Guest post by Erl Happ
Here’s a hypothetical:
Let’s imagine that we have an atmosphere of two parts. The first 10 km of the atmosphere has no greenhouse gas. The second 40 km has a greenhouse gas incorporated.
In the lower layer there is water vapor and clouds that come and go according to the temperature of the air.
Let’s consider that there is an impermeable membrane over the surface preventing the interchange of moisture with the atmosphere. No precipitation of moisture from the atmosphere falls to the surface.
Now, set this planet spinning in space around a sun in such a way that the polar sections experienced permanent night for part of the year so that the entire depth of the atmosphere (both layers) within the polar night region cool down and a gradient of ever diminishing temperature occurs all the way from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, the entire 50 kilometers.
Parts of the planet would be warm and parts would be cold. Ascent and descent of the atmosphere is forced by these thermal differences but the ascent is usually confined to just a few kilometers in elevation.
Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.
That greenhouse gas absorbs long wave radiation from the planet. This sets up a convective circulation within the polar night that spins the greenhouse gas rich air away from the pole towards the margins of the polar night. Remember that temperature descends all the way from the bottom to the top of the atmosphere within the polar night and this promotes convection throughout the entire profile. In fact the two layers act as a coupled circulation.
So, greenhouse gas descends into the near surface layer on the margins of the polar night that hitherto was entirely free of greenhouse gas. This causes the air on the margins of the polar night to warm as it descends. Surface pressure falls away in this region.
Now, if this circulation came and went, we would see clouds come and go on the margins of the polar night as the air alternatively cooled and warmed.
Now, let us imagine that there is a wind that blows from the polar night towards the equator that carries greenhouse gas towards the equator warming the air and causing cloud to disappear.
Now, let us introduce land and sea in the winter hemisphere and assume that the air on the margins of the polar night descends preferentially over the sea. We would then expect the greenhouse gas to be concentrated in the atmosphere over the sea. This would give rise to a pattern of warm and cool air, clouds in the cool zone and none in the warm zone. A cloud free path would be set up that ran from the warmer margins of the night zone towards the equator. The cloud would come and go as the coupled circulation waxed and waned.
The lower of the two layers would show zones of warmed air like the map below.
Figure 1
And under the influence of the wind that blows towards the equator we might see a pattern of sea surface temperature like this:
Figure 2
Now, let’s imagine that there is an insidious chemical generated in the rarefied atmosphere above both layers that has an affinity for the greenhouse gas and this chemical is intermittently trickled into the top of the layer containing the greenhouse gas and this occurs over the pole. This is accomplished by a thing we call the ‘night jet’. Accordingly, the greenhouse gas content of the night zone would wax and wane causing a fluctuation in cloud and the temperature of the sea.
If we wished to know what was changing the weather and the climate we would have to look at what changes the trickle rate and what causes the polar circulation to wax and wane.
We look closely and find the ‘night jet’ is active when surface pressure is high.
We discover that the pressure is high when the sun is less active.
When the sun is active pressure is low and the night jet is less active, the greenhouse gas content builds up, the temperature of the column increases and the convective circulation goes into overdrive. And the clouds disappear.
And the temperature of the polar stratosphere might look like this:
Figure 3
So, in this circumstance the planet warms. Does anyone recognize the origin of the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-8?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Erl said: “Let’s imagine that we have an atmosphere of two parts. The first 10 km of the atmosphere has no greenhouse gas. The second 40 km has a greenhouse gas incorporated. In the lower layer there is water vapor and clouds that come and go according to the temperature of the air.”
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas…
Brilliant essay and spot on. Why is it that there is so little focus in AGW public communications on solar UV output? Is it because the comparatively enormous variability is known, its effect on O3 is clear and that bringing too much attention to this relationship would blow a hole in not just the cosy compact that’s been achieved over climate between scientifically-illiterate politicos, but also the Montreal Protocol and the aims to broaden its application?
As you’ve said previously, ENSO IS climate change/variability/global warming, rather than a consequence of it. It’s the Sun wot dunnit.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:10 pm
“Water vapor is a greenhouse gas…”
————————————————————–
Many people with more comprehension than I have stress that:-
Water vapor is THE greenhouse gas.
Erl said: “We discover that the pressure is high when the sun is less active”
Quantify that: produce a graph that on the X-axis has solar activity and on the Y-axis pressure.
Leif beat me to it. That said, I am still not sure what you are seeking to establish
Leif: “Water vapor is a greenhouse gas…”
Many forget that. Or ignore it. Or never mention it.
Yes water vapor is opaque to IR. As is C02.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
“Water vapor is a greenhouse gas…”
Technically speaking it’s not, it is actually just a bi-product of the hydration cycle in a greenhouse and not a gas that is added for its own properties like CO2 or Nitrogen stuff. It is very rarely water in a greenhouse turns to gas really, apparently.
Surely the enormous amounts of energy absorbed by water during evaporation (and the smaller but still large amounts absorbed during melt) being more than 2500 times the specific heat capacity of CO2 dwarf the radiative effects into relative insignificance.
And surely the whole of the atmosphere heats up and radiates.
I believe radiation is a relatively ineffective mechanism for energy transfer – sure the only method for space transmission. Almost every method of cooling we use to keep our machines at working temperatures relies on conduction/convection. Even our car radiators dont work by radiation.
The rising water vapour carries enormous amounts of energy high into the atmosphere and releases it where it escapes to space during precipitation events – particularly thunderstorms.
I see the sun warms the earth during the day, ocean water evaporates and parts of the oceans warm, the atmosphere warms. At night everything starts to cool off, thankfully rather slowly given that space is fairly cool, until we get our next fix of energy at dawn.
I think the modest warming is down to the sun and we could be heading for a cooling spell. If this is correct I may live long enough to see it happen.
This will no doubt inconvenience the IPCC who carefully construct their fear campaign so that it is immenent enough to generate concern but always just out of reach of most alive today to witness.
1DandyTroll: I was under the impression that gaseous water vapor is called ‘humidity’. And most greenhouses that I’ve ever gone into are very humid.
He has posited a fixed amount of water vapour, and no precipitation, just variations in RH resulting in appearance/disappearance of cloud (AKA albedo). So the delta is the GHG’s circulation patterns.
Kieth said:”Why is it that there is so little focus in AGW public communications on solar UV output? ”
DO you really think they are at all interested in the science? It’s a political agenda using junk science as an excuse for its imposition. Carbon regulations and all issues related to fighting global warming have nothing to do with the good of the people or the world or the climate or the environment. It’s all about money and power—and AGW is the excuse/crisis.
They know that green energy will fail, but going nuclear means work for already existing companies. Green energy means the chance to give huge start up funds to your friends with the great expectation of failure and “loss” of lots of money—does it all really get spent or simply reallocated during the development/failure to certain pockets?
1DandyTroll says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Then you need to step into a greenhouse. Beyond that, nothing you’ve said makes any sense.
1DandyTroll says:
“It is very rarely water in a greenhouse turns to gas really, apparently.”
LOL… then what is evaporation?
Thanks Anthony for introducing this topic and particularly on a Sunday when all the retired gents need to be entertained.
Leif. Thanks for the comment. Good to see you participate in a discussion about the atmosphere.And thanks to all those who will comment regardless of your point of view.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:10 pm
“Water is a greenhouse gas”
I have deliberately neutralized the issue via the membrane assumption. Why did I do that?
1. The great bulk of long wave radiation originates high in the troposphere as dry air descends.Its dry up there because the air has been dehumidified in the tropics at minus 80°C.
2. Reanalysis documents the fact that atmospheric precipitable moisture is left behind as the surface warms. The air becomes drier and this enhances the warming process. Cloud cover is impaired. In the last ten years precipitable moisture has begun to recover and this will enhance cooling.
3. The cooling of the globe in November to March as global cloud cover reaches its peak at 3% more than in July indicates to me that the net effect of water vapour in the atmosphere is to cool the surface. This is despite the fact that the Earth is closer to the sun in January than in July.So, I say that all effects considered, when water vapour levels increase the globe will cool.
But, I didn’t want to get into that discussion because there is little sense to be seen in most comments on that issue, and none at all from those who argue from their perception of the principles of physics rather than observation of the real world. But I do believe that Lindzen and Spencer are talking negative feedback.
So, lets not drag that in. Lets focus on the things that drive the change in cloud cover and surface temperature as documented in the figures.The change in cloud cover is initiated at the poles where the atmosphere is very dry and that changes very little over time.
Secondly I want to focus on the stratosphere where there is manifestly a very effective greenhouse gas. The bottom half of the stratosphere is warmed in the main via the absorption by ozone of long wave radiation from the Earth.The stratosphere is the best illustration we have that a greenhouse effect exists.But I hasten to add that there is no evidence whatsoever that down-welling radiation from the stratosphere warms the upper troposphere.
The beauty of the stratosphere is that it is well demarcated from the troposphere and where we get an interaction we can see what happens when we get an increase in the proportion of greenhouse gas at a particular place in the troposphere. The influx of ozone from the stratosphere on the margins of the Antarctic and the Arctic affects geopotential heights, surface pressure, air temperature and cloud cover. Can we just acknowledge that? Can we acknowledge that it appears to be a driver of cloud cover. Would that be asking too much?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Erl said: “We discover that the pressure is high when the sun is less active”
Quantify that: produce a graph that on the X-axis has solar activity and on the Y-axis pressure.
Response: Tomorrow, or when when Anthony brings on part 4.
richard verney says:
August 20, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“Leif beat me to it. That said, I am still not sure what you are seeking to establish”
Better read the post again then. What I am talking about is the reason why the clouds come and go and how that determines the manner in which the surface warms…………but perhaps that is not a matter of interest to you?
Are you ready to admit CERN’s CLOUD experiment is applicable? If so, why; if not, why not; explain.
Erl said: “Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble. That part of the atmosphere that contains the least water is within the polar night because it is coldest, so the greenhouse gas attains a higher concentration there.”
This sounds like nonsense to me. Gases mix, don’t dissolve into each other…
RockyRoad says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Are you ready to admit CERN’s CLOUD experiment is applicable?
The CLOUD crew promised publication in August. Nothing yet. They have 11 days left…
Erl: some info about a greenhouse gas in the stratosphere:
http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_PDF/Aoki_2003_Tellus.pdf
and greenhouse gas concentrations in general:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Rosco says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm
I agree. Let’s thank the maker of the universe for evaporation/conduction/convection.Without that the surface of the Earth would be very warm. Try walking on dark sand in the middle of a cloudless day in summer and give us your impression as to how the heat is conveyed.
Brian H says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“He has posited a fixed amount of water vapour, and no precipitation, just variations in RH resulting in appearance/disappearance of cloud (AKA albedo). So the delta is the GHG’s circulation patterns.”
Exactly. And if we could stick to that we might focus on the bits that really matter.
RockyRoad says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:34 pm
“Are you ready to admit CERN’s CLOUD experiment is applicable? If so, why; if not, why not; explain.”
Relevant but I see no evidence that cloud increases as the sun is quieter. I see La Nina at solar maximum and El Nino at minimum. So, there are other physical forces that are patently more influential.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Now, let’s imagine that the greenhouse gas is water soluble”
Ozone is soluble in water. In the industrial generation of ozone the air is dried at minus 80°C so that the ozone can be generated and has some residual persistence.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Re solubility of ozone in water vapour: More things to think about:
The elevation of the tropopause to 18km in the tropics where a temperature of minus 85°C is attained, is due to the erosion of ozone by water vapour. The effect of water vapour on ozone in the stratosphere is acknowledged in the literature.
The warmest part of the stratosphere is over the summer pole, not the equator. That’s not due to short wave energy reception. Its due to enhanced concentration of ozone in part due to reduced night jet activity but also due to the dryness of the air.
The stratosphere in the night zone is warm due to the absorption of OLR by ozone.There is not a lot of OLR but ozone captures it very effectively.
steven mosher says:
August 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm
“Yes water vapor is opaque to IR. As is C02.”
This is not correct CO2 only aborbs in a narrow wavelength range around 14.8 micron but it is transparent for most of the IR range of 4 to 25 micron. Water vapor also absorbs in the same range as CO2 and as there is more water present it swaps the effect of CO2. In addition water vapour also aborbs in other wavelength ranges of the IR in fact 100% over 15 micron. If there was no CO2 present in the atmosphere it would not by itself change the climate although CO2 is necessary for plant growth which in turn has an impact on land base water vapor transpiration and cloud formation.
It should be added that there is a window in the IR spectrum where the atmosphere does not absorb.
Aren’t all atmospheric gases more or less “greenhouse” gases?
erl happ says:
August 20, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Ozone is soluble in water
There is no water in the stratosphere. Just [precious little] ice and water vapor.
“””””” Guest post by Erl Happ
Here’s a hypothetical:
Let’s imagine that we have an atmosphere of two parts. The first 10 km of the atmosphere has no greenhouse gas. The second 40 km has a greenhouse gas incorporated.
In the lower layer there is water vapor and clouds that come and go according to the temperature of the air. “””””
So why aren’t you sticking to the script; the first 10 km is supposed to be devoid of greenhouse gases; and you immediately include there the only green house gas that maters a hill of beans.
What is the purpose of this running off the rails hypothetical ??
Once we get the ground rules established on this hypothetical, it might prove to be interesting.