Radiative Forcing, Radiative Feedbacks and Radiative Imbalance – The 2013 WG1 IPCC Report Failed to Properly Report on this Issue

Jim – The change in ocean heat content is used to diagnose the radiative imbalance. This is very much physics. Roger Sr.

Jim – The change in the ocean heat content does not provide any information on why there is warming or cooling. It just provides a measure of the radiative imbalance in Joules. Of course, added CO2 is a positive radiative forcing, but we cannot tell its fractional contribution just from the radiative imbalance.

John Cook is searching for his atomic bombs.

Isn’t it amazing. Yet again we have confusion between the increase in the atmospheric radiation field and ‘forcing’, imagining that is a real radiative energy flux. It ain’t. Instead it’s a potential energy flux to a sink at 0 deg K.
In reality the increase of ghg RF reduces the IR emitted from the Earth’s surface, mostly to Space (set by the vector sum of the up and down RFs). In the absence of any other factor, the surface temperature would rise at 1.2 K/ doubling CO2 (no positive feedback can exist) so convection and evapo-transpiration would increase.
However, there is another factor, extreme negative feedback, and it reduces CO2 climate sensitivity to <0.1K.
So what has been the real AGW? It's been the reduction of cloud albedo by Asian aerosols, now saturated. There is no significant CO2-AGW as proved experimentally, 16 years of no atmospheric warming, a bit less of no 0-700 m ocean warming.

“If the downwelling long wave flux is larger, than, of course, the upwelling radiative flux will be less. Roger Sr.”
The lower net upward flux appears to cause atmospheric expansion which reduces density and allows more upward energy to compensate.

AlecM said:
“Instead it’s a potential energy flux to a sink at 0 deg K”
A good way to express it though the temperature of space is about 3K if I recall correctly.
Anyway, GHGs increase the potential energy flux by expanding the heights within the atmosphere which converts kinetic energy to potential energy thereby negating surface warming.
The energy is there within the system but as potential energy which does not register as heat so the surface temperature does not need to change.
Everyone has been working on the assumption that to achieve a
change in atmospheric volume it is first necessary to arrange an increase in
surface temperature.
That would be correct on the basis of the Ideal Gas Law.
However, for non -Ideal Gases the Gas Laws allow an adjustment to the
universal gas constant to take account of the compositional variations of
non -Ideal Gases and, in particular, compositional characteristics other than mass which affect the energy flux. Such as absorption and radiative capability.
For non-Ideal Gases:
PV = mRspecificT
Adjusting the gas constant (Rspecific) to suit the individual characteristics of a mixture of non-Ideal Gases on one side of the equation gives direct access to a change in volume on the other side without requiring a change in surface temperature.
That is essential for the retention of an atmosphere because if the
universal constant for an Ideal Gas were applicable regardless of gas composition and characteristics then for a non -Ideal Gas the surface temperature would be permanently too high or too low for top of atmosphere radiative balance and the atmosphere would be lost.
The value of Rspecific sets the atmospheric volume necessary for ToA radiative balance.
The volume of a pure CO2 atmosphere would be different to the volume of a pure Nitrogen atmosphere at the same temperature and mass due to a difference in the values of their respective Rspecifics.
That appears to account for Roger’s observations, unlike AGW theory.
The net radiative flux is a consequence of mechanical processes below the boundary with space, not a cause of anything in itself.
Once an atmosphere has acquired enough kinetic energy to hold the atmosphere off the surface AND match incoming radiation then any excess or deficit of kinetic energy only affects work done and that work adjusts the height of the atmosphere up or down to ensure long term radiative balance.

Leonard Weinstein said:
“The point many seem to totally miss is that heat transfer is driven by temperature difference, not energy content”.
Only between objects of a different temperature held within uniform and thermally static surroundings.
Heat transfer in and out a planetary atmosphere is driven by the rate of incoming energy at ToA plus the energy required to maintain an atmosphere off the surface.
That is density related and density is a function of mass and gravity. If one has to keep a stable ToA energy exchange then one is limited to Volume as an adjusting factor because mass is constant, surface pressure is constant and T cannot exceed that required to balance energy in.
Changes in volume affect density so we come full circle to volume changes regulating heat transfer.

Sorry, but it appears that you consider Hansen’s claim (1981_Hansen_etal.pdf) that the ghe = lapse rate warming as valid, with the Rspecific as the cause. It isn’t. You prove it very simply.
Imagine removing all the ghgs from the atmosphere. Our children are told that the -18 deg C composite emitter in radiative equilibrium with Space would then coincide with the Earth’s surface hence the ghe = 15 deg C -(-18 deg C) = 33 K.
However, the -18 deg C zone is an artificial construct, the operational emissivity weighted sum of -1.5 deg CO2 IR from where the water vapour falls significantly, the -50 deg C ‘CO2 OLR bite’ and the +15 deg C atmospheric window emission mostly from the Earth’s surface.**
In reality, the 43% increase of SW energy from no clouds or ice would give a new radiative equilibrium at an average of 4 – 5 deg C, a real ghe of ~ 11K. The ratio 33 K/11 K = 3 is the imaginary positive feedback.
**Understanding the OLR requires good irreversible thermodynamics’ knowledge. It came from Essex in 1985 and from the Brookhaven Lab. in 2010. The -50 deg C CO2 part of OLR has the highest radiative entropy production rate so is minimised. The rest of the atmosphere adapts to that end, including all flora and fauna. Since the last glacial maximum, the ghe has risen from 2 K to the present 11 K as a result of the decrease of total atmospheric entropy and increase of enthalpy. It occurred by biofeedback reducing cloud albedo and melting ice; there was no significant CO2 effect because it’s a working fluid in the system and self-compensates!
For the sake of completeness, the minimum OLR radiation entropy production rate coupled with a decrease in atmospheric entropy is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which requires an increase of total entropy external to the system! This stuff is fascinating yet completely ignored by the IPCC.

policycritic- please cut and paste below. It work s for me.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf
In any case, I have reproduced below.

Contrary to the claim of Pielke and Christy, our simulated ocean heat storage (Hansen etal., 2005) agrees closely with the observational analysis of Willis et al. (2004). All matters raised by Pielke and Christy were considered in our analysis and none of them alters our conclusions.
The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2, includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the oceancreated larger uncertainty. We take the (anthropogenic) indirect aerosol forcing as –1 W/m2, with an uncertainty of a factor of two, based on empirical and modeling evidence (Hansen et al., 2005). The value –0.77W/m2 for the interval 1880-2003 follows from the non-linearity of the phenomenon. We note that a larger (smaller) value, combined with smaller (larger) climate sensitivity, could also yield global temperature change consistent with observations, but the agreement that we find with observed ocean heat storage favors a climate sensitivity not too different than that of our model (2.7°C for doubled CO2).
This inference can be sharpened if ocean heat storage and aerosol changes are both measured accurately in coming years.There is no fundamental disconnect between our conclusions regarding the location of heat storage anomalies and the observational analysis of Willis et al. Large heat storage anomalies penetrate only the upper 200 m of ocean in the tropics in our model, but much deeper at middle to high latitudes, consistent with observations. We note the absence of ENSO variability in our coarse resolution ocean model and Willis et al. note that a 10-year change in the tropics is badly aliased by ENSO variability. Given also the large unforced variability of the distribution of ocean heat storage among our 5 model runs, there is no expectation that simulated geographical patterns of heat storage should match in detail those of observations. Yet the large heat storage at mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere, the geographical feature emphasized by Willis et al., is indeed captured in our simulations (Fig. S2 of our paper). By using observed changes of greenhouse gases and empirically determined indirect aerosol effects, among other forcings, we have included all known substantial forcings. Precise analysis of the planetary energy imbalance provides a remarkable tool for “seeing the forest for the trees” with regard to global climate change. As the record lengthens, the energy imbalance will provide an invaluable metric defining the task that humanity faces if it wishes to stabilize global climate.
References (additional to those of Pielke and Christy)
J. Hansen et al., J. Geophys. Res. 102, 25679 (1997).
J. Hansen et al., J. Geophys. Res. in press (2005).

[Reformatted. -w.]

Drops in mid/upper level tropospheric Specific humidity have been observed since 2007 PDO flip and are especially prominent in the tropics. This is opposite the IPCC idea and also may be playing a key role in the collapse of the ACE in recent years.

AlecM says:
October 21, 2013 at 11:08 am
Not sure if you were addressing me or Roger but here goes anyway 🙂
I do not agree with Hansen that Rspecific causes the greenhouse effect. I consider that it prevents the greenhouse gases from adding to the mass and gravity induced greenhouse effect by causing an increase in volume.
As far as I recall AGW theory ignores expansion and proposes instead an increase in the effective radiating height to a colder location whilst leaving volume unchanged. That colder location is supposed to allow less energy out to space and allow a rise in temperature beneath it.
I have often asked (and not been answered) whether the truth is that the whole atmosphere expands so that the effective radiating height keeps the same temperature as before but being higher up becomes more effective at radiating out.
I don’t see how he could do as he did because it would unbalance the Gas Law equation whereby
PV = mRspecificT
if he only changes Rspecific and nothing else.
Allowing volume to rise in tandem with a rise in the energy used to lift the atmosphere against the force of gravity (Rspecific) does keep the equation balanced and avoids the need for a rise in T.
Did Hansen fail to realise that wherever Rspecific is different to R (the universal constant) then one must also change V to keep the equation in balance ?

AlecM.
Perhaps I should mention that the increase in volume converts any ‘excess’ kinetic energy to potential energy and that is why T can remain unaffected.

Dr. Pielke,
Thank you for yet another accessible, reasonable and thoughtful essay.
This is probably a well addressed question, so please feel free to chuckle:
If Pressure stays the same as temperature increases, does this not mean, according to the ideal gas law that the volume must increase? If this is so, how much volume has the atmosphere to increase to accomodate the added warming, or is there a trend in atmospheric pressure that has been addressed elsewhere?

A layman’s observation:
If the (seemingly knowledgeable) people commenting here can be so at variance with each other, how can the IPCC be 95% confident in their conclusions regarding AGW?

It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

And a nit-pick – when was Anthony raised to such illustrious levels that ‘watts per meter squared’ became ‘Watts per meter squared’ (although this is deserved, in my opinion)?

Dr. Pielke,
Thank you for your clear answer.
It does raise a question:
If the atmosphere/climate system is not behaving as predicted regarding temperature, could one of the factors be expansion of the atmosphere? This certainly seems as reasonable a candidate for a ‘fast’ response to additional energy as ocean expansion. In other words, if oceans expand ‘dangerously’ due to the energy imbalances being discussed, why would not the atmosphere also expand? If the ideal gas law is a relevant guide, then atmospheric expansion would act to ‘offset’ additional heating/energization, as well as increase the radiating surface area of the atmosphere…..or would it?

Michael Moon: “This is falsified!”
Canonical response: The models that work in this manner are not falsified. They are statistical metrics that are, by definition, only loose approximations of things. So they can neither be true or false.
— This is, strictly, true by the way. There are any numerous variants in this topic, but it’s a presentation of the Pinnochio problem: “It may or may not be the case that this one thing did or did not occur in a way that could or could not be measured.” There are two attendant issues. To falisfy a claim, a claim must be made. When dabbling with real world things, that requires that a claim be made about the real world. The both of which are stating that a testable claim must be in existence.
The problem here is that the metaphysical postulate is put forth as: “Human exhalation will cause the climate to be warmer than if humans held their breath.” And this is retained as a metaphysical postulate by testing the different: “If clouds or not clouds or ocean heat traps or not ocean heat traps or sun variance or not sun variance or sea volume changes or not sea volume changes, then the climate will be warmer than if humans held their breath.”
Of course, humans will always exhale, so that’s tautological in its own right. And as ‘warmer’ is a relative metric, then we cannot test double-blind or in alternate possible worlds we don’t have. It’s simply not laboratory testable. As a logical construct, it is impossible for it to be wrong for those reasons only. That the condition is tautological and entails everything anyways is meaningless.
The idea here is Sophist Whack-a-mole. To tie up and exhaust the insufficiently gullible by having them attack every meaningless construct that pops up. But the central claim metaphysical claim is not touched, and can not be. Not only is everything a vacuous tautology from top to bottom, the tautology tested is never the tautology stated. So if you like Falsificationism, there’s nothing to falsify as there’s nothing tested. And if you like Positivism you can take your pick. Either there’s no affirmation or support, as nothing is testable. Or there’s nothing that isn’t affirmation and support; which is how these things are sold, piece meal, to the public.
Granted, Logic is threshholded and Sophists will trot out and state: “But we use differential equations, man. But only the rational numbers, we’re not, like, ::Dorito chewing noises:: dumb. We don’t do irrational numbers or anything else.” Which hardly matters at all as you can trivially put threshholds on R^2 conditions, statistical hypothesis testing, where a mark lies on a rule, etc.
So when you say ‘falsified’ you’re stuck whacking, and appropriately whacking, the particular parameterizations of a particular polynomial equation, with an absurdly large degree, that are used in the one specific model. Every other model, with a different polynomial, is different.
Not on you generally here. This simply seems to be a vastly overlooked problem that’s more easily stated as: Don’t go after last of a long chain of sophistries; go after the first thing the Sophist introduced.
It’s not wrong to go after the models and end points directly. But it’s a lot easier to ask the Runecasters and Numerologists to produce, by themselves, a claim that would undeniably show the accuracy of their fortune telling. For if they can, then they also permit falsification. And if they cannot, then they’re writing a horoscope column; having failed to produce anything valid as a scientific theory under either Falsificationism or Positivism.

To John in OZ:

And a nit-pick – when was Anthony raised to such illustrious levels that ‘watts per meter squared’ became ‘Watts per meter squared’ (although this is deserved, in my opinion)?

Snorted coffee out my nose when reading that. Just as in the case of other units
named after famous scientists (e.g., Joule, Henry, Fermi, Oersted, and many others),
the use of capitalization is inconsistent between different posters. Anthony is blessed
with a last name that is not only closely related to James Watt, but allows the pun
in the name of this blog to work as well!

The direct human-made forcing is 2.3 W/m2 in IPCC AR5. On top of that, we should have seen feedbacks of another 1.7 W/m2 according to the theory for a total of 4.0 W/m2.
But only 0.56 W/m2 is showing up.
I’ve been showing it in this manner lately.
http://s17.postimg.org/4ts1blb4v/2013_Missing_Energy.png
In this case “Missing” is a combination of:
– the increased radiative transfer to space as it has warmed up as pointed out by Roger Pielke Sr. (but none of the satellites have found this trend, if anything it is mostly flat);
– less feedbacks occurring than was predicted (but the actual water vapor data and maybe some cloud data shows there should actually be between 25% to 50% of these feedbacks showing up); and then,
– a huge amount of it must truly be “Missing” since the previous two explanations do not account for the 3.44 W/m2 which is not there. If anything, the previous two explanations still leave about 2.8 W/m2 “Missing”.
The theory is wrong or it is missing something very important.

Jim G, “Sounds to me like you are both saying the same thing in a different way. The gas expansion would be exothermic as it cools and the heat energy has to go somewhere.”
No, the gas expansion is endothermic. The top of a hurricane (or cloud or thunderstorm) is very cold. The energy (heat) goes into expanding the atmosphere, not radiating away. At the bottom of the highest point of a hurricane is the lowest pressure. This is basic meteorology 101 : )

@ lurker, passing through laughing:
Oh, get out a ancient trig book, haversines and exsecants involved if I remember correct off the top of my head.

Genghis.
I think we are saying the same thing.
Expansion converts kinetic to potential and so cools the air.
The lower density then allows energy to flow through faster to retain ToA balance.
What happens is that GHGs slow down the energy throughput, expansion then occurs to reduce density and accelerate energy throughput again by an equal and opposite amount.
Meanwhile the ‘surplus’ held by the GHGs has gone to potential energy which does not affect temperature.
It is all made possible because the ‘specific’ part of Rspecific varies according to molecular characteristics other than mass.
The gravitational field stays constant but the behaviour of a molecule within it is not determined solely by its mass.
Since Rspecific is on the opposite side of the relevant Gas Law equation to V one can vary both in parallel without affecting balance.
PV = mRspecificT
Effectively, one can increase V without increasing T, m or P.
Climatology has missed that critical point by focusing on radiative physics instead of the mechanical processes involved.
In radiative physics one MUST increase T in order to increase V.
The radiative flux is a consequence of the mechanical process, merely a side effect.
Although I have been making the general point for years it is only now that I have identified the error being made by others.
The Gas Law equation relating to non Ideal Gases has been incorrectly applied.
Rspecific is a variable but it has been treated as a constant like R in the Ideal Gas Law.
We are not dealing with Ideal Gases.
My proposition fits Roger’s findings does it not ?
It also allows a cascade of other conclusions which I am now exploring.

Perhaps I should offer bit more detail on the effect of changes in atmospheric volume and density on energy transmission through an atmosphere.
Apply a rather absurd example and consider Earth’s current atmosphere expanded out all around the Earth as far as, say, the border of the solar system.
The thermal effect of the delay between arrival time and departure time for energy coming in at the top of such an atmosphere would be spread across the entire distance with only an infinitesimal portion of the effect observable from any given position so the temperature of the atmosphere at any given point of observation between surface and top of atmosphere will be very low. Hardly above the temperature of space.
Then consider Earth’s current atmosphere compacted to 1 millimetre above the surface.
In that case all the thermal effect of the delay between arrival time and departure would be focused within that distance and an observer would see a very hot layer of gas enveloping the planet.
What determines the difference is the relative distributions of kinetic and potential energy.
In the first example nearly all the energy in the atmosphere is potential energy.
In the second example it is nearly all kinetic energy.
In both cases the atmosphere contains exactly the same amount of total energy.
It is that ability of an atmosphere to switch between kinetic and potential energy when expanding or contracting that makes it possible for adjustments to be made when molecular characteristics other than mass seek to destabilise the top of atmosphere energy balance.
That is why the variable nature of the term Rspecific is essential to the formation of atmospheres in the first place and their retention thereafter.

lurker, passing through laughing – The expansion from heating of the atmosphere does, of course, occur. However, the heat added in Joules is still present. It is just redistributed.

Stephen Wilde,
How about a counter example? Not that I think we are disagreeing.
The effective source of energy is coming from the surface of the earth because the atmosphere is largely transparent to short wave radiation. The average surface temperature of the ocean is 22˚C. The GHG’s are primarily responsible for creating the temperature gradient (or lapse rate) which starts at 15˚C (at head height) and goes down from there at an environmental lapse rate of 6.5˚C/km.
If you take away all of the greenhouse gases the atmosphere becomes isothermal and 5˚C (and the oceans surface temperature will fall too.) By the way, an atmosphere in equilibrium is isothermal. An atmosphere without water vapor (just GHG’s) will have a higher surface temperature (higher than 22˚C) and a lapse rate of 9.8˚C/km. but if we add water vapor that can lower the lapse rate all the way down to 5˚C/km and lower the surface temperature down to apx. 10˚C.
But here is the thing, the TOTAL ENERGY in the atmosphere stays the same whether it is isothermal at 5˚C, or if it has a lapse rate of 9.8˚C, or if it has a lapse rate or 5˚C.
The only thing that changes is the temperature gradient and the volume of the atmosphere. There can’t be a radiative imbalance on average. Of course the system is not in equilibrium and there is a constant net outflow and net inflow of radiation as the earth rotates.
This is all basic, meteorology 101, that the warmistas never learned.

Genghis says:
October 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Stephen Wilde, “The increase in average heights then reduces average atmospheric density and allows more energy out to space faster to negate their thermal effects. ”
Actually, the increase in average height (volume) is from the kinetic energy doing work (expanding the atmosphere) and hence causes lower temperatures. Just look at the temperature (and height) of a hurricane. The expanded gas radiates less IR than the condensed gas because it is colder. Also moist air contains more energy than an equivalent volume and temperature of dry air.
—–
If the height of the atmosphere changes, doesn’t the area that radiates energy into space change also?
Surface area of a sphere = 4*pi*radius2 i.e. as the r increases the surface area gets larger or the radiator gets bigger and that affects the rate of energy transfer…

“The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.”
Some stupid questions:
a) Presumably re melting ice (or warming of air/earth) you are referring to net differences. The ice melts and refreezes every year.
2) The vapor pressure of water (at atmospheric pressure) is dependent basically on temperature. First, one couldn’t expect a big change with even + 0.5C change in 60 years. e.g. at 15.0C it is 1.71 kPa and at 15.5 (rough global temp) it is 1.76 kPa.
3) Can we use this relation above as a proxy measure of the earth’s temperature trends. Vonderhaar et al’s figure “Global Monthly Average TPW Time Series” for water vapor shows, strikingly, the rise in temp through the 1980s to the peak in 1998 and the flattening to 2005 and dropping thereafter. They either disengenuously or obliviously say:
“at this time, we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data.”
not noting the the remarkable fit to temperature trends.

Stephen Wilde,
I read your article and here is where I think you are in error. In an Isothermal atmosphere the
pressure declines as the volume increases, while the temperature stays the same. The equation can also be written P = nRT/V.
The temperature gradient (lapse rate) comes from the thermalization of the energy from the GHG’s. Conduction and convection in the atmosphere are adiabatic, i.e. the warm gases don’t warm the surrounding gases as much as they expand and rise.
I can think of two things to help your visualization, first look at the IR images of a hurricane the top of the hurricane is extremely cold much colder than the surrounding air for the altitude, as much as -120˚C if I recall.
Second visualize a very tall container filled with air at a constant temperature (a normal situation) the pressure will be higher in the bottom of the container than than at the top of the container. Pressure only increases temperature when a gas is being compressed, after a gas is compressed it radiates the heat away. That is the principle behind refrigeration.

good discussion

Genghis says:
October 22, 2013 at 11:10 am
“….
Greenhouse gases create a similar effect in the atmosphere. The GHS’s absorb and thermalize the LW radiation from the surface. That creates the temperature gradient or lapse rate in the atmosphere. An atmosphere without GHG’s has a very limited mechanism for creating the lapse rate because warm rising air is adiabatic it does not warm the surrounding air…..”
So are you saying that a planet with an atmosphere w/o GHGs would only cool through convection theN?

Genghis –
Help me with heat transfer.
There are how many different ways an object cools?

Box of Rocks, “Help me with heat transfer.
There are how many different ways an object cools?”
Basically conduction, convection and radiation, but ultimately the only way the atmosphere can cool is by radiation to space. I don’t think that is your real question though, help me out here : )
I think your real question is how does the atmosphere warm and the answer to that is primarily via GHG’s thermalizing LW radiation and through convection and release of latent heat of water vapor condensing.
Temperature is almost a red herring, figure out the energy flux first. Cool moist air contains more energy than warm dry air, even though the temperature is lower.

It is not of how or why but of what degree.
I just can not wrap my brain around the idea that a gas that constitutes less than 0.5% of the atmosphere can absorb and release enough energy to warm the remaining 99.5% of the atmosphere.
So how does that magical gas work to warm it’s surroundings when in fact it self is cooling along with the surrounding environment?

Genghis:
“…
Think of a microwave oven. If you put a hollow ceramic sphere in a microwave and turn it on it won’t heat up. Squirt some water into the sphere, seal it up tight, turn on the microwave and run! Hasn’t everyone done this?…
”
So you are saying that the water after is is vaporized and turned into steam is responsible for warming the ceramic sphere?
So how can something that is less than 1% of a control volume release enough energy (at the right wavelength) to impart enough energy in the remaining 99% to either maintains it temperature or in fact increase it.
Remember – Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity that specifies the amount of heat energy required to change the temperature of an object or body by a given amount. …. the specific heat of water is 1 BTU/(F°·lb).
So if we have a control volume of 1 foot square … How much energy will it loose to it’s surrounding if it cools one degree F?
So, Ghengis, what you are saying is that minute amount of CO2 in that 1 square foot can convert enough radiation from one wavelength to another to prevent the CV from cooling, right?

Box of Rocks says:
“So you are saying that the water after is is vaporized and turned into steam is responsible for warming the ceramic sphere?”
Yes.
“So how can something that is less than 1% of a control volume release enough energy (at the right wavelength) to impart enough energy in the remaining 99% to either maintains it temperature or in fact increase it.”
It doesn’t have anything to do with ‘volume’ it is all about watts/meter^2.
“Remember – Heat capacity, or thermal capacity, is the measurable physical quantity that specifies the amount of heat energy required to change the temperature of an object or body by a given amount. …. the specific heat of water is 1 BTU/(F°·lb).”
Sure but heat capacity has very little to do with ‘temperature.”
“So if we have a control volume of 1 foot square … How much energy will it loose to it’s surrounding if it cools one degree F?”
Of course it depends on the specific heat. I seem to be missing your point.
“So, Ghengis, what you are saying is that minute amount of CO2 in that 1 square foot can convert enough radiation from one wavelength to another to prevent the CV from cooling, right?”
Yes. It is dependent on the watts going in. You seem to be confusing the GHG’s with a heat source. The heat source is the surface of the ocean that is radiating at 430 Watts/M^2. If there is nothing in the atmosphere to thermalize that radiation, there is going to be very little converted to warming the atmosphere.

Ghengis – when a CO2 emits radiation that is a specific wavelength that allows that energy to increase the internal energy of another object, then it is fact an “energy source”.
Heat capacity tell us “how much” energy is required! Then given time, the area under the curve can be calculated….

Box of Rocks says:
“Heat capacity tell us “how much” energy is required! Then given time, the area under the curve can be calculated….”
Of course, and your point is?

Box of Rocks says:
” **IF** I understand you and the whole CO2 is evil AGW, greenhouse gas theory, then it is the CO2 molecule along with the other GHGs that in fact thermailze this primary radiation and produce ‘secondary’ radiation that adds heat and energy back into the system that would otherwise be lost into space – before it is radiated into space.”
No you don’t understand it correctly. Think of the greenhouse gasses as an electric heating coil immersed in a water tank. The electric heater (CO2) warms the water at 430 watts an hour, the temperature of the water will rise until it is radiating exactly the same watts that it is absorbing.
The temperature of the water can’t be determined, solely by specific heat capacity and the electric heaters wattage. Do you understand why?
“The question is now is not *IF*, the question is *HOW MUCH*? Saying that the ocean gives off – 430 Watts/M^2 is fine. Understand that that radiation field is falling of at a high rate on the order of magnitude of the 4th power so say at 10000 ft asl, the same amount of energy is spread out over a much larger area and the ability of the radiation to do “work” is greatly diminished.”
That is THE question isn’t it, and that is what the climate models have tried and failed to answer, because, like you they are solely focused on watts in and specific heat content., Where you differ from the Warmists is that their feedbacks are positive while yours are negative.”
“Furthermore, understand that a tiny fraction of the a control volume has to capture the radiation and then re-radiate at a different wavelength leads to the question of how much.”
Curious, you continue to persist with the idea that the size of the heating element determines the amount of heating. it doesn’t. What it does affect is the ‘rate’ of heating. Let me try another example. Lets say there are no radiative gases in the atmosphere and we have a 100 watt radiative only heat source. The atmosphere will never heat up. Now lets introduce just enough radiative gases into the atmosphere to provide a one atom thick layer that is enough to make the atmosphere opaque to the radiation and now the atmosphere will heat up at a rate of 100 watts.
Now lets double the GHG’s in the atmosphere and guess what? The atmosphere is heating up now at 200 watts, double it again and it goes up to 300 watts, this process continues until the temperature nears equilibrium or a steady state, once it reaches equilibrium we can determine the temperature with the S-B Law. At equilibrium the atmosphere is radiating exactly the same amount of energy it is absorbing. At equilibrium you can add or subtract any amount of GHG’s and the temperature will stay the same.
There is a little bit of sophistry going on here though. We aren’t adding any energy to the system by adding GHG’s we are just adding layers and measuring each layer (flux) again. Double counting. It is an accounting trick, debits have to equal credits (kind of like how the Fed creates money). But this is how physicists figure out the ‘rate’ of heating, it tells them nothing about the temperature of the system.
Don’t confuse the “rate’ of heating with the energy content or the temperature. They are entirely different concepts. Just like the ‘temperature’ anomalies have very little (nothing actually) to do with the actual temperature. They are simply indicative of a change in the system.
I will let you in on a little secret, as the data gathering gets better the temperature anomalies will decrease. The earths total energy budget is static but energy does flow around it and tracking that energy flow is a bugger : )
For that 1% to keep the other 99% warm, requires a lot of work….

Ghengis.
You seem to think that GHGs are needed to warm an atmosphere.
In fact an atmosphere is warmed by conduction at the surface and the energy rises through the column by convection.
GHGs not needed. Only mass irradiated from an external source.
If the gas is radiatively inert then it is ALL about conduction and convection.
If the gas has radiative capability then that supplements conduction and convection by increasing the atmospheric volume that can be achieved.
You make a lot of sound points but then lose logical coherence because you don’t have all the relevant components in your mind yet.

Phil said:
“In any case the Specific gas constant is not some correction for non-ideality rather it is an alternative value expressed in terms of mass (hence the use of specific, as in specific gravity) rather than molar quantities (J/K.kg vs J/K.mole)”
That is more to the point of the issue so I need to consider it carefully.
If the specific gas constant is not a correction for non-ideality please explain why it is only applied for non-Ideal Gases.
If the use of ‘specific’ is simply an alternative value expressed in terms of mass then why does the equation also contain m ?
PV = nRT = mRspecificT
n (molar quantities) has already been replaced by (m) mass so why express R differently as well ?
In the real world, different molecules with the same mass do behave differently within a gravitational field so how else do the Gas Laws deal with that ?
It is clear that specific heat is also involved as well as mass:
“Another important relationship comes from thermodynamics. Mayer’s relation relates the specific gas constant to the specific heats for a calorically perfect gas and a thermally perfect gas.
Rspecific = cp – cv
where cp is the specific heat for a constant pressure and cv is the specific heat for a constant volume”
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_constant#Specific_gas_constant
and of course radiative and absorption capabilities would affect specific heat.
So it cannot be right that “the use of ‘specific’ is simply an alternative value expressed in terms of mass” since it clearly adjusts for characteristics other than mass, in particular, specific heat.
The fact is that in so far as the ‘specific’ aspect is concerned it does adjust the gas constant for different specific heats in the same mass which is why one need not change T but instead V changes.

Stephen Wilde says:
“In the term
PV = mRspecificT
P is fixed because whatever the volume of an atmosphere the surface pressure remains the same.”
Not true at all. Again look at images of a hurricane, the top of the hurricane rises miles into the stratosphere and the base of the Hurricane has the lowest pressures around. A storm is nothing but a mountain of air and it is always accompanied by the lowest pressures.
“m is fixed because variations in the amount of GHGs do not significantly affect total atmospheric mass.”
Water vapor, really screws around with the mass. Humid air is less dense than dry air, but has a higher specific heat.
“T is limited by the amount of energy coming in because it is not permitted for energy out to differ from energy in without the atmosphere being lost.”
You are confusing temperature with energy. Temperature only has meaning at equilibrium and the system is decidedly not in equilibrium.
“That leaves only Rspecific and Volume as the available variables when the specific heats of non-Ideal Gases vary from those of an Ideal Gas. Since they are on opposite sides of the equation they can change freely relative to one another without affecting the other terms or breaching the Gas Laws.”
Nope, they are all variables. That is why this is such a hard problem. If it was only Rspecific = Volume, that is trivial (and obviously false)
“Adding GHGs alters Rspecific and V but not T.”
Adding GHG’s primarily restricts the flow of energy through the atmosphere. Their effect can be most easily seen by changes in temperature.
Think of temperature as the height of water in a stream. If you place a rock (GHG) in the stream it raises the height (temperature) of the water on the upstream side, while immediately behind the rock the water is lower. If you like you could pile a lot of rocks in the stream and really raise the level of the water. That by the way is the AGW theory in a nutshell : ) If it weren’t for that pesky H2O molecule they would be 100% correct.

Ghengis.
Average global surface pressure does not change. Storms are just local or regional disturbances around the average.
Total atmospheric mass does not change significantly from water vapour variations. Atmospheric humidity is remarkably stable.
Temperature cannot be higher or lower than that required by the S-B equation after deducting the energy exchange between surface and air which holds the air off the ground. Temperature is kinetic energy. Any kinetic energy not required to match outgoing with incoming AND to hold up the atmosphere goes straight to potential energy to change the volume of the atmosphere.
P, T and m are fixed.
Rspecific and V are variable.
The water analogy doesn’t work because water is not a gas.
In so far as GHGs slow down the rate of energy flow the Gas Law requires that any additional energy in the system goes to potential energy via expansion which does not change Temperature.
GHGs cause an atmospheric response that reaches a new equilibrium with Volume and not with Temperature.
Only changes in Mass, Gravity and Insolation reach a new equilibrium with Temperature.
The ‘specific’ part of Rspecific only affects Volume. The Gas Law requires it.
The radiation enthusiasts have treated Rspecific as a universal constant like R instead of as a variable.
They didn’t realise that the radiation flux is only a by product of mechanical processes.

“GHG’s create the temperature gradient ”
The decline in density with height causes the gradient. GHGs can distort it but changes elsewhere negate the effect over the atmosphere as a whole.
“do you understand that the atmosphere in equilibrium would be 5˚C and isothermal”
Not possible due to the density gradient with height.
Your points and my replies are getting repetitive so no point engaging further.

Stephen Wilde says:
“GHG’s create the temperature gradient ”
The decline in density with height causes the gradient. GHGs can distort it but changes elsewhere negate the effect over the atmosphere as a whole.
————–
Density and height have nothing to do with temperature. You are obviously confusing the act of expanding a volume of gas which does lower the temperature with energy going into and out of the volume of gas.

P.S. It would not let me post on their weblog. Very sad. However, it does tell you something about a weblog where the person does not give their name.

Phil.
I think I can see where we differ and how my terms of expression could be improved.
The issue should be a matter of distinguishing between the universal gas constant and the individual gas constant rather than using the terms Rspecific. and R.
See here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/individual-universal-gas-constant-d_588.html
Here are the values of R for the three gases mentioned in my article.
Nitrogen is 296.8
water vapour is 461.5
Carbon Dioxide is 188.9
It seems that the values of both R (and Rspecific) vary from gas to gas and for different mixtures of gases.
R is a universal constant only for an Ideal Gas.
The lower is the individual gas constant for a gas the less energy is needed to provide the Joules required to lift 1kg to a height where it cools by 1K
The less energy is needed the higher the gas will rise off the surface at a given temperature and the greater will be the volume of the atmosphere.
The more energy is needed the less high the gas will rise off the surface at a given temperature and the volume of the atmosphere will be less.
Nitrogen is relatively inert and comprising most of the atmosphere is close to that of air with Nitrogen at 296.8 and air at 286.9
Water vapour is light once formed but has required a lot of latent heat to form in the first place so the energy requirement to lift it from the surface is high even though it is a lighter gas. Thus 461.5
CO2 is heavier than air but acquires energy from absorption capability so the amount of energy required from the surface to lift it is less at 188.9
So it turns out that whether one refers to R, Rspecific or the individual gas constant the relevant number is indeed a variable and atmospheres of different compositions can have different volumes for the same mass and temperature.
R is only a constant for an Ideal Gas and in the real world there is no such thing.
Having established that that number is a variable within the Gas Laws the basic contention in my article is correct in that Volume will change with a change in the composition of the gas mixture without a corresponding change in T.
I need to revise my article to remove the red herring of Rspecific and make it clear that it is the individual gas constant that provides the system with the necessary flexibility.
I am grateful to Phil for focusing on the relevant issue so that I could refine the concept.

Of the same mass and at the same temperature and pressure, that is.

That’s what I thought.
The differences in molecular weight require different volumes for the same mass, temperature and pressure.
Hence the differing individual gas constants.
Thus we must look elsewhere for the thermal effects of other characteristics such as radiative absorption capability.
Additional energy absorption capability would affect volume and / or temperature so we need to examine the Gas Laws to see what they can tell us about overall atmospheric behaviour when something which is not a term of the Gas Law tries to force changes.
My conclusion is that the gas constant determines the atmospheric volume so as to balance surface temperature with the need to maintain energy balance at ToA and hold the atmosphere off the surface.
If anything else seeks to upset the atmospheric volume and surface temperature balance set by the gas constant then the system can only respond by changing the balance between kinetic and potential energy otherwise the surface would become too hot or too cold and the atmosphere would eventually be lost.
Too cold a surface would allow a permanent excess of energy in and too warm a surface would allow a permanent excess of energy out.
The Gas Law should be adapted thus:
PV = mRspecificE
Where E represents total system energy content and the value of Rspecific determines how much of E can be in kinetic form as heat and how much in potential form as height.

I know RT is kinetic energy and that is all the kinetic energy one can have if mass is the only determinant of how much energy a molecule can hold.
Why have you switched back to moles ?
Radiative theory says that GHG molecules have additional ability to absorb energy which is apparently not related to their mass.
Or do you dispute that ?
Any such additional energy acquired must place them and other molecules they collide with higher in the atmosphere for an increase in V and total energy (PE + KE).
How would you propose to deal with that ?
I suggest that ALL the energy in the atmosphere whether PE or KE determines PV but that the value of R sets the proportion of that energy that needs be in kinetic form to comply with PV = nRT.
The thing is that PV = nRT only works for a parcel of gas that expands within an atmosphere. Such expansion is equal both up and down so gravitational potential energy stays the same. Intermolecular forces are too small to consider.
For an atmosphere around a planet the rules have to change because PE is about 50% of the energy in the atmosphere but is not dealt with in the standard equation.
If molecules can absorb additional energy over and above that needed to support their mass then it all has to go to PE.
It is the shifting of that additional energy to PE that balances the equation when V increases more than one would expect from the mass alone.
There might be a better way to formulate a new equation though.

It is the level of irradiation from outside working on the available mass which produces
PV = nRT.
If some other factor than mass can alter T without more energy coming in from outside which is what radiative theory proposes then it is that which unbalances the equation.
If T gets altered by a factor other than mass then V must change to regain balance but one cannot raise T again or the equation remains unbalanced.
The only way one can regain balance is by shifting the excess energy to PE.

If I follow your logic it seems that the answer is that radiative absorption affects translational modes only and that can result in more V without higher T at the surface.

Phil.
The problem here is that we have been conflating the thermal behaviour of a discrete parcel of gas suspended above a surface (the Gas Laws apply) with the thermal behaviour of a surface overlain by a volume of gas (The Laws of Thermodynamics apply).
You have pointed me to the issue of thermodynamics a couple of times so perhaps it is my fault.
It has always been my contention that the surface temperature stays the same when the gas above it acquires more energy from anywhere other than the surface and that any such additional energy acquired by the gas from elsewhere simply results in more uplift and an increase in PE which mops up what would otherwise have been more KE. That results in a new compromise between the height of the atmosphere and the slope of the lapse rate.
Surface temperature is determined by insolation plus the weight of the atmosphere (m) resting on the surface (P) and so the surface temperature is ‘locked’ because volume (V) is irrelevant to it.
The temperature of the gases at any given height above the surface is then determined by the lapse rate which itself is derived from the decline in density with height which in turn is related to the pressure gradient. That involves the Gas Laws.
If a parcel of gas acquires more energy than is possible just from energy conducting or being lifted by convection up from the surface then it becomes too warm for its position in the atmospheric column and it will rise until it is at the right temperature.
In the process ALL such additional energy goes to PE.
So, for a free floating parcel of gas V is indeed tied to T as per the Gas Laws but if extra energy is added then atmospheric thermodynamics changes its position in the vertical column in accordance with Rspecific so that Rspecific does indeed determine the relative proportions of KE and PE.
Rspecific determines how much KE is needed to lift the parcel’s weight off the surface to the height set by incoming insolation at the surface and any excess energy then acquired goes to PE instead.
Not because of the Gas Laws (as you pointed out) but by virtue of thermodynamics.
Meanwhile, thermodynamics also requires that the entire energy content of an atmosphere (both PE and KE) determines the volume of the entire atmosphere (but not surface temperature) because ALL that energy content determines the height to which the atmosphere can rise off the surface.
The Gas Laws need to be applied differently for a free floating parcel of gas and for an atmosphere around a planet.
For the latter, one needs to combine the effects of the Gas Laws with basic thermodynamics.
Is that any form of progress ?

gnomish.
Not sure what your point is since I accept those facts.
There is no doubt that those features of water help to maintain stability but that is incorporated into what I said.

“The equation you need is the hydrostatic equation:
P = −g ∫ ρ dh
where g is gravity and ρ is the density of air.
Since density varies with height we need to use the Equation of State:
ρ=MP/(RT)”
Noted, thank you.
I was wondering how to get density into the mix of relevant factors.
Does my post at 3.03 make sense in light of the hydrostatic equation ?

stephen,
I have been following yours and Phil.’s conversation and I so much would like you to get this all sorted out. But I am going to stay on the sideline except this comment for Phil.’s feeding you exactly the same thing I was giving to you a ways back, it’s proper information he is giving you and clearer than I can do such. The only reason I jumped in is to say try picking up a calculator. It’s simple to see the relations if you see it in actual numbers in action, for instance:
ρ=MP/(RT)
Density at the surface is:
ρ = 0.02896 kg/mole * 101325 Pa / (8.314 J/K/mole * 288 K) = 1.225 kg/m³
You know, that is correct, 1.225 kg/m³ as given by the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere and you just calculated it from two variables, the pressure and the temperature.
Write down those that do not change (constants) and don’t lose them:
8.314 J/K/mole is the universal gas constant, it NEVER changes, even on Venus or Jupiter.
0.028964 kg/mole is air’s molecular mass, on Earth with constant composition it never changes.
So, that equation with those two constants and the pressure and temperature of any level will give you back the density there.
Now, watch carefully what Rspecific is, I am going to derive it and rewrite the equation above:
Rspecific of air = 8.314 J/K/mole / 0.028964 kg/mole = 287.05 J/K/kg instead of J/K/mole.
See, all that happened is kg took the place of moles and moles disappeared.
So also you can now say that
ρ=MP/(RT)
becomes
ρ=P/(Rspecific · T)
Notice no M in the numerator anymore, it merged with R, the universal form or R to be the specific form of R for Earth’s air.
So:
ρ = 101325 Pa / (287.05 J/K/kg * 288 K) = 1.225 kg/m³, correct.
So also write down this constant for Earth’s air:
287.05 J/K/kg is the specific gas constant for air, and DOES change for Venus and Jupiter for their atmospheric gases are of a different composition. Even better call it Rair instead of Rspecific.
Try to work through each of the equations until you know each by heart, frontwards and backwards. I did that same in the last few years, I didn’t have them memorized then either, but all I just wrote came not by Googling but out of my head. I bet when you get to that point you should know how all of these confusing variables all effect each of the others. It is not trivial.
I’ll step back in the background. 😉

“Any energy transferred by absorption to a GHG will first raise the energy of the internal modes (rotation/vibration) which either be converted to translation by collisions (and hence temperature) or will be emitted as radiation. The former is more likely near the surface and the latter near the tropopause.
If it rises higher it gains more PE and cools whilst at the same time radiating more effectively to space.
On that basis would it really lead to a warmer surface ?

But then, in so far as radiative emission to space is insufficient, it would rise converting KE to PE for a cooling effect.
A molecule too low in the atmospheric column for its energy content radiates too much to the surface.
A molecule too high in the atmospheric column for its energy content radiates too much to space.
A molecule at exactly the correct height for its energy content does neither for a zero net effect.
I admit to not being a scientist which is why I value and accept the opinion of my betters in that discipline.
Against that, I have a lifetime of experience albeit as an amateur in climate and weather. In that arena I think I have a broader knowledge than most scientists.
What we have here is a conundrum whereby energy out must equal energy in for the atmosphere as a whole over millions of years but radiative theory simply cannot work because it relies on a permanent imbalance between energy in and energy out.
Observations show that the real world is not doing what the radiative theory requires.
The answer must lie in the interaction between the gas laws and thermodynamics.
I judge that any molecule acquiring additional energy from radiative absorption (whether directly or indirectly through collisions) must rise higher than it otherwise would have done and in the process settles at a height where it becomes cool enough for radiation to space to exactly match radiation back to the ground for a zero net effect on the top of atmosphere radiative balance.
Instead of an increase in surface temperature the rise in height leads to an increase in radiation out.
The atmosphere is full of molecules 50% rising and 50% falling so that overall on average the circulation ensures that top of atmosphere energy balance is maintained by having all molecules whether radiative or not at the correct heights for system stability.
I accept that I do not have the mathematical experience, or the opportunity to acquire it, to provide a formal proof.

Stephen, you keep speaking of KE and PE and I have a question. Are the two effects you keep referencing located on opposite sides of the Earth? One on the day side rising due to additional solar energy, let’s say 50-100 meters, and the other side falling back during the twelve hours of nighttime? That is the only way I seem to see what you are saying as being a net effect and this is due to the conservation of local mass. This is a big globe and such effects can and do occur but they cannot be of very close proximity to each other, like a cloud and the air around the cloud. I get confused as to what is your references of locations, scales and times.
I remember us speaking of that months ago so maybe that is still you are speaking of.

I’ve spent a couple of days on reflection.
When I suggested that for an atmosphere around a planet the formulation:
PV = mRspecificE should apply instead of the normal formulation PV = m RspecificT which applies for a parcel of gas within an atmosphere
Phil’s response was basically that it doesn’t work like that and in support of that assertion he said:
“A molecule near the surface travels about 70nm before it collides with another molecule, your concept of a molecule travelling up in the atmosphere until it reaches the level appropriate to its KE just doesn’t happen. KE is rapidly exchanged with the neighbouring molecules, probably all distributed in a mm”
In other words he does not accept that the introduction of GHGs causes atmospheric expansion.
I replied:
“Bulk activity goes on just as you say but the net outcome of all that bulk activity is to lift the weight of an atmosphere away from the irradiated surface to a height determined by the power of that irradiation.
KE at a surface lifts an atmosphere off the surface. The more KE at the surface the higher it gets.
In the process of rising, KE converts to PE and the higher molecules are colder.”
In other words I say that the introduction of GHGs does cause atmospheric expansion, a lifting higher away from the surface than justified by mass alone and creation of more PE at the expense of any excess KE.
Wayne’s interjection did not address that issue.
If GHGs cause atmospheric expansion then I am right. If they do not then Phil is right.
For the moment we must agree to disagree and readers must make up their own minds.

Thanks Eric.
I didn’t feel it appropriate for me to say that but if another says it I am gratified.

You cannot be sincere in trying to argue that, taking the atmosphere as a whole, the height achieved does not directly reflect the KE content of the constituent molecules.,
That simple point subverts your entire contribution to date.