Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There is a more global restatement of Murphy’s Law which says “Nature always sides with the hidden flaw”. Parasitic losses are an example of that law at work.
In any heat engine, either natural or manmade, there are what are called “parasitic losses”. These are losses that tend to reduce the temperature differentials in the heat engine, and thus reduce the overall efficiency of the engine. In general, as a percentage parasitic losses increase rapidly with ∆T, the temperature differences in the engine. In the climate system, two main parasitic losses are the losses from the surface to the atmosphere by way of conduction and convection (sensible heat), and the losses from surface to atmosphere by way of evaporation and transpiration (latent heat). Both of these parasitic losses act to reduce the surface temperature with respect to the overlying atmosphere, by simultaneously cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere … nature siding with the hidden flaw to reduce the overall system efficiency. So I decided to see what the CERES data says about parasitic losses. Figure 1 shows the parasitic losses (the sum of sensible and latent heat losses), as a percentage of the total surface input (downwelling longwave plus shortwave).
Figure 1. Parasitic losses (latent and sensible heat loss) from the surface to the atmosphere. Percentage of parasitic loss is calculated as the sum of sensible and latent loss, divided by the total surface input (downwelling shortwave plus downwelling longwave).
I was most interested in how much the parasitic loss changes when the total surface input increases. Figures 2 to 4 shows that situation:
Figures 2-4. Scatterplots, parasitic loss in watts per square metre (W/m2) versus total surface input (W/m2). Parasitic loss is loss as sensible and latent heat. Gold line shows the loess smooth of the data. Red dots show land gridcells, which are one degree square (1°x1°) in size. Blue dots show ocean gridcells.
I was very encouraged by finding this result. I’ve written before about how at the warm end of the spectrum, parasitic losses would increase to the point where most of each new additional watt striking the surface would be lost as sensible and latent heat, and that little of it would remain to warm the surface. These graphs bear that out entirely. Here’s why.
The slope of the gold line above is the rate of increase in parasitic loss for each additional degree of warming. As you can see, the slope of the line increases from left to right, although the rate of increase goes up and down.
In order to understand the changes, I took the slope (change in parasitic loss divided by the corresponding change in surface input) at each point along the length of the gold line for both the land and the ocean separately. Figure 5 shows that result.
Figure 5. Change in parasitic loss (in W/m2) for each additional W/m2 of surface input. “Wobbles”, the looped parts in the two graphed lines reflect subtle changes in the loess smooth, and can be ignored.
Now, what are we looking at here? Well, this is how the parasitic loss changes as more and more energy is input to the surface. Where there is little surface input, the loss is low. In fact, at the South Pole the situation is reversed, and the net flow of energy is from the atmosphere to the surface. This is the result of huge amounts of energy being imported from the tropics.
The key point, however, is that as we add more and more energy to a given gridcell the amount of parasitic losses rises, in perfect accordance with nature siding with the hidden flaw. And at the right hand end of the scale, the warmest end, for every additional watt that is added, you lose a watt …
Is this relationship shown in Figure 5 entirely accurate? Of course not, the vagaries of the smoothing process guarantee that it isn’t a precise measure.
But it clearly establishes what I’ve been saying for a while, which is that parasitic loss is a function of temperature, and that at the top end of the scale, the marginal losses are quite large, close to 100%.
Now, as you can see, nowhere is the parasitic loss more than about 30% … but the important finding is that the marginal loss, the loss due to each additional watt of energy gain, is around 100% at the warm end of the planet. Here is the parasitic loss for the planet as a whole versus total surface input as shown in Figure 2:
Figure 6. Change in parasitic loss (in W/m2) for each additional W/m2 of surface input, as in Figure 5, but for the planet as a whole.Change in parasitic loss (in W/m2) for each additional W/m2 of surface input. “Wobbles”, the looped parts in the two graphed lines reflect subtle changes in the loess smooth, and can be ignored.
Note also that across the main part of the range, which is to say in most of the planet except the tropics and poles, about half of each additional watt of energy increase doesn’t warm the surface … it simply goes into parasitic loss that cools the surface and warms the atmosphere.
Best to all,
w.
PS—If you disagree with what I’ve said please quote my words. That lets all of us know just exactly what you disagree with …
An oft overlooked feature of the adiabatic lapse rate (never mind local or ambient lapse rates for the moment) is that it represents the heights at which molecules are at their ‘correct’ heights for their temperatures. Those correct heights being determined by density, and therefore weight, differentials.
At any point where a molecule is at its correct temperature along the adiabatic lapse rate slope all energy transfer mechanisms net out to zero. UWIR equals DWIR and conduction up equals conduction down.
We can ignore the rest of the atmosphere for present purposes because there is equal atmospheric mass too warm for its height and too cold for its height so that nets out to zero too.
The thing is that the adiabatic lapse rate intersects with the surface.
Think about that.
A molecule at its correct temperature at the surface experiences no net radiative flux.
Therefore no net DWIR at the surface when a molecule is at 288K.
That 288K must include the 33K surface temperature enhancement caused by the diversion of radiative energy transfer (fast) to conductive energy transfer (slow).
Combine the S-B equation for the surface (255K) with the Gas Laws for the atmosphere (33K) and the correct surface temperature for Earth is 288K.
It cannot be otherwise because energy flow through the Earth system can only be slowed by conduction to mass which causes a build up of heat at the surface if the solar energy flow through the system is held constant.
There has been confusion between optical depth and atmospheric transparency. They are not the same.
Transparency of an atmosphere does not distinguish between absorption on the way in or absorption on the way out. Either way, the speed of transmission of solar energy through the atmosphere is slowed down.
It is that slowing down via the involvement of conduction that causes the surface temperature rise. It makes no difference whether the slowing down is on the way in, on the way out or a mix of the two.
An observer from space will only note the S-B temperature whilst an observer within the atmosphere will note the surface temperature enhancement as well.
“Of course you do not believe in GHG acting as a absorber/emitter of energy.”
Yes I do.
I just aver that they result in changes in convection and not surface temperature.
That involves climate change, but insignificant compared to natural climate changes.
The real greenhouse effect lurking in the background is mass induced.
Curt at 5-45pm
replied….
No. Sun is ~50K. times smaller in effect -so ok-work from there even – where do you account for the ~200W/m2 of Solar IR that is absorbed as is depicted on the “Marble….” graph shown among the others above because I don`t see it in Trendies Trick o` the Light cartoon depicting that state of `never ever anywhere` climate affairs here on Earth.
continuation……
I`d love to see his midnight and noon shots at them!
Willis I already told you, that chart is messed up. And for any scientific endeavor of any importance, for there to be one major, unforgivable error on it, means it’s trash.
The first thing I see is the 324 w/sq/meter down. Okay.
Fine.
Where’s the identical 324 w/sq/meter that must by definition be emitting up due to the very effect showing 324 emitting down?
There’s unforgivable error 1, rendering the diagram trash. Unless you show me where the other 324 emitting up, is accouted.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:56 am
Ignore whether it’s right or wrong just analyze Kiehl-Trenberth
James Rollins Jr says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:02 am
James, you are not listening to me. Here’s what I said again
I implore you again to let go of your considerations of whether it is right or wrong and LOOK AT WHAT IS BEING MEASURED!!! In the case of radiation, in the diagram we are looking at INDIVIDUAL FLOWS. In the case of sensible and latent heat, we are looking at NET FLOWS.
If you wish to use all NET FLOWS, that’s fine. In that case we see that the NET LOSS by radiation is 66 W/m2 (390 up minus 324 down), the NET LOSS by sensible heat is 24 W/m2 (unknown amounts up and down), and the NET LOSS by latent heat is 78 W/m2 (again unknown amounts up and down).
You have insisted that sensible and latent heat losses are larger than radiation losses. And this is true … but only for NET losses. Net losses are 66 W/m2 by radiation, and about 100 W/m2 by sensible+latent. Does that sound about right to you?
Regards,
w.
You need to show me the other half of that 324 accounted for properly in this document or it’s trash as is your reputation as an analyst for not having realized it isn’t accounted for and that something very important is wrong with it, Willis.
I apologize for being snappy Willis I just think you’re going on and on, but… you’re really buying this Kiehl-Trenberth style analysis where you don’t have to be right, and account accurately for your own claim, you just have to be adamant nobody else could be right.
James Rollins Jr says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:22 am
I’m sorry, James, but I don’t understand that. What do you mean by “the other half of that 324 accounted for properly”? Here’s the diagram again:
If you mean that the Kiehl/Trenberth energy budget omits important processes, I can only agree. One of the things that originally drew me to climate science was figuring out the simplest possible model of the climate in order to fix K/T budget diagram. He shows 324 W/m2 downwards and only 195 W/m2 upwards. So, here is a more detailed view …
Note that all layers (surface and two atmospheric levels) are balanced, with as much entering each layer as is leaving it.
To recap. About a decade ago, I realized that there was something very wrong with the Trenberth global energy budget. The atmospheric level is shown as radiating different amounts up and down. Unlike you, however, I didn’t just go Oh, it’s wrong, it’s wrong … I figured out where it was wrong and I fixed it.
I guess that’s why I have the deserved reputation as an analyst … and you?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:56 am
“Ignore whether it’s right or wrong just analyze Kiehl-Trenberth”
OK Mr. `Bach and Bite – how about ~400W/m2 of Reflect Solar Frequency Radiation for starters, diffused as it would be?
That`s near about what we are getting on the ground at 50degN UK around now.(minus all that net uprising IRLW stuff of course) and which, at anywhere near Trendies intenisity inferences, would have me still wrapped in my thermals instead of testing our 10degC Briney for conformity with SST anomally blurb and actual tolerability of the ambient!
But whilst TOA must be about right on this liquidised 4 course meal all in one pot potion of his regarding energy dissipation it answers not the real ??? about how the HEAT from the Sun is managed by the atmosphere through all Seasons of the Solar and indeed Milankovitch cycles.
With the atmosphere being a thermal mass ALL of it must be radiating some energy into Space surely and not just the active gases at their responsive frequencies to prevent disasterous bottling but which active gases will have greater effect the more the temperature rises and so cause turbulence that will send them to higher levels of liberation and all of which confirms long history of Mother Earth being capable of dealing with varying levels of insolation and active gases all by Herself, thank you muchly. (but ta for letting out some of the excess gas in mi tanks to feed mi trees but not for then taking `em down nor digging big holes all over the place, choking and covering me in soo and crunchin` under, over and around mi cooler private parts, if you don`t mind).
david(swuk) says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:34 am
I said no such thing. That was James.
I fear that that is totally unintelligible, David. Let me suggest that you leave out all of the flowery stuff. Lose all of the cutesy circumlocution, it doesn’t help. Quit going round the block, and simply say what you mean. Your words often hold no meaning at all to me.
For example. What is “actual tolerability of the ambient”? Why are you talking about a “liquidized four course meal”, and what is that when it’s at home? And what on earth does “TOA must be about right” mean? TOA what?
I’m not kidding, David. I don’t have a clue what your point is, and I’m totally unwilling to guess.
I suggest that you first clarify what it is that you want to say. What is your point? If you are not clear on it, no one else will be either.
Then start with clear sentences. Limit your sentence length to about 12 words or so. Avoid most adjectives and adverbs. Explain unfamiliar concepts. Because here’s the thing.
If you want to get an answer to a scientific question, or make a scientific point, someone out here needs to be able to understand you.
And I can’t. Not when you write like that. It’s not funny. It’s not appealing. It doesn’t make me want to read more, it makes my head hurt. And most importantly, rather than forwarding communication, all that style of writing does is obfuscate and efface and conceal whatever it is you are unsuccessfully trying to get across.
In friendship,
w.
PS—Making fun of someone’s name is never funny. It just irritates people. Just sayin’ …
And there’s no question there’s 159 w/sq/m missing in the “emitted by atmosphere” portion.
There’s no question if the people who tried to call that an ”analysis” tried it in real science
where tenure doesn’t surpass sense, they’d be fired; and you’d be fired for admitting you couldn’t understand, why they were fired, because the people taking money for being able to balance simple thermal in/out problems
are supposed to be able to do just that.
The people who gave you that diagram can’t. As is obvious. We have their very best effort at it.
When I say ‘there’s no question’ I mean is there’s no question there’s the initial obvious difference.
Then there’s the ”absorbed” notation, the cloud functions being ridiculously, grossly over simplified, etc. I’m not looking for a word count I’m pointing it out like I would if I were talking to someone in a real scientific discussion where real scientific realities predominate.
The other half of the 324 that you see clearly marked going down. For someone who thinks of yourself as a smart guy you too, miss a lot of simple, simple things, that are intuitive to people who work in knowing what’s happening to energy.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:53 am
I’m sorry, James, but I don’t understand that. What do you mean by “the other half of that 324 accounted for properly”? Here’s the diagram again:
[This message stops abruptly in mid sentence. Do you want to delete it and then try again? Mod]
Willis you have another cartoon, that’s an accomplishment, but what’s that got to do with me having to show you nobody else on earth but you, and maybe a very small number of people,believes 80% of earth surface energy leaves via radiant transport?
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:53 am
Note that all layers (surface and two atmospheric levels) are balanced, with as much entering each layer as is leaving it.
To recap. About a decade ago, I realized that there was something very wrong with the Trenberth global energy budget. The atmospheric level is shown as radiating different amounts up and down. Unlike you, however, I didn’t just go Oh, it’s wrong, it’s wrong … I figured out where it was wrong and I fixed it.
I guess that’s why I have the deserved reputation as an analyst … and you?
david(swuk) says:
April 3, 2014 at 3:34 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 3, 2014 at 12:56 am
“Ignore whether it’s right or wrong just analyze Kiehl-Trenberth”
and
I said no such thing. That was James.(to James?)
(I just copied and pasted like you said I should previously.)
anyway app`s if I intruded:-
Otherwise, in answer to your response nevertheless, is seems that joined-up English doesn`t cut across The Pond as doesn`t a more conversatiopnal approach between amateurs either (and) so I`ll try to adopt staccato style henceforth but only in writing and not thinking (because) I believe that is where part of the problem lies. But don`t feel obliged to reply please if I do get too wordy agenagen).
The gist of my dismay is at the way the Climate Cartel & Co. via the likes of K-T are getting away with justifying their specious claims of (forthcoming as it is now) AGW by presentation of such fallacious documents never mind cultivated data etc. to a Scientific community that prefers looking peevishly compliant than looking down the Sit`s Vac, columns and a general public who can`t gets their heads around anything bigger than a Double Whopper with Cheese – please.
(phew, only 5 lines)
So when I see relatively educated in the Science persons burying themselves in such baloney and correcting/refining it or at least hoping to I, like others, do like to remind them that all those Watts of upwelling radiation well below say the 15degC ambient temperature as in LIR/LW which do not escape the claws of GHGs at either first or second pass go to cooling the planet and not reinforcing (adding to) the ground temperature which first dispatched them. Period.
continuation….
and no, your name is fine by me, just live up to its better connotations maybe.
d.
Willis I worked out the several ways, “it’s wrong, it’s wrong”, years ago, then moved on.
Basically you’re admitting that with hundreds or thousands of hours of study, you came to the conclusion the earth’s convective transport is a fable and 80% of surface losses are radiant.
You’re forgetting Willis studying things longer and longer doesn’t necessarily mean you know more and more: particularly when the professional experts you claim to know more than, using the identical instrumentation you are, are exclaiming among themselves, openly, in stunned humiliation, they realize how completely inadequate their combined data acquisition and observation mechanisms are, for any and/or all of them together, to have any understanding of what they’re really doing, at all.
James Rollins Jr says:
April 3, 2014 at 7:00 am
“Willis I worked out the several ways, “it’s wrong, it’s wrong”, years ago, then moved on.
Basically you’re admitting that with hundreds or thousands of hours of study, you came to the conclusion the earth’s convective transport is a fable and 80% of surface losses are radiant.
You’re forgetting Willis studying things longer and longer doesn’t necessarily mean you know more and more: particularly when the professional experts you claim to know more than, using the identical instrumentation you are, are exclaiming among themselves, openly, in stunned humiliation, they realize how completely inadequate their combined data acquisition and observation mechanisms are, for any and/or all of them together, to have any understanding of what they’re really doing, at all.”
Indeed James, if I may latch on. My reply to Willis above was far too generous in saying ALL THOSE WATTS of upwelling IR/LW as I firmly believe most of the heat is carried up thermally.
In temperate and tropical zones that is along with water vapour particularly.
Wind Chill, which is rated to reduce the ground level by <5degC and ever common in some parts like the usually draughty UK, must so totally overwhelm IRLW that it has only marginal effect at best.
And so the task is that of countering the K-T travesty with a diagram of (likely) Real World
situations showing HEAT FLUX & TEMPERATURES, not WilliWatts, and not tinkering with it.
James, Dr. Spencer, in a 2010 article I was just reading, stated that based on the KT diagram the energy transfered from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction & convection is 4 times greater than by radiation. That is sensible & latent heat equals 102 watts/m2 whereas radiation emits 26 watts/m2 (350-324 watt/m2.) into the atmosphere.
Why do you disagree with this? It seems to me that this would be agreement with your ideas yet you state that the KT diagram is rubbish.
This is a rhetorical question. No need to answer.
Go Whitecaps!! says:
April 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
James, Dr. Spencer, in a 2010 article I was just reading, stated that based on the KT diagram the energy transfered from the surface to the atmosphere by conduction & convection is 4 times greater than by radiation. That is sensible & latent heat equals 102 watts/m2 whereas radiation emits 26 watts/m2 (350-324 watt/m2.) into the atmosphere.
Why do you disagree with this? It seems to me that this would be agreement with your ideas yet you state that the KT diagram is rubbish.
This is a rhetorical question. No need to answer
——————-
joining your tete a tete if I may I point out that that is 390 by the way and that there surely isn`t sufficient heat capacity/radiative power in scarce GHGs to dispose of 235W/m2 (x~4 on the Sunny side I have read) Solar Heat (~50:50 Vis & IR) reaching and warming the atmosphere and surface.
Sorry Dave, I don’t understand what you’re saying. However, my figure of 350 is correct as that is the radiation into the atmosphere as I stated. 40 watts radiates directly into outer space. Therefore 350 + 40 = 390. (See the KT diagram)
Sorry GW:-
It`s irrelevant as to whether the theoretical 40 is absorbed or not as it only shuffles the numbers around on the quacky no-where, never-ever land depicted in the Warmist K-T diagram.
How, by the way, does it dispose of all that heatgenerated by the natural and industrial worlds – fossil fuel heat for instance – that already “perfect balance” presented by Trendie et al first came out of The Eagle I reckon!
“And we all know that everyday objects far from a big fire are all heated by nothing but longwave radiation, sometimes to the point where they burst into flame.”
So said Willis to another doubter much earlier on.
But campfire IR is well inside the Solar Spectrum (not visible of course eh) whilst the LW which he is seeking to attribute REAL HEAT is not even of body heat intensity.
Also said (to Edim):-
(The downwelling longwave (atmospheric radiation) is no surface input).=Edim
“Say what?”=Wills
and………..
(Net surface LW radiation is upwelling (cools the surface, warms the atmosphere).(=E)
True … so?(=W)
(So, the “parasitic losses” percentage of the total surface input (absorbed solar) is much higher. Not parasitic at all. They’re the main surface cooling mechanism).(=E)
Edim, if you think that the only thing warming the surface is the absorbed solar, I fear you are beyond help. For example, we know (from measurements) that the ocean constantly loses about 400 watts per square metre (W/m2) of radiated energy.
We also know (from measurements and estimates) that the parasitic losses about about 100 W/m2. So the ocean is losing a total of about half a kilowatt per square metre.
View – mine that is:-
DWLW (from top of Troph) delivers near Twice the heat of direct Solar Rad to the surface??
Even tho` radiating in the ~40degC band
“UWLW (from the surface) cools it (in the process and) warms the atmosphere” (Hallelujah)
“The ocean is losing a total of (400+100W) about half a kilowatt of heat per M2 (and would freeze without DWLW – in a further reply)”
Polar Oceans would and do and Tropical ones could not and do not!
So- work in progress at the very best methinks.
Another point – ~40% of Sunlight reflected back into Space?
kind regards to all.
The KT diagram is not warmist. It was first constructed by Dines in 1917.