'Correcting' Trenberth et al.

(See the note below before taking this post seriously – Anthony)

Guest essay by Steven Wilde

Here we see the classic energy budget analysis supporting the hypothesis that the surface of the Earth is warmer than the S-B equation would predict due to 324 Wm2 of ‘Back Radiation’ from the atmosphere to the surface.

It is proposed that it is Back Radiation that lifts the surface temperature from 255K, as predicted by S-B, to the 288K actually observed because the 324 Back Radiation exceeds the surface radiation to the air of 222 Wm2 ( 390 Wm2 less 168 Wm2) by 102 Wm2. It is suggested that there is a net radiative flow from atmosphere to surface of 102 Wm2.

I now discuss an alternative possibility.

The portions I wish to focus on are:

i) 390 Wm2 Surface Radiation to atmosphere

ii) 78 Wm2 Evapo-transpiration surface to atmosphere

iii) 24 Thermals surface to atmosphere

iv) 324 Back Radiation atmosphere to surface

The budget needs to be amended as follows:

The 78 Wm2 needs to be corrected to zero because the moist adiabatic lapse rate during ascent is less than the dry lapse rate on adiabatic descent which ensures that after the first convective cycle there is as much energy back at the surface as before Evapo-transpiration began.

The 24 Wm2 for thermals needs to be corrected to zero because dry air that rises in thermals then warms back up to the original temperature on descent.

Therefore neither ii) nor iii) should be included in the radiative budget at all. They involve purely non radiative means of energy transfer and have no place in the radiative budget since, being net zero, they do not cool the surface. AGW theory and the Trenberth diagram incorrectly include them as a net surface cooling influence.

Furthermore, they cannot reduce Earth’s surface temperature below 255K because both conduction and convection are slower methods of energy transmission than radiation. To reduce the surface temperature below 255K they would have to work faster than radiation which is obviously not so.

They can only raise a surface temperature above the S-B expectation and for Earth that is 33K.

Once the first convective overturning cycle has been completed neither Thermals nor Evapo-transpiration can have any additional warming effect at the surface provided mass, gravity and insolation remain constant.

As regards iv) the correct figure for the radiative flux from atmosphere to surface should be 222 Wm2 because items ii) and iii) should not have been included.

That also leaves the surface to atmosphere radiative flux at 222 Wm2 which taken with the 168 Wm2 absorbed directly by the surface comes to the 390 Wm2 required for radiation from the surface.

The rest of the energy budget diagram appears to be correct.

So, how to decide whether my interpretation is accurate?

I think it is generally accepted that the lapse rate slope marks the points in the atmosphere where there is energy balance within molecules that are at the correct height for their temperature.

Since the lapse rate slope intersects with the surface it follows that DWIR equals UWIR for a zero net radiative balance if a molecule at the surface is at the correct temperature for its height. If it is not at the correct surface temperature it will simply move towards the correct height by virtue of density variations in the horizontal plane (convection).

Thus, 222 UWIR at the surface should equal 222 DWIR at the surface AND 222 plus 168 should add up to 390 and, of course, it does.

AGW theory erroneously assumes that Thermals and Evapo-transpiration have a net cooling effect on the surface and so they have to uplift the radiative exchange at the surface from 222 Wm2 to 324 Wm2 and additionally they assume that the extra 102 Wm2 is attributable to a net radiative flux towards the surface from the atmosphere.

The truth is that there is no net flow of radiation in any direction at the surface once the air at the surface is at its correct temperature for its height, which is 288K and not 255K. The lapse rate intersecting at the surface tells us that there can be no net radiative flux at the surface when surface temperature is at 288K.

A rise in surface temperature above the S-B prediction is inevitable for an atmosphere capable of conducting and convection because those two processes introduce a delay in the transmission of radiative energy through the system. Conduction and convection are a function of mass held within a gravity field.

Energy being used to hold up the weight of an atmosphere via conduction and convection is no longer available for radiation to space since energy cannot be in two places at once.

The greenhouse effect is therefore a product of atmospheric mass rather than radiative characteristics of constituent molecules as is clearly seen when the Trenberth diagram is corrected and the lapse rate considered.

Since one can never have more than 390 Wm2 at the surface without increasing conduction and convection via changes in mass, gravity or insolation a change in the quantity of GHGs cannot make any difference. All they can do is redistribute energy within the atmosphere.

There is a climate effect from the air circulation changes but, due to the tiny proportion of Earth’s atmospheric mass comprised of GHGs, too small to measure compared to natural variability.

What Happens When Radiative Gases Increase Or Decrease?

Applying the above correction to the Trenberth figures we can now see that 222 Wm2 radiation from the surface to the atmosphere is simply balanced by 222 Wm2 radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. That is the energy being constantly expended by the surface via conduction and convection to keep the weight of the atmosphere off the surface. We must ignore it for the purpose of energy transmission to space since the same energy cannot be in two places at once.

We then have 168 Wm2 left over at the surface which represents energy absorbed by the surface after 30 Wm2 has been reflected from the surface , 77 Wm2 has been reflected by the atmosphere and 67 Wm2 has been absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the surface.

That 168 Wm2 is then transferred to the atmosphere by conduction and convection leaving a total of 235 Wm2 in the atmosphere (168 plus 67).

It is that 235 Wm2 that must escape to space if radiative balance is to be maintained.

Now, remember that the lapse rate slope represents the positions in the atmosphere where molecules are at their correct temperature for their height.

At any given moment convection arranges that half the mass of the atmosphere is too warm for its height and half the mass is too cold for its height.

The reason for that is that the convective process runs out of energy to lift the atmosphere any higher against gravity when the two halves equalise.

It must follow that at any given time half of the GHGs must be too warm for their height and the other half too cold for their height.

That results in density differentials that cause the warm molecules to rise and the cold molecules to fall.

If a GHG molecule is too warm for its height then DWIR back to the surface dominates but the molecule rises away from the surface and cools until DWIR again equals UWIR.

If a GHG molecule is too cold for its height then UWIR to space dominates but the molecule then falls until DWIR again equals UWIR.

The net effect is that any potential for GHGs to warm or cool the surface is negated by the height changes relative to the slope of the adiabatic lapse rate.

Let’s now look at how that outgoing 235 Wm2 is dealt with if radiative gas concentrations change.

It is recognised that radiative gases tend to reduce the size of the Atmospheric Window (40 Wm2) so we will assume a reduction from 40 Wm2 to 35 Wm2 by way of example.

If that happens then DWIR for molecules that are too warm for their height will increase but the subsequent rise in height will cause the molecule to rise above its correct position along the lapse rate slope with UWIR to space increasing at the expense of DWIR back to the surface and rising will only stop when DWIR again equals UWIR.

Since UWIR to space increases to compensate for the shrinking of the atmospheric window (from 40 Wm2 to 35 Wm2) the figure for radiative emission from the atmosphere will increase from 165 to 170 which keeps the system in balance with 235 Wm2 still outgoing.

If the atmosphere had no radiative capability at all then radiative emission from the atmosphere would be zero but the Atmospheric Window would release 235 Wm2 from the surface.

If the atmosphere were 100% radiative then the Atmospheric Window from the surface would be zero and the atmosphere would radiate the entire 235 Wm2.

==============================================================

Note: I’m glad to see a number of people pointing out how flawed the argument is. Every once in awhile we need to take a look at the ‘Slayer’ mentality of thinking about radiative balance, just to keep sharp on the topic. At first I thought this should go straight into the hopper, and then I thought it might make some good target practice, so I published it without any caveat.

Readers did not disappoint.

Now you can watch the fun as they react over at PSI. – Anthony

P.S. Readers might also enjoy my experiment on debunking the PSI light bulb experiment, and note the reactions in comments, entirely opposite to this one. New WUWT-TV segment: Slaying the ‘slayers’ with Watts

Update: Let me add that the author assuredly should have included a link to the underlying document, Earth’s Global Energy Budget by Kiehl and Trenberth …

0 0 votes

Article Rating

417 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Stephen Wilde

April 16, 2014 2:46 am

I should also mention that the power of the phase changes of water also seems to be able to maintain stability despite changes in TSI as per the so called faint sun hypothesis.
As Willis so often tells us there must be a thermostatic mechanism limiting the maximum surface temperature of the tropical oceans and I agree with that but aver that it is caused by the pressure of atmospheric mass on the ocean surface determining the rate of evaporation and the energy cost of the phase change from liquid to vapour, but that is another story.
There would be a climate effect in the form of shifting climate zones but very little change in average surface temperature.
Even the Milankovich cycles might only cause a redistribution of energy with little effect on average surface temperature, just a larger temperature differential between polar and equatorial air masses and a shift of the permanent climate zones towards the equator like the LIA but much more intense.

Trick

April 16, 2014 5:25 am

Stephen 11:31pm: “Accordingly it cannot return to the surface by downward radiation and so K & T were wrong to add 102 Wm2 to DWIR.”
No. K&T97 balance is more correct for that era as gliders were observed along with rain. In Stephen’s balance these processes do not have enough surface energy flux (global 24+78 up & down) to operate so gliders and rain can not exist in Stephen’s world but they do in K & T.

Stephen Wilde

April 16, 2014 7:13 am

Trick.
Your repeated contention has been answered several times.
Thermals to lift gliders and evapotranspiration to produce rain exist in both my scenario and that of K&T
The sole issue is whether the energy taken up returns to the surface as DWIR or in adiabatic warming on descent.
Whilst that 102 Wm2 is off the surface it is in the form of gravitational potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.
Therefore it cannot come back to the surface as DWIR.
That 102 Wm2 represents only the adiabatic portion of convection (the portion that comes back on descent) but in the real world of gliders and rain there is also the diabatic portion of convection (the portion that leaks out to space by radiation from GHGs and aerosols) so there is sufficient energy to meet observations in both scenarios.

Trick

April 16, 2014 9:04 am

Stephen – “Thermals to lift gliders and evapotranspiration to produce rain exist in both my scenario and that of K&T.” You write this but these fluxes do not exist in your 222 balance. Proof: 222+78+24=324. Your balance is 222+0+0. QED.
“Therefore it cannot come back to the surface as DWIR.” They don’t have to, energy can come back to surface control volume as downdrafts (gliders avoid these) and hydrologic cycle components (river flows to ocean sink) in the 324 lumped in for the cartoon but discussed separately in the paper. You cannot or do not read the bulk of the paper discussing LH and SH components in the 324, only the 155 is DWIR from the bulk of the atm. gas and 67 from solar.
24+78+67+155 = 324. Downdrafts + hydrologic cycle + solar + DWIR bulk of atm. = 324.
Cannot be this which balances (24+78-24-78=0) but is not the correct balance observed in the top post cartoon which could be improved by a little glider & separate flows shown in the 324:
0+0+67+155= 222. Doesn’t work as observed: 0 for gliders, 0 for hydrologic cycle.

Frank

April 16, 2014 10:54 am

Trick wrote: “Venus surface temperature est. was determined using basic Planck/S-B close enough to allow the very 1st atm. entry to have a temperature instrument constructed to range up to ~700K… Atm. gas [emissivity] is measured at most about 0.95 in humid tropics down to about 0.7 in dry polar regions; global mean ~0.8… I would argue the equilibrium being long term steady state is appropriate for judicious application of Planck distribution, S-B and SE on planetary scale based on their successful predictions.”
I was hoping that you’d recognize that the similar blackbody emission temperatures of Venus, Earth and Mars IN ISOLATION don’t predicted much about their different surface temperatures. As best I can tell, the surface temperature of Venus is determined by the radiative equilibrium that exists where the upper atmosphere is near the blackbody equivalent temperature and by the lapse rate (Cp/g) from that altitude to the surface. Any method that estimated surface temperature using only radiation was useful only by chance. If convection didn’t exist on earth, the surface temperature would rise to about 350 degK (without feedbacks) before incoming and outgoing radiation would be in equilibrium. The emissivity of the earth’s atmosphere at various locations isn’t derived from the fundamental physics of Planck and S-B; emissivity is a factor needed to correct the inaccurate predictions of those laws. These correction factors can be calculated by Schwarzschild’s eqn or determined by observations (but only here on earth).
I’m annoyed that we even apply the term emissivity to both gases and condensed media. For condensed media, emissivity is a constant; for gases it varies with the amount of the gas and its absorption coefficient. This causes endless confusion. When a correction factor is a constant in some situations and variable in other situations, the basic physics isn’t being properly represented by the theory.
Your discussion helped me realize that we collect lots of extremely useful data from IR sensors and imagery from space that are converted by S-B to a brightness temperature. However, brightness temperature is not the temperature at a particular location. UAH reports the temperature of the upper troposphere, but some of that signal comes from the stratosphere, complicating its use in detecting the “hot-spot”. We think we see extremely cold “cloud tops” in satellite images, but we are seeing the average temperature of the LAYER of cloud that emits the photons that reach the satellite’s sensor. That layer in cirrus clouds (and boundary layer clouds?) isn’t thick enough to be seen. When looking into the emission of hot glass, I came across IR probes with different wavelengths to report the [average] temperature at different depths from the surface into the glass.
Too many people believe that S-B tells us about the radiation emitted by a SURFACE. MOLECULES emit radiation, and it is never just the monolayer of molecules on the surface that do the emitting. Molecules only emit at wavelengths corresponding to the difference between two internal energy states! The heterogenous nature of the molecules in many condensed media may smear out these internal energy states and produce broad bands in some, but not all, cases. After years of seeing broad UV-Vis spectra from molecules in solution, I was shocked when Pchem lab had me take a spectrum of iodine vapor. From the perspective of the Schwarzschild eqn, surfaces are not involved – radiation is always coming from somewhere (the Big Bang, if nowhere else) and being modified by the medium through which it passes.
The idiots (hopefully this doesn’t include you) who believe that DLR doesn’t heat the ocean (because it’s all absorbed by the top 1 mm and immediately returned to the atmosphere) don’t realized that upward LWR emitted by the ocean surface originates in exactly the same top 1 mm. The Schwarzschild eqn describes this situation beautifully. When some nebulous “surface” emits radiation, the energy loss isn’t assigned to any particular layer of the ocean.
I know my view of this subject is non-conventional and I’m beginning to realize that you have more practical experience with it than I do. So I’ll leave you the last word, if you want it.

Frank

April 16, 2014 11:10 am

Steve wrote: “Whilst that 102 Wm2 is off the surface it is in the form of gravitational potential energy which is not heat and does not radiate.”
Whenever a parcel of air rises in the atmosphere another parcel descends, so there is no change in gravitational potential energy. Even if there were, you are confusing energy with power, energy per unit time. W/m2 is power per unit area. Every year (a unit of time), about 1 m of water evaporates from the surface = 1 m3 of water/m2 of ocean. That’s 1000 kg/m2/yr. Show us how to convert 1000 kg/m2/yr of water into gravitational potential energy over a year and get an answer close to 100 W/m2. (Hint: The correct answer uses the heat of vaporization of water, the heat released when water vapor condenses a few kilometers above the surface it left cooler when it evaporated.)

Max

April 16, 2014 11:59 am

Trick: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1960AJ…..65..352S
Venus was discovered to have a brightness temperature around 600 K using microwave observations, theoretical predictions prior to that point in no way remotely approached the actual conditions at the surface.
Sagan said that the planet should have a temperature around 250 K, given the color and distance from the Sun.
He said with various conditions for circulation and convection that he could explain values between 300 K and 350 K, but 600 K was a whole other ball game.
Prior to discovering the mass of the atmosphere it was assumed a massive (radiative) greenhouse effect must be in place, this assumption has remained for some reason.

gbaikie

April 16, 2014 1:52 pm

— Stephen Wilde says:
April 16, 2014 at 2:32 am
gbaike,
I agree that the baseline equilibrium temperature (assuming constant gravity and atmospheric mass) could only be affected by a change in TSI from the sun or the proportion of that TSI getting past atmospheric mass.
In the absence of changes in TSI then albedo becomes the critical factor since that affects the proportion of available TSI able to enter the oceans in order to drive the hydrological cycle (effectively Earth’s climate).
It appears that solar variability does affect global cloudiness in ways that I have described separately.–
Let’s begin at beginning, I don’t accept the theory of Greenhouse effect.
I don’t dispute that ideal spherical blackbody at Earth distance would have uniform
temperature of around 5 C.
I also don’t dispute that a atmosphere causes a higher average temperature- of course
the main thing about average temperature is the average includes night time temperatures.
Or it’s very obvious that an atmosphere [all atmospheres] do not increase day time high
temperatures, or even day time average temperatures.
But it seems to me that in science, a theory is rejected based upon what is wrong about it
rather some things which are right. Another aspect to cause rejection is unnecessary complication
and the inability to predict- so it is not useful. If a theory predicts where cannon ball will land better
than some other theory, this other theory is rejected. Science is tool which allows one to better predict the future and the past. So, having one thing wrong, is basis of rejection of a theory.
Anyhow, I believe there number areas in Greenhouse Effect theory which are wrong, and the theory gets furthest off track in regards to Earth’s albedo.
So starts with uniform blackbody of 5 C and applies albedo or bond albedo factor and gets -17 to -18 C.
There so many things wrong with this, it’s hard decide where to begin.
And from this state of madness, it leaps to idea that only greenhouse gas can add 33 C [or K] to bring the temperature back to where it is now- which is regarded to be about 15 C.
And only greenhouse gases could cause this 33 C.
So Earth is suppose to have average temperature of around 15 C. It should noted that no one imagines or assumes earth has uniform temperature of 15 C.
One might ask, if the journey begins with uniform idea blackbody of about 5 C, what is present
Earth’s uniform temperature?
It would depend upon how one answers it. But we know if you mixed the Earth ocean, the surface of the ocean would get much colder- or entire ocean has average temperature around 3 C.
So as guess one can say because of Earth’s average ocean temperature, Earth’s uniform temperature is closer to 5 C, than it is to 15 C.
Or if lower the land or raise the ocean mix all the water and land and the sky and polar caps, so that everything is same temperature, I would say that you have world with uniform temperature of less than 5 C.
So currently Earth is colder than uniform temperature of 5 C, but it’s thought that Earth in the past
has had higher uniform temperature of 5 C. Or Earth has had average ocean temperature of higher than 10 C and had no polar ice caps.
So anyways, I would say generally, the albedo or bond albedo is mostly about how quickly heat is absorbed. Or If want a solar water heater, then paint it black. A white panel will not be able to transfer as much energy to the water. And since black absorb more energy and has same air convection loss- a black painted car in sunlight will be a bit warmer than white car.
But in the greenhouse theory how quickly heat is absorbed is ignored- there nothing about heat conduction or heat capacity.
What is mentioned a lot in general discussion by believers of the theory is the trapping heat. Trapping or storing heat are same.
And so far in this discussion the element of time is not been addressed in terms of latent heat and thermal uplift.
We have 102 watts going up and 102 watts going down, but the time needed is not mentioned or assumed to occur without any time involved.
And it is the time involved which what is meant by trapping or storing heat.
But I would say in general a Earth energy budget, does not [and should not] involve time
and therefore doesn’t really indicate factors of warming or cooling. Only that it might give some clues, which help arrive at where to look.

joeldshore

April 16, 2014 2:00 pm

Max says:

Prior to discovering the mass of the atmosphere it was assumed a massive (radiative) greenhouse effect must be in place, this assumption has remained for some reason.

Because scientists understand that “mass” alone doesn’t magically produce a certain surface temperature.

gbaikie

April 16, 2014 2:56 pm

-I was hoping that you’d recognize that the similar blackbody emission temperatures of Venus, Earth and Mars IN ISOLATION don’t predicted much about their different surface temperatures. As best I can tell, the surface temperature of Venus is determined by the radiative equilibrium that exists where the upper atmosphere is near the blackbody equivalent temperature and by the lapse rate (Cp/g) from that altitude to the surface. Any method that estimated surface temperature using only radiation was useful only by chance. If convection didn’t exist on earth, the surface temperature would rise to about 350 degK (without feedbacks) before incoming and outgoing radiation would be in equilibrium.-
Though it’s similarly difficult to think of planet with atmosphere not to have convection- similar to that someone who says if Earth didn’t radiate energy it would be 200,000 degree [or something like that]- which btw might be close true, but Earth not be warmed from the sun to such temperature- but rather it’s nuclear decay and other heat which cause a earth which didn’t radiate heat to become hot. Or the entire mass of Earth is very hot, and it’s very hot because it does not radiate much of it’s internal heat.
But anyhow you say without convection Earth would about 350 K.
So the Moon has zero convection, and daytime temperature is 120 C [400 K].
So if meant the daytime temperature of earth would reach 350 K [76.85 C] you would be
close. The hottest surface air temperature on Earth ever recorded is:
“56.7 °C (134.1 °F) Death Valley, California, U.S.A. 10 July 1913”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremes_on_Earth
But surface temperature can get much higher than air temperature:
“70.6 °C (159.1 °F) Dasht-e Lut, Iran”
As measured from orbit.
So in terms of hottest the surface ever gets, it could be around 350 K.
But we generally measure air temperature and land surface reaching say 340 K
are common with our world with air convection. And this not night time or winter
surface temperatures, and the ocean which covers most of Earth doesn’t lose much
temperature from convection, but rather evaporation prevents surface temperature
from ever getting much warmer than 35 C [308 K].

Trick

April 16, 2014 8:09 pm

Max 11:59am: :..using microwave observations..” Which is radiation. There was Chapman&Cowling available since 50s and Goody&Yung came out in 1964 which a thorough reading could convince Venera 4 designers enough to include 2 thermometers ranges of 210-730° K with remote sensing input. Launch was 6/12/1967. Some notes:
In 1956, American astronomers C. Mayer et al. from the Naval Research Laboratory, had measured 3.15 cm microwave emissions that suggested a surprisingly high 600° K source temperature. Carl Sagan championed the hot-surface model, suggesting in his 1960 doctoral dissertation that heat was trapped by the greenhouse effect.
By 1967, many astrophysicists in America and Russia believed that Venus was extremely hot, but one MIT paper that year suggested the planet could be experiencing an Ice Age! Not exactly the settled climate science of Earth today, lol.
The Venera 4 telemetry rate was 1 bit per second, respectable at that time. The readings were widely spaced in time as instruments made a reading, code it, and insert into data stream so they got only 23 readings from 300K to 550K over about 2 hour long slow descent. The last temperature of 544° K (271° C) was only slightly cooler than the 600° K predicted by the planet’s microwave brightness. From:
http://mentallandscape.com/V_Lavochkin1.htm

Stephen Wilde

April 17, 2014 1:16 am

gbaike said:
“We have 102 watts going up and 102 watts going down, but the time needed is not mentioned or assumed to occur without any time involved.
And it is the time involved which what is meant by trapping or storing heat.”
I have mentioned time.
Conduction and convection is slower than radiation so the more there is the higher the surface temperature will rise.
The size of the temperature rise will be related to the length of time and the amount of energy tied up as gravitational potential energy in the convective overturning cycle.
Whilst energy is in that form it cannot radiate down to the surface. It can only be returned to the surface as KE during adiabatic descent.
The same principle applies to every planetary atmosphere but if ever the composition changes (radiatively or conductively) to upset long term balance then the circulation changes rather than the surface temperature changing.
Other planetary atmospheres can vary in a multitude of ways and we do not currently understand their detailed atmospheric processes but the mass induced greenhouse effect is present in all of them together with the circulation adjustments that maintain long term stability.
The observation that temperatures are very similar for every planet at the same pressure subject only to adjusting for the distance from the sun is an important indicator that the greenhouse effect is mass induced.

Stephen Wilde

April 17, 2014 1:22 am

Frank said:
“Whenever a parcel of air rises in the atmosphere another parcel descends, so there is no change in gravitational potential energy.”
That is right. The amount of GPE stays stable but can change if the atmosphere expands or contracts. Either way that energy locked into the atmosphere cannot radiate downwards.
It can however maintain surface warmth by constantly recycling that GPE between surface and atmosphere in the form of KE.
As fast as KE leaves the surface it is returned to the surface so the surface must become warmer than S-B predicts but it does so not as a result of additional DWIR from GHGs but instead because that extra KE is held at the surface by the delay inherent in the adiabatic exchange.

gbaikie

April 17, 2014 3:10 am

— Stephen Wilde says:
April 17, 2014 at 1:16 am
gbaike said:
“We have 102 watts going up and 102 watts going down, but the time needed is not mentioned or assumed to occur without any time involved.
And it is the time involved which what is meant by trapping or storing heat.”
I have mentioned time.
Conduction and convection is slower than radiation so the more there is the higher the surface temperature will rise.–
Or at at least the more energy trapped.
It would seem the higher the atmosphere [and higher the gravity] would be more related to a higher temperatures.

david(swuk)

April 17, 2014 3:27 am

Gbaikie said – “Conduction and convection is slower than radiation so the more there is the higher the surface temperature will rise.–”
surely conduction and convection is caused by heat and not a cause of same………………

Stephen Wilde

April 17, 2014 3:54 am

“surely conduction and convection is caused by heat and not a cause of same………………”
Conduction and convection is a result of radiation interacting with mass.
The S-B equation predicts the temperature of the mass if all the energy transfers are radiative.
If conduction and convection occur then the temperature can only rise above the S-B prediction because energy transfer by conduction and convection is slower than by radiation.
The result of the slower energy transfer is a higher surface temperature because the energy flows back up at the surface until the temperature rise is enough to both maintain radiative throughput AND maintain the ongoing convective exchange.
The surface temperature rise above S-B is thus a consequence of mass causing a delay in the throughput of energy by replacing a portion of the radiation passing through with the slower processes of conduction and convection.
That was the standard explanation of the greenhouse effect a few decades ago.

Stephen Wilde

April 17, 2014 4:24 am

“It would seem the higher the atmosphere [and higher the gravity] would be more related to a higher temperatures”
The stronger the gravitational field the lower will be the atmosphere for a given amount of atmospheric mass.
The more atmospheric mass the denser will be the atmosphere for a given strength of gravitational field.
The stronger the irradiation from outside the higher the atmosphere and the higher the surface temperature for a given mass and strength of gravitational field.
Apply the Gas Laws. They determine surface temperatures for a given mass, strength of gravitational field and level of irradiation. They contain no term for the radiative capabilities of atmospheric composition. That gets dealt with by changes in convection and global air circulation.
There is a climate effect from GHGs but it is regional with no change in average surface temperature and miniscule compared to solar and oceanic influences.

david(swuk)

April 17, 2014 4:51 am

Stephen Wilde says:
April 17, 2014 at 3:54 am
“surely conduction and convection is caused by heat and not a cause of same………………”
“Conduction and convection is a result of radiation interacting with mass…………………………”
Yes ok, but that is a BB mass where radiation alone cannot rid it of heat – as I understand it (and which is why the Sun is turbulent because of zero C&C) but here we have a tapestry of continuously/intermittently SR heated surfaces of various absorbency/reflective/radiative qualities inter-acting with atmosphere of varying temperatures which, together, defy the K-T “averaging” because of the multitude of absorption frequencies that affect the progress of radiative energy but, of which, relatively very little is with the HEAT SPECTRUM in debate –
does the sand get hotter on the Moon than it does on Earth under a mid-day Sun OR NOT?
would Venus be hotter or colder than Earth if it shared the same orbit?
I would liken the K-T cartoon to the size of the “average” family as quoted by statisticians at Mr & Mrs + 2.3 children.
But at least they don`t then go on to tell them how to live a good life based on the inadequacies of poor 0.3 Johnie!

gbaikie

April 17, 2014 5:17 pm

—“It would seem the higher the atmosphere [and higher the gravity] would be more related to a higher temperatures”
The stronger the gravitational field the lower will be the atmosphere for a given amount of atmospheric mass.–
Yes. And higher pressure.
And denser air- near surface, more molecules per cubic meter. Higher kinetic energy- 1/2 mass * velocity square . So warmer air.
And in terms of energy and distance [height]. distance = 1/2 gravity * Time squared.
Earth gravity: 9.8 m/s/s . So 9.8 * Time is velocity achieved or PE of the height of molecule.
A earth gravity: 10,000 meters = 4.9 times 45 second is 441 m/s velocity
achieved falling 10 km.
2 gees: 10,000 meters times 9.8 times 31.9 seconds is 625 m/s
2 gees: 5000 meters times 9.8 times 22.5 second is 442 m/s
–The more atmospheric mass the denser will be the atmosphere for a given strength of gravitational field.–
And higher pressure. And higher height of atmosphere.
So like with Venus at height on Earth where where density and pressure is near a vacuum [49000 meters on Earth- and has less air than Mars surface] and 49 km above Venus surface it is around Earth pressure and density [and near temperature of Earth- earth at sea level can have air temperature of 50 C and at 49.5 km on Venus it’s 66 C and 1 atm pressure. And if we had twice the solar energy as does Venus, we also would air temperature as high as 66 C – and sidewalks which might get hot enough to boil water- in summer and around noon and on clear day. So we normally get surface temperature, currently, as warm as 70 C- not really hot enough to cook an egg on sidewalk.]
–The stronger the irradiation from outside the higher the atmosphere and the higher the surface temperature for a given mass and strength of gravitational field.–
Yes. As is Venus is above. Venus Atmosphere:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm
–Apply the Gas Laws. They determine surface temperatures for a given mass, strength of gravitational field and level of irradiation. They contain no term for the radiative capabilities of atmospheric composition. That gets dealt with by changes in convection and global air circulation.
There is a climate effect from GHGs but it is regional with no change in average surface temperature and miniscule compared to solar and oceanic influences.–
Well, tropics has higher troposphere and as far as convection and latent heat AND most energy from the Sun it’s mostly occuring in tropics and within troposphere

Frank

April 18, 2014 8:15 pm

Gbaikai asked why consensus science believes the earth would be about 350 degK without convection. Right now, the surface is about 290 degK and emits about 390 W/m2 upward. Most (90%) of that radiant energy is absorbed by GHG’s (mostly water vapor and CO2) in the atmosphere. The GHGs in the atmosphere also emit thermal infrared radiation, but equally in all directions. This slows down the rate at which power escapes to space. Unless many different instruments measuring the downward infrared flux from the atmosphere to the surface are wrong, the NET upward flux of thermal IR is only about 60 W/m2. If 100 W/m2 doesn’t leave by convection, the surface will have to warm enough so that another NET 100 W/m2 can escape the surface. IF the current composition (esp water vapor) in the atmosphere is held constant, the Net LWR flux will equal SWR reaching the surface (160 W/m2) when the surface reaches about 350 degK. If my calcs are correct, the surface would emit about 850 W/m2 and DLR from the atmosphere would be 690. Water vapor and other feedbacks would change this somewhat artificial answer, but it gives us a ballpark idea of how important convection is. Some people, of course, don’t believe DLR exists, but I don’t want to debate that issue.
Since the moon rotates so slowly, much bigger temperature differences between night and day exist on the moon than the earth, making the moon a bad model for the earth. At noon in the tropics on a clear day, the earth can receive up to 1000 W/m2 for a few hours. No wonder the moon gets very hot when 1/24 a rotation (an earth-hour) lasts more than an earth day.

david(swuk)

April 19, 2014 1:51 am

No room here I don`t think Frank for the hypERthetical as K-T has inspired more than enough myopic dreaming already – might a man of more practical science again interject.
As you go on to say the Tropics receive ~1000Watts/m2/hr around mid-day and of which most are extinguished by low-level being near super-heated and then fast rising air all the way up to the Stratosphere I would think to cool, eject LWR (equally you say) before then descending several thousand miles North and South for a similar but less vigorous repeat performance whilst, beneath all that, a similar smaller domestic-scale operations of delivering warm moist air to the mid/upper Troposphere occur everywhere all the way up to the Polar Regions which also receive a draft of Tropical which over-shoots the intervening Hadley Cell under which most of the developed World reside with enjoying the conditions therein brought by more moderate Sunshine delivering perhaps only half of that which scorches the Tropics – and which you and near et all slavishly accept as being fairly represented by a 102W/m2/hr global average because the Wizards of The Id want you to believe in massive DWLW caused by (TOXIC) Carbon and Water.
Were it a building of the past that had to be cooled down to a tolerable ambient I would have been shining very bright lights in the eyes of any AC boff who sized the kit to deal with 200 average even let alone peak! Or at least adding my consideration to the costings.
So give it over pal – Willis too, as he still hasn`t yet recanted his claim that the atmosphere is transparent to the Sunlight we receive on the surface – when it is clear that a lot of Solar IR (+?) still reaches ground and so skewing all the measurements of atmospheric DW you guys are welded to!

phi

April 19, 2014 2:01 am

Frank,
In this regard, figure 4 of Manabe and Strickler 1964 is very interesting. It shows the effect of convection on the temperature profile. The profile with 6.5 ° C / km is empirical and corresponds to present equilibrium. Increased GHG decreases the part of radiative cooling and then straightens the curve. This behavior is incompatible with the notion of GHG forcing which involves a fixed gradient.
http://climatephys.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/manabe_strickler.jpg

Frank

April 19, 2014 1:39 pm

david(swuk) says: April 19, 2014 at 1:51 am: “K-T has inspired more than enough myopic dreaming”.
Measurement, not dreaming, inspires the much-derided K-T diagram. Those measurements may contain some errors, but the big picture is roughly correct. Miskolczi has published slightly different values, as discussed by Roy Spenser.
Unless you believe GHGs in the atmosphere do NOT emit LWR radiation towards the surface that can be detected, we can identify the source (sun or atmosphere) of downward photons with a high degree of accuracy. Any wavelength shorter than 4 um probably (about 98% likelihood) was emitted by the sun and any wavelength longer was emitted by GHGs in the atmosphere. See: http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/01/05/kramm-dlugi-on-dodging-the-greenhouse-bullet/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/25/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree-part-two/
The former has a figure from a textbook on atmospheric radiation, the latter has supporting calculations that address some questions.
Again assuming you believe scientists know how to properly measure DLR with wavelengths greater than 4 um, scientists have accumulated lots of measurements of DLR from a variety of locations on the planet. They have also been monitoring incoming SWR from the sun, SWR reflected by clouds and the surface, and outgoing LWR.
You can calculate for yourself (and I have done so) annual flux of heat from the surface to the atmosphere when 1 m of rain (the planetary average for precipitation) condenses to produce rain or ice in the upper atmosphere.
I think this covers the most important aspects of the K-T diagram. Trenberth does arbitrarily chose the flux of simple heat by thermals, but claims his number is reasonably consistent with limited observations. Trenberth arbitrarily chose the radiative imbalance based on how fast the planet (mostly the ocean) is warming. He lowered this estimate after Argo showed his imbalance was too high.
If you believe measurements of DLR, OLR or SWR are wrong, then it is hard to have a sensible discussion, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. We can agree the CO2 shouldn’t be referred to as carbon pollution. And we can agree with Trenberth that some of incoming SWR is reflected and some is absorbed by the troposphere, leaving only about 1/2 to reach the surface.
(I mentions 1000 W/m2 (incoming SWR under clear skies in the tropics for a few hours around noon) because it was relevant to what the moon receives for several days and the moon’s daytime surface temperature was raised by another comment. K-T is about the average over day and night over the whole planet.)

phi

April 19, 2014 2:52 pm

Frank,
“Measurement, not dreaming, inspires the much-derided K-T diagram.”
Measurement, yes. Measurement but also confusion inspire this diagram. There are no justification for the distinction of two opposite radiative fluxes, it’s even a thermodynamic nonsense.
Why not highlight back convection in the same time ?
This weakness is not anecdotal, it lies at the center of the official theory. This is because climatologists consider back radiation as an independent source of energy that they fail miserably in the forecast of the current climate evolution.

Stephen Wilde

April 19, 2014 11:54 pm

phi said:
“Why not highlight back convection in the same time ?
This weakness is not anecdotal, it lies at the center of the official theory”
Precisely the point.
If one does highlight back convection in the form of the adiabatic warming of descending air then the extra 102 WM2 of DWIR becomes double counting.