for that. Just remember, we’re all on your side. You can see things can get rough and dirty, emotions high …
Here’s an example, where you know which side you’re on, Roy…
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.com/2018/01/climate-change-just-got-personal.html?showComment=1516344914022#c2227445517051063591
Where are Postma’s published papers? (In real journals.)
There isn’t a single reason to take him seriously. He is dead to all the science community except, for some reason, Roy.
David Appell
It seems Joseph Postma has gotten numerous articles published in Astrophysics journals. He may be good in his field of expertise. He does not seem capable of understanding heat transfer. It is not possible to attempt to explain how it works and why he is wrong.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Postma
Norman, thanks for this.
But his wacky claims about climate science have never been published in real, good, peer reviewed journals, right?
Just this once I agree with David Appell. It really hurts to admit this but he is right about the deranged Joe Postma.
Why does it hurt you to agree with me, if you think I’m right?
That’s weird.
David, please stop trolling.
From your link:
“Sorry Grant, what you are linking to has no credibility and I have read them. You do realise that Wattsupwiththat is a site managed by the Fox News weather man. Rather than believing conspiracy theories and fringe and outlier science, I would rather trust the 100 years of peer reviewed science from institutions like the Royal Society and NASA.”
Dr. Spencer seems to be staying on the side of peer reviewed science. Joe Postma has gone to the other side.
Has Postma ever published a paper on climate science?
He does not deserve this amount of attention! Why is he getting it? He’s a fool.
DA,
Don’t be stupid. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. Anyone claiming that the endlessly repetitive analysis of an average is science is either a fool or a fraud.
Keep at it. You might be able to convince the odd dimwit or two that pseudoscientific climate cultism is valid.
Cheers.
Has Postma ever published a paper on climate science?
David, please stop trolling.
Reply to bdgwx. Duplicated from above.
I didn’t work out the magnitude of the GHE in W/m^2.
I just worked out the percentage of energy returned to the surface, to bring the average temperature of the Earth to a particular value.
Here are the results. Remember, that it is only a model. All models are wrong, but some models are useful.
Avg-Temp CO2-ppm %-Returned
. 13.8 . 262 . 41.0
. 14.0 . 280 . 41.1
. 14.5 . 335 . 41.5
. 15.0 . 400 . 41.9
. 15.1 . 409 . 42.0
. 15.7 . 484 . 42.5
If you wanted to, you could work out the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from this data. But you would have to make assumptions about linearity etc.
ECS works out to be about 2.3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 level. This is at the bottom of the accepted range.
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
I just rechecked my ECS calculation.
Assuming a linear relationship between CO2-ppm and Avg-Temp, the ECS is not constant. It depends on the initial CO2-ppm.
Initial
CO2-ppm ECS
280 . 2.3
300 . 2.5
320 . 2.7
340 . 2.8
360 . 3.0
380 . 3.2
400 . 3.3
420 . 3.5
[The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C]
Very cool. Yeah, I get an ECR of about 2.3 from the data you posted here as well. Despite the linearity problem that does certainly lie within the accepted range.
AR5 officially states 1.5C to 4.5C. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pull the lower end up to 2.0C in AR6.
Yes, the IPCC probably will, since the 2015 Karl et al data published in Science showed there was, in fact, no pause.
David, please stop trolling.
Oh, I did (15.7 – 13.8) / (ln(484/262) / ln(2)) = 2.2C. Did I do that calculation right?
I didn’t use logs in my ECS calculation.
I just worked out the temperature for 2 x 280 = 560 ppm
temp = 0.0083 x ppm + 11.667
temp(560) = 16.3
So ECS = temp(560) – temp(280) = 16.3 – 14.0 = 2.3
But your log calculation seems to give a very similar result.
Well then that is even more interesting. Two different techniques yielding similar results…
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.
The data for 0-2000 m for 2005 are around 9e22 J, and the data for 2018 are around 23e22 J.
That’s a change of 14e22 J in 13 years, or about 1e22 J/yr.
So a trend of roughly 1e22 J/yr.
I just don’t see how you get 1/10th of that value. Can you please explain?
data source:
0-2000 m:
https://is.gd/uzuYSI
https://is.gd/Oqc9cL
Yes. I agree with the trend of 1e22 j/yr. 1e22 = 10e21.
Anyway, you and I are on the same page. Geothermal and tidal dissipation energy sources aren’t enough to account for the +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance on the planet.
And going further this +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance is in the ballpark of what is expected for the difference between the TCR and ECR. If the climate sensitivity were about 0.7C per W/m^2 then even if no new CO2 were added then equilibrium would be achieved with a further 0.4C of warming. This would give us an ECR-to-TCR ration of 1.5/1.1 = 1.35x which is about the ballpark using other techniques. 1.5C of warming may already be baked in…maybe.
OK, good, so you were off by a factor of 10.
And going further this +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance is in the ballpark of what is expected for the difference between the TCR and ECR.
Neither TCR or ECS is measured in units of W/m2.
If the climate sensitivity were about 0.7C per W/m^2 then even if no new CO2 were added then equilibrium would be achieved with a further 0.4C of warming.
I don’t understand how you come up with any of these values. I don’t accept claims I can’t understand or that aren’t proven with reasoning.
I said the trend was 10e21 j/yr. That is exactly the same as 1e22. I’m not sure how I’m off by a factor of 10 since 10e21 = 1e22. Did I typo something further up?
I’m not saying ECR and TCR are measured in W/m^2. I’m saying a +0.6 W/m^2 is consistent with the expectations of ECR and TCR. For example, at 410 ppm the forcing of CO2 would be 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2. With a current imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2 that means we’ve burned off 1.4 W/m^2. And with a warming of about 1.1C that puts the sensitivity at 1.1/1.4 = 0.78C per W/m^2. This is in the ballpark of expectations using recent volcanic eruptions as calibration tools and the paleoclimate record which shows a range of 0.5-2.0C per W/m^2. Anyway, to reach equilibrium we still need to burn off that 0.6 W/m^2 imbalance. Using a more conservative 0.7C per W/m^2 that yields 0.7 * 0.6 = 0.4C. That 0.4C added to the TCR of 1.1C brings us to an ECR of 1.5C. Thus 1.5C of warming *might* already be baked in.
bdgwx says:
I said the trend was 10e21 j/yr. That is exactly the same as 1e22.
Huh??
They differ by a factor of 10.
What are you talking about????? What are the units on your last number? I can’t make sense of what you’re claiming unless you put units on your numbers and tell me what they represent.
10e21 = 1e22
Note that is 10 * 10^21 = 1 * 10^22
Pay attention to the numbers after the ‘e’. I’m using 21 while you are using 22.
We agree.
OK, thanks. Then I misunderstood you. My bad. But I don’t see why you’d write 10e21 instead of 1e22. In scientific notation the leading number is supposed to be always between 1 and 10.
Thanks for clearing this up/
Again, my mistake.
Sorry, bd.
Just this once I agree with David Appell. It really hurts to admit this but he is right about the deranged Joe Postma.
bdgwx Said:
“For example, at 410 ppm the forcing of CO2 would be 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m^2.”
That equation looks like something from the Arrhenius (1896) paper that estimated the warming effect of CO2. The constant (5.43) is the “Sensitivity Constant” in degrees Centigrade per doubling of CO2 concentration. The “ln” (log based on 2.71828) should be replaced by log based on 2.
Log(base 2) of (410/280) = 0.5502 so the answer is 2.99 Kelvin rather than 2.0 W/m^2.
Please note that nobody defends the Arrhenius sensitivity constant of 5.43 K/doubling of CO2 because it does not come close to wahat is observed. Dr. Roy has suggested a much lower “Sensitivity Constant” equal to 1.3 K/doubling.
While I respect Dr. Roy and Dr. Richard Lindzen they should stop talking about “Sensitivity Constants” measures in degrees/doubling and thereby acknowledge that the Arrhenius hypothesis is FALSE.
There is a sensitivity constant that agrees with observations over the last seven glacial cycles:
Sensitivity Constant = 120 ppm of CO2/degree Centigrade with a time lag of ~600 years.
camel, odd that it would bother you to agree with me, unless your pursuit is something other than the truth.
GCamel: Arrhenius was right about the forcing of CO2. It’s the same equation today:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
Arrhenius got a great deal right. Not everything. But it was a tremendous first effort, and set the scene for 20th century climate science.
DA,
You wrote –
“Arrhenius was right about the forcing of CO2. Its the same equation today: . . .”
There is no such thing as climate science. Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. Your use of pseudoscientific nonsense words such as “forcing” is bizarre.
CO2 “forces” nothing, certainly not the weather, the average of which is climate. Do you really believe the nonsense you spout, or are you just another deluded cultist?
You cannot even describe the wondrous and magical, yet strangely non-existent GHE. You can’t make a thermometer hotter by putting more CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer! I suppose that is why you are reduced to stupid and irrelevant analogies involving blankets, overcoats, pot lids, and anything else to avoid admitting you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis to explain your mythical GHE!
What a fool you are! Do you expect anybody to believe your peculiar nonsense? I suppose there must be some people who are even thicker than you, but I don’t know any personally. Maybe you could provide a few names?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, do you really believe the nonsense you spout?
camel,
I’m using the form of the radiative forcing law documented here. This form is in units of W/m^2. I do understand that the sensitivity parameter can incorporate the C per W/m^2 part as well and directly yield a response in units of C like what Arrhenius did in his original 1896 work.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238498266_New_estimtes_of_raditive_forcing_due_to_well_mixed_greenhouse_gases
By the way, Arrhenius’ sensitivity parameter was too high because of errors in experimental data provided to him from other scientists like Langley. He updated his sensitivity parameter in 1908 based corrected data to 4C per doubling of CO2.
And yes, Arrhenius may not have laid the golden egg on the first try, but it’s remarkable how accurate some of his predictions have been considering how little knowledge he had to work with. For example, he predicted that the oceans would buffer significant amounts of anthroprogenic CO2, that the warming would be more pronounced in the polar regions and during the night. Sure, his original sensivity of 5.5C (1896) and even his revised sensivity of 4.0C (1908) may be too high, but consider that this was the first ever quantification of the effect and it was done more than 100 years ago without any knowledge of the molecular physics and quantum mechanical understanding needed to explain it.
S,
If you were not such a fool, you would quote something I wrote, and convince others of my error by producing facts to bolster your opinion.
It seems you cannot, so you lash out like a trapped rat, although less effectually. I decline to directly answer your irrelevant and stupid gotcha.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Thank you for your answer.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Anyway, the main point here is that an imbalance of +0.6 W/m^2 or more precisely +0.7 W/m^2 if counting the uptake in the atmosphere, cyrosphere, lithosphere, etc. is consistent with the warming already observed and the well known 5.35 * ln(delta-CO2) relationship. It is also consistent with expectations of the climate sensitivity in terms of C per W/m^2. It’s also consistent with expectations of the ratio between TCR and ECR and the lag between the two of a couple of decades or so.
The big unknowns in IMHO are the tipping points. When do they activate? We know from the paleoclimate record that climate sensitivity (in units of C per W/m^2) tends to settle toward the lower end of the range during quiescent periods, but once the climate system gets perturbed hard enough the sensitivity ramps up going above 1.0C per W/m^2.
The point…we *may* experience more warming from the 2nd half of the CO2 doubling than the first half if the sensitivity increases. I’d be interested in hearing comments regarding this point.
bdgwx says:
“experience more warming from the 2nd half of the CO2 doubling than the first half if the sensitivity increases. I’d be interested in hearing comments regarding this point.”
The first half has more time to run feed-backs to completion, your equilibrium point may be hundreds of years into the future.
Yes, the equilibrium point *IS* hundreds of years into the future, if not thousands.
It takes a long time for some feedbacks to run out.
The Paris limit of two degrees is enough to wipe out the Greenland ice sheet, but it will take a few thousand years.
As I understand it the fast feedback ECR lags the TCR by a few decades. The slow feedbacks are a different matter. And I agree that they are likely measured in hundreds of years. I also agree that 2C of warming may indeed put a enough of nudge on the climate system to melt huge volumes of ice thus causing more warming. But, like you said that may take over a thousand years to play out.
“The big unknowns in IMHO are the tipping points. When do they activate? ”
This is typical Alarmist BS that has no more credibility than James Hansen and his “Runaway Greenhouse Effect”.
Ignore the stupid people who are trying to scare you and listen to H.L. Mencken:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Yes, we all know that HL Mencken was quite the expert in modern climate science.
DA,
You wrote –
“Yes, we all know that HL Mencken was quite the expert in modern climate science.”
There is no such thing as climate science, modern or otherwise. You are living in a fantasy world unconnected to reality. Climate is the average of weather, no more, no less.
Any fool or fraud can call themselves a climate scientist, and many do. Second rate wannabes, undistinguished deluded mathematicians, PhDs who are too dim to work out whether they received a Nobel Peace Prize – or not.
You worship these bumbling buffoons? Good luck.
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
You are absolutely correct; there is not such thing as climate science. For as you stated, and I again state: climate merely is the average of meteorological factors at a given place on a given day average over many years there have been records of these meteorological factors that have been measured.
Have a good day, Jerry
Hi Make,
And I believe we both know that a major meteorological factor is temperature which is greatly influenced by the incident solar radiation upon the surface at each individual location. So there is not average temperature for the earth, only for that location for each hour of the day. I agree at some point we must a average such a variable as temperature because it is commonly changing, not usually constant during many hours of a 24hr period.
As the solar radiation incident upon the surface is strongly influence by the very variable cloud.
Have a good day, Jerry
MF is right but I would put it slightly differently. There are honest “Climate Scientists” such as Nicola Scafetta, Scott Denning, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Linzen and some others.
At least 90% of “Climate Scientists” are dishonest and they are destroying the public’s trust in science. Our society is being corrupted because lying goes unpunished almost every time.
Hi gallopingcamel,
Have to disagree with you. The fundamental basis of science is the observation and not reason or models. So, in the case of Roy, previous article and this one. A continuous solar radiation of 342 W/m2 value has never been observed to my knowledge and he pretends his models can explain something which is not observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
camel,
Can you provide a justification as to why you feel a tipping point is alarmist? It might be best, at least for me, if you could define what “alarmist” even means. How can we objectively categorize hypothesis/predictions as being “alarmist”?
“At least 90% of Climate Scientists are dishonest”
It sounds like you define ‘dishonest’ as those climate scientists who don’t agree with you, GC?
This is the tenor of our times that somehow people who disagree with us, even on a science issue, must have character flaws!
You realize you are talking about thousands of 20-something graduate students as well.
You believe that all of them are being persuaded by their bosses to be dishonest too?
N,
You wrote –
“You believe that all of them are being persuaded by their bosses to be dishonest too?”
I might use words other than “dishonest”, such as deluded, foolish, or fraudulent, but, in essence, the answer to your question is yes.
A student will generally do well to agree with their lecturer or supervisor if they wish to pass the course. If the lecturer teaches phlogiston, phlogiston it is. If Lord Kelvin decrees the age of the Earth to be twenty million years, this is probably a good answer to give if Lord Kelvin is asking the question.
Just see the comments on this blog. People furiously defending a GHE they cannot even describe, on the basis that some “expert” said it must exist.
As Feynman said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”, and I agree. If you cannot even describe what it is you wish me to believe in, I am unlikely to give my unstinting support to your nebulous beliefs.
Still no GHE. No CO2 heating. The atmosphere is chaotic, and unpredictable.
Cheers.
Given your delusional view that 90 mW/m^2 of geothermal cooling is relevant but 240 W/m^2 of solar warming is irrelevant to The Earth’s temperature, I don’t really think you have any credibility on these issues, Mike.
N,
I don’t care what you think, if you cannot actually say what it is you are disagreeing with me about.
Maybe you could actually quote something you disagree with, and provide a fact or two to support your disagreement? No?
Begone, troll.
‘Maybe you could actually quote something you disagree with, and provide a fact or two to support your disagreement? No?’
Did that, Mike. Did exactly that, as you requested.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-356818
And ….??
Nothing from you. Nada. Crickets.
Clearly this is just your standard tactic to avoid dealing with inconvenient facts.
Nate, please stop trolling.
@Svante,
That Denning-Spencer debate you linked was really interesting:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/roy-spencer-vs-scott-denning-iccc6/
Both participants came over very well no matter which one you find credible.
So why did normally rational Scott Denning go all snarky and make this loony attack on UAH?
https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/1118628870641594370?s=12
I think Roy came across better, Scott seemed a bit jumpy, perhaps that’s what caused the Twitter comment. He also threw in some basic stuff that seemed out of place.
The Twitter comment was in response to the AIRS independent validation of the NASA GISS temperature record.
Roy just said AIRS is consistent with the UAH record, so I conclude both are OK. They just measure different things. GHGs warm the surface and cool the upper atmosphere. UAH is just nearer the pivot point.
There’s no reason the average LT temperature should be in agreement with the surface temperature.
RSS’s LT trend is 50% higher than UAH’s.
Yes, the RSS weighting is closer to the surface, isn’t it?
I conclude they’re all reasonably OK, for what they measure.
While I was leaning towards Dr. Roy he said some things I disagreed with but that is the nature of science (it is never settled).
If you recall Scott Denning made that point. You can never prove you are right and it only takes one experiment to prove you wrong (Einstein, Feynman etc.)
Well, Dr. Spencer starts on the right foot. But then it all goes hideously wrong.
Modelling without radiative atmosphere? Perfect! A time dependant model with multiple latitude bands run over multiple diurnal cycles in 15 minute intervals? Great. Solar constant of 1370 w/m2 and planetary albedo of 0.3? Fine. Surface layer using specific heat capacity of water? Perfect, 71% of the surface is water!
But then…
Surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep?! Nooooo ….. solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!
This modelling fails for exactly the same reason the models that give 255 K for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere fail. That is a complete failure to correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans.
Let’s do a quick sanity check on the model. Only 3 out of 9 latitude bands get above freezing for just a few hours a day. That’s the oceans frozen solid. Now, where is the snowline in this solar system? That would be beyond 3AU in the outer reaches of the asteroid belt. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa exist with frozen oceans. This model fails the simplest sanity check. This is what happens when you treat the oceans as opaque to sunlight.
The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3.
I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand, People take this simple model way to seriously — it’s just a heuristic model.
“The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3”
It’s worse than that. That simple model assumes the surface of the planet to be a near blackbody instead of an extreme shortwave selective surface.
You can’t complain people take it “way too seriously”. 255 K being raised 33 K to our current average of 288 K is the very foundation claim of the entire AGW conjecture.
The entire AGW conjecture rides on failing to correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans. Dr Spencers modelling has failed for exactly the same reason.
Try modelling 71% of the surface as an extreme shortwave selective surface with a slow speed of internal energy transport and you will find that surface Tav without radiative atmosphere should be above 310 K. That doesn’t leave any room for a radative atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Konrad,
The surface is very nearly a blackbody for thermal IR (ie for all the outgoing IR from the surface). With no radiative atmosphere, the surface Tav MUST be ~ 255 K to radiate @ 240 W/m^2 (ie the amount absorbed, accounting for an albedo of 0.3). And of course, it would be warmer near the equator and cooler near the poles.
If the surface Tav were 310 K, it would be radiating well over 500 W/m^2 to space while receiving 240 W/m^2. The surface would have to cool rapidly!
Your “selective surface” effect could allow water BELOW the surface to get warmer than 255 K. Just like the BOTTOM of the solar pond can reach ~ 80 C while the surface must remain close to the ambient surface temperatures (~ 10-40 C). A solar pond cannot maintain a surface @ 80 C. Similarly the oceans could not maintain a surface @ 37 C = 310 K.
(In the real oceans, convection maintains the lower layers at or below the temperature of the surface. If the water 1 m down were warmer than the surface, the warmer water blow would rise to the surface and the cooler water at the surface would sink.)
–Tim Folkerts says:
June 11, 2019 at 8:30 AM
Konrad,
The surface is very nearly a blackbody for thermal IR (ie for all the outgoing IR from the surface). With no radiative atmosphere, the surface Tav MUST be ~ 255 K to radiate @ 240 W/m^2 (ie the amount absorbed, accounting for an albedo of 0.3). And of course, it would be warmer near the equator and cooler near the poles.–
What must be, is Earth absorbs about 240 watts and emits 240 watts.
But if tropical ocean surface temperature was about 3.5 C rather than about 26 C.
Then Earth would not emit 240 watts.
And Earth would absorb more than 240 watts and the albedo would change, and you could blame it on the change of albedo.
But the change in albedo would not be much. But you not measuring it very precisely now, nor would you then. So it might work out somewhat.
But anyhow when planet is close to “equilibrium” it’s going to emit as much as it absorbs. But it doesn’t tell you the temperature.
Or no one don’t uses how much a planet emits as a way to determine the average temperature of any other planet.
Space alien might measure Earth temperature and say it’s -18 C, and they might measure Venus and Mars and say those planets about same temperature.
Which might upset the Earthlings, but it’s because they have some standard way to measure a planet’s temperature which they think is useful [for whatever the weird alien purpose is].
Tim, you are still not getting it. It does not matter about surface “a” and “e”. The oceans covering 71% of this planet’s surface are not heated at the surface.
Throw your climastrology clacs out. Go with Spacecraft thermal control 101. After all, our planet is a giant spacecraft.
I get that you don’t understand how the sun heats our oceans, so forget the sun. Switch the sun off!
Let’s imagine a spacecraft floating in free space several light years from the sun. It is powered by an internal Seebeck generator. It has an external surface area of 1 m2. The Surface has an emissivity of 0.8 in the LWIR spectrum.
What would be the internal power dissipation in watts that would result in an external surface temperature of 335K?
When you do the work Tim, and give me that power in watts, I’ll talk you through the simple replicable experiments that show how the sun causes that internal power in our solar translucent oceans. I Promise.
But you won’t so that simple calc will you Tim? You’ll gaslight and say why it isn’t relevant. You’ll run back to your instantaneous radiative balance calcs that failed for the earth, the Moon, Mars and Pluto.
I challenge you Tim. Spacecraft. No sun. Surface emissivity of 0.8. Surface temp of 335 K. What is the internal power in watts?
“You’ll run back to your instantaneous radiative balance calcs that failed for the earth, the Moon, Mars and Pluto.”
There was no failure in the global mean (or local) temperature estimates for moon, Mars, Titan or Pluto or even Venus or any other object, the going in expectations for temperature were reasonably observed by instruments well enough for gov. work. It is Konrad’s experiments that are unreasonable, misleading Konrad not the informed, critical blog reader.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Even deeper. Direct heating is in the first 5-10 m.
Mixing and conduction can be seen down to 400-500m.
A good day of sunshine delivers some MJ/m^2 to the surface, just enough to warm the upper 5m 1K……
–A good day of sunshine delivers some MJ/m^2 to the surface, just enough to warm the upper 5m 1K–
Ocean is warmed by direct and indirect and at noon clear skies you get 1120 watts. So for 6 hours get average of 1000 watts per square meter. Problem is you tend get clouds in tropics around noon, though if for whatever reason the ocean was cool, you wouldn’t get the clouds.
3600 x 6 hours times 1000 is 21.6 million joules
1000 kg of water is 4.18 kJ per kg or 4.18 million joules.
Hmm, most the the sunlight warms first couple meter, but within the first meter are portion of heat will rise to surface and evaporate but heated water below 1 meter will be inhibted due the more warmed top one mater of water.
And per mm of water evaporated per square meter. one loses 2.26 million joules.
It seems upper 5 meter would increase by average of 1 K, and have more uniformity the more it mixed.
I wonder how many mm of water one can evaporate in a “good day of sunshine” of course it’s related to how much it rains, but evaporates more than rain because water vapor is transported outside of the tropics.
Rough 200 cm per year, 2000 / 365 = 5.4 mm per day.
So about 10 million joules per day and it seems most of it coming from top 1 meter of warmed ocean water.
And before and after peak hours sunlight arriving at steeper angle and heating more in top 1 meter of water.
Sorry should have written 20 MJ/m^2
https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/isoflux-contour-plots
Point is that thinking in radiative balance for oceans is utter nonsense. May work on the moon, not on Earth. Thinking in received energy warming a certain amount of water with a given heat capacity makes way more sense.
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6305/63050721.pdf
Konrad:
Like JP, you are arguing against yourself without realizing it!
The greater the depth of ocean involved in the diurnal heating/cooling cycle, the larger the thermal capacitance.
The larger the thermal capacitance involved, the less the diurnal temperature swing.
The less the diurnal temperature swing, the higher the average temperature (Holder’s inequality).
So if you object to Dr. Roy’s model due to too little of a depth involved, you are arguing that it should be closer to the “zero-order” (average power) model.
Ed, no, I am not arguing against myself. The issue of depth is not about increased thermal capacity. The issue of depth is about where solar energy is deposited in the oceans. Dr. Spencer has incorrectly modelled the surface as completely opaque to solar SW and SWIR.
The reality is that the sun heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. Given the oceans can only lose energy from their surface and the only energy transports back to the surface are slow (conduction and convection) there is a real greenhouse effect in the oceans. The deeper sunlight penetrates, the stronger this effect gets. This is why the depth of solar penetration into the surface and the speed of sensible heat transport back to the surface must be modelled correctly to find the critical figure for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere.
Konrad
I am throwing of the BS flag on this one.
Where do you get this from? “Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
You made that up maybe?
Here is the reality. Roy Spencer is right and you just make up unsupportable claims.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.781&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Scientists have actually measured the emissivity of sea water. They don’t just make up numbers, act like authorities and then post the junk science on a blog.
If you make claims support them.
I can also give you a simple experiment you can have your kids do at a science fair. Take ball made with very absorbing surface. connect it to a variable speed motor. Have an infrared heat lamp shine on the surface. Use an IR thermometer to measure the temperature. First do not rotate the ball and see how hot it will get with no rotation. After that is established try various speeds of rotation. It will soon be apparent that if it rotates the surface does not reach the same temperature as when it is stationary. Why? The energy is spread out over the whole ball instead of just one side.
Norman asks: “Where do you get this from? “Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
Emissivity (and reflectivity) do change with angles. A quick google search found this from Science of Doom:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
Briefly:
1) emissivity for water does decrease as the angle of incident comes closer to horizontal. Emissivity drops to 0.95 at ~ 60 degrees and 0.7 at ~ 80 degrees . It seems doubtful that an integration of all angles would give 0.7
2) The answer above assumes perfectly still water. For rough water, the effective angle is smaller and hence the effective emissivty is larger. This makes it even less plausible for the answer to 0.7 when integrated over a rough hemisphere.
Tim Folkerts
Thank you. Looking at this graph from you link:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/emissivity-vs-angle-and-refractive-index.png
Even with the decrease in emissivity with angle, if you take a black body over all the angles and compare it. If the blocks in the diagram represent energy radiated away with comparing to a black body, you would still get an overall emissivity of about 0.9. If you look at the blocks of the potential 100 of a blackbody you might get around 10 that are lost. This means the ocean would still radiate 90% of the energy of a blackbody even taking all angles into consideration.
Also another important fact is that, since emissivity goes down with angle away from 90, the ability of water to absorb also drops drastically with angle.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/phdwg33.gif
From this site:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/water.htm
The net effect would mean it really does not matter. The angles that can’t emit well also do not absorb incoming solar well so they lose less energy but they gain less input energy from the Sun. It would not make water a selective surface.
I am not convinced at all Konrad’s point is valid or good. It seems what so many do. Look for some small thing to try and discredit rather than understanding what they are seeing. The Solar input to the surface is not close to enough to maintain the Earth’s surface at the temperature that is observed.
One can nitpick the exact amount. That would not be the point of the thread. The point is the Solar input could not keep the surface as warm as it is without a GHE.
Norman, it appears you’ve found another link you can’t understand.
Your comedy is most appreciated.
Any more examples?
Norman, your accusation that I am just making things up is ludicrous. Given that LWIR reflectivity is the corollary of emissivity, you can easily determine the angular emissivity of water with the tunable LWIR quantum cascade laser and detector.
However, as Tim Folkerts correctly points out, the issue is largely academic due to the real world texture of water. I only brought up the point about hemispherical emissivity of flat water because Dr. Spencer’s model did not include surface texture.
The real failing of Dr. Spencer’s model is failure to model the physical greenhouse effect in the oceans. The sun heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. The oceans can only lose energy from their surface, and the internal energy transports within the oceans are slow. Further, the energy transports back to the surface vary with the diurnal cycle, with conduction dominating during the day and convective overturning at night.
K,
As far as I know, the hottest water is a the surface, being least dense. It radiates in proportion to the fourth power of the absolute temperature as usual. It then becomes cooler, and sinks, displacing warmer water to the surface. And on it goes.
The end result is that the densest water sinks to the bottom, where it is prevented from freezing by the heat below, and the peculiar properties of water – freezing water becoming less dense, and floating to the surface, etc.
Net result – current state of the oceans. Fancy NOAA and other brightly coloured graphics showing denser colder water miraculously rising from the depths to the surface are just stupid.
About as stupid as the National Science Foundation insisting for years that Archimedes’ Law did not apply to floating ice!
Fairly obviously, the influence of the Sun extends to the bottom of the photic zone. Light which is absorbed results in heat, and the hotter water rises. Perpetual motion, driven by the Sun in the photic zone, combined with convection from basal heat. Conduction seems to be pretty much zero, given that the water is in liquid form, and continuously in motion.
Cheers.
Konrad,
solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Looks like you just have to put this into the Excel calculator and temperatures soar up.
Why was Dr. Spencer afraid to include convection if the correct input of the solar heated depth gives us plenty of room for more cooling?
I agree that the treatment of the oceans to be opaque is one of the very mistakes that climate science is doing.
But then the calculator actually works and anybody can draw the right conclusion. The fattest green house is in the oceans.
And naturally so. Water has all the hallmarks of a “green house” ingredient: It lets short waves pass through and emitts long wave.
Konrad, June 9, 2019 at 12:32 AM
You said:
“Surface layer responding to heating is 0.1 m deep?! Nooooo .. solar heating of the oceans occurs down to 200m.
Broadband IR emissivity of 0.98? For water that is only the emissivity at zenith. Hemispherical emissivity for water is below 0.7!”
Dr. Roy and Scott Denning have published models for the Moon that you can find linked on this thread so your comment about oceans does not apply.
The Moon’s regolith is a good insulator…..far better than that glass fiber insulation in your roof space. A consequence is that a model of the Moon only needs to go to a depth of one meter yet Scott Denning’s model goes down 17.5 meters.
Dr. Roy uses a broadband IR (isotropic) emissivity of 0.98 which has a significant effect on night time temperatures. My own model works best with 0.95 emissivity. Scott Denning points out that the Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt!
Most models need to make a bunch of simplifying assumptions. Over time we can improve our models to more closely correspond with observations.
“The Moon’s regolith is a good insulator…..far better than that glass fiber insulation in your roof space. A consequence is that a model of the Moon only needs to go to a depth of one meter yet Scott Denning’s model goes down 17.5 meters.
Dr. Roy uses a broadband IR (isotropic) emissivity of 0.98 which has a significant effect on night time temperatures. My own model works best with 0.95 emissivity. Scott Denning points out that the Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt!”
Well if Moon radiates and absorbs like asphalt, it would probably go down to 17.5 meter.
But I would say any significant amount of heat is absorbed to depth of about 1 foot.
But trying figure out lunar night temperature [why it’s sort of flat for a few days] then the small amount of heat absorbed below a foot is important.
Most of lunar heat loss occurs before the sun goes down, and this similar to land surface on Earth, though it’s more dramatic with the Moon due to it’s long day. Or as sun sets on Earth or Moon the surface gets less than 100 watts per square meter and surface temperature is dropping with such small amounts of solar flux.
Of course in morning one also less than 100 watts, but the very cold surface can warmed by 100 watts- but it’s not going warm to much depth [an couple cm]. And near noon it’s heating to deepest depth [due to having 120 C at the surface] or days of intense sunlight heats to deepest levels [despite the very good insulation at top few cm of lunar dust. And by 3pm though surface is cooler, one could be added heat at depth, but by 5 pm, the surface is colder than depth it’s losing heat rather gains, and does this for more than 1 day before sunset. Of course having any sunlight on the surface acts like insulation, inhibiting heat loss.
So at 1 meter depth on Moon you have fairly uniform temperature, though could vary by .1 C or more. Same goes with 10 meter, though could vary by .01 C or less. But 10 meters at .01 has same heat as 1 meter at .1 C. or deeper depth has effect upon the 100 K lunar night.
Gallopingcamel, I am aware of your work on Lunar modelling from Talkshop. You used a multi layer FEA model to closely match the empirical results from DIVINER. As you point out, modelling below 1m for the Lunar surface gives diminishing returns on precision.
However, what I am pointing out is that the model Dr. Spencer has presented is for Earth, and he has ignored the true properties of the planet’s surface. He’s used the conductivity and specific heat capacity for water, but only modelled to 100mm depth.
To model surface Tav without radiative atmosphere for Earth, you must correctly model solar thermal gain in the oceans along with the conductive and convective sensible heat transports within the oceans.
Treating the oceans as opaque to sunlight as Dr. Spencer has done simply won’t work. There is no net radiative atmospheric greenhouse on this planet, but there is a greenhouse effect in the oceans. This is because the sun actually heats the oceans well below their LWIR opaque surface. For energy to leave the oceans, it must conduct and convect back to the surface from the depth where it accumulated. This is a slow process which allows the oceans to accumulate energy over diurnal cycles. The oceans act as a physical greenhouse.
Dr. Spencers final comment highlights the error that led to the entire AGW debacle:
I hope this will help convince some who are still open-minded on this subject that even intense tropical sunshine cannot explain real-world tropical temperatures. The atmospheric greenhouse effect must also be included.
The atmospheric greenhouse effect is an assumption based on incorrect modelling of the critical figure for surface Tav without radiative atmosphere. Remember, the atmospheric GHE conjecture begins with Fourier’s work, not Tyndall’s.
My counter to Dr. Spencers argument is simply this: The oceanic greenhouse must be included to explain real world temperatures. When you do that, you find our radiatively cooled atmosphere is cooling the solar heated surface materials of this planet, not warming them.
David Appell, June 9, 2019 at 12:08 AM
You said:
“camel, odd that it would bother you to agree with me, unless your pursuit is something other than the truth.”
In the immortal words of Robbie Burns:
“O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!”
To me and probably many others here you seem like the ACLU which is on the wrong side of every issue.
Thus when I found myself agreeing with you I was shocked.
All I’m doing is presenting the consensus science.
You’ve never come close to disproving it.
David, please stop trolling.
There is no greenhouse gas effect, nor is there its Radiative Forcing effect. Chapter 8 of IPCC clearly and and repeatedly says that Radiative Forcing is a concept, it is therefore not a science.
Changes in climate has been cause by life on earth, long before life became aerobic. Climate change is thus not about atmospheric physics or meteorology. For more details, click on my name.
Correction: IPCC Report of 3013 AR5.
Nabil Swedan says:
“There is no greenhouse gas effect”.
But Roy Spencer just proved it, who to trust?
You believe what you see and measure only. No one has ever measured the greenhouse gas effect, it has no chemical potential in the thermodynamic tables or other published literature; it therefore does not exist. Chapter 8 of IPCC Report of 2013 says repeatedly its effect, the Radiative Forcing is a concept, not a science.
Here’s a measurement:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7-15.gif
The IPCC clearly and repeatedly says there is a GHE.
Climate change is modulated by life on Earth. It’s also modulated by a lot of other factors. The trick is figuring all of the factors and what magnitude of a role they played in each climate change event. The magnitude of their effect changes from one era to another.
bdgwx, your false religion always seems to have a backdoor.
That should tell you something.
Clearly you have not looked at Chapter 8 of IPCC Report AR5. Read it first. Radiative Forcing is a concept based on this Chapter. Radiative forcing is the greenhouse gas effect.
Radiative Forcing was a concept decades before any IPCC report. The greenhouse effect (an idea over a hundred years older than IPCC) is only one aspect of radiative forcing.
Craig T, please stop trolling.
Addition: IPCC Report of 2013, AR5
Some people have apparently taken umbrage at my opinion that the Earth as a whole is cooling, even though individual thermometers on or near the surface will react to being exposed to increased heat by showing higher temperatures.
Here is a quote which might lead them to a variety of original sources.
“Their estimate on the average cooling rate is ∼70 K Ga−1 for the last 3 Ga, but because of data scatter, this estimate has a large uncertainty of at least ±30 K Ga−1.”
Research on the Urey ratio will probably be of assistance.
You have a choice of believing the delusional beliefs of Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest, or scientists such as Urey, who was awarded a real Nobel Prize for Chemistry, unlike the fake Nobel Peace Prize which Mann awarded to himself. Who to believe?
Cheers.
Sorry Mike, the fact that you are nothing but an armchair scientist is again obvious since you should know that Urey was out of his depth on this topic. See:
Influence of magmatism on mantle cooling, surface heat flow and Urey ratio
TakashiNakagawaa Paul J.Tackleyb
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2012.02.011
who demonstrate that “The Urey ratio is not good constraint for understanding thermal evolution. “
m,
Spare me the faux sorrow.
As is usual with the GHE true believers, you cannot actually bring yourself to disagree with anything I wrote, can you? Or you can argue with things I didn’t write, as you have done.
That is because you are stupid and ignorant, compared with my superior wisdom and knowledge.
Carry on believing the delusional likes of Hansen, Schmidt Mann, Trenberth, and the rest, if you must. I wish you luck.
Cheers.
Carry on believing the delusional likes of Urey.
It is amazing how people like you (e.g. Trump) live in an alternative universe of facts and physics.
Are you sure you are not an alien?
m,
As usual, you cannot disagree with anything I wrote, rather things I didn’t write. Oh well.
This is characteristic of pseudoscientific climate cultists, who lash out left and write at anybody who does not share their fantasy.
If you can’t bring yourself to say what it is you are disagreeing with, then you are just being disagreeable for the sake of it.
In which case – begone, troll!
“my opinion that the Earth as a whole is cooling”
Carry on believing.
How about that theory that the moon is made of cheese? What say you?
Begone, stupid troll!
Nate says, June 9, 2019 at 3:09 PM
You said:
“It sounds like you define ‘dishonest’ as those climate scientists who don’t agree with you, GC?”
Dishonest scientists are those who say whatever their funding agencies want to hear even when they know that they are lying. I spent 12 years feeding at a government research trough and watched some of these dishonest piggies up close and personal.
Dishonest scientists refuse to retract papers that are demonstrably false. For example I am still waiting for Michael Mann to admit that Mann et al, 2008 included Tiljander sediment data that was inverted. The attached post by Steve McIntyre points to other members of Mann’s Climate Mafia as well:
https://climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/
GC,
I don’t know what to make of your Climate Audit anecdote, but I know I can also find articles by skeptics, that have been shown to have serious flaws. Some by McIntyre.
” In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal component analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers, including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007, which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology.”
Have these been retracted?
But the main point is that anecdotes about instances of ‘possible’ dishonesty, does not get you anywhere near your implausible 90% claim.
I noticed you said this: “While I was leaning towards Dr. Roy he said some things I disagreed with but that is the nature of science (it is never settled).”
You ought to have the same attitude toward ALL climate scientists, because they, like Roy, may have biases, but that doesnt mean they are not also professionals, and have integrity.
Nate, please stop trolling.
“The oceans act as a physical greenhouse.”
Yes.
What is smaller and perhaps more obvious is a solar pond.
Solar pond is like a car with the windows rolled up.
Or few would argue that solar pond (assuming they know what solar pond is) is not like a greenhouse.
And our oceans in terms of global warming work better than solar ponds.
Or our ocean is a huge and self correcting planetary solar pond.
gbaikie says: June 9, 2019 at 6:34 PM
Yes, for the calculation of surface Tav without radiative atmosphere, the oceans should be considered as a giant solar pond. If the oceans could only cool by radiation and conductive and evaporative cooling is eliminated, average ocean temperatures would rise well above 300K
gb,
Unfortunately, maximum useable solar pond depth is around 1.5 m. or so. The density has to be artificially maintained to suppress convection, as, left to itself, the pond fails to operate as expected, as salt diffuses though the pond, removing the density gradient.
Additionally, just like a greenhouse, the pond cools at night. Any retained heat will not result in increased maximum temperature the following day.
The salinity gradient in the oceans is insufficient for the ocean (or any natural body of water, no matter how salty, to act in the fashion of a manmade solar pond. Water heats, and the warmer water sits on top of cooler water – being less dense. At night, it radiates away all the heat absorbed during the day, and the cycle repeats.
All part of the rich Natural tapestry.
Cheers.
There are two types of solar pond. Convecting with constrained surface conductive and evaporative cooling or salt gradient.
Your comment refers to issues with the salt gradient type, the most easy research to find on the web. But this type is entirely inapplicable to a convecting ocean that can only cooling by LWIR emission.
Rushing to the web to find a quick shoot down of the AGW sceptic won’t work in my case. You would need to have run better empirical experiments than I have to shoot me down.
By snatching at the low hanging fruit of salt gradient in response to comments that used the phrase “solar pond”, you have fully revealed your motivation.
Perhaps cancel the knee-jerk “the AGW sceptic must be wrong response, and ask yourself: could there be a greenhouse effect in the oceans? Maybe materials that are translucent to SW and SWIR and opaque to LWIR heat in a very different manner to materials opaque to all wavelengths?
K,
You wrote, and wrote, and wrote.
You appear to be complaining about something I didn’t write.
Generally, stupid and ignorant commenters set up strawmen in order that they can demolish their own arguments. Unfortunately, when you win an argument with yourself, you must, perforce, lose.
Maybe you could quote me, and the disagreement you have, and provide sufficient facts that would cause me to change my views, as would any rational person, I guess.
Or you could just keep making unsupported assertions. Go your hardest.
Cheers.
Well Mike, I’m not going to go my hardest. On reflection we both made knee-jerk responses, resulting in unnecessary flame.
To clarify, when I referred to solar ponds, I was not referring to salt gradient type, but rather fresh water convecting type with evaporation and convective cooling barriers. Here is an indicative image:
http://oi62.tinypic.com/1ekg8o.jpg
Here’s an image of how hot a simple physical experiment of the concept gets:
http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
The old experiment shown had poor insulation, but being only 100mm deep, it proves a point. 76.4C after 2 hours of solar exposure. At the time of the experiment run, sky background was -60C, so for an atmospheric emissivity of 0.7, DWIR was only 82 w/m2. Solar SW + SWIR at the time was over 1000 w/m2.
Now how deep was Dr. Spencer’s model? 100mm. Look at the plots at the top of this thread. There are no noon temperatures approaching 70C at any latitude. Empirical experiments don’t lie. Something must be very wrong with Dr. Spencer’s calculation method.
“Additionally, just like a greenhouse, the pond cools at night.”
Solar ponds can maintain temperature of 80 C hot water during night.
Main thing about solar ponds is there are able to store thermal energy
Solar ponds are far better at storing heat as compared to greenhouse.
But an ocean is superior as it stores heat for thousands of years.
There are trillions of tons of clouds in Earth’s atmosphere, I wonder how well clouds store heat?
gb,
No offence intended. I was unaware of practical solar ponds which were able to maintain water temperatures of 80 C overnight.
In view of the fact that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of “greenhouse effects” of any type, it seems obvious to me that no matter how seemingly logical a natural heating mechanism might appear, it obviously hasn’t worked in the past.
Thermometers react to heat – that’s what they are designed to do. If a thermometer shows a higher temperature, it has been exposed to radiation from an object hotter than the thermometer.
“Heat from where”, I hear you ask? Well, estimated (yes, I know, estimated) world wide energy consumption in 1900 was around 12 TWh, and in 2017 154 TWh. All this energy is eventually converted to low grade heat (infrared), which raise the temperature of objects on the surface, which then radiate the IR to space.
Some might say that the Sun’s radiative input to the surface is orders of magnitude greater (and they would be right), but as four and a half billion years of history shows, Sunlight does not accumulate. The earths temperature has fallen over this period.
The result is that heat generated by Man makes objects on the surface hotter. AGW, if you like. No GHE necessary. A good time to see if this hypothesis is supported by fact might be to examine minimum temperatures which occur at night in the absence of sunlight. As the temperature falls toward the minimum, any supposed GHE is definitely not raising any temperatures. If a thermometer shows increasing night time minima, then an increasing temperature heat source (other than the sun) is required – and man-made heat might fit the bill.
Apologies for being so wordy, but there has been at least one study done on the UK and Japan, as they had their Industrial Revolutions at different times, and are both island nations. Historical temperature records in both cases seem to support my thinking. Of course, increased energy consumption based on burning hydrocarbons creates increased CO2, so a naive person might leap to the erroneous conclusion that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
Just a thought or two.
Cheers.
Next:
[I reply to first sentence below- or didn’t go here for some reason]
Mike:
“In view of the fact that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of greenhouse effects of any type, it seems obvious to me that no matter how seemingly logical a natural heating mechanism might appear, it obviously hasnt worked in the past.”
Well I said a number times, I think volcanic heat does warm the ocean.
I think volcanic heat mixes with ocean- because the heated water is vented thousands of meters under water, and obvious it will mix as warmed water rises, and becomes around same temperature of water, and so stops rising. Of course if venting brime or other things which make water denser, the warmer water could stay near the bottom.
And other people think a Hothouse Earth [in the past] could be caused by massive amount of oceanic volcanic heat.
Anyhow, we are currently in Ice Age. The real question is why are we so cold. 15 C is not warm.
And US [48 states] has average temperature of about 12 C. Which far too cold for the human monkey/primate.
And most of life is used to +20 C global average temperature.
Or said differently use to an Earth with a more uniform temperature and similar to tropical conditions.
Earth current does not have uniform temperature- it’s got a tropical paradise in the tropics, and a lot frozen waste lands.
And warmer Earth is less deserts and less frozen waste land.
Now if Earth didn’t have global ocean, it would be mostly a frozen waste land [forever]. It’s important that Earth has a lot water, otherwise all of it could be frozen at the poles.
“Some might say that the Suns radiative input to the surface is orders of magnitude greater (and they would be right), but as four and a half billion years of history shows, Sunlight does not accumulate. The earths temperature has fallen over this period.”
Well the energy of sunlight [and volcanic heat] do accumulate in our Ice Age.
The volume temperature of entire ocean varies from about 1 to 5 C.
The difference of 1 to 5 C is a vast amount of energy.
[[[The total amount sunlight reaching Earth in a year is a smaller amount of energy. Though our molten ball has far more energy- we are living on this thin skin of vast molten ball]]]
If this average temperature is 1 to 2 C, we have to be in a glacial period. If this average temperature is 4 to 5 C, we have to be in an interglacial period.
Currently it’s about 3.5 C
Re:
“The earths temperature has fallen over this period”
I know of no evidence that earlier than our Ice Age, Earth’s ocean was ever 1 C or colder.
And it seems to me, that during our Ice Age “something” stops the ocean from getting colder than 1 C or warmer than 5 C
Oh I thought of something regarding an analogy.
I re-read what wrote:
“Solar pond is like a car with the windows rolled up.”
If car is parked on asphalt parking lot, the heat of the asphalt doesn’t have a lot to do with the air temperature inside car with windows rolled up. But the surface temperature of asphalt “probably” has some effect, but big factor is sunlight reaching the car itself- particularly thru windows [and top of dashboard, seats, etc].
The heat of volcanic activity has very near zero effect- if on land area- in terms of global temperature. If very widespread on land area, that different. But say the size of Oregon is tiny and of course all land area is only 30% of Earth surface. Also if have moderately widespread volcanic activity say size of US, one will have lots of volcanic activity under the ocean- or something occurring with global plate tectonic activity in a very major way.
Or something like a Yellowstone super volcanic eruption is by itself, is minor/small [regardless of mass destruction caused by such a chance and major event].
And only reason oceanic volcanic activity has effect is due to the ocean ability to store heat very long time.
And 1 C change in average temperature of the entire ocean as large effect on global average temperature.
Or I believe that difference of 1 C ocean and 5 C ocean is a huge effect upon global average temperature.
And I think 1 C change is probably more significant because we living in icebox climate {Ice Age}.
Or in non Ice Age periods, the ocean average temperature could be 10 C or higher, and perhaps 1 C change of ocean in the non Ice Age
Period {Eon}, has less significance upon global temperatures.
Konrad, June 9, 2019 at 6:08 PM
You said:
“However, what I am pointing out is that the model Dr. Spencer has presented is for Earth, and he has ignored the true properties of the planets surface. Hes used the conductivity and specific heat capacity for water, but only modelled to 100mm depth”
As it stands Dr. Roy’s model is not good at modeling bodies with complex surface properties. I fixed this problem by replacing Dr. Roy’s sfc (bulk heat capacity) with a multi-layer surface model.
Scott Denning’s model has 15 layers and my FEA model has 50 layers which makes it easy for us to model bodies with surfaces consisting of regolith, water or ice. Here is what my model shows:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image-417-small.png?w=549&h=348&zoom=2
I have no doubt that Dr. Roy could model an icy surface if he had the time and the inclination.
@Konrad,
That plot linked in my last comment was confirmed by two other people using different software.
I used a Russian FEA program while Tim Channon (deceased) used PSPICE and “br” (who wishes to remain anonymous) used LTSPICE. All our models agree closely with Vasavada’s equatorial temperatures that you can find in Figure 4a here:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
bdgwx, June 9, 2019 at 12:28 PM
You said:
“Sure, his original sensivity of 5.5C (1896) and even his revised sensivity of 4.0C (1908) may be too high, but consider that this was the first ever quantification of the effect and it was done more than 100 years ago without any knowledge of the molecular physics and quantum mechanical understanding needed to explain it.”
Yes, the Arrhenius CO2 hypothesis is stunning in its simplicity but sadly it is false. It can’t explain the past so why would you expect it to predict the future?
While there is no doubt that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has some effect on average global temperature the effect must be really tiny if it is so well masked by other factors.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2 that is backed by “Hard Science” but temperature is driving CO2 (thanks to Henry’s law) rather than the other way around:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
Actually, yes, it does help explain the past and quite well. How else do you solve the faint young Sun paradox? How else do you explain the magnitude of the glacial cycles? How else do you explain the PETM and other sudden warming events? Models that incorporate all climate forcing agents do a far better job at solving these problems than do models that selectively ignore CO2 and other GHGs.
And no one is rejecting the hypothesis that CO2 is dependent upon T. That is accepted by the broad scientific community without controversy. But, it is also true that T is dependent upon CO2 (and other GHGs).
Question…can you find a model that selectively ignores CO2’s radiative forcing behavior that can do a better job than this…
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaav7337
GC, impressive take down of the theory that glacial cycles were caused by CO2.
Oh wait, thats not a real theory anyway.
bdgwx, Nate, please stop trolling.
gbaikie, June 9, 2019 at 12:45 PM
You said:
“So at 1 meter depth on Moon you have fairly uniform temperature, though could vary by .1 C or more. Same goes with 10 meter, though could vary by .01 C or less. But 10 meters at .01 has same heat as 1 meter at .1 C. or deeper depth has effect upon the 100 K lunar night.”
The diurnal temperature variation on the Moon is close to zero at 0.4 meters depth so there is not much to be gained by extending the model deeper than that. See Figure 7 in Vasavada’s paper:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/lunar-equatorial-surface-temperature_2012.pdf
Isn’t .1 C (or .1 K) close to zero?
Norman, once again you have found a link you can’t understand. Upthread, you included this link in your comment attempting to falsely accuse Konrad:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.781&rep=rep1&type=pdf
That link leads to some classic pseudoscience. In fact, it is pure comedy.
Just to demonstrate your incompetence, look at Equation 2, on page 19. The bogus equation has 3 terms, in the form:
A = B + C
Can you clearly and correctly explain all 3 terms?
Of course not. You haven’t a clue.
JDHuffman
Not sure what you are having a problem with. Equation 2 is established to work to get the emissivity of sea water.
The thing about Equation 2 is that in this study they wanted to add the energy reflected off the surface from the Downwelling IR in the band they are using (atmospheric window).
The article says it is mostly from water vapor. Here is a spectrum with the DWIR found in the atmopsheric window.
http://lidar.ssec.wisc.edu/papers/dhd_thes/node3.htm
They are trying to get the most precise measure of ocean emissivity.
The Equation adds the extra reflected IR that reaches the instrument to get a result for emissivity closer to the “true” value.
They go on to derive the equations to get to calculating emissivity from their measured values.
Norman, I was not asking for more of your diversionary rambling. We all know you can do that. But, can you clearly and correctly explain all 3 terms in the equation.
If you can’t, then you don’t have a clue about your link.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
The equation is an energy balance.
Term A: The energy the measuring device reads.
Term B: The energy given off by the Sea Surface (based upon its temperature and an unknown emissivity which is what the authors are trying to find) that is measured by the radiometer.
Term C: Is the energy that is reflected of the Sea Surface (a gray body) and is added to the net energy the radiometer measures
The temperature of the radiometer is determined by the energy given off by the sea surface and the energy reflected off the sea surface.
You did a good job of trying to figure out the equation. But, you got lost in the pseudoscience.
“Term A: The energy the measuring device reads.”
The term is just the S/B law. An infrared radiometer does not employ the S/B law. Term A is NOT the energy the infrared radiometer reads.
“Term B: The energy given off by the Sea Surface…that is measured by the radiometer.”
Correct. You got that much right.
“Term C: Is the energy that is reflected of the Sea Surface and is added to the net energy the radiometer measures.”
Here, you get bogged down in the pseudoscience. First, you are now having to admit the water is reflecting IR. You have been fighting admitting that for a long time. But, as you have been repeatedly told, all photons are not always absorbed. Second, because the reflected flux represents differing wavelengths, it does not simply add to the emitted flux. Terms B and C do not add. And term A is invalid.
Equation 2 is bogus. You just found another link you don’t understand.
JDHuffman
You are demonstrating your total lack of knowledge. You really don’t have a clue, but you will pretend to be a knowledgeable expert to fool a few people who don’t know any physics. The rest know you are a pretend troll.
Anyway you are totally wrong about you information on IR radiometers.
I looked it up. The equations used by the manufacturer are the same as used in the article. The only “bogus” is your pretend physics. The article was quite correct you are completely wrong.
You will troll some more but you won’t take time to learn.
http://www.ecosearch.info/sites/default/files/prodotto_scheda_tecnica/SI-100manual_1.pdf
Wrong again, Norman.
That’s just another link you can’t understand. They even admit to the flaws in the equations. But, it’s not what you want to learn.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are the puffman as they call you. Huff and Puff. You don’t know what you are talking about but post as if you do. A pretend person all the way through. No credentials. You know no physics and can’t understand it even when it is spoon fed to you.
Maybe you should stick to your expertise of not knowing what the term “rotation on axis” actually means. You are confused by all things science. Troll away and pretend.
Maybe your imaginary friend DREMT will come give you support of all your zany wrong ideas.
Maybe one day you’ll grow up, stop obsessing about personalities, and just focus on the arguments made…we can only hope.
Norman, why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
JDHuffman
Here is what the article on radiometers actually says:
“Equations (1)-(3) assume an infinite waveband for radiation emission and constant ε at all wavelengths.
These assumptions are not valid because infrared radiometers do not have infinite wavebands, as most
correspond to the atmospheric window of 8-14 µm, and ε varies with wavelength. Despite the violated
assumptions, the errors for emissivity correction with Eq. (3) in environmental applications are typically
negligible because a large proportion of the radiation emitted by terrestrial objects is in the 8-14 µm
waveband (the power of 4 in Eqs. (2) and (3) is a reasonable approximation), ε for most terrestrial objects
does not vary significantly in the 8-14 µm waveband, and the background radiation is a small fraction (1 –
ε) of the measured radiation because most terrestrial surfaces have high emissivity (often between 0.9 and
1.0).”
JDHuffman
They say the errors are negligible and will not have much effect on a temperature reading of an object you are trying to determine with the radiometer.
I am aware of your point. It just does not matter at Earth’s surface primary emission energy.
https://topex.ucsd.edu/rs/thermal.pdf
Page 27 of this link shows emissivity changes with wavenumber. Converting to microns from this shows that in the range of the radiometer 8-14 microns, the emissivity is very high and does not vary much.
Norman, your pseudoscience is busted, again.
So why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
JDHuffman
Another worn out troll tactic. When your pretend expertise is exposed you copy and paste the same comment.
I guess when you pretend and have zero counter points to make all you can do is copy and paste a previous comment. I think it will make your imaginary friend DREMT very happy. I think you do these troll posts because it makes this friend of yours giggle in delight.
When you have nothing of value to say, troll is your motto. I bested your simplistic points and you have no rational counters.
“…your imaginary friend DREMT…”
…is amused to see another one that is obsessed with me. I seem to live rent-free in so many people’s heads. Must be all those arguments they lost.
Norman, why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone tries to correct your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you dont have a clue about the relevant science?
Just go back and look at all the things you have made up. Why are you so afraid of reality?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Did you giggle when you read JDHuffman’s comment to me?
No. As I said, I’m amused by the fact that you randomly bring me up in your comments when I’m not even talking to you. You do that a lot. It shows I’m always on your mind.
Even then, I didn’t “giggle”. Sorry to disappoint.
Norman, that was me laughing at you. As usual, you are not responsible for your own words.
Why do you have to resort to insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, every time someone corrects your pseudoscience?
Isn’t that a signal that you don’t have a clue about the relevant science?
There’s a volcano erupting in Indonesia that might have an effect on global temperatures so we might get a temporary drop even to an anomaly of zero.
Mount Sinabung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinabung
Please explain how the albedo could be 0.3 when you have no GHG. GHG’s includes clouds made of water.
Clouds influence outgoing IR as it also influences ingoing solar power.
I know the albedo and the clouds combined effekts are difficult topics, but some reflections would be appreciated.
Without the albedo from clouds i believe the average surface would be between 0 and 5 Celcius, not those -18C that is a common figure.
In that way the GHG’s have only in total increased the temperature 15K not 33K.
The problem is based in the “all else equal” that always needs some carefull definition.
MF,
You make Appell look brilliant. I assure you he isnt. Learn some science.
SP,
You wrote –
“You make Appell look brilliant. I assure you he isn’t. Learn some science.”
Thank you for your interest. I assume you are trying to find grounds to disagree with something I wrote, but are unable to do so.
I cannot think of another reason why you decline to specify what it is you are concerned about.
Are you just being a petulant whining troll?
Cheers.
In last 3 billion years, how much mass has the Earth gained?
And in last 3 billion years, how much has Earth’s core, cooled?
I was wondering how much mass and how much Mars has cooled in last 3 billion years, but not a lot of people are interested in Mars. And we probably know more about Earth than Mars.
So, looked a bit:
“The first rocky bits of Earth coalesced around 4.54 billion years ago, less than 100 million years after the solar system formed. For much of those early years, Earth was a blob of molten rock, but over time, the surface cooled and formed a crust that floated on the Earth’s liquid core. In time, the Earth developed an atmosphere, life, and the rest is, well, history.
At some point in this process, the liquid iron churning at the heart of the planet froze. Exactly when, however, remained a matter of hot debate; some scientists said it formed just 500 million years ago, while others said it formed about 2 billion years ago.
This so-called nucleation of the inner core is important because the planet’s frozen heart helps power Earth’s magnetic field, which shields life from harmful radiation from solar wind.”
https://www.livescience.com/52414-earths-core-formed-long-ago.html
So, if formed into crystal form- it adds heat from that process??
Also same article:
“What’s more, this giant ball of iron at the planet’s heart is growing, to the tune of 0.04 inches (1 millimeter) in diameter per year, the researchers reported today (Oct. 7) in the journal Nature.
“This finding could change our understanding of the Earth’s interior and its history,” Biggin said.”
Am i the only one who sees a problem modeling an atmosphere that can only cool to space by accelerating matter to escape velocity?
Also, maybe someone can clear this up for me…
If the earth surface radiating as a BB in a vacum emits x w/m2 based on its temp, this is essentially the power available from that surface at that temp…
If the surface then transfers more than half of its available power to the atmosphere via evaporation, then the emissivity of the surface cannot be more than .5 yes?
What value do you get running Dr. Spencer’s model with an emissivity of .5 ?
“Am i the only one who sees a problem modeling an atmosphere that can only cool to space by accelerating matter to escape velocity?”
I see a big problem with that. The model must include the cooling caused by longwave radiation from the Earth into space.
Sorry, Phil, but that is just not how emissivity works.
Maybe a couple analogies will help.
* Suppose you have a large tank of water with a hole at the bottom that leaks 1 liter/min. If you poke a second hole the same size somewhere else at the bottom, will the first hole suddenly leak 0.5 liters/min?
* Suppose you connect a 6 ohm resistor to a 12 V battery, producing 24 W of power. If you connect a second equal resistor (in series), will the power in the first drop to 12 W?
The tank will drain sooner; the battery will drain sooner. But the depth or the voltage determines the flows, not other drains that might be present.
Similarly, radiation depends on the temperature. The surface will cool more quickly if there is a second ‘drain’ present (evaporation). But temperature is what matters for radiation.
(sigma) A T^4 is not a limit on “available power”; just a limit on possible radiative power.
Tim states: “…the battery will drain sooner”
Adding more series resistance will drain the battery slower.
Good catch, JD! I meant “in parallel”! I wish I could go back and edit that slip!
The two holes in the tank are “in parallel”.
The radiation and evaporation are “in parallel”.
For the analogy, the resistors should also clearly be in parallel!
Admitting errors is important to one’s credibility.
JDHuffman
That would indicate your credibility is in the negative zone. You make constant errors about everything but will admit to none.
Norman, if I make “constant errors”, as you falsely accuse, you should be able to identify at least one, huh?
JDHuffman
I have demonstrated you silly nonsense heat transfer cartoon is wrong. I have demonstrated with many videos your understanding of rotation on axis is wrong. That is two. How many more do you need?
Wrong Norman.
You didn’t demonstrate, you IMAGINED you demonstrated.
You can’t identify even one time my physics has been wrong. You just imagine it.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
No it was not imagined at all. Your errors were pointed out many times in many ways by many posters. You make as statement but will not live up to your own words.
YOU: “Admitting errors is important to one’s credibility.”
You have negative credibility and you have not demonstrated any credentials to support your claims of expertise in physics. You know you have not studied the subject but will not admit to this glaring error. You pretend to know physics by looking up terms on the Internet and posting them. When I asked you for verification there was zero. You claimed Poynting Vectors proved that fluxes do not add. To date you have not explained in any way how that works. You don’t even know what Poynting vectors are or how they are used. When confronted you run away. Always have and always will. But you will continue to pretend to be an expert at physics and you will continue to troll. Nothing new.
Norman, that’s just another of your long rambling rants. It contains no substance, just your usual insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You still can’t identify even one time my physics has been wrong. You just make stuff up.
Tim,
Thanks for the response.
” But temperature is what matters for radiation. ”
Agreed. So maybe I didnt make myself clear.
Consider…
Take a starting surface temp, say 5 C (below that the water starts sinking and is replaced with warmer water from below)
This is the min w/2 leaving the surface
As the sun comes up the surface temp rises.
With no evaporation, it will continue to rise until it is radiating at rate equal to or greater than the incoming amount of insolation. Lets call this its peak temp..
With evaporation, the surface will be cooled, and thus it will radiate less than the case with no evaporation, not just at the peak but throughout the day increasing to the peak and decreasing to sundown…
so throughout the day the surface cooled by evaporation will radiate less total energy than the uncooled BB surface…
I expect the difference between the two will be equivilant to the rate of evaporation over that time frame..
After peak temp both start cooling, evaporation slows down, the higher temp BB surface cooling more quickly until both approach the starting temp at which point they will cool at the same rate until the sun comes up…
Over the full day much less energy has been radiated from the surface with evaporation than the other BB surface.
thus the emissivity of the evaporative surface will be less than without, how much depending on the rate of evaporation
this got me thinking of course… what happens with all that energy pouring into the atmosphere and no way to cool (unless of course you want to quickly blow the atmosphere off in which case the model is one with no atmosphere (or oceans)…
if you do not allow mass to escape to space or radiation to cool the atmosphere, then the atmosphere must HEAT to the point where it conducts HEAT to the surface at the same rate as evaporation is adding energy to the atmosphere
so you therefore have three heat flow inputs: solar, geothermal, aerothermal …
Yes PhilJ, that is the function, and importance, of radiative gases. They allow for energy to leave the atmosphere.
Both solar and geothermal are thermodynamic heat sources, as they add new energy to the system. But, the atmosphere does not add energy, so it cannot raise the system temperature.
Konrad
I think you could have a valid point with the water. Rather than go with simple models. On the previous thread I demonstrated the GHE with real world measurements.
I can do them for you if you wish to follow.
I used this data (a clear summer day and night in a desert location).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
This is the link that has the data I use. You can try your own. I think it will all show the same thing.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5cff1f2b7823e.png
The green line in the graph is the energy emitted by the surface.
The red line is how much solar energy reaches the surface. The blue line is what is reflected away. The orange line is the solar energy the sand actually absorbs.
If you do some rough calculations you will find that the amount of energy emitted in the 24 hour period is around 40,600,000 joules/m^2. The amount of solar energy that can be absorbed by the sand surface adds to aroiund 23,500,000 joules/m^2. There is not even close to enough energy from the Sun to keep the sand warm enough to radiate away this energy.
If you add the GHE you can supply the needed energy.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5cff245d89cb8.png
With the DWIR your NET IR loss is less than the incoming solar. The other cooling mechanisms (evaporation and convection) remove the remaining energy to keep the surface in a balance.
I am not sure how one could actually deny the GHE with this evidence. I think the denier mechanism is then not to trust the measured values. If you accept the data as valid you would not have an argument against the GHE. It is quite real and responsible for the warm temperatures at Desert Rock. Without the GHE the temperature would be much colder.
Try this simple experiment:
http://i61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
Norman,
I’m sorry, I have tried 6 times to post the experiment build instructions and results. Have no idea why the website refuses to post …
Norman, you are not understanding those links. Find the relevant spectra!
Otherwise, you’re just lost in your pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
I have already linked you to spectra at other places. It is not important. You do not understand what I am stating and take it off to a place that is not significant to what is being discussed. You think you have an issue but you don’t. You won’t because your physics knowledge is very lacking. You still don’t understand radiative heat transfer. I am certain you have no clue about what emissivity is or why it is used in equations. You will never learn but it won’t stop you from trolling.
No one but you is lost in your own made up physics.
No you didn’t, Norman.
I recommended you get the corresponding spectra, but you refused. You’re afraid of reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
They do not do spectra for this sight. And they don’t need to. You don’t understand heat transfer at all. You pretend to be this expert in the field but I see zero credentials.
I have posted spectra from other locations. Does not change the reality of the energy absorbed or emitted. Your point is a false diversion that means nothing. You can’t understand energy flows. You don’t have enough knowledge of actual physics to communicate science ideas to. You know enough or look up some terms now and then so you can troll the blog.
Since you pretend to be an expert. What would spectra change if you had the data. Would more energy be emitted? Less energy? Would more be absorbed or less. It is pointless pursuit. It has no bearing on the concept.
The point is the Sun does not provide enough energy to maintain the observed emittance. This is measured energy values. It does not matter the spectra of what is emitted, it covers most the IR spectrum. Sand has an emissivity of about 0.9 for the IR band. It means it will radiate away 90% of the energy a blackbody at the same temperature would. That does not matter either. The amount of energy that is leaving is all you really have to know. If you were not a pretend person you would already know this.
As usual, Norman can not support his pseudoscience.
He offers endless pounding on his keyboard as substitute.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You might need to expand your trolling toolbox a bit. You use the same troll tactics too much, it loses the effectiveness of some really good trolling.
Whenever you know you are totally outwitted by a much smarter poster and proven to be wrong about all you post, rather than attempt to counter the points and show you really have some physics knowledge (which you don’t), you pull out some really stale and overused troll tactics.
In this case it is the very stale “pounding on his keyboard”. You use that often when you are outsmarted by a person much smarter than yourself and you know it but there is nothing you can do about it except throw out some old troll comment and hope that no one notices how lame your physics really is.
Maybe DREMT, your imaginary friend, will jump in to save you from your obvious lack valid science.
As usual, poor Norman can not support his pseudoscience.
He offers endless pounding on his keyboard as substitute.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Typical troll tactic. When bested in intelligent debate overwhelmed by valid facts and information, copy and paste. The troll tactic assumes no one will notice.
Keep trolling. You are not real good at it but you know far more about troll tactics than any valid or rational physics.
Norman, you haven’t yet realized I no longer waste much time trying to explain physics to you.
You are unable to learn. You cannot process facts and logic.
At least you are consistent….
JDHuffman
That is your other troll tactic you use often. When you know you are not able to actually scientifically demonstrate in any way my points are wrong you pull out this troll tactic. It is old and stale you have used it many many times. Usually when your pretend expertise is exposed. I show that you know nothing about actual physics so then you go into troll tactics to pretend or try to fool someone. Not sure why you do it, but you will do it, that is a certainty.
One problem with your troll comment is you never present facts or logic. Mostly you throw out some troll comment. When a person attempts to reason with you or link to actual physics you then pretend you have logic or facts. I have never seen any of this. The only “fact” you present is your stupid anti-science heat transfer cartoons that no but your imaginary friend believes.
See, at least you’re consistent.
–Mike Flynn says:
June 10, 2019 at 5:55 PM
gb,
No offence intended. I was unaware of practical solar ponds which were able to maintain water temperatures of 80 C overnight.–
I recall temperature indicating this, and I can’t find it.
Instead I got this:
“Salt-gradient solar ponds have also been studied because of their considerable promise for collection and long-term storage of solar energy as reviewed by Nielsen [8J and Tabor [9]”
https://tinyurl.com/y6o5mlsv
{this is not posting for some reason, so going do it parts]
Part two:
Didn’t accept first try [oh, absor…], so try include final part
Oh, something interesting also for other reasons:
” We observe that about half the solar radiation is absorbed in the first 50 cm of water.
This is on account of strong infrared absorp**tion bands in water. At a depth of 2 meters the transmission is about 40%. This sets the upper limit on the thermal efficiency of a solar pond.
The thickness of the gradient zone must be chosen depending on the temperature at which thermal energy is needed. If the thickness of the gradient zone is too high the transmission of solar
radiation is reduced while if it is too small it causes high heat losses from the bottom to the top
of the pond. The optimum value of the thickness depends on the temperature of the
storage zone of the pond. Nielsen (1980)”
https://tinyurl.com/yyeapxqt
dvantages:
At Right: Generating electricity at night.
Solar ponds are capable of delivering
power on demand even at night or after
long periods of cloudy weather.
https://tinyurl.com/y64qmvoo
So how well it insulates is thickness of salt gradient, but thicker salt gradients have lower efficiency.
Which is not to be confused how hot the water can get- but rather how joules of heat can be stored per X amount of sunlight.
Or electrical solar panel range from few percent, common is about 12%, high end around 30%.
Solar thermal panels tend be as high as 60%, but for higher temperature water, it tends to have lower efficiency.
And roughly same applies to solar pond, if want modestly warm water +50 C you make more water reach this temperature per day of sunlight, and since make more it can have higher efficiency.
Anyhow when salt gradient is working the heat lose in limited to heat conducted through water [which is remarkably low value]
Or 12 inches of salt gradient will prevent more heat as compared to 8″ of salt gradient.
It possible that someone made the heat gradient bigger than it should be [in terms of best efficiency in terms of collecting heat from sunlight] and graph saw reflected this.
But if don’t care about efficiency, you can choose how much it will prevent heat loss [Ie make it 18″ of salt gradient layer].
During my reading, apparently they can’t figure out how to store waste heat [from coal or nuke plant or whatever] using a solar pond- this doesn’t make any sense to me.
It should be quite doable.
And I would say if you could figure out how to do this, this might solve the battery problem of solar and wind.
But of course you would have to “allow” power plants or other things which make a lot waste heat.
gbaikie,
is there a helpful list of banned words?
I can’t seem to get simple build instructions for an experiment to post.
Konrad, “Absorp.tion” does not work without the “.”
Also, any “d” followed by a “c” does not work.
For example, you must use “Washington, D*C”, “D*C current”, etc.
URLs are common problem, so first thing I do is make links into tiny:
https://tinyurl.com/
If post works, the browser will bring to your post.
If it does not, then page back, and your post should be intact.
And if haven’t copied it, copy it and try to figure out problem.
If post has links, first thing I do is make tiny links and I save it to notepad.
But as general rule if a link looks long and hideous, I always, first, tiny it.
Dr Spencer,
This model has to be some kind of joke.
Where is the convection and the auto-compression?
Where is the thermal gradient/enhancement that must come from auto-compression?
You do not need a ‘greenhouse effect’ for that!
Also, atmospheric measurements from Earth, Venus and Titan show that albedo is not a factor in atmospheric temperatures at 1atm;
Earth Te= ∜1 x Te
Te = 1.000 x 288
Te = 288 Kelvin
Venus Tv= ∜1.91 x Te
Tv = 1.176 x 288
Tv = 339 Kelvin
Titan Tt= ∜0.01089 x Te
Tt = 0.323 x 288
Tt = 93 Kelvin
Regards
Dr Robert Holmes
bdgwx wrote elsewhere –
“How else do you solve the faint young Sun paradox?”
If you don’t bother with a non-existent GHE, there is no paradox at all. If the Earth started off as a molten ball, and the Sun was fainter, the earth would have cooled more quickly from the molten state.
Radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature, and radiogenic heat sources decrease geometrically in proportion to individual isotope half-lives. The Sun slows the rate of cooling slightly, but even pseudoscientific climate cultists seem to agree that the Sun cannot heat the Earth above 255 K or so.
The “faint young Sun paradox” is an invented red herring, created in an attempt to justify the non-existent GHE. Apparently some otherwise intelligent fools failed to realise that the Sun has not heated the Earth to its present temperature from close to absolute zero, but rather the earth has cooled from an apparently molten sate at its creation.
Hence its present oblate spheroidal shape – centrifugal force and gravity working on a molten blob. What difference does it make to a rapidly cooling molten blob whether the Sun was fainter while the blob was still molten? What difference would it make?
Use a bit of science, chaps.
Cheers.
Don’t dismiss the Faint Young Sun Paradox that easily.
The paradox is that we have proof of liquid water on Earth (seas, oceans?) while the sun was emitting at ~70% of current power.
The solution is obviously geothermal, like a higher geothermal flux, more and larger eruptions like the Ontong Java one (100 million km^3 magma.
BW,
You wrote –
“Dont dismiss the Faint Young Sun Paradox that easily.”
I just did. I’m ignoring your advice.
You also wrote –
“The paradox is that we have proof of liquid water on Earth (seas, oceans?) while the sun was emitting at ~70% of current power.”
According to the GHE true believers, the Sun, even a current TSI levels, is incapable of maintaining the Earth at a temperature greater than 255 K, which is below the freezing point of water. The water in the oceans is demonstrably generally liquid, even around Antarctica where land temperatures dip below -85 C – below the freezing point of CO2.
A ball of molten rock cools, regardless of the Sun’s current output. Place pot of boiling water in direct sunlight, and watch it cool to ambient air temperature. No GHE to be seen. It won’t magically fall below zero, and then heat back up to beyond ambient all by itself. That is just magical pseudoscientific thinking.
No “faint young sun paradox”. Just standard physical laws at work.
I dismiss the faint young sun paradox because it is nonsensical. The Earth cooled regardless, doesn’t it?
Over to you, if you want.
Cheers.
Exactly the reason for our high surface temperatures on Earth.
Sun warms a small surface layer and prevents geothermal energy from reaching the surface, except at high latitudes. So their Heat Content is almost completely from geothermal origin.
At ~290K surface temperature and no atmosphere Earth would radiate ~400 W/m^2 directly to space. Thanks to the atmosphere this is ~240 W/m^2 and we have an ENERGY balance with incoming solar.
It also reflects quite some solar and aborbs ~80 W/m^2.
So the idea that the atmosphere is responsible for heating the surface (and thus the oceans) is pretty absurd.
BW,
You wrote –
“Thanks to the atmosphere this is ~240 W/m^2 and we have an ENERGY balance with incoming solar.”
This is pseudoscientific folderol of the climatological type.
There are generally two times a day when energy in=energy out, and only for an infinitesimal time. These are the inflection points when temperatures are at a maximum or minimum, and not changing..
At other times, an object on the surface is warming, and energy in exceeds energy out, or cooling, when the opposite is the fact. Each night, all the energy received during the day is radiated away – all.
Over the long term, the Earth cools – energy out has exceeded energy in. Attempts by the dimwitted likes of Schmidt, Mann, and Trenberth to take refuge in an “average”, are merely stupid efforts to avoid reality.
All this W/m2 is completely irrelevant. Ice emitting 300 W/m2 is much colder than a pot of boiling water radiating 300 W/m2! pick up either with your bare hands, and you will realise the futility of pretending that climatological pseudoscience has any relevance to the real world. No GHE. No CO2 heating. All nonsense and delusion.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says: June 12, 2019 at 12:33 AM
Nonsense. We have distinct seasonal warming and cooling of the upper layers of the oceans.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/argotimeseriestemp59n_thumb.gif
BW,
You wrote –
“We have distinct seasonal warming and cooling of the upper layers of the oceans.”
Of course. The Earth’s elliptical orbit and its inclination create seasonal variations. Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Not bad for a diversionary tactic.
Maybe you could disagree with something I wrote?
The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so. No GHE. CO2 provides no heat.
A thermometer indicating a higher temperature is responding to the radiation from an object with a higher temperature. Energy from the Sun, and internal geothermal energy reaching the surface are relatively stable. It’s not to hard to work out out where the extra heat is coming from – seven billion people creating waste heat as fast as humanly possible.
Cheers.
During seasonal warming NOT all the energy received during the day is radiated away during the night.
BW,
You wrote –
“During seasonal warming NOT all the energy received during the day is radiated away during the night.”
Imagining you are the captain of the Starship Enterprise doesn’t mean you can just say “Make it so!”, and it becomes true.
Some physics to back up your bald and vigorous ASSERTION would be appreciated.
Thanks for quoting me, anyway.
By the way, you might remember that the seasons are in opposition in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. The daylight side and the night side of the Earth contain both. Or ignore it – it makes no difference to me. As to warming, each day after the solstice, increasing amounts of the Sun’s radiation impinge on a given area of the Earth. Temperatures rise as a result, to an inflection point (the other solstice), at which point they start to fall again.
You will note that the temperatures of the days on either side of the maximum are lower than the maximum. No storage there.
Cheers.
So are we just ignoring the paleoclimate record that shows multiple warming events in Earth’s distant past? Are we ignoring the fact that the Sun brightens as it ages?
The most recent warming was in the Cretaceous. From ~150 mya temperatures started to rise, peak around 85 mya. Since then cooling into our current ice age. Warming coincides with several deep ocean magma eruptions, totaling far over 100 million km^3, bringing enough energy to warm ALL ocean water over 100K.
Older warming events could very well have the same cause, only the oceanic crust is not old enough to find evidence for them.
b,
There is no paleoclimate record that shows multiple warming events across the whole surface simultaneously.
If there were, it would be interesting to find out why.
I generally choose to ignore the non-existent. What about you?
As to the Sun brightening, it obviously hasn’t stopped the Earth from cooling, has it? What’s your point (if you actually have one)?
Cheers.
Try Scoteses work:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
BW,
Cannot see anything at all about multiple warming events across the whole surface simultaneously. Opinions based on “guesses”, “estimates”, “calculations”, “reconstructions” and so on fail to impress. Of course, the definition can be rubbery – some might say that the Earth warms when it is closest to the Sun. This is ephemeral – it does not last. An object on the surface cools at night, warms during the day.
No magical repeating heating of the Earth without a large increase of energy from without or within.
Certainly not due to varying GHG levels – CO2 provides no energy, and the more you put between a thermometer and the Sun, the colder the thermometer becomes – less radiation reaches it, you see.
If you must link to irrelevant publications, just quote the bits you think support you. Otherwise you might be seen as just another pseudoscientific cultist trying to deny, divert and confuse.
I wasted a bit of time, thinking you knew what you were talking about. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice – shame on me. Oh well, I should have known better.
Cheers.
Dave Appell has asked a very interesting question here:
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night.
I wonder why nobody tells him that this is, because the air/atmopshere is incapable of heating the body or preventing heat loss.
So for whatever reason he asks this, it is a very good example to proof that the GHE does shoddy work on the warming side.
I recommend trying to sleep without a blanket at 50 deg Latitude in maybe Autum under the sky to experience the GHE first hand!
That when you find out why you would like to sleep under a blanket!
I don’t think David was having his best AGW defender day:
https://imgur.com/iJkm4oE
Imagine slipping up and publicly admitting the foundation claim for the entire AGW conjecture came from not correctly modelling solar thermal gain in the oceans?
Possibly running back to the old blanket talking-point was a rush for a security blanket. There might be some stuff about car mechanic vs. heart surgeon next …
Not sure why he says:
The very simple model that gives 255 K doesn’t assume any ocean. It simply assumes the planet has a global average albedo of alpha = 0.3.
The 255K are arrived at by averaging the solar incoming power over the full surface of the planet over 24 hours. This does include that energy is stored so it is available for thermal radiation in the night. Reason being that the whole set of energy is actually received within 12 hours while for the other 12 hours the sun does not shine, but radiation does not stop!
Since water is very effective energy storage, one has to suspect that the role of water is important part of the GHE.
Seeing this from the side line, I think David does not understand the GH model correctly.
joe…”Dave Appell has asked a very interesting question here:
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night”.
Don’t confuse DA with too much detail, he is still trying to figure out how heat gets here from the Sun when heat cannot be transferred through the vacuum of space.
Nate quoted me elsewhere –
“Losing energy is indicative of cooling. Sunlight is irrelevant to overall cooling.”
He then wrote –
“If the cooling output is 90 mW/m^2, and the solar input is 240 W/m^2, the solar warming is 2600 times larger than the cooling.
Only a delusional person would call the solar irrelevant.”
Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not prevented the Earth from cooling, As far as sunlight heating the Earth as a whole, Nate is mad if he believes this possible! As Fourier pointed out, each night the Earth loses all the heat it receives during the day, plus a bit more.
Away with your idiotic and nonsensical Wattages, Nate! You are obviously completely clueless, and suffering from pseudoscientific climate cult derangement of the brain.
Cheers.
‘Away with your idiotic and nonsensical Wattages’
Mike bought a really cheap geothermal air conditioner, for his house in the tropics.
It cools with milliwatts of power!
Milliwatts, kilowatts, schmegawatts, same thing. All idiotic nonsensical Wattages, says Mike!
As a result, the ‘irrelevant’ tropical sunshine seems to have baked his brain.
N,
I see you cannot find anything in my comment with which you disagree. That’s a start, at least.
Maybe you could just resort to petulant trolling and whining, if you cant find anything factual to disagree about.
Cheers.
‘I see you cannot find anything in my comment with which you disagree.’
Liar.
‘Petulant trolling and whining’
I could never beat you in that category, Mike.
Troll, begone!
There’s so many cranks on this forum.
GHGs can only absorb and emit in certain frequencies.
They can’t raise Earth’s spectrum accross all frequencies, as shown:
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/goody-1989-clear-sky-spectrum1-499px.png?w=500
Something else is responsible … but the cranks here don’t believe gravity works.
Stupid cranks. There’s no cure for them. -Zoe
zoe…”They cant raise Earths spectrum accross all frequencies, as shown:”
What I’m seeing in the graph is that a water vapour spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum. How they can make out which is which is beyond me.
The other things is the difference between theoretical and measured. Again, how did they measure the CO2 when its spectrum is overlain by WV? Also, the difference is about 2/10ths W/cm. That could be put down to error alone and the theoretical is based on pseudo-science.
Thirdly, what is it they are seeing? They are likely using an IR detector which measures frequency. If the IR was a few feet above the surface, which is likely, what does it mean? Why have they overlooked the amount of heat conducted directly to the 99% N2/O2 making up the air.
That’s exactly my view on SOD…a load of cranks.
Ummm, the shift “across all frequencies” on that graph is intentional, simply to make the theoretical and experimental curves easier to distinguish. It says so at the bottom of the graph.
‘Ummm, the shift across all frequencies on that graph is intentional, simply to make the theoretical and experimental curves easier to distinguish. It says so at the bottom of the graph.’
Ummm, can cranks go one step further ?
There’s a big bifference between observed (Ts) and theoretical (Te) in frequencies not absorbed by GHGs, such as 10-11.5 microns…
Perhaps you are trying to say something different than I am hearing.
“Theres a big difference between observed (Ts) and theoretical (Te) in frequencies not absorbed by GHGs, such as 10-11.5 microns”
Yes, there is a difference of almost exactly 0.2×10^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1 (wave number)^-1 between the observed curve and the theoretical curve, all the way across the graph (not just 10-11.5 microns).
OK, Tim Folkerts just proved cranks can’t go one step further and realize their junk science can’t explain why 10-11.5 microns should have an extra 0.210^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1.
“… cant explain why 10-11.5 microns should have an extra 0.210^-5 W cm^-2 steradian^-1”
Zoe, the shift was added intentionally by the authors — entirely as a convenience to make the two curves easier to distinguish! Otherwise the two curves would have overlapped so closely that it would be tough to tell them apart! The correct values for the “Observed” values are actually all 0.2 units lower then they are plotted.
There is no ‘unexplained’ difference between the two curves on the graph! The caption clearly explains this!
Tim,
Don’t get sucked down a rabbit hole with this crazy person and/or troll, Zoe, as I did in previous post.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts is some sort of moron.
“The correct values for the Observed values are actually all 0.2 units lower then they are plotted.”
No. “Observed” is OBSERVED, i.e measured.
‘There is no unexplained difference between the two curves on the graph! The caption clearly explains this!’
That would mean there’s no greenhouse effect. Thanks, moron.
The caption couldn’t mean that they arbitrarily raised it. They must have plotted theoretical Te and then noticed that observed is “displaced upwards”.
“No. “Observed” is OBSERVED, i.e measured.”
Zoe, here is the paper by the original author that does not displace the theoretical and observed radiances so you can see the small differences without confusion – see Fig. 3. What do you say causes the huge discrepancy around 1050 wavenumber?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730018587.pdf
Ball4 is some sort of moron.
Fig 3 does not match my graph. This is a different paper. Probably different author too.
“What do you say causes the huge discrepancy around 1050 wavenumber?”
The colder co2 gas in the atmosphere soaking up the warmer surface radiation.I see CO2 being heated.
Zoe link author is same: Conrath et. al. And, no, the paper explains colder CO2 gas is not the answer.
Hint: CO2 is not the major atm. gas absorber reducing the measured radiance around 1050 wavenumber. So, guess again. Feel free to use your link to improve your answer.
B4,
What percentage of the Sun’s incoming radiation is at 11.5 microns?
Bugger all? You would be right.
It doesn’t matter, anyway. Any absorbed radiation doesn’t reach the ground. It has been absorbed. However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted – some towards the ground, most not – depending on altitude (the earth being roughly an oblate spheroid and all).
So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching the ground. So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 30% of the Sun’s energy not actually reaching the surface.
This is why temperatures get higher on the Moon than the Earth, and no amount of cunning pseudoscientific blather about averages and anomalies can make the relevant physics inoperable.
Bad luck, tough cheese, and all that. No GHE. No CO2 heating. No Nobel Prize for Mike Mann (boo hoo).
Cheers.
Mike, you are almost there! Just apply *your* same reasoning to IR emitted by the earth!
* Change the source from the sun to the earth
* Change to sink from the earth to space.
“Any absorbed radiation [heading from the sun toward the earth] doesnt reach the ground.”
Any absorbed radiation [heading from the earth toward space] doesnt reach the space.
“However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards the ground, most not.”
However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards space, most not.
“So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching the ground.”
So CO2 and other GHGs lower the amount of energy reaching space.
“So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 30% of the Suns energy not actually reaching the surface.”
So does the atmosphere generally, resulting in about 90% of the earths energy not actually reaching space.
As you state, the blocking effect on incoming energy results — naturally and obviously — in the earth being cooler than it would be with out that blocking effect.
Conversely, the blocking effect on outgoing energy results — naturally and obviously — in the earth being warmer than it would be with out that blocking effect.
Yes Tim, Mike Flynn many times has described Earth’s GHE with a testable hypothesis that has passed all tests. Mike does so again here. But that won’t change his m.o. as his political comments demonstrate, nothing new and fun to watch.
Tim, you are comparing two different things. The spectrum of the IR from Earth is completely different than the spectrum of arriving solar. The 30% reflected amounts to considerable energy. The IR re-emiotted back trom the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.
Physics can be confusing, if you’ve never learned any, but the spectra tell the story.
“The IR re-emiotted (sic) back trom (sic) the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.”
Of course not when the global mean surface temperature energy balance is right at steady state equilibrium. However, if the surface temperature energy budget happens to be out of balance from steady state equilibrium on the low side then of course enough DWIR will act to return the surface global mean temperature back up to balance.
Yes, radiative physics can be confusing as many demonstrate around here, if you’ve never learned any, but if you have, then measuring or computing the spectra can help tell the story.
The sentence is important enough that I will correct my typos:
The IR re-emitted back from the atmosphere (back-radiation) does not have the ability to raise the temperature of the surface.
(Much better.)
Just to be extra-clear, the discussion here relates specifically to earth’s *surface* (both solid + liquid; but not solid + liquid + atmosphere). That should be clear from context, but some might miss that idea, or some might choose to nit-pick rather than address the physics. (And of course, someone now might choose to nit-pick that I offered a clarification as some sort of evidence that I was wrong/don’t understand.)
So for example. the fourth line would more specifically read:
“Change the source from the sun to the
earthearth’s surface”.Tim, how about this?
“…the
fourththird line would more specifically read…”TF,
Once again, you find yourself unable to factually disagree with anything I said, but demand that I carry out your bizarre desires!
My answer is no.
If you wish to believe that the Earth has heated up since its creation, or that a usefully describable GHE exists, involving the use of magic to make thermometers hotter by reducing the amount of radiation they receive from a hotter object, good for you! Enjoy your fantasy.
Trying to put words in my mouth merely has you agreeing with yourself. A consensus of fools cannot create fact from fiction.
You are clearly delusional – of the same ilk as Schmidt, Mann and Trenberth.
Cheers.
No, Mike, you find yourself unable to factually disagree with anything you yourself said. Everything I stated was exactly the same principles that you laid out.
And then you demand that I carry out your bizarre desires to discuss the core of the earth instead of the atmosphere.
You seem to be unable to see that you are the one resorting to the tactics you describe.
Begone, troll!
Ball4
Sorry, you said 1050, but I read 667. Substitute H2O Vapor for CO2 in my previous response.
Your Fig 3. is different than my graph. My graph refers to: “After Contrath et al. (1970)”
Your paper is from 1973 by Conrath.
My graph refers to a 1970 paper by Conrath.
I suppose the author could be the same, but your evidence doesn’t prove one way or the other.
The author is the same. Here is the 1970 paper Conrath et. al. see Figures 6,7 without ordinate displacement confusing you in order to better judge the match theoretical vs. observed.
Note: the 1050 wavenumber matches in 1970. It doesn’t match theoretical in the 1973 paper because p.11 : “Absorp_tion by ozone in the 1000-1100 cm- 1 region was not included in the model used in this investigation.”
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022421.pdf
Ball4,
Oh, OK. I’m glad you agree there’s barely any difference between theoretical and observed. No GH effect due to GHGs, afterall.
The greenhouse effect is completely obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
DA,
Only to the delusional pseudoscientific climate cultist, of course.
Cheers.
Ball4,
Didn’t you understand that I had you in a double bind?
No, becuase you didn’t
Ball4, please stop trolling.
https://quillette.com/2019/06/06/the-new-evolution-deniers-by-colin-wright/
The New Evolution Deniers
Well, it’s not new.
But found it fairly amusing.
And more proof of God.
“99.98%”
Sort of like CO2
“The Catholics and Left wing agree on Evolution”
Of course they would. It’s almost like they would have it
How does any of that prove a god or gods?
DA,
About as well as 97% consensus proves CO2 makes thermometers hotter, but even more so.
99.98% is greater than 97%, isn’t it?
And Gavin Schmidt, self appointed climate scientist, claimed that a 38% probability meant that 2014 was “the hottest year EVAH!”
Don’t you understand anything at all about pseudoscientific climate cultism, David?
Oh well, you can always toss a few pointless gotchas into the mix, if all else fails.
Cheers.
It’s probably a long wait for proof of gods or God.
But do you think those believing that sex is only a social construct are trying to prove God exist?
It would seem to me more likely that they would tend to worship materialism.
gbaikie…”The New Evolution Deniers”
This essay is yet another rant by a believer who offers no proof of evolution. He doesn’t even try, feeling justified in ad homming those who disagree.
Before any theory of evolution can be established it must be demonstrated conclusively how 5 non-organic elements could bond together to produce life. Yet that’s exactly what evolutionists try to avoid.
Evolutionists lean on disciplines like genetics which is a study of the same species. If you could examine humans over the past 5000 years you’d likely find no evidence that humans are evolving into a different species.
Wiki explains it as follows, which is not really a Darwin-based definition, but one from genetics theory:
“Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”.
This wiki explanation is about changes in the same species, which makes it an incorrect definition of evolution.
Then they try to gloss over Darwin, the father of evolution whose books is titled “On the Origin of Species (or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life…”
It seems modern evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from the absurdity of natural selection as related to the origins of life where life started allegedly from nothing then evolved through a series of species to its present form. If you can’t explain the origins, what good is the theory or its motivation, natural selection?
Why would anyone try to extrapolate backwards to an origin, throwing in pseudo-scientific, red-herring like natural selection. There is no such thing. Natural selection suggests an intelligence that can choose how life evolves. However, it is actually more a reference to rolling the dice.
Explain why DNA has intelligence built in? In the nucleus of a cell there is a coil of DNA that needs to be unwound at a specific portion of the coil where a code can be found instructing RNA how to build certain proteins.
Sorry. that intelligence has nothing to do with natural selection, codes are intelligence obviously put there. I am not religious and I will refrain from taking that thought further. In fact, I am agnostic. I think there’s as much chance that intelligence in the universe put the intelligence in DNA than there is that it happened by sheer fluke.
–Gordon Robertson says:
June 15, 2019 at 5:15 PM
gbaikieThe New Evolution Deniers
This essay is yet another rant by a believer who offers no proof of evolution. He doesnt even try, feeling justified in ad homming those who disagree.–
I think more of issue of being frighten of the New Evolution Deniers, unlike the early situation with fundamentalist Christians [who were polite and interested in dialogue]
“Before any theory of evolution can be established it must be demonstrated conclusively how 5 non-organic elements could bond together to produce life. Yet thats exactly what evolutionists try to avoid.”
The New Evolution Deniers aren’t in disagreement about that, it’s more recent evolution [within last couple hundred million years] which is being denied.
The problem I see with evolution a few billion years ago, is there was no time. Or as soon as life could begin, it occurred very quickly.
“Evolutionists lean on disciplines like genetics which is a study of the same species. If you could examine humans over the past 5000 years youd likely find no evidence that humans are evolving into a different species.”
Biologically not in 10,000 or even 100,000 year.
But humans in terms software or culturally [or technologically or economically] are currently evolving.
I would say humans have evolved since the time of Jesus Christ- because it’s true [and it annoys people].
Or human 10,000 year ago, were fairly uninteresting creatures, but strictly biologically they had everything they needed to become more interesting creatures.
It seems we are living in the best of times, but maybe it will be an even better time in another 100 years.
I would say Jordan Peterson is in this fight with the New Evolution Deniers.
In the future there will be Global Warming museums displaying artifacts from the Idiocene era of man made warming catastrophe planetary delusion
Tim Folkerts couldn’t really find any reason to challenge my explanation of the reason for not needing a GHE of any sort. Attempting to put words in my mouth, he wrote (amongst other things) –
“Change the source from the sun to the earths surface.
That would make it night time – no Sun visible. Bad luck for Tim. At night, temperatures fall – no sunlight to make thermometers hotter!
Additionally, Tim’s poorly thought out and witless suggestion indicates that he does not realise that a heat source of some 5800 K (the Sun), is qualitatively different from the Earth’s surface at a maximum of 363 K or so.
As an example, it is relatively easy to use a magnifying glass to set a piece of paper on fire, or boil water. Tim, for all his supposed knowledge, cannot boil a teaspoon of water by replacing the Sun’s radiation with that of the Earth’s surface. The usual blithering stupidity of the pseudoscientific GHE true believer, backed up by his gullible acceptance of the pronouncements of the climate cult leaders.
Still no GHE by replacing the Sun with something a few thousand K colder.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn couldnt really find any reason to challenge what I wrote. in fact, the core of what I wrote was merely his own understanding, applied a slightly different situation.
Here again are the two core statements:
Any radiation absorbed along its trip toward an object doesnt reach that target object.
However, the absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted some towards the target object, some not.
These are true for any radiation heading from any source to any target with any intervening absorbing gases.
Mike focuses on specific radiation (sunlight) toward a specific target (earth) absorbed by a specific gas (CO2). He is welcome to do that. It is perfectly true. The absorbed radiation that re-emitted in other directions results in less energy reaching the surface; a cooling effect.
I focus on specific radiation (Earth’s thermal IR) toward a different target (space) absorbed by a specific gas (CO2). And I am welcome to do that. It is still perfectly true. The absorbed radiation that re-emitted in other directions [ie not toward space; back toward earth’s surface] results in less energy leaving the surface; a warming effect.
The two statements from Mike that lead to these two conclusion in these two situation are not dependent on time of day or wavelength of radiation.
Tim, please stop trolling.
Day 100. We’ve hit triple figures of denial…
Since they’re wrong on both the “plates” and the Moon, maybe it is “triple figures of double denial”?
True! I wonder how many days of denial there have been about the moon? Maybe SkepticGoneOnlyEverCommentsAboutTheMoon can tell us, since that’s the number one obsession in his life.
David Appell,
“The greenhouse effect is completely obvious.”
How? You showed me a diagram that proves GHGs are heated by the sun-warmed surface. So what?
Do you also believe that a dry sponge will make a spill wetter due to backmoisture just because it can absorb?
“Do you also believe that a dry sponge will make a spill wetter due to backmoisture just because it can absorb?”
Good one, Zoe.
ZP,
Excellent. I wish I could have thought of it, myself.
Obviously, a GHE true believer will point out that if your sponge is saturated with limitless dehydrated water, then backmoisture will be such that a tipping point will be reached, sea levels will rise, and we’ll all be doomed! Doomed, I tell you, and I’ll flap my diagrammatic evidence in your face if you disagree!
Cheers.
Cant make real physics of the real problem work, use a dumb analogy!
You guys are hopeless.
Nate, you should get rid of all dry sponges in your apartment. They are causing sea levels to rise….
Day 1 of sponge denial, right?
I can understand why you have to deny it, Nate. Zoe Phin’s simple sponge analogy is easy to understand, even for clowns that can’t understand the relevant physics. Anyone can understand a dry sponge does not add moisture to the system.
So, please, help DREMT keep track of your days of denial.
That would be an interesting metric.
Anybody here can say whatever BS they want. Flat Earth. Sasquatch. Sponges. We may tell you its nonsense or ignore it.
Then you can keep track of the days of denial of the BS, if you like, just add BS on top of BS.
It just makes the BS twice as thick!
It’s such an easy debunk of the GHE nonsense.
A dry sponge does not add moisture to the system, just as CO2 does not add energy to the system.
Deny, deny, deny, but reality is still there waiting for you.
Nothing new.
Anybody can say whatever BS they want. Case in point:
‘Its such an easy debunk of the GHE nonsense.’
Nate, please stop trolling.
To be analogy, there must be objects/properties that are analogous.
So in your sponge analogy, what is the sponge analogous to?
* The whole atmosphere?
* Greenhouse gases?
* Other?
What is the water analogous to?
* Energy?
* IR radiation?
* Temperature?
In order to understand an analogy, you must have a grasp of the basic concepts.
So in your sponge analogy, what is the sponge analogous to?
Greenhouse gases
What is the water/moisture analogous to?
IR Energy
Nate,
“Cant make real physics of the real problem work, use a dumb analogy!”
That’s projection. That’s what the GHE religion does.
Can’t show experimental evidence that blankets raise your temperature? Just claim CO2 works like a blanket … except neither does what is claimed.
Zoe, water can flow like heat can conduct. But water cannot radiate, can it? So your analogy fails.
Try again.
Nate,
GHE religion also uses bathtub analogy to claim heat can be built up. Except in reality, heat is not an extensive property like volume, it’s an intensive property – and the max temperature sets the max temperature.
‘One easy way to tell whether a physical property is intensive or extensive is to take two identical samples of a substance and put them together. If this doubles the property (e.g., twice the mass, twice as long), it’s an extensive property. If the property is unchanged by altering the sample size, it’s an intensive property.’
Zoe, if I put 2 samples together the amount of heat is unchanged??
Hmmm…
If you pour 2 glasses of water, both at 25 C, together, the temperature is unchanged.
Hmmm….
JD, you know better than to confuse “heat” with “temperature” !
But you don’t know better than to make a fallacious implication!
tim…”JD, you know better than to confuse heat with temperature !”
Enough of the pseudo-science, Tim. Heat IS the average kinetic energy of atoms and temperature is a MEASURE of that average kinetic energy. Therefore, temperature is a measure of relative heat levels.
What the heck do you think temperature measures?
BTW…the kinetic energy referenced IS thermal energy.
That is so JD…
Nate, please stop trolling.
“An intensive property is a bulk property, meaning that it is a local physical property of a system that does not depend on the system size …
“By contrast, an extensive property is additive for subsystems.[3] This means the system could be divided into any number of subsystems, and the extensive property measured for each subsystem; the value of the property for the system would be the sum of the property for each subsystem.”
Volume is indeed extensive. Internal energy, U, is also extensive, as are mass and velocity.
Temperature, T, is extensive.
Heat, Q, is neither extensive nor intensive, since it is not a property of a system. Similarly, work, W, is also neither extensive nor intensive.
So the claim “heat is an intensive property” is either
* incorrect because you are talking about U, which is an extensive property, or
* incorrect because you are confusing “heat” and “temperature”
* incorrect because Q is not a property of a system at all.
(Or maybe there are yet more ways to be incorrect that I hadn’t even imagined.)
tim…”Heat, Q, is neither extensive nor intensive, since it is not a property of a system”.
I don’t know what kind of berry juice you’re on but heat is a property of atoms. That makes it a property of all mass.
Where do you guys get these kooky ideas that heat is some kind of energy transfer? As you guys describe it heat is a transfer of energy,and the energy being transferred is thermal energy, therefore heat must be the transfer of heat.
And why is it necessary to talk about intensive and extensive properties? Or closed and open systems?
Come on Tim, time to think this through.
Gordon,
Colloquially people may use the term heat to refer to internal energy or enthalpy. But it is not used that way in Thermodynamics, or in Chemistry or Physics.
nate…”Colloquially people may use the term heat to refer to internal energy or enthalpy. But it is not used that way in Thermodynamics, or in Chemistry or Physics”.
Better explain that to Clausius who wrote the 2nd law, created the term U for internal energy, and created the concept of entropy.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. What else could it be?
The term enthalpy was coined decades after the notion of internal energy was introduced. Clausius explained internal energy as partly the work of atoms and the heat required to maintain the inter-atomic forces for the work atoms perform in vibrating.
According to Clausius, in the 1st law, U = Q – W, Q and W refer to external work and heat while U in an internal sum of work and heat. Makes perfect sense to me.
Every good science student knows that atoms vibrate harder when heat is added and slow down when heat is removed.
I fear that science has been turned on its head by certain modernists who lack the basics and have re-defined physics out of their misunderstanding. There are idiots currently trying to redefine gravity from a force to a space-time anomaly. Other idiots think electrons can be in two places at the same time and that out universe suddenly appeared out of nothing in a Big Bang.
‘According to Clausius, in the 1st law, U = Q – W, Q and W refer to external work and heat while U in an internal sum of work and heat. Makes perfect sense to me.
Every good science student knows that atoms vibrate harder when heat is added and slow down when heat is removed.’
Yeah, makes sense.
But heat, Q, once added to a substance gets converted to external work (W) and internal work (potential energy) and kinetic energy which sum to U.
Thus heat is not preserved (conserved) once it passes into a substance.
Nate, please stop trolling.
You’ve ignored the rest of the atmosphere. Much of the atmosphere warms by conduction/convection and the non-greenhouse gases only lose heat by conduction (i.e. require a collision with colder atoms).
How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Won’t the Earth’s surface only cool by long-wave radiation?
“How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Wont the Earths surface only cool by long-wave radiation?”
Well, with non-greenhouse gases there is more spectrum of IR which can radiate to space.
But without water and the main greenhouse gas of water vapor, earth will be colder.
One could replace water with some other transparent material or have water prevented from evaporating.
But also the tropical ocean is heat engine of the World- you have ocean movement and water vapor transfering tropical heat to atmosphere.
So in addition to some transparent substance at surface, one needs some way transfer heat so one has has a more globally uniform temperature.
Also you don’t have clouds. Clouds are complicated, but I would say if include there reflective nature, the net result is warming.
Some paper claims clouds are about 1/2 of all warming effect of all greenhouse gases. Not sure completely agree, but think cloud are net gain. And of course clouds block more of IR spectrum than greenhouse gases.
The condensation of water vapor effects lapse rate. So 1000 meters of elevation is warmer at top as compared to air with no water vapor.
Or more tonnage of all the air is warmer per square meter.
Water vapor also has more specific heat than dry air and water vapor in confined [mostly] to lower elevation.
Anyhow how air cools, is basically same as cools with greenhouse gases- about 1/2 of planet is cold because it doesn’t get much sunlight due to thick atmosphere and sunlight mostly remaining low above horizon, and low angle in term incidence angle to the level surface.
So roughly half world is much colder than it is currently [and it’s pretty cold/cool, now] and other half is not warmer. Or about 1/2 the daytime hours also has sunlight at a low angle.
Or solar panels don’t work well, even you put them at the right angle and there is not clouds.
I didn’t say that the Earth would be just as warm without the greenhouse gases. I accept it would be cooler.
What I question is whether it would be -18C (i.e. 33C cooler that the supposed average temperature now).
–What I question is whether it would be -18C (i.e. 33C cooler that the supposed average temperature now).–
I don’t think greenhouse gases increase Earth average temperature by 33 K.
But water vapor the most powerful greenhouse gas might add much as about 5 K and doubling of CO2 levels might add around 1 K but possible or even likely, it’s less than this. Because see no evidence of around .5 C of warming from the increase so far from the increase of global CO2 levels.
The IPCC has made a statement that they have high confidence, rising CO2 has caused more than .2 K in recent warming.
I am less confident.
john…”How will the atmosphere cool if the non-greenhouse gases cannot radiate energy into space? Won’t the Earth’s surface only cool by long-wave radiation?”
To question 1, has anyone ever tested that theory? Obviously the nitrogen and oxygen making up 99% of the atmosphere do radiate.
re question 2…the surface cools by direct conduction to N2/O2 and by evapouration.
Besides, as N2/O2 absorb heat by conduction, cooling the surface, then convection carries the heat higher into the atmosphere, the heated gases will cool naturally by expansion. At the same time, cooler air from above moves in to replace the rising heated air. Natural air conditioning.
Furthermore, as the Earth rotates, the atmosphere expands during solar heating and contracts when the atmosphere/surface is not subjected to solar energy. There SHOULD be a natural warming/cooling process there.
Has anyone ever checked that?
All we ever hear about is climate model theory which is based on radiation theory and not done well.
Idiots,
“Temperature, T, is extensive.”
No, temperature is an intensive property.
If the bathtub analogy isn’t to show a temperature rise, then it has no purpose.
Another double bind.
Yes T is intensive, Tim has a typo.
But you didnt say Temp, you said Heat was intensive, which is wrong.
Nate,
Why is Tim allowed a typo? Weird. All non pedantic idiots knew what I meant.
He correctly points out that Heat is neither intensive or extensive, and so he admits the bathtub analogy is inapt and purposefully misleading.
So we all agree that temperature can not be built up due to backradiation nonsense.
“so he admits the bathtub analogy is inapt and purposefully misleading.”
Nope
“So we all agree that temperature can not be built up due to backradiation nonsense.”
And nope.
Nate, please stop trolling.
“Well, with non-greenhouse gases there is more spectrum of IR which can radiate to space.”
Radiation to space is not a heat transfer mechanism. Space can not be heated. Earth can only heat things closer than Lagrange Point 2. The moon, satellites, and that’s about it. The view angle is really small and basically doesn’t matter.
“Radiation to space is not a heat transfer mechanism. Space can not be heated. Earth can only heat things closer than Lagrange Point 2.”
Weird, arbitrary distance!
Look guys, this is just not controversial.
The lit side of the Moon, having been heated by the sun, rotates away from the sun and COOLS on the dark side.
It cools by emitting heat, transferring heat, to somewhere colder than itself…space is the ONLY OPTION.
THAT heat can flow to space is an established fact.
It is good example of you guys making up and declaring fake physics.
Nate,
“Weird, arbitrary distance!”
Not weirdnor arbitrary.
“The lit side of the Moon, having been heated by the sun, rotates away from the sun and COOLS on the dark side.”
The moon is not heated. It merely reflects solar radiation. That’s what your looking at when you scan its daytime surface. The moon is in thermal equilibrium with the sun. No heating.
“It cools by emitting heat, transferring heat, to somewhere colder than itselfspace is the ONLY OPTION. THAT heat can flow to space is an established fact.”
Then space would be hot. But it’s not, because you can only heat matter.
Only objects can emit radiation, because they can be heated. If space could be heated, it would send radiation. The radiation from space is ZERO. The radiation from distant stars is not, because they arw matter.
The fact that heat can flow to space is not an established fact, it’s an imbecile’s wish.
Zoe, anyone saying “The moon is not heated.” has no credibility.
Anyone saying “The radiation from space is ZERO.” is just ignorant.
Anyone saying “The moon is in thermal equilibrium with the sun.” is simply nuts!
‘Then space would be hot. But its not, because you can only heat matter.’
I swim in the ocean and cool off. According to you the ocean should be hot. Why isnt it?
ZP said…” The radiation from space is ZERO”
What do you think about the cosmic microwave background?
backdoor guy, the claim, from Institutionalized Pseudoscience, is that the CMBR is left over from the bogus Big Bang.
Of course, we know that is nonsense….
JD adds more to his long list of declarations without evidence.
bdg…”What do you think about the cosmic microwave background?”
Microwave radiation, like heat, is a product of mass. There is no doubt all forms of radiation bouncing about but it all came from mass. Unless that radiation comes from a high temperature source it is doomed to just keep bouncing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_maser
Nate
“Nope and nope”
Denial is not an argument.
BTW, If space could be heated, then the blue plate heats the space between it and the green plate to its radiation level. Since green plate is right next to this space, it would be odd if it too were not heated to same radiation. Another double bind. Deny all you want, denier!
Denying things that we never said or agreed with is legit.
‘ If space could be heated, then the blue plate heats the space between it and the green plate to its radiation level. ‘
You’re loony.
The sun’s radiation can obviously pass thru space without heating it and heat the Earth.
The point is this, it just an established fact that heat can be emitted into space. The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.
“The heated ammonia circulates through huge radiators located on the exterior of the Space Station, releasing the heat as infrared radiation and cooling as it flows.
The Station’s outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area.”
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1
The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISS’s temperature how far away that is or when that happens.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate,
“The suns radiation can obviously pass thru space without heating it and heat the Earth.”
Ah, so space can’t be heated afterall.
“The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.”
“The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISSs temperature how far away that is or when that happens.”
Nope, ISS dumps its heat onto Earth and Moon.
Its cute how you treat space like a perfect conductor.
‘Nope, ISS dumps its heat onto Earth and Moon.’
Declare whatever made-up BS you want zoe.
But without showing evidence, as I did, it will not be taken seriously.
nate…”The ISS space station dumps it excess heat into space every day.
The heat passes thru space and eventually hits something far away. It makes no difference to the ISSs temperature how far away that is or when that happens.”
Absolute pseudo-science. There are so many people with degrees who fail to understand the difference between heat and electromagnetic radiation.
Heat cannot exist without mass since it is the kinetic energy of atoms. When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation. If dumped via radiation, heat must be converted to EM and during the conversion, heat is lost.
Heat cannot flow through space as radiation, if for no other reason than heat cannot every be radiation. If it flows through space it has to be via a convective flow of matter.
When hot air rises from the surface, that is a convective flow of heat since the heat transfer is via molecules of air.
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.”
In science and engineering, people need to agree on definitions, otherwise projects get screwed up.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Who will answer me these questions three? All about the heat flow equation.
Just “true” or “false”, please. Nothing more required.
Q1: Between the blue and green plates, all at 244 K, heat flow (Q) is zero.
Q2: If the emissivity or view factors involved were other than 1, heat flow (Q) could be zero when the plates were at different temperatures.
Q3. Heat flow goes to zero at equilibrium.
1. Objects at the same temperature do not have heat flow between them, nor Net energy flow.
2.Different temps leads to heat flow. So False.
3. TRUE. Equilibrium defined as equal temp and zero heat flow.
Nates gets it wrong: “1. Objects at the same temperature do not have heat flow between them, nor Net energy flow.”
No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
In the incorrect solution, there is heat, without an increase in energy, which violates the laws of thermo.
‘No heat, but there can be net energy flow, as in the three plates in full contact, or in the correct solution:’
Declaration without evidence, your specialty.
First Law:
dU = dQ – dW dU is internal energy.
If you are able to move energy from one plate to the other without heat then it would have to be work.
Where and what is the work being done in stationary plates?
Nate, explaining this to you involves teaching you thermo, which you clearly do not understand.
So, if I take the time to explain it, will you agree to stay off this blog for 90 days?
‘So, if I take the time to explain it’
Lame!
Par for the course, you have no explanation whatsoever.
Obviously you have more interest in trolling than learning.
Nothing new.
Ive been waiting to learn…if you had a sensible answer Im sure you would have already shared it.
You won’t take the deal because you know I can answer the question, while teaching you in the process.
But then you will have to find new ways to avoid reality.
And, you’re already way behind schedule.
You’re letting down DREMT, who has no answers either.
He was counting on you to ‘splain it to me!
ibid.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/a-simple-no-greenhouse-effect-model-of-day-night-temperatures-at-different-latitudes/#comment-358849
Hilarious.
DREMT links to his NO ANSWERS and attempted distractions from somewhere else.
Nate, please stop trolling.
regarding other Qs:
“Q2: If the emissivity or view factors involved were other than 1, heat flow (Q) could be zero when the plates were at different temperatures.”
Hmm, true?
So you have emissivity of .8. It’s 400 K. It will radiate less energy as compare to it being at emissivity of 1.
Or same heat source will be warmer if .8 or will be cooler at 1.
And obviously if something gets less radiant energy it is cooler as compared to getting more radiant energy.
And view factors are also about “getting less or more” radiant energy from something.
So, that aspect is true, you could get equilibrium or zero heat flow having different surfaces or view factor and different temperatures, though of course in a vacuum [or gases transfer heat via collision- kinetic energy]
Q3. Heat flow goes to zero at equilibrium.
If there is no heat flow it is at equilibrium.
But I would not define equilibrium as no heat flow, or
equilibrium = no heat flow
Or in terms of definition, equilibrium = balance.
Or one could have different factors bringing about the state of balance or equilibrium.
So if you get heat flow to zero [in all aspects] that would be an equilibrium.
Yes, I’d agree with you on Q2. I would say, for Q3, if you had a system where energy was always moving through, so long as energy in = energy out, equilibrium would be the point at which there was no heat flow between the objects.
So, “true”, “true”, and “true”.
‘ if you had a system where energy was always moving through, so long as energy in = energy out, equilibrium would be the point at which there was no heat flow between the objects.’
What is the energy that is moving thru?
Heat definition:
“In thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter.” Wiki
This is also 1st Law.
If we’re not adding mass, nor doing work on an object then Heat is all that is left.
What is the work being done on a plate? None AFIK.
Strange way to admit you were wrong in your answer to Q2, but OK Nate.
And…DREMT has no explanation as to what his mysterious energy is!
Par for the course.
Maybe if you haggle with JD, perhaps suggest 30 days, he might go easy on you. Seems like you could do with the break anyway, and I would love to see the discussion. You have to understand that at this stage, people can’t be bothered to talk to somebody like you unless they’re going to get something out of it.
This mystery energy was your idea, DREMT. And YOU cannot explain it.
If you can’t explain it, why do you keep posting it?
Now you’re baiting me for a response again. Good job I don’t jump into your threads and try to bait you into a discussion. Oh that’s right, you don’t make your own threads. All you do is interrupt other people’s discussions.
‘Who will answer me these questions three? ‘
Was that not you asking questions??
Honestly, I don’t understand you guys.
You make claims, declarations, and you seem certain that you’re right.
But when your assertions are challenged: Where does that come from? How does that agree with known physics?
You have no answers.
Then you try to blame the ones asking, as if there is something wrong with that.
Go and troll somebody else.
And you seem very confused about what trolling actually is.
#2
Go and troll somebody else.
Q1: simplest is true.
As all material has heat gradients. But thin and highly conductive material or “ideal” or stuff like diamonds or plasma type stuff could have insignificant heat gradients.
Or other factor or side of it, is that there is insignificant heat flow or a balance of heat or the answer being it is true.
Thanks gbaikie. Yes, we’re talking about an “ideal” perfectly conducting material. Just thinking about radiation only between those plates, no conduction or convection.
So I agree, “true” is the answer to Q1.
Though gases (ideal gases) are called ideal for a reason.
Or ideal gases normally have heat gradients due to gravity (though perhaps this just my opinion, or people seem to disagree or debate it).
gbaikie…”Or ideal gases normally have heat gradients due to gravity (though perhaps this just my opinion, or people seem to disagree or debate it).”
Not just your opinion gb, it’s a fact. Air pressure reduces with altitude and there is no other explanation than gravity to explain it. If you look at any lapse rate curve in the troposphere it shows a linear relationship between pressure and temperature to 40,000 feet. After that altitude other factor appear, like the heating of ozone by UV.
Up till 40,000 feet, the only explanation for the linear relationship between temperature and pressure (altitude) is gravity.
Of course, as we know, there are other factors operating like thermals. However, the steady-state P-T curve has to be due to gravity. It’s the Ideal Gas Law, don’t ya know?
Nate,
“But without showing evidence, as I did, it will not be taken seriously.”
What evidence did you show?
The ISS as orienting mechanisms. Did you show us where the fins are oriented? No.
Do you not understand that those radiating fins dilute cabin heat via conduction? Do you not know that provides most ot the cooling? Did you not know that ISS is right next to a large radiant heat sink called Earth?
More words with no evidence.
From the ISS site. ” said Ungar. “Then we send the energy to radiators to reject that heat into space.”
Heat can be emitted to space. Just a fact.
No point in continuing to argue about it.
nate…”From the ISS site. said Ungar. Then we send the energy to radiators to reject that heat into space.”
Ungar is wrong. Radiators radiate EM, not heat. It is physically impossible for heat to be radiated. It has to be converted to EM and in that process, heat is lost.
A better way to dump heat would be to open the space station doors. The station would cool instantly as the heat-bearing molecules shot out the door, along with anyone or anything not tied down.
“When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation.”
Who said this? You need to argue it out with that Gordon.
nate…”When excess heat is ‘dumped’ from a space station, it has to be dumped as molecules of heated air (oxygen??) or by radiation.
Who said this? You need to argue it out with that Gordon.”
I said it. Does that mean I have to argue it out with myself?
It seems so, you said heat can be dumped by radiation.
Nate, please stop trolling.
gbaikie,
“Though gases (ideal gases) are called ideal for a reason.”
SB Law should be called Ideal SB Law because no object in the universe follows it perfectly.
zoe…”SB Law should be called Ideal SB Law because no object in the universe follows it perfectly.”
Further to that, it should be emphasized that the initial law from Stefan was based on an experiment of Tyndall in which heat was obviously transferred one way. S-B obeys the 2nd law and Botltzmann spent a lot of his time trying to prove the 2nd law statistically.
Tyndall was a great scientist. He also devised the first thermopile and used the instrument to quantify the magnitude at which certain gas species would absorb IR radiation.
bdg…”Tyndall was a great scientist. He also devised the first thermopile and used the instrument to quantify the magnitude at which certain gas species would absorb IR radiation”.
Tyndall also devised the experiment from which Stefan formulated his initial T^4 law. He heated a platinum filament wire electrically and noted the wire gave off different colours as the current and temperature increased. Someone else related the colours to temperatures, and Tyndall suggested the ratio between the temperatures.
Stefan did the rest.
It should be noted that S-B is based on a one way transfer of heat from a very hot filament wire to it’s surroundings. There is absolutely nothing in S-B suggested a reverse transfer of heat from a cooler region to the wire.
S-B respects the 2nd law, those following who think EM or heat is transferred both ways disrespect the law.
I re-read what I said, and made me wonder about something. :
“Now if Earth didn’t have global ocean, it would be mostly a frozen waste land [forever]. It’s important that Earth has a lot water, otherwise all of it could be frozen at the poles.”
So extreme, of what I said, was if Earth which had far less water and was at Venus distance, could it have frozen waste lands.
Or at earth distance it would, and how close to Sun, would be needed stop having frozen waste lands in polar regions.
Or what I have been saying is the ocean makes Earth warmer. I also say a ocean [in tropics] would make Mars warmer.
But over millions of years without human activity, Mars would need a vast amount ocean [or it just all ends up at poles].
Where to start. Let’s look at ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
So earth distance is uniform 5 C: 1360 / 4 = 340. And 340 watts of blackbody is 5 C
Venus is about 2600 / 4 = 650 watts. 650 watts of blackbody is 327 K or 54 C
Without atmosphere, it’s 2600 watts, blackbody: 463 K or 189.6 C
When sun is at zenith.
When sun at 30 degree it’s about 1/2: 1300 watts, blackbody: 389 K
or 116 C
Let’s see, make simple, no axis tilt.
90 degree noon equator, 60 degree latitude, sun at noon 30 degree above horizon at noon. and heats surface to about 115 C near noon.
And at equator it’s about 190 C near noon.
With atmosphere, it will warmer at equator and it’s going to Earth like at 60 Degree latitude, or it 1300 watts in vacuum and at earth distance in vacuum you get 1360 watts per square meter. So if the there was only 1 atm the surface would heat to about 70 C, but due to angle, one has twice atmosphere the sun is going thru, not going to reach 70 C.
And loosely that means air temperature is not going get higher than 50 C [at 60 latitude].
So if allow for elevation difference [high elevation and colder air], could/might have water freeze say above 65 latitude.
So, roughly it seems possible.
I will do more later.
So, Earth at Venus distance, axis tilt 0, Moon at same angle of orbit??
With less ocean, ocean if completely covered earth surface, 100 meter deep vs about 2500 meters:
“If spread over the whole surface of the earth the average depth would be 2440m”
So. 1/25th of our ocean.
Which btw, is a lot more ocean then the water in Venus atmosphere- can’t remember- but as wild guess that would be somewhere around 1 meter or less.
Now if Earth didn’t rotate or rotated like Venus, Earth with the 1/25th of it’s ocean, would have a much lower average global temperature, as compare to 24 hours day. But this Earth at Venus distance does rotate with 24 hour day.
I hate math, and want reference, so google:
“The smaller the angle, the greater the surface area over which the sun’s rays spread. This effect reduces the sun’s intensity in any one place. For example, at a 45 degree angle of incidence, solar radiation covers a 40 percent greater area and is 30 percent less intense than at the maximum angle of incidence of 90 degrees.”
https://sciencing.com/sun-intensity-vs-angle-23529.html
So, yeah 45 degree latitude would pretty hot at Venus distance. But I want a chart, add chart:
Amount of sunlight reach earth surface at lower degree above horizon chart
Hmm:
“The annual insolation curve for locations at 60 degrees North best approximates the seasonal changes in solar radiation intensity perceived at our latitude. Maximum values of insolation are received at the June solstice when day length and angle of incidence are at their maximum”
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html
But we don’t have seasons and it pointing at sun, rather level to surface. Next, ah found ref I used to have bookmarked:
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/air-mass-and-insolation1.htm
90° 1.00 air mass 1040 watts
30° 1.99 air mass 840 watts
Etc
But this again if pointing at sun, but about .81
2600 times .81 = is 2106 watts. And half that because of angle to
level ground. No, wrong.
So if 1360 gives 1040 at 90 degrees
Oops.
1360 times .77 = 1047 watts
2600 times .77 = 2002 watts per square meter of direct sunlight
2002 times .81 = 1622 watts
Then half because smeared over twice much level surface area
811 watts per square meter.
Or something heating ground to 60 C at noon at 60 degree latitude.
20 2.90 air mass 710 watts
And .69 times 1040 = 717 watts
2002 times .69 = 1381 watts square meter
Or if at 70 degree latitude and you point at the sun
at noon, you get about 1381 watts.
Which will boil water easily or get such intense sunlight
on the Moon. But it’s smeared over more area if level.
Another chart:
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/sun-angle-and-insolation2.htm
30 840 50% 420
20 710 34% 240
1381 times .34 = 470 watts per square meter
I did not yet answer my question of whether a planet with much less water and 1 atm earth atmosphere could have ice caps at Venus distance.
You are on the right track. True surface properties is the key. This is an ocean planet. The “Greenhouse effect” is in the oceans, not in the atmosphere. The net effect of the radiatively cooled atmosphere is to cool the solar heated surface of our planet, not warm it.
Look at Dr Spencer’s model. See how he only models 100mm depth? See how he only calculates solar heating at a SW / SWIR opaque surface? I’ve seen Dr. S design empirical experiments. I’m better, but he is still good. This is what distresses me. He knows what he was doing is wrong. He’s better than this. I cannot fathom why someone would trash the scientific method in this manner!
The answer is simple. The sun heats the oceans as a volume, but the oceans can only cool from a surface. The speed of energy return to the surface is limited by the slow speed of sensible energy transports of convection and conduction. The true GHE is in the oceans, not the atmosphere.
Under each m2 of ocean surface, the sun is adding near 500 watts each diurnal cycle. Because the oceans heat as a volume not a surface.
Good points, Konrad.
Radiatively, the oceans can only lose energy at the surface. And that loss is insignificant, compared to the energy they receive from the Sun. The result is that the oceans become a big storage “battery” for solar energy. Ocean oscillations, such as El Niño, are how they cool themselves.
The Sun heats the surface (including oceans), the surface heats the atmosphere, and the atmosphere radiates to space.
Believing the atmosphere can heat the surface is like believing a dry sponge* adds moisture to a water spill.
*Credit to Zoe Phil for the “dry sponge” analogy.
Should be “Zoe Phin”.
–Konrad says:
June 18, 2019 at 5:31 AM
You are on the right track. True surface properties is the key. This is an ocean planet. The “Greenhouse effect” is in the oceans, not in the atmosphere. The net effect of the radiatively cooled atmosphere is to cool the solar heated surface of our planet, not warm it.–
Well, I think what I “learned” by “in a sense” challenging my assumption about amount of ocean water matters, by using extreme situation is that angle of tilt matters [more than I assumed it did].
So I think having axis at 0 degrees is a cooling effect. But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.
And I don’t have a clue,
Is 30 degree tilt cause more warming than 23.5 degree- as an example. Part of it seems to have to do with planetary topography.
So, everyone assume we are in an Ice Age because of changing global topography related plate tectonic movement. Generally people point to position of Antarctica at the south pole as main example of this.
So, amount tilt which causes most amount global warming could depend on global topography. So to make simple one would ask with earth’s current configuration- shape of ocean basins and land masses and elevation and depth of oceans and etc, what what tilt angle causes the most amount of global warming.
And one also limit the tilt angle to the ones we get and of them which causes most warming.
Of course with Milankovitch cycles it usually it focused in regard to the melting continental ice sheet and/or creating continental ice sheets. Which could be different question than what causes the most global warming or least amount global warming.
And of course the modeling of removing 96% the ocean is severe change of Earth’s global topography.
One thing about it, is if just remove ice from Greenland, it has bowl shape [most imagine created by massive weight ice in it] but having bowl shape and zero axis tilt, is something might create snow on Earth at Venus distance from sun. Or something similar to very large impact crater at the poles, something like, the Aitken basin on south pole of the Moon.
I sort of thought doing something like that to create glacials, was sort of cheating.
gbaikie…”So I think having axis at 0 degrees is a cooling effect. But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect”.
Think of the area in which you live as being a tangential plane. That means it is perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth’s centre through that tangential plane.
The tangential plane at the Equator should also be nearly perpendicular to solar EM rays. That means they get the full intensity of solar energy. The further north you go, or south, the more inclined the tangential plane becomes to the solar rays. That means the intensity is reduced to a level involving the sine or cosine of the angle the solar rays make with the tangential plane (depending on which angle you use).
As the Earth orbits the Sun, there comes a time when the tangential plane of the North Pole is tilted too far away for the solar rays to reach it. At other parts of the orbit, the NP tangential plane is pointed more toward the Sun and the SP becomes hidden.
Every tangential plane between the Equator and the NP/SP get progressively less energy the further the TP is toward the Poles.
gbaikie said…”But the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.”
There is a hypothesis that says a shallower tilt promotes a cooler climate. It works like this. When the tilt is shallow solar radiation spreads out more evenly both in spatial and temporal domains. This means polar winters are warmer and polar summers are cooler. A warmer winter promotes more ice sheet growth due to higher precipitation. A cooler summer promotes less ice sheet melting. More ice going into winter and more build up occurring during winter leads to ice sheet growth. This then leads to higher albedos which begets more cooling and more ice sheet growth.
–bdgwx says:
June 19, 2019 at 12:06 PM
gbaikie saidBut the next question is what angle of tilt causes the most warming effect.
There is a hypothesis that says a shallower tilt promotes a cooler climate. It works like this. When the tilt is shallow solar radiation spreads out more evenly both in spatial and temporal domains. This means polar winters are warmer and polar summers are cooler. A warmer winter promotes more ice sheet growth due to higher precipitation. A cooler summer promotes less ice sheet melting. More ice going into winter and more build up occurring during winter leads to ice sheet growth. This then leads to higher albedos which begets more cooling and more ice sheet growth.–
Yes, something like that.
This might be true, or more important if we didn’t live on water planet.
On Earth, the tropical ocean heat the rest of the world.
Without tropical ocean heating rest of world, polar region would be much cooler.
As said I don’t know, but perhaps with larger tilt which didn’t warm the tropical ocean to average of about 26 C, then that would mark to limit to how much increased tilt causing global warming.
[[But if increase tilt one increasing the size of tropics as our tropics extend 23.5 degree north and south. So if tilt was 30 degree the tropics would extend 30 degree north and south.]]
But I am saying with 30 degree tilt the region in the 23.5 degree is area is I am talking changing it’s average temperature.
Or a 30 degree tropics having average of 26 C is actually much warmer than our tropics or even if average 25 C within 30 to 30 degrees, it might be warmer.
Nate,
Seems like your argument rests on one quote. Very lame.
Did he say “any space”?
Did he mean “to space … in the direction of earth or other matter?
We don’t know. But you assume it works in your favor. What a little fraud.
You do understand that photons don’t actually exist, right? They are conceptual. You do understand that heat actually spreads by vibrational resonance, i.e. waves. What is there to wave in space?
You’re acting like space is a perfect conductor. The green plate emits as if space is a conductor. There is no consideration for distance inverse square law to any object beyond green plate … nay, space is treated like a perfect conductor, but using radiation.
More words but still no evidence offered.
‘Youre acting like space is a perfect conductor.’
Radiation works well in a vacuum. No conduction involved!
You are not making much sense, zoe.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Konrad is completely correct.
The atmosphere is the Earth’s coolant.
It acts just like the radiators on the space station. And there is no backradiation heating to the space station from its radiators just because the radiators can absorb IR.
Dummies will now become hypocrites and deny the obvious.
Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6 °F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2 °F ground temp.
Just another day the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.
Nothing new.
ZP,
So you think if the Earth didn’t have an atmosphere then the surface would be even warmer? Can you reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the Moon does not have an atmosphere yet its average surface temperature is much lower?
And what do you think about JD’s observations above with his IR thermometer. The observation is proof that there is downwelling or back radiation. What do you think happens to that radiation when it hits the surface?
backdoor guy, excuse me for butting in, but you did mention me.
You are now desperately trying another distraction. You are going to the Moon!
But, you haven’t kept up with all the squashed pseudoscience. The Moon has temperatures well above the boiling point of water. It has the same solar constant as Earth, but has temperatures high enough to fry your skin.
And, don’t try to run to the “average” temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere or large bodies of water to moderate temperatures, as Earth does. You’ll just have to find some other way to pervert reality.
Your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet? Are you that stupid?
Norman is.
Norman believes there is not enough solar to heat Earth. He believes we only have our temperatures because of CO2. (Don’t tell him about the Moon.)
Now, you may exit via the backdoor. Departure approved.
JD said…”The Moon has temperatures well above the boiling point of water. It has the same solar constant as Earth, but has temperatures high enough to fry your skin.”
And yet the mean temperature is significantly cooler than the mean temperature of Earth.
JD said…”And, dont try to run to the average temperature. The Moon has no atmosphere or large bodies of water to moderate temperatures, as Earth does. Youll just have to find some other way to pervert reality.”
The surface still has a mean temperature that can be quantified. The fact that the Moon does not have moderating factors just means that the standard deviation of the local temperature is higher than that on Earth. But, we already know that. In fact, that is a prediction of the GHE. The stronger the GHE the lower the standard deviation of the local temperatures and the higher the mean temperature.
JD said…”Your proof of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet?”
My claim is that a thermal barrier leads to a higher equilibrium temperature in the presence of a heat source than if the thermal barrier were not there.
backdoor guy, for fun, let’s track your ongoing denials.
You started out trying to claim the Moon’s lower average temperature was somehow “proof” of the GHE on Earth. When I pointed out that the Moon actually had MUCH higher temperatures, due to the fact that it does not have Earth’s modulating systems, you went into denial.
Then, when I pointed out that your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING, you again went into denial.
Quite obviously you have no interest in science, or learning.
Nothing new.
JD said…”You started out trying to claim the Moons lower average temperature was somehow proof of the GHE on Earth. When I pointed out that the Moon actually had MUCH higher temperatures, due to the fact that it does not have Earths modulating systems, you went into denial.”
No. That is not correct. The Moon does NOT have a higher *mean* temperature than that of Earth. It does have a higher range of temperatures and thus a higher standard deviation, but the mean is most definitely NOT higher. The GHE does not predict that the maximum temperature of a planetary body be higher than without it. It just predicts that the mean will be higher.
Furthermore, because the Earth has an atmosphere with convective and advective processes the energy is more evenly spread out both in terms of a spatial domain and a temporal domain. The GHE does modulate this homogeneity somewhat, but it’s actually the atmosphere itself that is responsible for most of the homogeneity in local temperatures. The GHE hypothesis does predict some changes in the homogeneity like smaller differences between high and low latitudes and smaller differences between night vs. day. And that’s exactly what has been observed on Earth.
backdoor guy misrepresents me: “No. That is not correct. The Moon does NOT have a higher ‘mean’ temperature than that of Earth.”
I didn’t say that, clown. I was clearly talking about peak temperatures. I never used the word “mean”.
You have started misrepresenting me. Next will be the insults.
Nothing new.
But I’ve never claimed that the peak temperature is higher on Earth. I’ve always acknowledged that it is higher. What we are talking about here is the average temperature. I made that pretty clear in my response to ZP. If you want to shift the focus of the discussion to the peak temperature that is fine. Just understand that it won’t have much relevance to the GHE.
Quit moving to the backdoor.
You indicated that I was “not correct”, and got caught. Now you are backing away from your own words.
The backdoor is open and ready for your exit.
JD, Do you acknowledge that the Moon’s mean temperature is lower than Earth’s mean temperature? If so then I have no beef with you regarding that particular argument. If don’t acknowledge this then I’ll maintain my position that you are not correct.
bdgwx, if you don’t respond within 30 minutes, I’ll assume that I’m correct.
Wow, There is a time limit on TRUTH!
if thats how it works then Ill have to go back and remind JD and DREMT that by not answering my questions–I am also correct!
Quite often!
Too slow (and not the right person). Argument won, by the strict laws of the Internet.
Yes, if the Earth did not have an atmosphere, but still managed to retain its oceans, then average surface temperature would be far higher than it currently is. Even if you removed 30% of incoming solar radiation to account for cloud albedo, the surface Tav wold still be above 310 K.
The reason is water is a SW selective surface not a near blackbody. It is translucent to SW and SWIR but opaque to LWIR. It heats in a very different manner than a SW opaque surface. (this is the primary failure of Dr. Spencer’s modelling).
The empirical evidence to back this statement can be seen from just observing the worlds in our solar system. The snow line in our solar system is near 3AU from the sun. Only after that point can worlds like Ceres and Europa with frozen oceans exist. Our ocean planet is far too close to the sun for the crazed claim of “surface Tav of 255 K without radiative atmosphere” to ever have been correct.
–Zoe Phin says:
June 18, 2019 at 7:38 AM
Konrad is completely correct.
The atmosphere is the Earth’s coolant.
Konrad says:
June 18, 2019 at 6:31 PM
Yes, if the Earth did not have an atmosphere, but still managed to retain its oceans, then average surface temperature would be far higher than it currently is. Even if you removed 30% of incoming solar radiation to account for cloud albedo, the surface Tav wold still be above 310 K.–
I think land surface is the “coolant” rather than atmosphere.
I like to say, the land cools and the ocean warms.
My use of term “coolant” is a bit problematic, but then again you do heat up a coolant in order to make the fridge cold. And in that sense it is almost a plausible way to say it.
But I think you have a lot company when you say the atmosphere cools Earth. Or it’s said Earth cools at some elevation, say somewhere around 7 km up. Maybe it’s 5 km up or 7 to 9 km up.
Probably varies as depends on whether it’s the tropics or not.
Anyhow, I think an atmosphere warms, whether it has greenhouse gases or not.
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
Do you think adding greenhouse gases makes it act like coolant [or improve it’s ability to cool.
Now, I think think if you add more gas- either CO2 or N2- to Mars
it will make Mars colder place to live.
So Mars air density is .02 per cubic meter. And that is about 1/60th of Earth sea level air density [if the air temperature is about 20 C]. Or in terms of air pressure, Mars is about 1/100th of Earth sea level pressure. So if increase either by factor of 10.
Say density .2 and 1/10th Earth pressure.
Or Mars atmosphere mass is 25 trillion tonnes and you add 225 trillion tons of gas.
Then the air will make things colder- you lose heat faster, people or anything.
And in terms of global average temperature, it might increase it a bit. Though I not sure what Mars global average temperature is. But say it’s -60 C, it might warm it to -55 C.
But with the 25 trillion ton atmosphere, the -60 C doesn’t cool things quickly. And the nighttime of say -120 C, also does not cool things very fast. But a 250 trillion atmosphere at -100 C is going to be freezing cold.
Or with all that cost of adding 225 trillion tons of gas, would make Mars a worse place to visit or live there. Because you making it “effectively” colder. Landing on Mars would easier, but leaving would be harder.
Btw I think a much better idea is to add a few trillion tons of water.
The water makes Mars much warmer if you in the water, and if more than 5 meter under water, it provides enough pressure that you don’t need a pressure suit to breath. If cold water, you probably want a wet suit and air tank and breathing mask or be in diving bell type thing.
So 10 trillion cubic meter= 10 meter deep and 1 million meter long and wide. Or 1000 km square and 10 meters deep. And million of people could live under such a lake.
So anyhow, you and a lot people say atmosphere cools or at some point in the elevation of atmosphere, IR is emitted [which one could say is cooling]. So where in atmosphere is IR emitted or atmosphere “starts” to cool?
Or where exactly does it cool the most?
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
If said atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation, then the answer is no.
It is important to remember that radiative gases are our atmosphere’s only effective cooling mechanism. If our atmosphere were pure N2 and O2, it would superheat and most would be lost to space.
Note: there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix to cool them.
–Konrad says:
June 19, 2019 at 6:28 PM
Do you think atmosphere lacking any greenhouse gas [or dust or anything] acts as coolant?
If said atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation, then the answer is no.
It is important to remember that radiative gases are our atmospheres only effective cooling mechanism. If our atmosphere were pure N2 and O2, it would superheat and most would be lost to space.–
Nope.
–Note: there are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases in the mix to cool them.–
CO2 and H20 are common in the universe.
Our atmosphere is 99.9% free of CO2, and this is very low level of CO2. Our low level of CO2 in our atmosphere is because we have green plants which consume CO2.
Nitrogen gas in our atmosphere average velocity is about 400 m/s to leave earth requires about 9,000 m/s.
The velocity of N2 is related to speed of sound, if it was going 1000 m/s, that doubles the speed of sound, but, at that average velocity of N2 at sea level everything is incinerated.
Beside at such temperature, I imagine it would transform Nitrogen into a greenhouse gas.
Another way to say it.
First Earth currently has super heated atmosphere called thermosphere.
I wanted to see anyone gave number for the velocity of gases in thermosphere. And didn’t find it.
Here a link about thermosphere:
https://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/thermosphere-overview
And this is relevant aspect of link:
“Below the thermosphere, gases made of different types of atoms and molecules are thoroughly mixed together by turbulence in the atmosphere. Air in the lower atmosphere is mainly composed of the familiar blend of about 80% nitrogen molecules (N2) and about 20% oxygen molecules (O2). In the thermosphere and above, gas particles collide so infrequently that the gases become somewhat separated based on the types of chemical elements they contain. Energetic ultraviolet and X-ray photons from the Sun also break apart molecules in the thermosphere. In the upper thermosphere, atomic oxygen (O), atomic nitrogen (N), and helium (He) are the main components of air.”
And point about this is that atomic oxygen and atomic nitrogen and helium are are dense gases than N2 and O2 and less dense gases in atmosphere have higher average velocity.
Or at sea level N2 is about 400 m/s and helium is +1000 m/s or something like 1500 m/s.
Which important regarding the next link which has to do question does H2 escape earth atmosphere:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302555/why-doesnt-hydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere
[or H2 is less dense than atomic helium- and has higher average velocity, though atomic hydrogen is even less dense {{and btw it is crazily chemically reactive to anything}}. Anyhow whole link is somewhat interesting but I quote this part:
“Note – if you plot the above on a semilog scale you can see just how small the probability of the high velocities is – and then you remember that the upper atmosphere (above 100 km or so) is actually significantly hotter than the air closer to the surface – under certain conditions, the upper part of the thermosphere can reach temperatures over 2000 C during the day. At that temperature, the probability of hydrogen escaping increases very significantly.”
Anyhow, one could say the thermosphere is mostly de-coupled from the rest of atmosphere. Or if average global temperature were 100 K hotter or colder, it doesn’t have much effect upon the temperature of the thermosphere.
So we have a super-heated atmosphere and the less dense atomic nitrogen and oxygen don’t escape. though the less dense H2 [or Atomic hydrogen] does, apparently, have a significant chance to escape.
Oh look, it’s “Zoe Phin”, who used to go by the name “Bob Phin”, who has invented an Asian wife that happens to talk just like him.
Go back to YouTube “Zoe”.
“Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6 F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2 F ground temp.
Just another day the atmosphere cannot warm the surface.”
A better description would be ‘another day that the surface will be unable to cool by radiation to space’
Compare to a clear sky with an IR therm reading of -30 F directly overhead.
You will notice lots of surface cooling overnight on such a day.
At least you understand that energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere. With the deficiencies in your knowledge of the relevant physics, that’s about as much as we can expect.
JD, And energy is moving from the atmosphere to the surface. Your IR thermometer proves it.
Where have you been?
Do you not know any physics?
Your “proof” of IR from the atmosphere means NOTHING. Everything emits IR. Ice cubes emit IR. Are you claiming ice cubes can heat the planet? Are you that stupid? Are you unable to learn?
JD,
It’s not my proof. It was your experiment; your proof. Though I can say that I and many others can replicate it.
No, I am not claiming that ice cubes can heat the planet. What I am claiming and what has been experimentally confirmed ad-nauseam is that a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there. And it does not violate the 1LOT or 2LOT.
Repeatedly stating that “a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there” is nothing more than a smokescreen.
That’s true, but irrelevant to your effort to “prove” the bogus GHE.
The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes that nonsense.
Just more facts for you to deny,
JD said…”The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes that nonsense.”
This is no hypothesis that says the temperature at a specific location and at a specific moment in time on Earth (like what might happen directly underneath the zenith flux) should be higher than that which might occur on the Moon as a result of the GHE. Therefore this is yet another strawman.
“This is no hypothesis…”
That’s what Mike Flynn has been telling you clowns.
JD,
Well actually if I understand MF’s argument what he claims is that there is no hypothesis regarding the GHE at all. In reality the GHE theory is comprised of many testable hypothesis despite MF turning a blind eye to them. What I’m saying is that your strawman hypothesis isn’t one of them. Don’t get me wrong, your strawman hypothsis is at least testable so in that regard you can legitimately claim that it is a hypothesis; it’s just not one that climate scientists seriously consider. And why would they? It’s quite obviously been falsified. But again, that’s not a hypothesis that GHE advocates have ever supported. That’s what makes it a strawman.
The simple fact that the Earth cannot get as hot as the Moon squashes the GHE nonsense.
Get over it.
But for some odd reason, the fact that without a GHE, the Earth is much colder, as Roy plainly showed, cannot be explained away by JD.
The fact that the GHE is part of all numerical weather models, and is tested every day, and passes every day, cannot be explained away by JD.
At least you acknowledge, it seems, JD, that that the heat flow from the surface depends on the temperature of the atmosphere!
Nate, that is just you misrepresenting me, again.
You do that because you have nothing else.
Nothing new.
Then how do YOU explain that with a clear night, and a low IR temp of the sky, the surface cools off more?
The Sun is not heating the surface, moron.
‘surface cools off MORE?’ dufus
Obviously and for 477th time, you have no answers.
Yes, the surface cools off more when the Sun goes down.
Maybe you could find an adult to explain it to you.
JD thinks by pretending to be a 6th grader gets him out of defending his own claims!
‘cools off MORE’ than a night that is NOT clear or dry.
Why don’t you try the experiment?
Nate, please stop trolling.
“Oh look, its Zoe Phin, who used to go by the name Bob Phin, who has invented an Asian wife that happens to talk just like him.”
Oh look, it’s my favorite conspiracy theory, started by Bob Trenwith, a serial climate fascist.
Bob seems to have disappeared from YouTube. Why is that “Zoe” ?
bdgwx,
“So you think if the Earth didnt have an atmosphere then the surface would be even warmer?”
I provide evidence here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/06/06/real-time-physics-debunks-climate-theory/
“And what do you think about JDs observations above with his IR thermometer. The observation is proof that there is downwelling or back radiation. What do you think happens to that radiation when it hits the surface?”
This is proof of upwelling rafiation.
The thermomemter transfers energy to where it’s pointed.
https://principia-scientific.org/how-to-fool-yourself-with-a-pyrgeometer/
ZP,
The first link does not address my question in any way. It’s just another video of Postma creating more strawmen and grossly misunderstanding Earth’s energy budget as represented by a simple 3-layer model. Let me repeat my question…Do you really think the global mean temperature of Earth would be higher without an atmosphere? And if so how do you reconcile that with the fact that the mean temperature of the Moon, which has no atmosphere, is significantly lower than the mean temperature of Earth?
Let me make sure I understand the second part of your post. Are you trying to tell me that when JD points his IR thermometer up toward the sky it is actually measuring the upwelling radiation originating from the ground? And that this IR thermometer actually transfers energy to where it is pointed? I want to give you the opportunity to clarify your comments.
Zoe,
I noticed he used this equation: E_net = sigma (Ta^4 – Te^4).
But both you and JD have denied this equation can be used in other posts, such as:
“Zoe Phin says:
June 7, 2019 at 5:22 PM
‘No, you said it was in vacuum, dimwit!
Doesn’t matter. There is no heat flow to space, because space is not matter. The right hand side can’t be 300, it’s 0.
The proper equation to use is the SB equation.”
Glad to see you now realize it should be used!
JD, take note!
Well Nate, you display your incompetence, again.
The correct equation, from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, has the form:
P/A = σT^4,
where “P/A” is the emitted flux, “σ” is the constant, and “T” is the temperature of the emitting surface.
Nope, that is the point, JD. Claes Johnson uses the correct one:
E_net = sigma (Ta^4 – Te^4) in his PSI article.
Wrong Nate. That equation is nonsense.
The S/B equation was derived from Planck’s law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan2.html
YEs it can be derived from SB (as I have always said). Congrats!
And the equation is not nonsense and is useful, as Claes Johnson showed!
Wrong both times.
Nothing new.
Liar. Explain it to your PSI friends!
Ah yes, the “L” word.
Used mostly by Losers that get tangled in their own webs of deceit, usually an indicator of meltdown.
Nothing new.
As usual, JD, when you lie, which is often, you project it onto someone else.
‘That equation is nonsense.’ is a lie, false. You’ve been shown the equation is in textbooks many times.
Right here the equation is being used by one of your pals. It is used all the time.
You know it is a valid equation.
Wrong again, Nate.
That bogus equation violates the laws of thermodynamics. That’s why it has no value in the real world. Its only usefulness appears to be in pseudoscience, as you know.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron.You know why? Because when I say “I provide the evidence here”, that means I provided evidence there. Not Postma, me. Tu comprende? Read MY comments.
Nate,
You’re a moron. In your equation, you confused E_net with Ta. E_net is not a result of a radiating blackbody. Yet you took 300 W/m^2 from the ice cube and plugged it into E_net, which is wrong.
I asked you to figure out temperature of a body emitting 300 W/m^2, which requires SB Law, not heat transfer equation.
Gosh, you are braindead.
Zoe, you are very very confused.
‘a body emitting 300 W/m^2′ that is Enet!’
Just as Claes Johnson showed!
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
ZP said…”Read MY comments.”
I did read your comments. I see no commentary related to the fact that the Moon, which has no atmosphere, has a lower mean temperature than the the Earth, which does have an atmosphere. In fact, I don’t even see any commentary justifying the claim that a planetary body with an atmosphere will be cooler than the same body without an atmosphere. If I am wrong and I have overlooked one of your comments then I apologize. Which comment in particular do you think addresses this topic?
bdgwx,
“No, I am not claiming that ice cubes can heat the planet. What I am claiming and what has been experimentally confirmed ad-nauseam is that a thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there. And it does not violate the 1LOT or 2LOT.”
As long as ice cubes are above 3K, YOU ARE CLAIMING they can warm the planet.
Normal science:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q goes to Zero. Tcold = Thot
Pseudoscience
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q is a constant flux to space from coldest thing. Thot now hotter than it was before.
Magic!
Do they provide any scientific/experimental proof? No, it’s all rhetorical.
‘Normal science:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q goes to Zero. Tcold = Thot’
No, no , no. Clearly not.
Did the IR thermometer in the PSI article behave that way. No!
It behaved like this:
Q = sig*(Thot^4 – Tcold^4)
Q is a constant flux to the atmosphere. As you agreed!
Z: “This is proof of upwelling rafiation.
The thermomemter transfers energy to where its pointed.”
That is Q!
ZP said…”As long as ice cubes are above 3K, YOU ARE CLAIMING they can warm the planet.”
No. I’m not. This claim is all yours and JD’s.
But bdg, where does all that ice IR “heat” go?
If a 15 μ photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?
The energy contained in these photons get scattered in all directions with half having downward vectors and half having upward vectors. That does not mean that heat flows from CO2 to the surface. It just means that CO2 is returning some of the energy back to the surface. This slows the rate of heat loss from the surface. The surface is still warmed by the hotter Sun at the most fundamental level. And I don’t think phrases like “CO2 warms the surface” are entirely out of line. Remember, the end result is that the surface temperature increases when CO2 increases. Even though the fundamental process requires the Sun I’m not going to fault someone for that phrasing. Is it fundamentally correct…nope. But, everyone understands the outcome all the same.
backdoor guy, I enjoy watching you dance in circles.
But, could you circle in on the relevant issue:
“If a 15 &mu: photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?”
Because ice has a very high albedo. It may return radiation back to the source, but it also blocks most of the incoming sunlight. Remember, for the GHE to work it requires the input from the Sun. That’s what is unique about polyatmoic gas species. They allow incoming shortwave radiation to pass through, but block outgoing solar radiation. By the way, I’ve never claimed that ice can warm the planet. But I do support that claim that the back radiation from ice can lead to a higher equilibrium temperature if the system is configured properly like what Swanson has already demonstrated.
backdoor guy, I enjoy watching you dance in circles, again.
But, could you circle in on the relevant issue:
“If a 15 μ photon from CO2 can warm the planet, as clowns claim, then why can’t an ice photon with 50% more energy provide even more warming?”
The funny thing about reality is that it’s always there, huh?
Nate,
You’re a moron that can’t think ahead.
The atmosphere has a lapse rate due to gravitational work. Equilibrium can’t be attained because Work is constantly done.
In the green plate and my ice cube example, there is no such thing. There is no thermal gradient, and there is no work to purturb equilbrium. Hence E_net goes to zero.
Your E_net is his T_a
Your T_a is what you wish the ice cube to be
Your T_e is the environment temp
You’re just a filthy liar.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron who did not read my comments. The Earth has geothermal energy GREATER than solar inflow. The Moon doesn’t.
‘Your E_net is his T_a
I never said any such thing, that make no sense.
“In the green plate and my ice cube example, there is no such thing. There is no thermal gradient”
Only in your bizarro world, Zoe.
Green plate 240 K, space: 3 K I call that a big thermal gradient!
You make absolutely no sense.
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
ZP said…”The Earth has geothermal energy GREATER than solar inflow. The Moon doesnt.”
If you mean that the total energy contained in the thermal mass of the geosphere is greater than the yearly solar inflow then I agree.
What does that have to do with a planetary body having a higher mean temperature without an atmosphere than with one? And how do you reconcile that hypothesis with the fact that the Moon actually has a lower mean temperature?
bdg, comparing apples to aircraft carriers is desperate pseudoscience.
The Moon’s surface is not 70% water. It’s NOT going to have the same temperature as Earth.
Learn some physics.
Let’s go back to JDHuffman’s example:
“Hand held IR thermometer records 40.6F, directly overhead rain clouds, and 76.2F ground temp.”
Q = sig*(298^4 – 278^4)
Q = 445 – 338 = 107 W/m^2
Yup, that’s the heat flow from IR thermometer to clouds. We’re done, scientifically.
Ah, but your cult wants to make your rhetoric of “thermal barrier in the presence of a heat source will result in a system having a higher equilibrium temperature than if the thermal barrier were not there” a reality.
Pseudoscience to the rescue!
445 + 107 = 552 W/m^2 -> 314K or 106F
Double check:
Q = sig*(314^4 – 298^4)
Q = 552 – 445 = 107 W/m^2
Yup, by assuming cold things prevent hot things from cooling, and by maintaining equilibrium (really by adding the constant heat flow at 107 W/m^2 in the other direction), we magically boosted surface temperature.
Fantastic junk science for idiots to eat up.
‘Pseudoscience to the rescue!
445 + 107 = 552 W/m^2 -> 314K or 106F
Double check:
Q = sig*(314^4 298^4)
Q = 552 445 = 107 W/m^2’
This is gobbledegook, zoe.
No one is saying add Enet to sigma*Th^4 !
How bout think more before you post!
Why are you adding 107 to 445? And what about all of the other heat transfer processes? Why not include them in your analysis?
Also, a cold thing can’t magically boost the temperature of a warm thing. For this to happen it requires an even warmer source of energy (like the Sun) and the cold thing must be masking an even colder thing (like the CMB).
And just remember that your calculation showing 314K is all your doing. Neither I nor Nate told you this is way it should be done.
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
Clear skies now, directly overhead –> 3 °F
Ground temperature –> 86.4 °F
Sun very bright, almost directly overhead also (maybe 15° off vertical).
Clowns actually believe the sky warms the planet!
Check air temp.
Are you denying that with a clear, dry, sky at night there will be more radiative cooling of the surface??
Check it.
Yes, JD, good observation proving the sky warms the planet. If your clear skies now, directly overhead reading had been > -265F the ground temperature would be -> 53.4F. 86.4F IS warmer than 53.4F, good point.
Way to go, even you understand the GHE when you do an observation or experiment instead of drawing bogus cartoons.
Nate is in denial.
fluffball is in denial.
But, where’s bdg?
Surely he has not gone out the backdoor, already.
Denial? No denial JD, I agreed with your observation! Now you must be writing in denial of your own proper observation. What a tangled web JD weaves. JD denies JD! JD remains knee slapping funny as always.
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Just another DREM Team pop up fail. You should try looking at things from the observational science side like JD, occasionally, DREMT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-358377
Be eternally silent, disgrace.
Nate,
“Green plate 240 K, space: 3 K I call that a big thermal gradient!”
You think space has a temperature? OK, what’s the temperature between the blue and the green plate? Is it 3K?
Between Blue, 290K, and Green 240 K. there is also a big thermal gradient.
I believe Zoe was asking what the temperature of the “space” inbetween the blue and green plates is. Not what is the temperature difference between blue and green. Just trying to help. Don’t shoot the messenger.
If thats what she’s asking then it is just further evidence that she makes no sense.
Well, you see you claimed that between the green plate and space there was a big thermal gradient. This prompted Zoe to exclaim, “you think space has a temperature? OK, what’s the temperature [of the space] between the blue and the green plate? Is it 3K?”
The point being made is pretty clear, to the honest.
DREMT, the relevant thermal gradient in the problem is obviously between the plates, as you should know.
People saying anything else are just using sophistry.
As to whether heat can be emitted to space, I showed clear cut evidence that it can and is.
That was a faux controversy.
Nate, the point being made is that if you are going to consider a “thermal gradient “ between the green plates and space, you may as well consider the “thermal gradient” between the blue plate and the space inbetween it and the green plate. Presumably the space inbetween the plates is also at 3K. Heck, why not consider the “thermal gradient” between the green plate and the space inbetween it and the blue plate, not just the space on the other side of the green plate…
…Zoe is mocking your position, you see. I am just explaining this to you so you understand Zoe’s comment. No need for you to keep responding.
Zoe is a loon, and you think she’s worth quoting.
That says a lot!
Punch drunk with argument-loss, Nate is reduced to childish insults.
Actually, the ‘mocking’ shows someone with no good answers.
“No need for you to keep responding.”
ditto
#2
“No need for you to keep responding”.
JDHuffman,
“Clowns actually believe the sky warms the planet!”
No. You need to use the proper occult lingo. They don’t believe cold warms hot, they believe that cold prevents hot from cooling, which raises hot’s temperature.
You can’t just summarize their B.S. succinctly. That’s an occult no no. Please respect their customs, they need it to have some sense of purpose. They are really bad people, and they need this cult for redemption.
☺
To be pedantic I think a cooler body can result in a higher equilibrium temperature of a warmer body than without it IF, and that’s a big IF, the system also has an even hotter body providing the heat and IF the cooler body acts as a thermal barrier. If you agree that the insulation in home will result in a higher temperature in the presence of a furnace then you are a part of this cult as well. I think we all find common ground here.
backdoor guy, you are pretty desperate now, but your desperation will increase as you continue to meltdown.
It’s a good thing you know where the backdoor is, huh?
Nate,
“Between Blue, 290K, and Green 240 K. there is also a big thermal gradient.”
So space between blue and green is radiating to blue and to green. How come that is not shown? This changes all the equations. There is now a huge gradient object called space sitting between blue and green, that’s a lot of arrows. Don’t forget the backradiation heating from space!
Obviously youve lost the argument because now you’re just being silly..
Just going to quietly link this through to this comment.
Nate,
Surely if space can be heated, then the space close to the green plate would eventually be heated, and heat flow reduced to zero. Why is the green plate constantly heating space as if it’s 0K? I thought you believed space could be heated, so why no result?
Even you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K.
So now you are arguing with yourself!
And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.
This links through to this comment.
Whenever Nate is shown to be an idiot he counters with “This is gobbledegook, No one ever said …”. He doesn’t do any alternative math to come up with a different answer. Nope, he just denies the truth.
So Nate, do the math! What’s your result for backradiation heating?
No thanks, tried that with you before, with ice, and you just get all confused, twisted what I said into something else, and changed the problem.
You are immune to facts and logic.
This links through to this comment.
bdgwx,
You’re a moron.
“If you mean that the total energy contained in the thermal mass of the geosphere is greater than the yearly solar inflow then I agree.”
I agree, but that’s not the interesting fact.
No, moron, the energy flux from the earth to space at the surface is greater than the solar energy flux into the surface.
Look at any global geothermal gradient available on google images and the temperature at depth=0 meters: they are always greater than what sun provides.
You are so stuck in climate junk science, that you find this geologic fact unbelievable. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance, and so lashing out.
Zoe you are just stoned.
‘No, moron, the energy flux from the earth to space at the surface is greater than the solar energy flux into the surface.’
No 90 mW/m^2 is not greater than 240 W/m^2.
Even JP tried to explain this to you!
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/11 at 3:08 PM
Aw Zoe. Sorry.
The geothermal heat is negligiblemeasured in milliWatts. What is it: 91.6 mW/m^2 or 0.0916 W/m^2.
It is usually ignored, because if you add it into either 240 W/m^2 or 1370 W/m^2, it is still negligible.”
This links through to this comment.
ZP,
I’m still not sure what you mean then. Geothermal flux to the surface is like 0.1 W/m^2 and the tidal dissipation of the Earth/Moon system adds like 0.01 W/m^2 so that’s even less. This is at least 3 orders of magnitude less than the average solar flux.
If you’re trying to claim that the geothermal flux is larger than the solar flux then that is an extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back that up?
This links through to this comment.
Nate,
“No thanks, tried that with you before, with ice”
Indeed. You did exactly the same math with the ice. Exactly the same. Now you deny it.
“and changed the problem”
In all my changes the ambient environment was less than 0C, because I was trying to show what the hibachi does.
YOU are the one that changed it to above 0C, so you could prove the ice melts.
Your hibachi math couldn’t melt the ice, so you made the ambient environment do it.
Nate lies and denies, lies and denies, lies and denies, …
Three quick links, just as a reminder of what was being discussed at the time.
Here’s a link:
where you can clearly see I am not doing what zoe is claiming at all.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/#comment-356497
I would always recommend people read through all the comments, to get the full story.
Now you say something.
Ok. fine.
Rather than posting content-free posts, why dont YOU read through all the posts (no else is) including the many odd things Zoe has said, and then decide whether and why you agree with any of them, or not.
Maybe then you can weigh in with intelligent fact-based support for it.
“Ok. fine.“
Cool, good to hear.
Nate,
“Even you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K.”
There is 2.9K coming from the hot stars and galaxies, but there is no 2.9K emitted by space. I never claimed space emits 2.9K, liar.
“And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.”
Ah, so you finally admit heat transfer can only occur between objects. Great. Since the green plate has no objects in space to radiate to (by experiment design), there is no heat transfer from green plate to “space”.
Or do you still believe that space is a magic heat sink that can’t be heated?
‘There is 2.9K coming from the hot stars and galaxies, but there is no 2.9K emitted by space. I never claimed space emits 2.9K, liar.’
Actually you are lying and twisting my words again. Desperate.
N: ‘you already admitted there is radiation in outer space with a temperature of 2.9 K’
‘Ah, so you finally admit heat transfer can only occur between objects. Great. Since the green plate has no objects in space to radiate to (by experiment design), there is no heat transfer from green plate to ‘space’.
False. You long ago lost that argument.
With no facts to back up your claims, and unable to refute NASA or standard physics, now you are just making up BS by the truckload.
Go troll someone else.
Nate,
“Actually you are lying and twisting my words again. Desperate.”
You had a whole comment to clarify your position. You didn’t because anything you say would be a contradiction.
Your NASA quote shows they send heat to space. Your new position is heat can only be sent to matter in space.
“And, nope, never said space could be heated.. objects that the radiation hits in space can be heated.”
So which is it? Is NASA saying they are sending heat to space, OR sending heat to matter in space with inverse square law operating?
I suspect your new position is: both and neither, whatever I need it to be whereever I need it to be.
You’re now agreeing with me?
‘So which is it? Is NASA saying they are sending heat to space, OR sending heat to matter in space with inverse square law operating?’
Zoe, Ive explained this already, ad nauseum.
Radiation is energy flux. Loss of energy by radiation causes a thing to cool off, to have heat loss. It is one of the three methods of heat transfer!
NASA does emit heat to space by radiation. It is a fact. And as a result it cools the ISS. It works!
As I explained, if heat is emitted to space as radiation, it may hit something far away or in the far future. There is plenty of stuff to hit given enough time!
But the ISS doesnt care, it still cools the same either way, because it is emitting radiant energy! Same with the dark side of the moon.
And it still receives the 2.9K radiation from space that was emitted by matter long ago. The ISS doesnt care when or who emitted it!
The result is a net heat flux of Q = sigma[T(ISS)^4 – (2.9K)^4]
This links through to this comment.
bdgwx,
“Im still not sure what you mean then. Geothermal flux to the surface is like 0.1 W/m^2”
That’s the geothermal HEAT flux. Earth energy out > Solar energy in.
“Do you have extraordinary evidence to back that up?”
I already did, moron: every geothermal gradient image on google images.
Ok, gotcha. So how large do you think the imbalance is? And can you present evidence to support this hypothesis?
Here is but one line of evidence that falsifies the hypothesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330399834_2018_Continues_Record_Global_Ocean_Warming
This links through to this comment.
Nate,
“Even JP tried to explain this to you!”
Keep reading moron:
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/11 at 9:57 PM
Right I get you nowdistinction between energy vs. heat. Ive missed thatwow. Good point Zoe impressive.
So that means that geothermal energy provides a baseline ground surface temperature already around 9 Celsius!?!
I mean!!!”
“Joseph E Postma says:
2019/06/12 at 10:35 AM
If the total energy is only those milliWatts, then the surface would only be maintained near absolute zerobut if that value is a current actuall heat fluxthenit would still maintain much higher without the Sun.”
Let’s see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
“Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.”
E_net = Earth Energy Flux – Solar Energy Flux
E_net is positive, ergo
Earth Energy Flux > Solar Energy Flux
Nope, he is not agreeing with you that 90 mW/m^2 > 240 W/m^2.
Because that is FALSE.
What you are saying, as usual makes no sense.
E_net = Earth Energy Flux Solar Energy Flux
is NOT POSITIVE.
This links through to this comment.
Or maybe you mean Earth energy flux is 240 W/m^2 + 90 mW/m^2 = 240.09 W/m^2, and ok that is, slightly > 240 W/m^2.
Ok, and what does that do for you? The solar portion of the input to the surface is still 99.64 %.