Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Well, in my last post I took a first cut at figuring the cloud radiative “feedback” from the CERES dataset. However, an alert commenter pointed out that I hadn’t controlled for the changes in solar radiation. The problem is that even if the clouds stay exactly the same, if the solar radiation increases, the net cloud radiative effect (CRE) increases due to increased reflection … and I hadn’t thought about that, had I? Dang … so my post was wrong.
So, to control for solar radiation, I did a multiple linear regression. The dependent variable was the net CRE, and the independent variables were the surface temperature and the solar radiation. As you might expect, this gave smaller results than my first analysis. I believe that this method is correct, but I’m always willing to be shown wrong. Not happy to be … but willing to be.
Figure 1. Net CRE as a function of surface temperature, after controlling for solar radiation. The gray lines are contour lines at zero W/m2 per °C. I suspect that the blue around Antarctica is an artifact due to the presence of the sea ice edge.
Note that there are several areas in the tropical oceans which have a strong negative change in radiation with respect to temperature. These are the areas of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zones, about ten degrees both north and south of the Equator. It is in these areas that much of the regulation of global temperature takes place, by means of the combined effect of cumulus clouds and thunderstorms.
In addition, there is a large area of the Southern Ocean where the clouds oppose the temperature rise.
The area of clouds off of the coast of California and northern Mexico is an area of persistent stratus that also strongly opposes warming. (See here for a discussion of this location in the literature).
Finally, I note that the global average change in net cloud radiation for each degree of surface warming is positive, at 0.7 W/m2 per degree. On reflection, it seems to me that we need to compare that to how much we’d expect the cloud radiation to increase if the surface temperature goes up by 1°C.
And I don’t know the answer to that … still pondering on that one.
Finally, it’s worth bearing in mind that the radiative effect of clouds is only the beginning of a long list of ways that clouds cool the surface. These include:
• Physically transporting heat from the surface directly to the upper troposphere where it radiates easily to space. Since the heat is transported either as latent heat, or as sensible heat inside the thunderstorm tower, it doesn’t interact with the large amount of water vapor, CO2, and other GHGs in the lower atmosphere.
• Wind driven evaporative cooling. Once the thunderstorm starts, it creates its own wind around the base. This self-generated wind increases evaporation in several ways, particularly over the ocean.
a) Evaporation rises linearly with wind speed. At a typical squall wind speed of 10 mps (20 knots), evaporation is about ten times higher than at “calm” conditions (conventionally taken as 1 mps).
b) The wind increases evaporation by creating spray and foam, and by blowing water off of trees and leaves. These greatly increase the evaporative surface area, because the total surface area of the millions of droplets is evaporating as well as the actual surface itself.
c) To a lesser extent, surface area is also increased by wind-created waves (a wavy surface has larger evaporative area than a flat surface).
d) Wind created waves in turn greatly increase turbulence in the boundary layer. This increases evaporation by mixing dry air down to the surface and moist air upwards.
e) Because the spray rapidly warms to air temperature, which in the tropics is often warmer than ocean temperature, evaporation also rises above the sea surface evaporation rate.
• Wind driven albedo increase. The white spray, foam, spindrift, changing angles of incidence, and white breaking wave tops greatly increase the albedo of the sea surface. This reduces the energy absorbed by the ocean.
• Cold rain and cold wind. As the moist air rises inside the thunderstorm’s heat pipe, water condenses and falls. Since the water is originating from condensing or freezing temperatures aloft, it cools the lower atmosphere it falls through. It also cools the surface when it hits. In addition, the falling rain entrains a cold wind. This cold wind blows radially outwards from the center of the falling rain, cooling the surrounding area.
• Increased reflective area. White fluffy cumulus clouds are not tall, so basically they only reflect from the tops. On the other hand, the vertical pipe of the thunderstorm reflects sunlight along its entire length. This means that thunderstorms shade an area of the ocean out of proportion to their footprint, particularly in the late afternoon.
• Modification of upper tropospheric ice crystal cloud amounts (Lindzen 2001, Spencer 2007). These clouds form from the tiny ice particles that come out of the smokestack of the thunderstorm heat engines. It appears that the regulation of these clouds has a large effect, as they are thought to warm (through IR absorption) more than they cool (through reflection).
• Enhanced nighttime radiation. Unlike long-lived stratus clouds, cumulus and cumulonimbus generally die out and vanish as the night cools, leading to the typically clear skies at dawn. This allows greatly increased nighttime surface radiative cooling to space.
• Delivery of dry air to the surface. The air being sucked from the surface and lifted to altitude is counterbalanced by a descending flow of replacement air emitted from the top of the thunderstorm. This descending air has had the majority of the water vapor stripped out of it inside the thunderstorm, so it is relatively dry. The dryer the air, the more moisture it can pick up for the next trip to the sky. This increases the evaporative cooling of the surface.
Finally, since they are emergent phenomena that only arise where the surface is warmer than its surroundings, clouds and thunderstorms preferentially cool mainly the warmer areas in a way which is not well represented in bulk averages. In other words, the averages of the bulk measurements of say temperature and relative humidity in a gridcell containing thunderstorms gives little idea of the high-speed movements of massive amounts of energy which are taking place.
Anyhow, that’s take two on the CRE … I’m still ruminating on what I can learn from the CERES data, it’s far from mined out.
Best to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rising packets of warm (and moist) air do not heat the atmosphere. What they do is equalize the air temperature. An atmosphere in equilibrium is isothermal at 5˚C. (lowering the surface temperature).
The wet lapse rate is 5˚C/km and the dry lapse rate is 6.5˚C/km. Hence water vapor is a negative feedback.
It really is that trivial.
When a cold object radiates towards a warmer object, the warmer object does not get warmer still. This point seems to be misunderstood by all but about two or three commenters here. When “Heat Transfer” occurs, the object to which the heat is transferred gets WARMER! It is a rule, deal with it. Heat goes from warm to cool, not the other way, even though radiation occurs from all matter above absolute zero.
Willis, please read all about enthalpy. I would happily lend you my Thermo text from good old U of M, just ask. Also read about Availability, a key concept not at all intuitive.
And by the way, heat of vaporization/condensation appears with no change in WATER temperature, but a large transfer of heat between water and air.
Willis,
I have just sent my editors at ECN http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/ a link to this piece and your previous one in a discussion of peer review. I’ll post a direct link when it goes up (sometime Monday is likely).
A LONG way from Olema, eh? 😉
DonV,
I tried this gedanken experiment to have a look at an aspect of my pet theory.
1. Take a Plank type hohlraum. (a cavity within a black body radiator as described by Max Plank, and a with Plank radiation distribution)
2. Take a water droplet with a particle of carbon within it and place it in the hohlraum.
3. Cool the hohlraum.
a. I would expect the carbon particle to be a better black body radiator than water, I would expect it to radiate and absorb electromagnetic radiation, in this case it would mostly radiate until it is in radiation equilibrium with the walls.
b. The water, I would expect would transfer its energy to the carbon particle by convection and conduction and not be as efficient a radiator as the carbon particle.
c. Some of the wavelengths are re-adsorbed by the water within its adsobtion bands; the energy again being transferred to the carbon particle and being re-radiated in a portion of the spectrum where there are no water adsorption bands until equilibrium with the walls is reached.
4. Heat the hohlraum above the water boiling point.
a. I would expect the particle to adsorb electromagnetic radiation that got past the adsorption bands of water.
b. If the walls are sufficiently hot, the water will evaporate away from the carbon particle. The carbon particle will maintain somewhat constant temperature until the water is gone, in the mean while adsorbing more efficiently because of the larger temperature difference with the walls, then, when all of the water is gone, the carbon particle will equilibrate more rapidly with the walls.
5. Cool the hohlraum below the water dew point.
a. Some water molecules will stick to the carbon and remain there, (they had been sticking and leaving.) The energy will be radiated to the walls more efficiently than water does by itself.
b. This process will continue until a water droplet with a carbon particle in it is re-formed and is in equilibrium with the walls.
Why does this matter in the overall scheme of things? (My pet theory of why dust particles are important to transient phenomena)
1. I suspect it matters in emergent or transient phenomena where phase changes are involved, because it alters the rate of equilibrium and allows some of the energy to be radiated to space, or adsorbed before it hits the surface.
2. I suspect that within a rapidly rising cumulonimbus the dust particles will radiate past the adsorption bands of water, enabling the cloud to lose energy more rapidly, somewhat counteracting the heating of the surrounding air, and thereby altering the lapse rates.
3. This is why I was curious if anyone had looked at a cumulonimbus with a wide band IR spectrometer.
Sorry about my English.
Everyone reading this please find problems with the idea.
Even though tropical thunderstorms transport heat upward from the surface, it appears to me that the tropical tropopause level does not get rid of that heat by net radiation. This air is colder there than troposphere and stratosphere air elsewhere, and appears to me as gaining heat as a result of radiation. So where is the heat lifted from the surface going if this air is gaining heat once it hits the tropopause? It appears to me that a little bit is radiated away on the way up, and the remainder is radiated away as this air descends elsewhere in the world.
So… trying to understand it simply, since I’m a simple guy …
As temperature increases, increased evaporation causes increased clouds, causing increased reflection causing a tendency to decrease the temperature. As the temperature decreases, the cloud cover decreases, decreasing the reflection causing a tendency to increase the temperature. Overall, it keeps the temperature of the Earth in a fairly comfortable, extremely livable temperature range! Sounds an awful lot like what the thermostat in my house does.
I think I learned about this cycle in the 4th grade about 60 years ago. It’s nice to know things haven’t changed that much …
otsar:
“I tried this gedanken experiment to have a look at an aspect of my pet theory.”
I’ll be brief, not trying to necessarily throw cold water on you pet theory but by just reading through point 3 it seems you have never heard of phonons, near field, far field, form factors, what happens with mid IR at the water/air interface. My suggestion, read a little about the physics you are trying to speak of, you have radiation radiating from a solid particle within a liquid and you might read to make sure your pet theory is at least planted on solid ground. I won’t do that digging myself but on the surface it seems you may have some basic problems.
The non-radiative negative feedbacks of clouds appear to me as considered (however inaccurately or otherwise) by IPCC-favored scientists as part of the lapse rate feedback, which is widely considered as being a significant negative one. Some of any inaccuracies may be in negativity of this feedback (or feedback set) increasing as greenhouse gases increase.
Wayne,
I kept it as simple as I could so as not to cause the reader to become catatonic and still put the bare essentials of an idea across. Actually I do know a little bit of what I am talking about. One of the things I do during a typical day is I fire electrons of different energies at solid surfaces and analyse the emitted Auger electrons(AES) and EM (EDS,WDS) radiation to determine atomic composition and distribution while sputtering away the atomic layers. One of the other things I do is irradiate surfaces with IR and look at the transmitted and adsobed wavelengs to determine molecular structure(FTIR.) The other thing I do is irradiate surfaces with Al Ka radiation and analyse the emitted electrons to determine elemental composition and bond energies(XPS). I do this to solve problems in thin films and surfaces. In the past I developed sensors for electron inertial confinement fusion experiments. I got the idea from how Thallium doped NaI scintillators operate.
The particle within the droplet is far more complex than I have let on, and is well beyond my capabilities on all levels.
On a macroscopic scale I still think it would be interesting and more tractable to look at the emission spectra from a cumulonimbus from all sidesg.
The parallel post referred to above, as noted by Bishop Hill:
http://euanmearns.com/ipcc-ar5-unprecedented-uncertainty/#more-138
Wayne,
Thank you. I forgot to thank you.
Let me clear up some confusion created by my not so clear explanation of my theory. I will do so by simply stating what I believe to be facts without explanation. I believe my proposed addition to Willis theory is cohesive with these facts:
1) Water is the smallest naturally occurring stable gaseous, molecule that is abundant on the planet. Naturally occurring oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic and therefore both are almost twice as big as a water (H20 mw18,N2 mw28, O2 mw32) (Hydrogen and Hellium are smaller but not anywhere near as abundant.) CO2 at a whopping 44 mw is HUGE and is considered a trace gas even at the scary concentration of 400 ppm. (mw = molecular weight)
2) When compared to all of the other gases CO2 is by far the most dense. CO2 in its pure undiluted state is so dense you can pour it into the other naturally occuring gases and those gases will float on top of it until dilution occurs and they become well mixed. (This is classically illustrated with the chem prof pouring a beaker of CO2 down a trough filled with burning candles and showing them allsequentially going out.)
3) When compared to all the other gases, gaseous water is the least dense. But water is also:
a) the “stickiest”,
b) the most chemically active, and
c) the only naturally occuring gaseous molecule that exists in our atmosphere in all three of it phases, NATURALLY. (Or perhaps that should be four phases? Liquid crystal?)
4) Water when it condenses (or freezes) in our atmosphere will initially condense in its pure state. But very quickly it will “scavenge” other molecules out of the atmosphere. When it first forms, a tiny water droplet has a neutral pH of 7, but very quickly it will scavenge and ionize CO2 (and/or SO2) out of the surrounding gas molecules and quickly become a little acidic.
5) The following is the order of DECREASING effectiveness of heat transfer between any two liquids or gases: a) conduction, b) convection and finally c) radiation.
6) By FAR the vast majority of excess heat energy on the earth is TRANSPORTED laterally and vertically from areas of excess heat to areas that are cooler, by water in one of its three states. This is because neither of the other two abundant gases in the atmosphere N2 and O2 exist in either their liquid or solid states, like water does. Water efficiently absorbs excess heat by changing phase, then conveniently transports that heat upward, releasing it when it changes phase back again. This “packaging” of heat not only transports it vertically, but also quite conveniently for us, laterally.
7) The vast majority of this bulk transport of heat energy occurs through conduction (molecules continuously bumping into each other) and natural convection (molecules being swept up in winds carrying them collectively vertically and laterally away from their original location). More importantly, the vast majority occurs through the evaporation, transfer and then condensation of water.
8) Radiation as a heat transfer method is the least efficient. But it is also the ONLY method of heat transfer when conduction and convection are not possible, like into the vacuum of space.
9) The energy “carriers” during radiative heat transfer are quantas of electromagnetic energy – photons. Photons have no mass – they are just quanta of energy. All molecules above 0 degrees K have internal energy stored as potential energy (electronic, vibrational, rotational) or kinetic energy (translational). Molecules general come to equilibrium with the other molecules surrounding them by transferring energy through collisions, and by absorbing the photons that are occasionally given off spontaneously or during molecular collisions.
10) The “temperature” of a gas or liquid is generally measured with an instrument that experiences its own internal visible physical, or electronic excited state change as a result of physical contact (conduction) with that gas or liquid.
11) Temperature is a way to measure enthalpy but is not the same as enthalpy.
12) Temperature is a way to measure entropy but it is not the same as entropy.
13) And finally temperature is a way to measure the natural free energy available called “Gibbs free energy” but it is not the same as Gibbs free energy. Energy is measured in Joules, temperature is measure in dimensionless units called “degrees”, and the world hasn’t yet agreed on the measuring scale concerning these “degrees” (K, R, C, F!)
14) The change in energy given off or taken in between two temperature states of a gas (or liquid) system is by the relationship: E=m*Cp*DeltaT. E is “heat energy” or enthalpy, m is mass and Cp is heat capacity.
15) The relationship between Temperature, Enthalpy and Entropy is given by the reltionship:
Delta G = Delta H – T * Delta S where G is the Gibbs free energy in the system, H is the enthalpy and S is the entropy.
16) All molecules above 0 degrees K (or R) have sufficient “energy” to be able to radiate sufficient quanta of their energy so that one can measure their “black body” temperature. But “black body” doesn’t apply to well to molecules like N2 and O2 and CO2 that have big transparent windows in their electromagnetic spectrum. If a tungsten filament is heated up it creates a black body spectrum that covers a very wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. This makes it easy to determine the “Temperature” of the filament by measuring its “Color”. If one of these gases is heated up it creates a very spiky spectrum where only the quanta of energy that correspond to vibrational, rotational, and electronic excited states are given off. Conversely it is only at these distinct quanta in the spectrum that the vast majority of energy transfers from molecule to molecule occur – by radiation.
17) All molecules radiate. But to transfer energy by any means including radiation, the Gibbs free energy equation must be obeyed, its a fact. This means that although radiation occurs from a cool body to a hot body, the radiation that is absorbed by the hot body from the cool body DOES NOT WARM IT UP – it does not change it’s temperature. It might slow down the natural cooling of the warm body if it were not there, but it can’t effectively increase the enthalpy of the already warm body. Conversely the warm body as it radiatively cools can and does warm a cooler body near it until they are in equilibrium, at which point they both cool together.
Finally, we had a wicked thunderstorm here yesterday afternoon, that flooded a part of my basement. One inch of rain fell in a less than 10 minute deluge! While it was coming towards us, I made the observation again of the two distinct layers of the clouds and noted that all of the energy contained in this storm that was transported within the water from somewhere south of us in the Gulf of Mexico or perhaps as far away as the Pacific Ocean, was transported above that first distinct layer at the bottom of the clouds. Not only was it a gusher, but it was VERY electrically active as well. And it boggles my mind just how much energy that storm represented!
otsar: I am thinking about your thought experiment. I’ll get back to you when I have had some time to noodle on it.
Michael D Smith:
“(very little CO2 at this level, too heavy) What makes you say that?”
I admit, that is conjecture on my part. Until I see data to prove otherwise, I believe that storm clouds make excellent “scrubbers”. Within the vertical tower of a fully formed thunder head several factors are present that I believe very effectively reduce the local concentration of CO2. throughout the cloud but especially at the very top. 1) VERY LARGE volumes of water in the form of very small droplets condense devoid of CO2. 2) CO2 rapidly dissolves into these droplets because of the very high surface area and very turbulent mixing. 3) CO2’s density gives it a vertical distribution pattern that works against it over large vertical distances. 4) CO2 is already a trace gas and is not present in the atmosphere “in excess”, therefore it’s local concentration can easily be altered LOCALLY by such a large and energetic event such as a thunderstorm.
Excuse me otsar, you wrote that in such very simple terms I mistaken it for someone maybe needing a pointer to to be sure. Thats why I suggested. Sound like you have the experience to handle the complexities in that area fine. Good luck and I’ll re-read it a bit deeper later.
DonV, read your comments a second time, all of them, and I’m impressed, especially like your 1-17 summary, reads like the summary of a td statistical mechanic course right down the line. Kudos. One thing ignored even by Jeff at NOAA is the matter of the area about a thunderstorm and mass conversion. Once being a sailplane pilot long ago you get a real “feel” what large clouds actually do. They velocity of updrafts inside are very large and all of that mass also has to descend in like manner to respect the mass conservation but that descent is over a much larger area outside the cloud or storm, usually about three times the radius making the descending velocity one ninth the velocity of the updraft inside. And guess what, that is very generally what you feel in a plane looking at the variometer.
I feel most of the radiation is not right at the small footprint of the storm but over some nine times that area with a like one ninth the temperature differential so the net radiation is the same and there I think even Jeff thinks of it a bit incorrect. Ponder on that. Most storms of large size you can feel 30 miles away though the storm itself is but ten. So really all of the ejection of radiation increase does not have to just be strictly from the clouds, the humidity is much drier and so less self-absorption, clean shot to space of that half.
Yet sometimes you look at pictures like this of clouds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/picture-galleries/9837530/Astronaut-Chris-Hadfield-tweets-pictures-of-Earth-from-space.html?frame=2466474
and simple explanations don’t seem so simple! 😉
” Now, cloud cover will prevent cooling (and it takes very little [thin] cloud cover to stop the surface IR from radiating out to space) but it cannot ‘add’ warmth to the surface below it when it is colder than that surface.”
OMG here we go again with rewriting (misreading) the second law of thermodynamics.
I’m not going bother repeating the endless explications of this fallacy but it’s not surprising we’re in the mess we are with climate science if NOAA insiders are going to come out in public with such basic misconceptions, proudly waving their credentials.
“This means that although radiation occurs from a cool body to a hot body, the radiation that is absorbed by the hot body from the cool body DOES NOT WARM IT UP – it does not change it’s temperature. It might slow down the natural cooling of the warm body if it were not there, but it can’t effectively increase the enthalpy of the already warm body.”
Why “might slow down”. Is it optional? If there is a finite exchange of radiation it will slow it down compared to its not being present.
It is good to state this clearly like that and recognise that it is a slowing of cooling that happens.
However, if a system is in thermodynamic equilibrium with steady state losses and gains of energy in balance, and then an additional back radiation from a cooler body is added, it will change the energy flows and the system will find a new equilibrium in which the hot body is at a higher temperature than it was previously due to the slower cooling (heat loss).
In this sense the radiation from the colder body results in the hotter body becoming warmer.
Does the talk of Gibbs free energy , entropy and enthalpy change any of this? I don’t think so.
“…but it cannot ‘add’ warmth to the surface below it when it is colder than that surface.”
It’s the sun that adds the warmth. The colder clouds slow down the rate at which is disperses.
“Finally, I note that the global average change in net cloud radiation for each degree of surface warming is positive, at 0.7 W/m2 per degree. On reflection, it seems to me that we need to compare that to how much we’d expect the cloud radiation to increase if the surface temperature goes up by 1°C.
And I don’t know the answer to that … still pondering on that one.”
Trying to untangle cause and effect when it works in both directions is an infernal problem. Look at Roy Spencer’s post here on CERES:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Greg says, “Why “might slow down”. Is it optional? If there is a finite exchange of radiation it will slow it down compared to its not being present.”
Your only criticism is my poor choice of one word? Dang! I have to be far more particular in my editing of my off- the-cuff comments! The reason I wasn’t absolutely certain, was that I am not that familiar with ALL of the IR signature spectra of all possible radiators and and radiation receivers. If the cool body radiates at wavelengths that are transparent to the warm body “receiver” then NO SLOW DOWN will occur.
I link to this page and two others by Willis:
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/10/peer-review-fatally-broken
DonV, Greg:
What seems lost in so much of the speaking of “a cooler object can warm a warmer object” is that when speaking of any radiation downward from a cooler body being the atmosphere depends hugely on the exact spectrum signature as I think donv was referring, in so many words. co2 frequency lines from the sky cannot “warm” the surface, that is increase in the temperature, drive entropy backwards, for the source is cooler than the target unless the clouds are literally warmer than the surface.
But here we are speaking of clouds an their spectrum signature is nearly a full spectrum or black body spectrum but the height of the radiances of that cloud spectrum are still smaller than radiances in the spectrum of the source (where the clouds get their energy in the first place, from the surface at night) which is also nearly a full spectrum (following the Planck curve). So greg, if you do have warmer clouds in comparison the amount of loss will decrease but this is not “warming” which carries a literal rise in instantaneous temperature from t0 to t1. That does not happen. What happens is the difference between the two cases of t0-t1 will be smaller, the cooling was not as great and that is not “warming”.
In co2’s case the line spectrum is not full spectrum but the spectrum of the surface is close to full, and any energy from the co2 in the cooler sky is going to immediately re-radiate at the surface in a full spectrum manner and there will be no significant difference t0-t1 due to matter’s ability (non-gas, a solid or liquid) to re-emit in lines not the same as the input lines of incoming co2 IR. That gets a bit into near and far fields at surface interfaces where no thermalization occurs. Some of the surface’s radiation will match co2 lines but that is just resonance stasis at the clouds temperature in those specific lines. DonV, is that pretty close to what you were referring to speaking of not knowing exactly the spectrum signatures, source and target? Not too good at wording such topics so interpret the words a bit if necessary. Still learning so all input or ways to wrod better is appreciated.
I guess much of misunderstanding is in the words used to describe “warming” as compared to “an increase in the averaged temperature” since and AT (an averaged temperature) is not a T (a temperature) and neither is an anomaly which can be either a T minus a T, or, an AT minus an AT.
Wayne says “. . . .”
You said it pretty clearly, although my original perspective did not include any mention of the solid surface of the land. The only “solid” I was thinking of was ice way up in the stratosphere. Most of my thinking, and consequently my statements were pertaining to gas-to-gas radiative transfers, in this regard I was basically indicating that, for example, CO2 has IR absorbtion bands that do not overlap with water vapor’s IR absorbtion bands. And water vapor has far more of the IR spectrum covered than CO2 does. So were one gas might absorb IR photons being emitted by the land, photons given off in those same bands “see” a clear shot right out to outer space, and an IR spectrometer in space will measure that emission and not be able to distinguish if it is coming from the land or from CO2 “retarding” it’s transmission..
ALL OF THAT is vastly different from the energy absorbtion, transport and then release by water’s phase transitions. CO2 undergoes NO PHASE TRANSITION in its delay of radiative heat transfer. Therefore, it doesn’t really CARRY heat energy radiated into it for a very far distance before it immediately experiences a collision with one of the other more abundant gasses – N2, O2 or H2O – and that heat energy is transferred to that gas molecule.
Most of my discussion has been focussed on the HUGE amounts of energy coming from the sun, that are actively transported around the globe in the atmosphere by water in one of it’s three states (four states?) and then actively radiated back out to space by the vertical transport to the top of the atmosphere. My theory is that the process is simply:
– Sun radiatively heats water in ocean,
– Liquid water CONDUCTS and CONVECTS excess heat to its surface where
– Warm ocean water evaporates (excess heat is ‘captured’ in latent heat of vaporization)
– Warm water vapor is lighter than all other naturally occurring gasses so rises vertically rapidly and entrains other gasses as it does so – and as it rises it CONDUCTS heat to those gasses, they CONVECT and begin to cool.
– Captured excess heat in water vapor CONVECTS rapidly up to elevation where PvsT change causes supersaturation
– Portion of capture heat in water vapor CONDENSES at first cloud layer.
*This phase transition results in first large RADIATIVE release of heat back to outer space beginning at this layer.
– Water vapor not initially condensed continues to rise and as is evidenced by cloud “billowing” continues to condense into liquid droplets all the way up to the next cloud layer.
*Each phase transition event results in a large continuing RADIATIVE release of captured heat back to space.
– Eventually water vapor plus entrained water droplets that have cooled rise to an elevation where PvsT causes both freezing and direct deposition (opposite of sublimation) of water into ice crystals.
*This final phase transition results in the next large RADIATIVE release of heat back to outer space.
The results of all of this ACTIVE TRANSPORT of energy and subsequent RADIATIVE release of that energy back to space is the condensation (deposition and freezing) of water and its subsequent return back to the ocean as cool water.
The cool water mixes with warm and heat is CONDUCTED and CONVECTED back into the cool water. Governor cycle complete.
ALL of this process results in the return of the ocean and surface to a moderate 15 degrees C average temperature over time.
It is in complete agreement with what Willis is postulating – that the water cycle serves as the earths energy governor, and adds the emphasis that most of the heat transported during this process is carried in water’s latent heats of vaporization, condensation, and deposition, and that this heat’s release into the upper atmosphere is accompanied by direct IR radiation of that heat to space.
This theory attempts to explain how the earths temperature can swing 10-20 even 30 degrees in a given day and will still never get into a runaway, catastrophic OVERHEATING that the CAGW croud laments will happen someday! It DOES NOT attempt to explain the drifts of the earths variation in surface air temperature of less than 1 degree over decades and centuries. It DOES attempt to conclusively illustrate that the hand wringing, consternation and excessive caterwahling/worrying about 1 degree “climate change” is just the Chicken Little clucking of fools.
Thanks for the reply Don,
Been out of pocket but will read in detail and get back soon. This is a very important area of discussion of the water/energy transport and I have been concentrating on this area during the last couple of years. I read what you have been saying looking for something to disagree with, and so far, I find nothing to complain about of any importance. Give me a moment to read your last comment slowly, I see many points you say and I just nod my head in agreement. Those are being overlooked in current climate science completely or you rarely hear of them.
For instance you say,
“– Portion of capture heat in water vapor CONDENSES at first cloud layer.
*This phase transition results in first large RADIATIVE release of heat back to outer space beginning at this layer.”
I agree. That can be seen at the silky gray bottoms of cumulus clouds and I’ve literally been there, accidentally, I was nearly sucked up into on of those building clouds that ended up being a roaring thunderstorm thirty minutes later. You could definitely feel all of the energy release there. That day at the ground it was 100F and at 4000 ft altitude outside of the clouds it was a cool 80F at altitude, but just under that cloud, misty, and it was HOT! Felt like 110F and totally saturated like you were in a steam bath. Oh, and the incredible upward suction under those clouds, the variometer was pegged upward at 1200 ft/min, wish I knew the actual rate, and it was all I could do to keep out of it, full flaps, side-slipping, and lowering the nose till I approached red-line all of the way across the flat bottom. That one cloud was over a two miles across.
I take it that is your “first cloud layer” of condensation.
Hi DonV,
Paragraph one containing “water vapor has far more of the IR spectrum covered than CO2 does”, check.
Paragraph two, “CO2 undergoes no phase transition”, agree, to me it has become apparent that co2 has zero real role due to it’s lack of phase transition. It has a relatively small role in the resonance within the lower atmosphere to add to temperature than with zero co2 concentration but all major lines are saturated until TOA is approached. That is, along the lines like adding black to already black doesn’t make it “blacker”.
You seem to feel it is all in water and it’s transitions of state and the solar input, I agree.
“– Warm water vapor is lighter than all other naturally occurring gasses so rises vertically rapidly and entrains other gasses as it does so – and as it rises it CONDUCTS heat to those gasses, they CONVECT and begin to cool.”
Keep track of the volume:mass ratio as these packets of moist air rise, not only are they getting cooler but they are also occupying more volume up to the first-condensation level. That seems an important aspect and is part or all of why cumulus clouds “stay together” and roll from top to bottom for long periods. That is, why do those clouds have “edges” at all while the energy is being released.
The only thing I see for you to consider is in the radiation portion. You seem to be trying to answer all effects as if all effects occur just within the cloud itself. Here we differ a bit. Water droplets are near-black-body and the thick cloud is totally opaque to all IR from within except at edges. But that additional radiation does make a much larger area, I said earlier a guess of about nine times larger, and it makes the entire area about those clouds or storms warmer but not as great as within the clouds themselves. The greater area disperses that energy to a much larger area. This warmer-by-a-few-degrees surroundings is dryer, stripped of the humidity and due to the dryness upward radiation is not as much re-absorbed (the clear shot to space). See, I am including the ~9 times larger area around the cloud as having a large play in this process. All matter is radiating at its local temperature but its path length varies depending on the local humidity. Does that make some sense?
See, if area is brought into play, which I hear no mention, then you no longer need the concept of “IR bright” cloud tops and that is what Jeff was complaining about and I agree with him there. All matter radiates at its temperature and the very top, if tall, are very cold. But it says nothing about the much larger area about being not “IR bright” but just “IR brighter” than without the cloud, and all around the cloud where the cloud can be “seen” (the form factor). That only takes a degree or two difference to move that same quantity of energy to space, the same effect is diluted in so many words.