Paper finds a decrease of IR radiation from greenhouse gases over past 14 years, contradicts expected increase – cloudiness blamed for difference.
A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.
According to the authors,
“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”
The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”
The paper also finds a negative trend in precipitable water vapor, as do other global datasets, again the opposite of predictions of AGW theory that warming allegedly from CO2 will increase precipitable water vapor in the atmosphere to allegedly amplify warming by 3-5 times. Is the unexpected decrease in water vapor the cause of the decrease in downwelling IR?
Global datasets also show an increase of outgoing longwave IR radiation to space from greenhouse gases over the past 62 years, again in contradiction to the predictions of AGW theory.
Gero, P. Jonathan, David D. Turner, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains
P. Jonathan Gero
Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
David D. Turner
NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma, and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Abstract
A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this dataset has high value owing to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves and to test the performance of climate models.
via the Hockeyschtick with thanks
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Trick,
You keep conflating sensible energy (heat) and non sensible energy (potential or latent energy) as if they were the same thing.
They are not. Only sensible energy registers on thermometers, by definition.
You are also conflating joules with energy. They are not the same.
Joules are a measure of work done and the consequence of doing work against gravity (uplift) is to convert sensible energy (heat) to non sensible energy (gravitational potential energy) whilst the consequence of doing work with gravity (descent) is to convert non sensible energy back to sensible energy.
There is one aspect of my earlier post whch needs clarification.
Leakage of radiation from within an atmosphere to space (UWIR) weakens the descent phase of the cycle of convective overturning but the effect is negated by DWIR strengthening the ascent phase for a zero net effect.
What happens is that GHGs distort the lapse rate away from the ideal gravity induced lapse rate in one direction on the descent but distort it an equal and opposite amount on the ascent for a zero net effect within the system as a whole.
We see a similar effect caused by the phase changes of water where the moist lapse rate for the ascent is around half the dry rate on the descent.
Despite the actual lapse rate distortions away from the gravity induced ideal lapse rate within the different layers of the atmosphere the starting temperature at the surface is set by mass, gravity and insolation whereas the end point at TOA is set by the temperature of space.
Everything that happens to the lapse rate slope in between is determined by atmospheric composition including radiative capabilities of constituent gases.
Convection regulates the balance between conduction and radiation within the various atmospheric layers of varying compositions so as to enable energy in to equal energy out so that an atmosphere can be retained.
The laboratory experiment of Arrhenius only measured the effect of radiative capability near a surface where radiative absorption of IR from that surface results in a temperature rise to a level higher than justified by the lapse rate slope. At that point the molecule is receiving both conduction and IR from the surface so it gets warmer than non radiative molecules.
If the same experiment were to be carried out high in the atmosphere radiative loss of IR to space would have produced a temperature fall to a level lower than justified by the lapse rate slope. At that point the molecule is receiving the same weak conduction from below as adjoining non radiative molecules but unlike them is losing a portion to space.
The whole radiative theory is based on an observation that told only half the story.
Stephen 5:25pm: Arm waving bombshell. For earth system, sensible energy and latent energy ARE the same energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed only transformed.
The latent energy leaving earth surface is returned in equivalent amount of sensible energy since global precipitation is in decent close balance with global evaporation over eons; H2O molecules don’t increase in speed to escape velocity to cool the system. There is no fuel used up in this process so no warming or cooling of the global surface Tmean from it – only the sun uses up fuel holding Earth global surface Tmean approx. steady.
Congrat.s – I needed use up no time for parsing out “heat” term in your post. Challenge you to keep it up not backslide.
NB1: see Kristian 11:26am. First law as written is correct in/out for any arbitrary control volume: change in joules = joules in – joules out OR change in energy = energy in – energy out.
NB2: 1 joule = the energy req.d raise T of 1g water at 1bar by 0.24K = force of 1 nt. moved 1m = about the PE + KE of the apple that reportedly fell 1m and hit Newton on the head. That KE was sensible and existed – and transformed from – the non-sensible PE prior.
NB3: Is there more heat in a kitchen glass of near boiling hot tap water or in a Great Lake on Jan. 1?
******
6:04pm: ”The whole radiative theory is based on an observation that told only half the story.”
No. If you want the complete radiative theory which was simply thought up by J.C. Maxwell as a system of sources and sinks based on his extensive testing and even more extensive testing of Michael Faraday & afterwards Maxwell simply wrote out the quaternion format eqn.s. This is still a marvel he could do so. In the simpler coord. system of Oliver Heaviside here they are for a point in empty space where no electric currents or charges are present, E electric force, H magnetic force, no arm waving:
div E = 0
div H = 0
curl E = –constant1 * partial derivative H wrt partial derivative time
curl H = constant2 * partial derivative E wrt partial derivative time
There. If you need the complete radiative theory to use, Hertz proved in the lab was two way & which Arrhenius used. Knock yourself out. Efforts link it with light culminated in this article:
”I based that investigation on the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space together with the Maxwellian expression for the electromagnetic energy of space…”
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
Stephen Wilde;
You are also conflating joules with energy. They are not the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Stephen, I’m surprised at you. A joule is a unit of energy by definition.
Stephen
“What goes up must come down (unless radiated to space from within the atmosphere) so the descent reconverts GPE to heat in the air above the surface.”
Your description is correct except for this minor issue. By the time the rising warm air reaches its highest altitude, it would have already cooled and its density equal to surrounding air. So it doesn’t release heat going down. What makes it go down when it is already in density equilibrium with surrounding air? The rising warm air on the ground creates low pressure area. Cool air at higher altitude rush in to the low pressure area on the ground.
Ripshin wrote;
“Engineer 2: No, you’re not.”
I closely resemble engineer #2 in your humorous summary. And to clarify, I have never disparaged others credentials (well I certainly never meant to directly question others credentials).
However, regarding the “Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis” AKA “Unicorns Exist”, it is well past the time that any serious person stops accepting this over the null hypothesis (IE the climate is really really complex and maybe we should just buy raincoats AND snowshoes just in case).
The missing heat cannot be found, it’s like a “Where’s Waldo” cartoon, is it in the atmosphere?, nope, can we see it at the surface ?, nope, is it at the poles?, nope, top of the ocean ?, nope, bottom of the ocean ? (sure we can’t look there, may as well assert that it’s there).
There is another possibility; the “trapped heat” was never really “trapped” at all, it was simply delayed while traveling through the atmosphere (at nearly the speed of light in a vacuum) by making multiple passes through the system. Bouncing forth and back, back and forth between the “GHGs” in the atmosphere and the soil/water at the surface until it can exit to the energy free void of space. All these bounces only delay the energy (alternating between thermal energy and IR radiation) by a few tens of milliseconds (“speed of light” X “distance to TOA” X “multiple bounces”). Since the period of the incoming energy (sunlight) is about 86 million milliseconds (24 hours) this delay has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth.
“Waldo” is speeding away from us at the speed of light after a slightly delayed visit here at the surface.
Cheers, Kevin (apologies for any “disparaged credentials” that may have been inferred from my comments).
PS; I still have some Costa Concordia PFD’s available for a really good price, they won’t last past the summer season here in the NH, act fast, I accept Paypal…..
Trick, davidmhoffer
A Joule is a measure of work done but energy is used in the process.
Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, that work, if done against gravity, transforms sensible energy (heat) into gravitational potential energy which does not register as heat.
Trick said:
“The latent energy leaving earth surface is returned in equivalent amount of sensible energy”
That is exactly my point though there is leakage of some of it to space via UWIR from the condensate when vapour returns to liquid or ice at a higher level.
That is why the return of energy to the surface in adiabatic descent keeps the surface warmer than S-B and not DWIR. DWIR only compensates for the radiative leakage to space.
Dr Strangelove said:
“By the time the rising warm air reaches its highest altitude, it would have already cooled and its density equal to surrounding air. So it doesn’t release heat going down”
It warms up at the dry adiabatic lapse rate in the process of descending. That is achieved by work being done with gravity which converts gravitational potential energy (not heat) to kinetic energy (heat).
Trick seems to be confused about the nature of kinetic energy. It is not simply represented by the linear speed of movement in a single plane as in a falling apple.
It is also represented by the speed of vibration of a molecule and its components. Thus a molecule rising against gravity cools because it vibrates more slowly due to the reduction of pressure and a molecule falling with gravity warms because it vibrates more quickly due to the increase of pressure.
Pressure acts against the internal movement of the components of the molecule by trying to compress those movements into a smaller space. In the process, those internal movements fight against the constraining force of pressure and become smaller but faster which generates sensible heat in the form of the release of IR.
The energy carried by the gas molecule was initially set by density at the surface because greater density allows a greater proportion of the radiation passing through to be conducted to the overlying mass of the atmosphere.
Density was determined by mass and gravity.
Once a gas molecule has acquired its initial slug of energy that energy switches to and fro between vibrational kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy as work is done first against gravity (uplift) and then with gravity (descent).
Once detached from the surface the molecule neither gains nor loses energy (unless it also has radiative capability) but the work being done on it as it rises or falls within the gravitational field transforms its energy from one form to another and back again.
That is why it is necessary to distinguish between energy that is sensible as heat and energy that is not sensible as heat such as latent or potential energy.
It is also necessary to realise that work done as measured in terms of joules is capable of transforming sensible energy to non sensible form and back again. Simply referring to joules as a unit of energy is not sufficient because joules also represent the work done to transform energy.
KevinK said:
“Since the period of the incoming energy (sunlight) is about 86 million milliseconds (24 hours) this delay has no effect on the average temperature of the Earth.”
That would be true for purely radiative energy but since a portion of the energy flowing through is diverted to conduction and convection a much more substantial delay occurs whilst energy is cycled up and down adiabatically within the convective cycle of atmospheric overturning.
It is that additional, non radiative delay that raises the surface temperature 33C above S-B.
Note that the additional delay only needs to occur during the very first convective cycle. Once the first cycle completes, the system stabilises because from then on the conductive energy exchange between surface and atmosphere nets out to zero for each subsequent cycle after the first.
If one then changes the radiative capability of the atmosphere then the convective cycle simply adjusts to negate the effect and thereby keep the system stable.
More radiation to space from within the atmosphere leads to correspondingly less radiation to space from the surface and vice versa because the adjustment in the rate of convective overturning regulates the supply of kinetic energy back to the surface from the atmospheric reservoir of gravitational potential energy.
KevinK says:
August 7, 2014 at 8:27 pm
/////////////////////////
One of my first posts on this site, many many years ago was to postulate upon the point you raise.
It is not 24 hours. On average, each slug of sunshine is received every 12 hours.
So the issue is whether during the ‘night’ when no solar energy is received, does the planet have enough time to dump any ‘excess’ energy to space, before it receives its next slug of sunshine.
If it does, then there is a good argument that all GHGs do is to delay the time when the coldest part of the ‘night’ is reached. Whether that delay is by fractions of a second, seconds or even minutes would appear to be of little concern.
Of course, ading more GHGs may add further to the delay, but if the delay is measured in fractions of a second, seconds or even minutes, if the delay were to be doubled or trippled, it would still be of no concern.
It only becomes of concern if the planet has been unable to dump the excess energy by the time it receives the next charge of solar irradiance.
Een then there may be a reset button, namely totally cloudless skies in winter when vast amounts of excess energy can be dumped to space.
Stephen Wilde says:
August 7, 2014 at 6:04 pm
//////////////////
Are there not 3 factors rather than 2 at work?
1. The more GHG at TOA, the more efficient energy can be radiated to space. This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to cooling.
2 The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the less solar irradiance is received at the surface since some part (admittedly a small part) of the solar irradiance is ‘blocked’ by being radiated upwards and away from the surface. This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to coooling (admittedly only slight cooling in view of the incoming wavelength of solar to which GHGs are largely transparent).
3 The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the more outward LWIR from the surface is ‘blocked’ and reradiated to the surface, rather than going straight to TOA where it would be (more) efficiently radiated to space (I say more efficiently because of 1 above). This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to warming.
In summary, it appears that there are 2 cooling facets and 1 warming facet, so the issue is whether 3 is greater than 1 + 2? When considering this, one must bear in mind that 2 is small.
That then leads one to consider whether GHGs ‘block’ or ‘trap’ energy, or do they simply delay energy transfer. Do GHGs simply impede the path of an out going photon on its way from the surface to TOA and thence to space?
There is a strong argument that that is all that GHGs do, and in which case, the comment of KevinK (August 7, 2014 at 8:27 pm) and my comment (richard verney August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm) may be pertinent.
Stephen Wilde says, August 7, 2014 at 11:03 pm:
“Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, that work, if done against gravity, transforms sensible energy (heat) into gravitational potential energy which does not register as heat.”
Stephen,
Please stop perpetuating the confusion surrounding the ‘heat’ term (and here also the ‘work’ term). By using it the way you do, you’re giving the AGW proponents a convenient free card from having to face up to their central flaw, the basic assumption that energy in nature can be transferred to give an increase in internal energy also from cold to hot.
The way you’re using the ‘heat’ term, I can actually – and I hate to say this – see why Trick would advocate for dropping it altogether. It has lost its distinct physical meaning, it’s unambiguity. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Or at least several things according to situation. And by that it has completely lost its power and usefullness.
‘HEAT’ IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE OR IS CONTAINED WITHIN A SYSTEM. It is only energy passing between systems or regions as a result of a difference in temperature. It is a dynamic property, not a static one.
In other words, kinetic energy is NOT heat. Kinetic energy is contained within a system. ‘Heat’ (Q) isn’t. Kinetic energy is the ‘internal energy’ (U) giving the system it’s temperature.
I see now why you don’t get the adiabatic process, Stephen. Because you are simply unable to differentiate between ‘energy transfer’ and ‘heat transfer’ from/to a parcel of air. You think that since an adiabatic process is defined as a process where no ‘heat’ (Q) is exchanged across the boundary of the system (parcel), then no ‘energy’ can pass in to and out of it. As I (and others) have pointed out to you so many times, a parcel of air rising cools EXACTLY because there is a loss of internal energy (U), just not from Q (‘heat’ transferred), but from W (‘work’ done). The ‘work’ is done by the rising parcel on the surrounding/overlying air by expanding into it.
One more time: “Zemansky points to the First Law of Thermodynamics [ΔU = Q – W] as a clarifying relationship. The First Law identifies both heat [Q] and work [W] as methods of energy transfer which can bring about a change in the internal energy [U] of a system. After that, neither the words work or heat have any usefulness in describing the final state of the system – we can speak only of the internal energy of the system.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
And: “Adiabatic cooling occurs when the pressure of a substance is decreased as it does work on its surroundings. (…) When the pressure applied on a parcel of air decreases, the air in the parcel is allowed to expand; as the volume increases, the temperature falls and internal energy decreases.” “An adiabatic transfer is a transfer of energy as work across an adiabatic wall or sector of a boundary.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process
Here’s the reason why you shouldn’t talk about ‘heat’ inside a system, again from the hyperphysics link above:
“(…) if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules [kinetic energy], you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.”
(My emphasis.)
richard verney says, August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm:
“So the issue is whether during the ‘night’ when no solar energy is received, does the planet have enough time to dump any ‘excess’ energy to space, before it receives its next slug of sunshine.
If it does, then there is a good argument that all GHGs do is to delay the time when the coldest part of the ‘night’ is reached. Whether that delay is by fractions of a second, seconds or even minutes would appear to be of little concern.”
Good point. Seeing how observations clearly show the presence of the atmosphere during the day acts to strongly cool the surface (by reflecting and absorbing incoming solar radiative heat before it can ever reach and be absorbed by the surface), mostly because of H2O in all its forms, then there isn’t much left of the radiative warming effect there is so much talk about.
Also, the cooling rate during the night is ALL about the ‘heat capacity’ of the air, not about ‘back radiation’ or this delay in IR transmission from surface to space.
In a humid environment, there is lots of WV in the air, and since WV has a much higher ‘heat capacity’ than dry air (N2 and O2 mostly), then humid air will cool more slowly to space. Same goes for clouds. And since the air/atmosphere above the ground cools more slowly to space, the ground itself will cool more slowly to the air/atmosphere. It’s all a matter of temperature gradients.
CO2 does not have a higher ‘heat capacity’ than regular dry air, in fact it’s a bit smaller. So putting CO2 into the air will not in this way slow the nighttime cooling of the air like WV/clouds do.
OF COURSE the presence of our atmosphere acts to warm our global surface. It insulates it from the vacuum of space. It simply isn’t a radiative effect, but a ‘massive’ one.
http://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/on-heat-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-the-atmospheric-warming-effect/
richard verney says, August 8, 2014 at 12:15 am:
“Are there not 3 factors rather than 2 at work?
1. The more GHG at TOA, the more efficient energy can be radiated to space. This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to cooling.
2 The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the less solar irradiance is received at the surface since some part (admittedly a small part) of the solar irradiance is ‘blocked’ by being radiated upwards and away from the surface. This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to coooling (admittedly only slight cooling in view of the incoming wavelength of solar to which GHGs are largely transparent).
3 The more GHGs in the atmosphere, the more outward LWIR from the surface is ‘blocked’ and reradiated to the surface, rather than going straight to TOA where it would be (more) efficiently radiated to space (I say more efficiently because of 1 above). This therefore suggests that GHGs lead to warming.”
The point is, Richard, that this is the way the rGHE proponents see the atmosphere, as being completely static. Think about it, what will happen when you have a tendency towards cooling (from radiative emission) up high and a tendency towards warming (from radiative absorption) down low? You will have a natural process constantly working towards a steeper temperature gradient between the two levels. This will automatically and instantly increase convective uplift. Convection is there to maintain the lapse rate. Heat air radiatively and it will rise. To where it can radiatively cool. To space. There is no delay in this. It all happens simultaneously and instantaneously, in a continuous process.
CO2 absorption down low would have to reduce the temperature gradient away from the solar-heated surface to make it warmer (by reducing the outgoing heat). It can never achieve this. Because of the convective response.
Inside a glass box in a laboratory, however, it could achieve this. Because here we block for convective uplift. This is where the misunderstanding behind the rGHE arises: The analogy glas box/atmosphere fails. One seems to think that radiation operates alone. The ‘all else being equal’ term.
Trick and davidmhoffer:
“The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. ”
A joule is therefore not energy in itself.
It is a derived unit of energy, work or amount of heat.
Kristian,
I respectfully suggest that the confusion is on your part.
Heat is simply defined as energy that can be sensed by an instrument such as a thermometer. Not all energy is heat but energy can be transformed between a state that generates heat and a state that does not.
When heat is being generated it is in the form of inra red radiation that can be measured by thermometers.
see here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html
“Kinetic energy is energy of motion. The kinetic energy of an object is the energy it possesses because of its motion. ”
and
“Kinetic energy is an expression of the fact that a moving object can do work on anything it hits; it quantifies the amount of work the object could do as a result of its motion.”
Thus the more a molecule is under pressure the faster its vibratory motion and the more kinetic energy it contains compared to its total mechanical energy. The more work it can then do on its surroundings (the gravitational field) and the more heat will be generated in sensible IR form.
“The total mechanical energy of an object is the sum of its kinetic energy and potential energy”
Thus the total mechanical energy of every molecule in an atmosphere is the same but near the surface it is mostly kinetic (warm) and at the top it is mostly potential (cold).
Movement with or against gravity up and down switches the proportions between kinetic and potential energy.
Only the kinetic portion does work which produces heat so the closer a molecule moves towards a surface the warmer it becomes and on Earth that warming is at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Stephen 4:52am: “Only the kinetic portion does work which produces heat…”
No. Heat does not exist in nature (Kristian nailed it in CAPS). Therefore heat can’t be produced into existence. In nature your statement parses to:
Only the kinetic portion does work which produces energy…
NO. The kinetic portion does not produce energy. There is no fuel used up. Only the sun produces EM energy to keep earth global surface at ~288K by using up (transforming) a fuel (hydrogen). There is so much more you are wrong about also. Instead of long post pointing out where: ….here – process of elimination:
There is 1) thermals energy, 2) latent/sensible energy, 3) EM energy components of the surface 1st law balance: energy in = energy out.
1) You agree what goes up comes down. Conclude: Thermals do not produce energy for the surface balance since they use up no fuel.
2) You agree as much evaporation as rain. Conclude: Latent & sensible do not produce energy for the surface balance since no fuel is used up.
3) All that is left is the EM energy produced in the sun using up (transforming) a fuel keeping global surface Tmean at ~288K.
Better study Maxwell EM energy & his sources and sinks.
richard verney says:
August 7, 2014 at 11:59 pm
“So the issue is whether during the ‘night’ when no solar energy is received, does the planet have enough time to dump any ‘excess’ energy to space, before it receives its next slug of sunshine.”
I might point out that the air cooled by window radiation at night is in a very small layer close to the surface. Although we measure the temperature of that layer and call it the minimum temperature, it is representative of only a very small volume of air compared with the massive columns of air that will start moving when the sun comes up. So I would say that the cold layer formed at night disappears quickly after the sun comes up.
Trick said:
“NO. The kinetic portion does not produce energy. There is no fuel used up”
The speed of the vibratory motion of molecules and their constituent particles increases when the molecule is subjected to pressure from adjoining molecules. That is a point that you don’t seem to be aware of.
The increase in vibraton does work both with and against the gravitational field.
IR is released as a by product which registers as heat on a thermometer.
No energy is used up, kinetic energy is merely transformed to or from gravitational potential energy.
The stronger the gravitational field and the more mass is present then the greater the density, the greater the proportion of solar throuhgput that is absorbed via conduction to the mass of the atmosphere and the more IR is released by the mass of the atmosphere at the surface and the higher the temperature rises above S-B.
Stephen 6:29am: The speed of the vibratory motion of molecules and their constituent particles increases when the molecule is subjected to pressure from adjoining molecules. That is a point that you don’t seem to be aware of.
Of which I AM aware. And the adjoining molecules? They slow down equivalently; no energy is produced (transformed) by pressure, no increase or decrease in surface Tmean from pressure at equilibrium Tmean 288K as it uses up no fuel, 1) what goes up, comes down with which you agree.
“IR is released as a by product which registers as heat on a thermometer.”
Heat doesn’t exist in nature, no thermometer has ever detected heat which would prove it exists. Thermometers are calibrated to measure mean of the kinetic energy of the atm. constituent molecules. Your statement correctly parses to:
IR is released as a by product which registers as energy on a thermometer.
“The stronger the gravitational field and the more mass is present then the greater the density, the greater the proportion of solar throuhgput that is absorbed via conduction to the mass of the atmosphere and the more IR is released by the mass of the atmosphere at the surface and the higher the temperature rises above S-B.”
NO. The temperature can’t possibly rise above S-B in theory and the proof is that has never been observed in the lab or in the wild. Planck applicable distribution rules over all frequency intervals at all temperatures at all times for all matter.
Restate correctly when fueled by the sun 3) EM:
The stronger the gravitational field and the more mass is present then the greater the density, the greater the proportion of solar throughput that is absorbed via conduction to the mass of the atmosphere and the more IR is released by the mass of the atmosphere at the surface and the higher the temperature rises equal S-B.
Stephen Wilde says, August 8, 2014 at 4:53 am:
Stephen, you have long shown yourself to be immune to things documented in black and white, staring you right in the face. I have provided you with the links and the quotes explaining you explicitly what ‘heat’ is and isn’t. It’s right there in front of you. You can go back and have another look. And you still ‘respectfully suggest that the confusion is on’ my part?!
‘Heat’ isn’t ‘simply defined as energy that can be sensed by an instrument such as a thermometer.’ That is only a confusing usage of the term.
I seriously can’t help you, Stephen. Same thing with your private adiabatic ideas. You have created your own bubble world where you invent new meanings of known and well-described physical principles and accuse anyone who points out to you what these known and well-described physical principles are actually about, to be ‘confused’.
‘Heat’ is ONLY that energy transferred from a hot to a cold region as a result of the temperature difference between the two, Stephen.
Trick said:
“NO. The temperature can’t possibly rise above S-B in theory and the proof is that has never been observed in the lab or in the wild”
That is correct for the planet as a whole when viewed from space but not true at a surface beneath an atmosphere. We observe that the Earth’s surface is 33C higher than the S-B prediction whilst at the same time Earth radiates to space at a temperature consistent with S-B.
Conduction and convection cause the difference between the view from space and the situation at the surface.
and:
“And the adjoining molecules? They slow down equivalently; no energy is produced (transformed) by pressure, no increase or decrease in surface Tmean from pressure at equilibrium Tmean 288K as it uses up no fuel, 1) what goes up, comes down with which you agree.”
The adjoining molecules also vibrate more because they too are subject to the increased density caused by gravity and mass and the same level of solar throughput.
The process only uses no fuel after the first convective cycle completes and from then on the Earth’s surface temperature attained 33C above S-B.
During the course of the first convective cycle energy was being used up to raise the mass of the atmosphere off the surface. The energy being used came from solar energy arriving at the surface which was then conducted and convected.
The surface temperature did not drop during the process because the energy needed was taken from energy that would otherwise have radiated to space. Incoming energy to the surface remained the same. Viewed from space the temperature of the Earth would have appeared to drop but the surface below the atmosphere did not cool below S-B The surface temperature was at the S-B level throughout the progress of the first convective cycle and then when that cycle completed the surface rose to 288K and the system stabilised at that level.
Kristian:
“Heat is energy perceived as temperature: a form of transferred energy that arises from the random motion of molecules and is felt as temperature, especially as warmth or hotness.2
from here:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=heat+definition&form=MSNH90&mkt=en-gb&qs=AS&sk=&pq=heat+definition&sp=1&sc=6-15
“In an 1847 lecture entitled On Matter, Living Force, and Heat, James Prescott Joule characterized the terms latent heat and sensible heat as components of heat each affecting distinct physical phenomena, namely the potential and kinetic energy of particles, respectively.[50][quotations 2] He described latent energy as the energy possessed via a distancing of particles where attraction was over a greater distance, i.e. a form of potential energy, and the sensible heat as an energy involving the motion of particles or what was known as a living force. At the time of Joule kinetic energy either held ‘invisibly’ internally or held ‘visibly’ externally was known as a living force.
Latent heat is the heat released or absorbed by a chemical substance or a thermodynamic system during a change of state that occurs without a change in temperature. Such a process may be a phase transition, such as the melting of ice or the boiling of water.[51][52] The term was introduced around 1750 by Joseph Black as derived from the Latin latere (to lie hidden), characterizing its effect as not being directly measurable with a thermometer.
Sensible heat, in contrast to latent heat, is the heat transferred to a thermodynamic system that has as its sole effect a change of temperature.[53]
Both latent heat and sensible heat transfers increase the internal energy of the system to which they are transferred.”
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
All of which is consistent with my account but not yours.
Trick@6:43pm Aug 9:
It seems that you have slipped slipped a bit where you put the energy of precipitation equivalent to that of evaporation (latent). By this formulation there can be no convective cooling of the atmospher if the energy is simply cycled up and back down, it seems.
Stephen Wilde says, August 8, 2014 at 7:24 am:
““In an 1847 lecture entitled On Matter, Living Force, and Heat, James Prescott Joule characterized the terms latent heat and sensible heat as components of heat each affecting distinct physical phenomena, namely the potential and kinetic energy of particles, respectively.[50][quotations 2] He described latent energy as the energy possessed via a distancing of particles where attraction was over a greater distance, i.e. a form of potential energy, and the sensible heat as an energy involving the motion of particles or what was known as a living force. At the time of Joule kinetic energy either held ‘invisibly’ internally or held ‘visibly’ externally was known as a living force.”
This is the ancient caloric theory, Stephen. When heat was perceived as a ‘thing’ that resided in one body and could be transferred to reside in another. I’ve already pointed out how terms like ‘specific heat’, ‘heat content’ and ‘latent heat’ all arose from that old regime of understanding and became so well-established in their own right that they were kept for convenience. But they are imprecise. And confusing. Because they are NOT adhering to the modern definition (well, even this is now getting quite old, but still very much in use) of ‘heat’.
It’s quoted from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
But you apparently choose to ignore what that very same link says of heat defined (first couple of paragraphs):
“In physics, heating is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies. The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation. Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.
Kinetic theory explains transfers of energy as heat as macroscopic manifestations of the motions and interactions of microscopic constituents such as molecules and photons.
The quantity of energy transferred as heat is a scalar expressed in an energy unit such as the joule (J) (SI), with a sign that is customarily positive when a transfer adds to the energy of a system.”
As soon as ‘heat’ is absorbed, it becomes ‘internal energy’. Heat only exists in the actual transfer. Take note of the above: “Heat is not a state function of a system.”
“”Both latent heat and sensible heat transfers increase the internal energy of the system to which they are transferred.”
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
All of which is consistent with my account but not yours.”
How is this inconsistent with my account and consistent with yours, Stephen? This is exactly what I’m saying and what you’re not.
But, I realise that you will never give up your private ideas about this, no matter how many times and from how many sources you get to see it in writing that you’re mistaken (or, rather, confused). So I’ll leave you to it.
Kristian,
Heat is different from heating.
Heat in an irradiated convecting atmosphere arises initially from the release of IR energy from a molecule which has been excited by the impact of radiation or as a result of work being done on the molecule as it moves with gravity.
Loss of heat occurs when a molecule releases less IR as a result of losing energy by radiation or as a resut of work done when it moves against gravity.
Heating is what happens afterwards when one molecule bearing energy in the form of heat transfers it to another molecule bearing less energy in the form of heat OTHER THAN BY WORK DONE OR TRANSFER OF MATTER. That can occur via radiation or conduction or convective circulation depending on the physical characteristics of the molecules involved.
You appear to be dealing with both concepts as if they were the same thing and I think that is where your confusion arises.
I have taken note of the rest of the linked article but it simply doesn’t apply to the transformation of energy between sensible and non sensible as work is done with or against gravity. It only applies to the transfer of sensible energy between different units of mass.
.