Guest essay by Mike Jonas
“so much to say…so little time.” – Roy Spencer
I have at last found the time for the next step in my Sun-Cloud-Ocean calculations. But first, I would like to thank everyone who commented on my previous article. Some are addressed directly below, and all comments (well, most) were useful. You found, or helped me to find, a number of important errors and new lines of thought. As I said last time “If I’ve stuffed up, I want to know that right away, so please get a critical comment in asap.“. The same applies this time!
[For those not familiar with some of the abbreviations used, there is a list of abbreviations at the end of this article, along with data and code files].
Table of Contents:
1. Preamble
2. Quick Summary
3. Summary
3.1 Energy balance
3.2 Evaporation
3.3 IR vs solar radiation
4. Method
4.1 Input Data
4.2 The Matching Process
5. Absorption changes from last time
Abbreviations
1. Preamble
In an earlier article, I expressed the opinion that Infra-Red radiation (IR), eg. as from Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), did not warm the ocean as effectively as the wavelengths of direct solar radiation which penetrated into the ocean (ITO): “The GHG process involves only IR, which cannot penetrate the ocean more than a fraction of a millimetre, where its energy goes mainly into evaporation. ie, the energy goes straight back into the atmosphere.” and “The ITO warms the ocean well below the surface with little direct effect on the atmosphere.”.
Some time after my last article was published, I realised that Nick Stokes’ (NS) diagram (Figure 2) provided an opportunity to test my statement. If I could reproduce the diagram from first principles – ie. reverse engineer it – then I would have the means to calculate whether IR and direct solar radiation did indeed differ in their effect, and if so by how much.
It took me a long time, but I have completed (to my satisfaction) the reverse engineering, using a notional “average” patch of ocean over one 24-hour day without upwelling. The comparisons for IR and direct solar radiation were then very simple. The results are summarised below, and then the whole process is described in more detail.
There is one important caveat. The results can only be as good as the assumptions that went into them. The ocean surface is a pretty volatile place, and everything is necessarily some kind of approximation. It is possible that changed assumptions could give significantly different results.
2. Quick Summary
· With no upwelling, nearly a third of all input radiation remains in the ocean at the end of the day. It is not all lost on the same day.
· Results do support the idea that a proportion of inward IR is immediately lost in evaporation, but the proportion comes out at about 17% rather than “mainly”.
· IR and solar radiation do differ in their ability to warm the ocean. A Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.
· Retained energy can build up for later upwelling, eg. with El Niño, AMO or PDO, or for transport towards the poles.
· Results suggest that from 1983-2009, cloud changes were responsible for a bit over 90% (90.6%) of global warming, man-made CO2 for less than 10% (9.4%).
My take: Changes to direct solar radiation as caused by changes in cloud cover are much more important than changes to back radiation as caused by man-made GHGs. Solar energy is always being stored in the ocean, and it is reasonable to suppose that this energy is the key to Earth’s climate, as also evidenced by the global climate (= atmospheric temperature) changes that result from warming/cooling phases of ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc. Upwelling would seem to be a (or the?) major mechanism by which the stored energy is delivered from the ocean to the atmosphere. We have to understand the ocean if we want to understand climate.
3. Summary
3.1 Energy balance
The Kiehl and Trenberth (K&T) energy balance (Figure 1) that I use for some of the input information is useful and informative, but it conceals as much information as it reveals. It shows a perfect energy balance, but it shows nothing of the different timescales involved. Looking at K&T it would be easy to suppose that the energy coming in during a day also goes out – as is shown, for example, in the diagrams that Nick Stokes presented (Figure 2).
In fact, much of the energy from solar radiation remains in the ocean at the end of the day. This is the heat which builds up and is transported poleward or is later released by an El Niño or by the AMO or PDO, etc. In the “average” patch of ocean, 168 Wm-2 of direct solar radiation and 324 Wm-2 of back radiation enter the ocean, and if there is no upwelling then 160 Wm-2 stays there – only 332 Wm-2 escapes to the atmosphere. The actual numbers may be surprising, but the concept should not be. We all know that the ocean transports heat from the tropics towards the poles, and that the ocean oscillations release heat that has built up in the ocean over a period of time. Heat cannot build up if it is not being retained in the first place. An implication is that much of the energy shown by K&T escaping from the ocean has been there for quite a long time – it does not all escape on the day it came in, it does not escape at a steady rate, and it is not released uniformly across the oceans. By implication, over short periods or even up to a few decades, atmospheric temperature may bear little or no relationship to the global temperature.
3.2 Evaporation
In the calculations, I test the possibility that some of the inward IR gets lost in evaporation by, for example, exciting water molecules at the surface so that they escape into the atmosphere. There is an obvious limit to how much can get lost in this way, because less than half of the excited molecules would go in the right direction. I don’t put any restriction on the parameterisation for this, so the reverse engineering is free to settle on any percentage.
For the balance of thermals and evaporation, I assume that the rate varies linearly with temperature. In the real world, other factors such as wind speed are important, so there is an implicit assumption that these other factors remain unchanged. Given that we are working with a notional “average” patch of ocean over a single day, that should not be an issue.
Results suggest that about 17% of the energy from inward radiation that does not get past the top 10µm goes straight into evaporation (see parameter ‘v’ in worksheet parms). This evaporation is not temperature dependent. Results also indicate that my earlier assertion that IR’s energy “goes mainly into evaporation” is incorrect : partly, yes, but “mainly”, no (Roy Spencer will be pleased, I think).
3.3 IR vs solar radiation
IR and solar radiation do indeed differ in their ability to warm the ocean. Looked at in isolation, a Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.
I had expected a difference, but I had thought that the ratio would be higher. The result also shows the reason for the lower ratio: the mechanism is not what I had expected. The major factor is the temperature gradient near the ocean surface – IR isn’t fully effective at slowing the flow of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
In the previous article, I estimated that man-made CO2 contributed only 9% or less of the global warming over the 1983-2009 period. There were some errors in that article, addressed below. The corrected figures for the 19983-2009 period are +0.65 Wm-2 for man-made CO2, and +4.5 Wm-2 for direct solar radiation (all direct solar radiation, not just ITO). The CO2 figure is much higher than before, as explained below, and the direct solar figure is a bit lower. With the results from the NS reverse engineering, the man-made CO2 contribution to 1983-2009 global warming came out at about 9.4%, but the calculation has changed as described below.
If Dr. Antero Ollila is correct, then the figure for CO2 1983-2009 would be +0.38 Wm-2, not +0.65 Wm-2, giving a lower contribution (only 5.7%) from CO2.
3.4. Energy Accumulation
The results for different SSTs (see worksheet parms in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx) are so similar, that the notion that absorbed solar energy at depth can build up over a long period is supported. [NB. Just ‘supported’, not proven. In interpretation of the figures, be aware of how they were calculated.]. The fact that ocean temperature just below the surface is higher than at depth means that the only way that energy at depth can escape to the atmosphere is by convection, ie. by mixing or by upwelling.
The ~118 Wm-2 retained from 10m to 100m depth is enough to warm that ocean band by nearly 10 deg C in a year (see the Heat content calculator in worksheet FluxDescr in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx). Obviously the heat wouldn’t necessarily be retained for a whole year, but this shows that significant heat build-up is possible.
Note: After writing everything up, I have noticed that the ‘Thermals and evapotranspiration’, at 104 Wm-2, is higher than K&T’s 102 Wm-2. It should if anything be a bit lower, which suggests that I should have used a slightly higher SST. Maybe 19 deg C instead of the 18 deg C that I used. The results would change slightly, but the overall pattern and conclusions would remain unchanged. Percentage of inward IR lost to immediate evaporation would come down from 18% to 17%. I have changed the text above to use the lower number.
4. Method
The aim was to reproduce the Day & Night temperature profiles in the NS diagrams using the K&T energy budget figures, and using solar and absorption data as presented in the previous article.
The spreadsheet, OceanDiurnal.xlsx, models the upper ocean bands of a notional “average” patch of ocean in 20-second steps over one 24-hour day. Data for all inputs of energy is used unchanged, but data for outputs is used as a guide only with variable parameters. The parameters were then optimised to find the combination of inputs and outputs, together with the energy flows within the ocean, which matched both the Day and the Night NS temperature profiles in a single daily cycle.
It is all explained in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx, worksheet FluxDescr, so I won’t repeat the details here. You can play with the figures in the spreadsheet, of course, but to run new optimisations you will need an external optimiser. You can verify that the result is correctly optimised by changing the ‘optimised’ parameters in worksheet parms.
4.1 Input Data
K&T data is taken from:
Figure 1. Global annual average energy budget, from here).
The data that the reverse engineering is trying to match is taken from the NS diagram:
Figure 2. The diurnal (day-night) cycle in the top few metres of the ocean. From Nick Stokes’ blog Moyhu. NB. The two panels have different scales on the x-axes (that’s not an issue at all, just be careful to see the panels correctly).
The part of the NS diagrams that I am trying to match is the top part, ie. below 1m. If you look closely at the diagrams you will see that the vertical axis is vague (“5-10m”), and that it is not accurately to scale. On a true log scale, using 10m for the last point, it looks like this:
Figure 3. Data from the NS ‘Day’ diagram. Y axis is ocean band number. “-1” is surface, 0 is to 1µm, 1 is to 10µm, then increase by a factor of 10 per band to: band 7 is to 10m. Bands 8 to 100m and 9 >100m are not covered in the NS diagrams. In the spreadsheet, band 1 is surface to 10µm.
I also use absorption data as reported on last time, but with corrections (see 5. below) and with the IR wavelengths that are missing from SORCE data estimated to match the K&T data. See spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx worksheet Absorption.
4.2 The MatchingProcess
Bands 1, 2 (10µm, 0.1mm) are very thin, and a large amount of energy goes into and out of them with very small residuals, so calculating their temperature accurately is not practical. I therefore tie bands 1 and 2 to band 3 (1mm) for optimising purposes, using temperature differences from band 3 to match the NS diagram. The adjustments needed are small, averaging a lot less than 0.01 Wm-2. I then optimise for just band 3.
The resulting match looked like this:
Figure 4. The match to NS Data obtained by the reverse engineering process.
The match at band 3 is accurate, but any attempt to match the deeper bands exactly failed because the entire profile is effectively dictated by band 3. Put simply, if energy flows more between bands – conduction radiation or mixing – then band 3 cannot get up to its daytime temperature in the NS diagram. If they flow less then the heat can’t get out fast enough at night.
5. Absorption changes from last time
This para refers to assumptions and calculations in the previous post. The changes listed here were made in the absorption spreadsheet from last time. The results as used are shown in worksheet Absorption of spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx.
Changes were:
· Previously, I effectively ignored energy entering the ocean at depths beyond 10m. This energy is undoubtedly added to the system, so this time I account for it. Note that this energy cannot be released into the atmosphere by conduction or radiation because the higher ocean layers are warmer, so it is actually likely to accumulate in the system for longer than energy from other wavelengths. The ocean thermocline is typically well below 100m, so is not an issue.
· A bad arithmetic error in a RF calculation, pointed out by commenter Donald L. Klipstein was corrected. Thanks, Donald, much appreciated.
· Error corrected: Different units were used for CO2 (Wm-2 actual) and ITO (ocean Wm-2 global equivalent).
· A more subtle logical error was corrected: Last time, I left out non-ITO wavelengths when estimating the proportions of warming from CO2 and ITO, because I argued that it’s the ITO wavelengths that drive multi-decadal global temperature. But CO2 operates via non-ITO wavelengths, so I should have included those wavelengths from the sun too, for correct comparison.
· For 1983-2009, I previously used solar and cloud data averaged over all the ocean. This time, I calculated them in 5-degree latitude bands in order to get a more accurate weighted trend 1983-2009. The end result was a slightly smaller trend in cloud effect over the period.
The latest results show that IR is not as effective, Watt for Watt, as direct solar radiation at warming the ocean. This is now taken into account, too.
One of my statements (“I use SORCE data for 2003. All years are almost identical.”) was challenged by Bob Weber (“All years are not ‘almost identical’ in solar activity …”). I do agree that over extended periods all years are not ‘almost identical’, but the years covered in the SORCE data, 2003-2016, were almost identical:
Figure 5. Composition of solar radiation by wavelength, from SORCE. 14 separate curves are plotted, for the 14 years 2003-2016. They are all almost exactly the same, apart from gaps where data is missing..
Bob also asked ‘A practical question’: “how long does it take for varying solar energy deposited at depth to resurface?”. The question goes to climate’s absolute core. The results reported here show that a lot of energy is deposited. I argue that the upwelling timescale is variable. In an earlier post, I said the time taken “could be days or months (eg, it might up-well quite quickly), it could be years (eg, waiting to be scooped up in an El Nino), it could be decades (eg, accumulating until an ocean oscillation such as the AMO or PDO brings it to the surface), or it could even be many centuries (eg, taken down into the deep ocean by the THC).”.
I will try to reply to Leif Svalgaard’s comments (eg. here, here) in a later post.
Abbreviations
AMO – Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
C – Celsius or Centigrade
CO2 – Carbon Dioxide
GHG – GreenHouse Gas
IR – Infra-Red radiation
ITO – Into The Ocean [Band of Wavelengths approx 200nm to 1000nm]
K&T – Kiehl and Trenberth
NS – Nick Stokes
PDO – Pacific Decadal Oscillation
RF – Radiative Forcing
SORCE – Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
SST – Sea Surface Temperature
THC – ThermoHaline Circulation
Wm-2 or W/m2 – Watts per square metre
Attachments (data and code)
· The calculations reported here are in spreadsheet OceanDiurnal.xlsx. The spreadsheet also contains a guide to the calculations, see worksheet FluxDescr.
· Spreadsheet DifferenceSummary.xlsx shows the differences referenced in 3.3 below.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
About the energy balance of the Earth. The paper of Kiehl and Trenberth is obsolete and even IPCC does not use it any more. The reason is that K&T used a wrong climate model by name “US Standard Atmosphere 76”, which is the atmospheric composition over the USA. Its surface temperature is the same as the global one, which is 15 degrees Celsius but its absolute water content is only 55 % of the global average. Below are two links to better ones: Stephens and Ollila. They are almost identical for the all-sky but Ollila’s presentation includes also cloudy and clear sky conditions.
Stephens et al.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260208782_An_update_on_Earth's_energy_balance_in_light_of_the_latest_global_observations
Ollila: https://www.academia.edu/28083988/Dynamics_between_Clear_Cloudy_and_All-Sky_Conditions_Cloud_Forcing_Effects
Thinking your analysis, the following fluxes may change your analysis (all in W/m2): LW radiationflux from the atmosphere: K&T 324, Stepehens et al. 346, Ollila 345.
Thanks. I’ll need to read the two papers. At first glance they will change the numbers but are not enough to change the overall pattern.
Mike Jonas:
” IR and solar radiation do differ in their ability to warm the ocean. A Watt of direct solar radiation is nearly 50% more effective at warming the ocean than a Watt of IR.”
I think this could be formulated in another way, so The-Second-Law-Of-Thermodynamics-Boys and The-Heat- Cannot-Flow-From-Cold-To-Hot-Boys, didn`t get their food. As the energy balance models show, the IR radiation cools the ocean. But the Boys cannot do simple mathematics, and see that outward radiation of 390 W/m2 is greater than inward radiation of 324 W/m2 (or whatever number), and that this is called cooling. I suspect some of these Boys to believe that they will freeze as much in a snow cave than in open air in – 20 deg C.
Regardless of heat ocean heat retention triggered by IR, the heat retained comes from SW. IR can only decrease the skin gradient and cause the ocean to retain SW energy. IR energy does not penetrate, and can not conduct up a positive gradient to depths.
Thus the oceans can not absorb IR energy and can not delay the effect IR has on the atmosphere, thus the supposed ‘ocean heat uptake’ as an excuse for poor CO2 response is not valid. TCR and ECS are one and the same and they are low.
Mike Jonas: “If I’ve stuffed up, I want to know that right away, so please get a critical comment in asap.“
Measurement of radiation from a radiative gas within an atmosphere is the measurement of a consequence, not the measurement of cause.
Simple explanation;
Incoming energy is the sole source of energy. It is that which has performed the work done on raising the altitude of the centre of mass of the atmospheric column with changes in radiative gas concentration.
The radiation from radiative gases within the atmosphere is a conduit for distribution of incoming energy for conversion to temperature. The temperature attained supports the new atmospheric volume.
That new volume has a higher temperature at its base as Lapse Rate has not changed. That new temperature is an augmentation to the Greenhouse Effect.
Carbon dioxide does not modify the Lapse rate. Re-radiation from carbon dioxide does no work on the atmospheric column. You are chasing your tail.
An interesting piece of work and I think you might be onto something. At any rate it resonates with my experience. I was lucky enough to be out on a yacht in the Indian Ocean around 31 degrees South on a summer day off Perth when we experienced ‘glass-off’ conditions. We’d been motoring, but went through a large patch of weed which wrapped itself round the prop creating enough drag to be noticeable. We’re in around 90 foot of water known for great whites, but I stopped the motor, hoisted the genoa and hopped over the side with a mask and snorkel. The weed was fairly easy to unwind, but the remarkable thing was that there was a really hot layer of water on the surface – that phenomenon has been noted before, and I’ve felt it myself close to beaches – but this was miles from land. The temperature profile didn’t match what is shown above, it was deeper. Granted a human body isn’t the best thermometer, but I can estimate temp in our pool to +/- 1C easily (in a band from 28 to 35 C). There was a warm layer than just about deep enough to float in when being pulled by the faint breeze that just rippled up meaning I was being pulled along at around 2 knots, it was barely more than hand deep and the temp difference between the surface and my toes (say 6ft deep) was definitely at least 3 degrees. It was sufficient to make me think satellite SST temps on clear still days might significantly overread, and so I clarified that with a remote sensing scientist I know. They confirmed the satellites only measure the temp of the top few microns of water. I’m guessing on a very still day like I had, thermal transfer of heat downwards by conduction is significant.
It strikes me that a very fast array of temp sensors measuring temp at 0.5 cm depth increments from surface to a few meters over different sea states and meteorological conditions would be quite interesting and go a great way to refining theories of heat transfer.
Re ice and dew persisting in shadows – I’ve noticed that too, but put it down to the different energy densities passed to the ice/dew indirectly by surrounding ‘not very hot’ air versus the direct absorption of energy by the material. Visible light passes through water fairly easily, but UV is strongly absorbed creating heat within it so of course it evaporates. Air is a remarkably good insulator (better than polystyrene foam by thickness) but the problem is temperature gradients will cause it to convect and so transport energy (continuously conducting, convecting and radiating!). You will only see those dew patches persist on still mornings. This stuff is not simple and water in all it’s forms, coupled with the sun, are the drivers. It’s all about the energy!
The average solar constant at ToA, 100 km, is 1,368 W/m^2. It’s math. It varies from 1,415 W/m^2 at perihelion to 1,323 W/m^2 at aphelion, Δ 92 W/m^2. More math.
A watt is a power unit not an energy unit specifically 3.6 kJ/metric h.
The radius of the earth plus atmosphere to 100 km is 6,371 km + 100 km = 6,471 km. Cross sectional area is 1.32 E8 km^2 or 1.32 E14 m^2.
In 24 hours the sun delivers 1.61 E19 kJ to 1.50 E19 kJ to the earth.
To maintain equilibrium, i.e. any status quo global temperature, the earth must reject this energy back into space. If it rejects less, temperature goes up, if it rejects more, temperature goes down.
The earth rejects heat 24/7 perpendicular to the spherical area of the atmosphere per Q = U * A * dT. The spherical area is 5.26E14 m^2, i.e. four times the cross sectional area. It’s geometry. Let’s say that dT from surface to ToA is 105 C, 15 C minus -90 C, 288 – 183 = 105.
For the average solar constant the effective U, heat transfer coefficient of the atmosphere, would be 281 kJ/(h – m^2 – C). (Q, kJ = U, kJ/(h-m^2-C) * h * A, m^2 * dT, C)
Based on this average U the dT and surface temperature variation, assuming constant ToA temperature, due to the elliptical orbit would be Δ 7.1 C.
Nicholas Schroeder
No. Although those may be old numbers, and although they may be frequently cited – as in the Trenberth diagram claiming 342 “average” top of atmosphere energy at the average earth orbit – they are not correct. (Have been out of date since the early 2000’s actually.)
Actual measurement establish the TOA (top of atmosphere) solar radiation at average earth orbit = 1362 Watt/m^2
Minimum is July 5 each year at 1316 Watts/m^2.
Maximum is January 5 each year at 1408 Watts/m^2.
The Trenberth “average” radiation of 1362 Watts/m^2 at TOA only occurs twice a year: a few weeks after the two equinoxes on day-of-year 92 (2 April) and day-of-year 279 (6 October).
The Trenberth “average” solar radiation on the ground (after atmosphere attenuation) is more difficult to determine.
1. Trenberth shows 342 at TOA.
(Averaged over a 24-hour day, delivered at TOA to an “average flat earth” held perpendicular to the “average sun” at an “average earth orbit”.
2. Of that 342, 67 are absorbed by the atmosphere, 77 are reflected by clouds.
Thus 342 – 77 – 67 = 198 watt/m^2 delivered to the “average ground”.
Of that 198 watt/m^2 hitting the ground, he claims a 0.15 “average albedo”, thus 30 watts/m^2 are reflected, and 168 watts/m^2 are absorbed.
Now,
198 Watt/m^2 x 24 hours/day = 4752 Watt/m^2 total on the ground over an “average” 24 hour day.
Thus we must only look at the actual TOA radiation levels every day of the year, the actual earth’s atmospheric attenuation values for the sun at every hour of the year at every latitude of the earth, and add up each hour’s radiation at sea level to find which day(s) of the year his assumptions represent. Takes some trials, but there actually are locations on earth that do receive “average radiation” on one day of the year!
On day-of-year 279, at 1362 Watts/m^2 at TOA, 4754 Watt-hrs are received at sea level over a 24-hour day at latitudes -46.8 S and +33.6 N.
(Using Trenberth’s 0.75 atmosphere attenuation factor. Which is actually only correct for the clear, low-humidity arctic skies.)
In the spring, on day-of-year 92, these two places are switched: Latitude 46.6 north and Latitude -33.9 south receive “average” solar radiation days, again averaged over Trenberth’s mythical 24 hour day for a flat earth.
RACookPE1978 May 1, 2017 at 8:26 am
Sun Photosphere Radius 696,000 km
Sun Photosphere Area 6.087E+12 km^2
Luminosity 3.847E+26 W
Power flux 6.320E+07 W/m^2
S-B σ 5.670E-08 W/m^2 – K^4
Surface Temp. 5,778.00 K
Orbital Radius Average 1.4960E+08 km
Orbital Photosphere Area 2.8124E+17 km^2
Power Flux S-B BB 1,368 W/m^2
Power Flux Measured 1,368 W/m^2
Orbital radius aphelion 1.521E+08 km
Orbital Photosphere Area 2.9072E+17 km^2
Power Flux S-B BB 1,323 W/m^2
Orbital radius perihelion 1.471E+08 km
Orbital Photosphere Area 2.7192E+17 km^2
Power Flux S-B BB 1,415 W/m^2
Like I said, it’s not an opinion, it’s math and geometry.
btw: CU Bldr 1978 BMSE & CO PE 22774
Nope. Nice (classroom) theory though.
Measured values show otherwise. Specifically, the 1368 Watt/m^2 is outdated – The sensors “recording” that value were calibrated incorrectly, and that reported energy levels were never actually that high. The actual “devolution” of TSI over time from various sensors are displayed in many places, including here:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/total-solar-irradiance-tsi-datasets-overview
Of course, this same reduction in theoretical TSI from 1988 through 2009 compared to actual TSI values means that EVERY calculation (such as yours above and EVERY climatic program run using the earlier, incorrect higher values of TSI of 1372, 1368, 1367, etc.) is also incorrect.
To: Nicholas Schroeder
Additional information on the on-going TSI re-calculations saga.
The following from :
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/1366-and-all-that-the-secret-history-of-total-solar-irradiance/
The New Normal
We live in “interesting times”.
The SORCE/TIM satellite has suspended daily performances:
Updates to the SORCE data record are currently not being produced for some instruments while the SORCE spacecraft recovers from a battery anomaly.
Updates will recommence when the instruments are acquiring science data again and data processing changes are implemented to accomodate more limited observing modes.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
NASA has unilaterally declared an “official” reduction in the “solar constant” of 5 W/m2 [after looking at the SOURCE satellite data for nine years] because it “is critical in examining the energy budget”.
Total (TSI) and spectral solar irradiance (SSI) upon Earth
Total Solar Irradiance upon Earth (TSI) was earlier measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²), but most recently NASA cites TSI as “1361 W/m² as compared to ~1366 W/m² from earlier observations [Kopp et al., 2005]”, based on regular readings from NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment(SORCE) satellite, active since 2003, noting that this “discovery is critical in examining the energy budget of the planet Earth and isolating the climate change due to human activities.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
SORCE/TIM [with a little help from Kopp & Lean] has determined the previously calculated TSI values are “erroneously high” because of “internal instrument scatter”.
The 4.5 W/m^2 by which the TIM reads lower than prior instruments has been resolved as being largely due to internal instrument scatter in those prior instruments causing erroneously high readings (see Kopp & Lean, GRL, 38, L01706, 2011).
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#historical
Uncorrected scattering and diffraction are shown to cause erroneously high readings in non-TIM instruments.
A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance
Greg Kopp and Judith L. Lean
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml
(1368 – 1362) / 1368 = 0.44%. BFD Nobody can measure with confidence to that resolution anyway.
Nicholas Schroeder
Ah, but the entire premis of the globalists’ “Catastrophic Anthropagenic Global Theory” claims that “Catastrophic” temperature rises WILL ABSOLUTELY “Science is Settled” occur if a change of only 3 watts/m^2 emitted radiation happens.
Yet an apparent change in TSI of 10 watts/m^2 (1372 to 1362 Watts/m^2) is meaningless?
The 10, you mean 8.5, a lot of rounding, is worst^4 case based on upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation RGHE that is fundamentally bogus – and – compared to 92 & 670 – yeah, it’s lost in the noise.
This: Clyde Spencer says:
April 30, 2017 at 8:39 am
“Mike,
I believe that the 30 Wm-2 shown as being reflected from the surface of the Earth in the Kiel/Trenberth diagram is a lower-bound.” Why are we estimating this anyway? Good measures of albedo are certainly available with all the instruments that are up there.
It’s all WAGs using a stupid model, earth as ball in warm goo.
Nicholas; Here in the Judean Peoples Popular Front we use the word “mush”, not “goo”. Tread carefully, my friend, others are watching our every move, one wrong word…..
Badger
Well, I just think now is the time for something completely different.
“The early 20th century was a very auspicious time for the sciences. In addition to Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr giving birth to the Standard Model of particle physics, it was also a period of breakthroughs in the field of quantum mechanics. Thanks to ongoing studies on the behavior of electrons, scientists began to propose theories whereby these elementary particles behaved in ways that defied classical, Newtonian physics.
One such example is the Electron Cloud Model proposed by Erwin Schrodinger. Thanks to this model, electrons were no longer depicted as particles moving around a central nucleus in a fixed orbit. Instead, Schrodinger proposed a model whereby scientists could only make educated guesses as to the positions of electrons. Hence, their locations could only be described as being part of a ‘cloud’ around the nucleus where the electrons are likely to be found.”
https://www.universetoday.com/38282/electron-cloud-model/
“Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics not for his work on relativity, but for explaining the photoelectric effect. He proposed that light is made up of packets of energy called photons. Photons have no mass, but they have momentum and they have an energy given by:
The explanation for the photoelectric effect goes like this: it takes a certain energy to eject an electron from a metal surface. This energy is known as the work function (W), which depends on the metal. Electrons can gain energy by interacting with photons. If a photon has an energy at least as big as the work function, the photon energy can be transferred to the electron and the electron will have enough energy to escape from the metal. A photon with an energy less than the work function will never be able to eject electrons.”
http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/PhotoelectricEffect.html
I see a photon as a Nano electrical spark as 2 molecules come close to each other , and if they touch they are spot welded together to form chains. Light is produced by electric currents , voltage, and resistance.
Photons are generated by moving “charge”, electrons(or proton or positron) moving radiate, electrons racing back and forth in tune with a piece of wire radiate, electrons dropping from one electron orbit to a lower one radiates, they all radiate at wavelengths that depend on how fast, and how far they accelerate, the faster, the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy.
It all works the same way, just the antennas are a different length and shape.
Stokes and Mosher,
[snip . . . come on, you’re better than that . . . mod]
@ur momisugly ssat
May 1, 2017 at 4:34 am: Thanks for more confirmation. Theorists, armchair or even Chaired, seem to not understand that spectral emf is not power or heat, and energy transfer is purely a vector quantity in real life. Full stop, no movement, no heat, for instance.
Another problem (eg @ur momisugly Nicholas Schroeder May 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm), is that Earth is not flat , though they call us flat-earthers. Holder’s inequality and much mixing of Units and Terms stand in the way of truth here…..
Let me repeat myself, as one of the 2nd Law Guys,
Show us just one instance where a Cooler mass warmed a Warmer mass, as in made it still/even/extra, even one tenth of one degree, Warmer. Just once! There will be Your NOBEL PRIZE.
Oh, no response? Why not???
Michael Moon
“Show us just one instance where a Cooler mass warmed a Warmer mass”
Rubbing 2 cold sticks together can create fire.
Cold electrons stored in a battery can heat up a coil of wire..
The cold solar wind heats up Earth’s Bow shock .
My electric drill is cold until I pull the trigger and those electrons start to flow and encounters RESISTANCE and heats up.
I was out on a winter day and I was getting hypothermia — my body core temperature had gone down to about 35C. I put on a jacket that was colder than 35C, and my body core temperature went back up to 37C.
Hold on while I buy my plane ticket to Stockholm and prepare my speech…
Ed Bo
Your jacket has a high heat flow resistance or low thermal conductivity, U. In order for energy to move from A to B requires a temperature difference, dT. Q, Btu/h = U * A * dT, same as the insulated walls of a house.
If I increase the insulation, i.e. reduce the conductivity, of the house walls and don’t turn down the furnace, the house is going to get hot. For a given Btu/h if U goes down dT goes up.
Your body temperature increased because dT had to increase to push heat through the jacket’s low U. The temperature of the jacket itself has exactly zip to do with it.
Pushing current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
Pushing water through a physical resistance, e.g. radiator, requires a pressure difference.
Pushing heat through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference. That’s why the surface is warm.
CAGW is not about “climate’ science, whatever that is. Akin to dog whisperer or aroma therapist, I suppose. The atmosphere is about chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, heat transfer. Want an expert in those fields? Try chemical or mechanical engineers who actually apply those concepts to do real world stuff.
The K-T diagram is thermodynamic rubbish, earth as a ball in a bucket of hot mush is physical rubbish, the Δ 33 C w/ atmosphere is obvious rubbish, the layered shell models are unrelated to reality rubbish.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
The atm, ocean system is a one cycle per day heat pump. Water vapor from the tropical oceans is a major source of disposable energy that gets used at night to keep the surface from cooling below dew point.
Water vapor get blow inland to cool. Then in the morning when the sun is up, it starts warming the surface the atm also starts to warm, swells up as the air near the surface warms, and adds to available atm water vapor. It does this all day, and then at night as it cools, the air sinks, and it uses Joules released in the transition of vapor to liquid that reduces net radiation from the surface, this can will stop cooling in the middle of the clear night. Which is only surprising when you measure the BB temp of the clear sky in the optical window at -50F to -60F. The sky is still just as cold relative air temp at sunset, where it cools quickly, and in the middle of the night when it cooling slows or stops.
Co2 doesn’t affect this temp even if the prior day was a little warmer from it. It just might take 20 minutes longer to get to that identical min temp, but they both get to the same temp. That’s why co2 doesn’t matter, water vapor just lets the atm cool at the higher cooling rate for a longer period until the extra is cooled away. And when it’s cooling at 55W/m^-2 it doesn’t take all that long for the temp to catch up.
Like how hot water freezes faster than cold water.
It’s a big heat pump that stores energy as water vapor during the day, and then at night either by the energy released when it condenses, or that water beads are tiny ir reflectors, water vapor shuts down the net out going rate of energy. One cycle per day heat pump. The biggest pump in the world.
Minimum daily temp and dew point are nearly 98% correlated.
With apologies to the late, great Ogden Nash I give you:
Sky Dragons
The Second Law they twist and shove,
to slay their dragons from up above.
But this I know by actual test:
Wear a jacket, you’ll shiver less.
Nicholas:
The “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have a high resistance to radiative heat transfer, or low radiative “conductivity”. This requires a higher temperature difference (technically, a higher radiative potential — emissivity * T^4) to allow the earth to transfer enough power to space to (approximately) balance the incoming radiative power from the sun.
Since the earth is tiny in space, it cannot measurable affect the temperature (or radiative potential of 1.0 * 2.725^4) of space, so the temperature of the earth goes up, just as when you “increase the insulation, i.e. reduce the conductivity, of the house walls and don’t turn down the furnace, the house is going to get hot. For a given Btu/h, if U goes down dT goes up.”
Since we can’t “turn down” the sun, the earth is going to get hot. Same principle as your house example (although in the earth’s case, it is the increased resistance to radiative transfer, and in the house’s case, it’s more the resistance to conductive transfer).
In your house example, let’s say that you want to keep the air temperature in the house at 20C when its 0C outside. The better the insulation, the warmer the walls in contact with the inside air. It is simply not true that “the temperature of the jacket [or wall in your case] has exactly zip to do with it”.
The warmer the inside surface of the jacket, the less heat I will lose to the cold ambient. The better the insulation of the jacket, the warmer this inside surface will be. They are inextricably tied together.
“The “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have a high resistance to radiative heat transfer, or low radiative “conductivity”.”
All 0.04% of them? Your statement above is complete nonsense.
I address nonsense in: http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
Nicholas:
You say: “All 0.04% of them? Your statement above [on the high resistance to radiative heat transfer] is complete nonsense.”
Au contraire, mon frere! The attentuation of IR radiation due to these gases has been very well measured and is very well understood. The US Air Force has spent countless millions over the decades analyzing the absorption of IR over distance at these concentrations (and remember that H2O is often 1% or above) for their heat seeking missile programs. This is where much of our best data comes from, and they have great incentive to get it write, not just to be politically correct about it.
When radiation is absorbed, so is the energy that it carries. The more a medium absorbs it in a given distance, the higher that medium’s resistance to radiative heat transfer. Even at the relatively low concentrations in the atmosphere, the kilometers of thickness (as opposed to the centimeters of insulation thickness in your wall example) makes this significant.
The resistance of the earth’s atmosphere to radiative heat transfer to the 3K effective radiating temperature of space is high enough that it tends to set up a temperature gradient greater than the adiabatic lapse rate. Such a lapse rate is unstable, so convection sets in to restore the lapse rate towards adiabatic. Even scientists profoundly skeptical of CAGW, like Lindzen, acknowledge this.
Oh, and on your website: You really need to review your basic thermodynamics. You have no idea how to define the systems you are talking about and perform proper energy balance analysis on them. Talk about “complete nonsense”!
Sorry… I edited in a hurry and botched it (as usual). matthewrmarler & MarkW should have been up in the list of real 2nd Law guys.
(And I learned something: ≪UL> and <LI> markup don’t work. Oh, well.)
Burton,
Nice poem. Still waiting for an example.
Ed,
Insulation prevents conductive and convective cooling. Preventing cooling heats nothing. Maybe this is the core misunderstanding of CAGW catechists, that transferring heat WARMS, preventing cooling DOES NOT WARM, it prevents cooling, which is not the same thing at all. The energy in your body comes from your body, not the jacket. The energy in the atmosphere comes from the SUN, not from itself…
Michael:
You’re just splitting semantic hairs. You have no fundamental scientific argument here. And you’re getting confused yourself by imprecise usage.
In all of these examples — my hypothermic individual putting on a jacket, Nicholas’ house adding insulation in the walls, or the earth with IR-active gases in the atmosphere — there is a separate power source.
In the case of the person, it is the metabolism of internal chemical reactions; for the house, it is the furnace; for the earth it is the sun. In all of these cases, there is a net heat transfer from the power source to the object, then a net heat transfer from the object to the insulation, then a net heat transfer from the insulation to the cold ambient.
But in all of these cases, if you hold the power source roughly constant, you can increase the temperature of the object by adding the insulative layer between the object and the cold ambient, even though the insulative layer is colder than the object.
No one is claiming that the insulative layer would serve to increase the temperature of the object in the absence of the separate power source. But since the sun is not going away, the insulative effect of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere most certainly does cause earth temperatures to be higher than they would be without them. And this is true even though the NET heat transfer is from the surface to the atmosphere.
I admire your patience, Ed Bo.
I have to ask, Dave: In exactly what way am I not a 2nd Law guy? You appear not to understand the discussion and the simple points being made here …
“In what way exactly …?” rather.
Kristian, you’re not a 2nd Law guy because you badly misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You wrote, “IR photons from the atmosphere down to the surface can NOT directly raise the temperature of the surface” and “’Back radiation’ from a cooler atmosphere CANNOT directly raise the temperature of the already warmer surface.”
That’s nonsense, which proves that you do not understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
A 2nd Law guy is someone who understands it. You don’t, and you obstinately persist in your misunderstanding even after it has been carefully and clearly explained to you by several people here.
Dave,
First of all, thanks for finally responding. I don’t particularly like being called names, nor do I like having various affiliations and personal traits attributed to me, especially without explanation or substantiation, from someone who doesn’t know me or where I’m coming from at all. I don’t think you do either, Dave.
On to the subject matter.
You say:
OK? In what way?
*Sigh*
IN WHAT WAY is it nonsense? You’re just asserting things. You’re not substantiating. You’re not explaining.
Do you seriously believe that IR photons from the cooler atmosphere actually do directly raise the temperature of the already warmer surface!?
Yes or no? Do they?
Again you’re just asserting things. You obviously haven’t read anything of what I’ve written on this thread. Let me guess. It’s beneath you. You don’t have the patience. You just know I’m wrong anyway, so why bother? Either that or you’re just thoroughly confused when it comes to the thermal interaction between the surface and the atmosphere.
Think it through once again. My point here is only about whether photons from the sky – ALL BY THEMSELVES – are able to directly raise the surface temperature or not. Are they? And if they aren’t, why not?
Dave, do you know the difference between HEATING and INSULATION? Do you understand the difference between INCOMING, OUTGOING and NET heat? What is it that affects (as in changes) a system’s “internal energy” [U]? Is it individual photons? Or is it Q and W?
Are YOU a “thermodynamics guy”? It doesn’t appear that way.
Dave,
Feel free to read this comment to see where I’m coming from:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/comment-page-1/#comment-2491821
Kristian wrote, “Do you seriously believe that IR photons from the cooler atmosphere actually do directly raise the temperature of the already warmer surface!? Yes or no? Do they?”
Yes, they do. A 2nd Law guy would know that.
Kristian also complained, “IN WHAT WAY is it nonsense? You’re just asserting things. You’re not substantiating. You’re not explaining.”
Very well. Here are some explanations, by Dr. Roy Spencer in July 2010 & April 2014, mark4asp on April 30, 2017 at 9:44 am, Frank on May 1, 2017 at 11:58 am, Ed Bo on April 30, 2017 at 9:02 am & May 1, 2017 at 10:38 pm, commieBob on April 30, 2017 at 8:55 am, Roger Sowell on April 30, 2017 at 9:09 am & May 1, 2017 at 6:28 pm, davidmhoffer on April 30, 2017 at 1:16 pm & April 30, 2017 at 2:02 pm, matthewrmarler April 30, 2017 at 8:05 pm, MarkW on May 1, 2017 at 8:03 am, and me on October 26, 2016 at 11:24 pm.
daveburton says, May 3, 2017 at 6:17 pm:
Hahaha! Wow. Just wow. Thanks for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, Dave, that you do not understand at all how a radiative thermal exchange works. Er, no, Dave. They don’t. They most certainly don’t. A 2nd Law guy would KNOW they don’t. I mean, I still can’t believe you’re actually being serious here …
But perhaps you could enlighten us all by explaining HOW exactly it is that IR photons from a cooler atmosphere, directly and all by themselves, are in fact able to raise the temperature (+U → +T) of the already warmer surface?
Did you get my simple questions to you, BTW?
Do you know the difference between HEATING and INSULATION? Do you understand the difference between INCOMING, OUTGOING and NET heat? What is it that affects (as in changes) a system’s “internal energy” [U]? Is it individual photons? Or is it Q and W?
And did you read my explanation to Frank here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/#comment-2491821
*Sigh*
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You haven’t even tried to find out what I’m actually saying. And you’re accusing me of ‘not wanting to find out about things’!
This is precisely why I posed you the questions above (in boldface).
Especially this: Do you understand the fundamental distinction between HEATING and INSULATION?
And the photons emitted by the elements involved, don’t care what they are! All solids above absolute zero radiate photons. Photons carry energy. Anything that intercepts a photon collects that energy, even if only for a fraction of a second. Cold objects emit fewer photons, but they still emit photons.
Thermodynamics was created before Einstein’s paper on photons, that turned out to be a description of thermodynamics. But it also showed photons are exchanged between colder objects to warmer objects, where heat is only one way. different descriptions of the same macro effect. One at the quantum level the other from the macro level, both when used properly give the same answer.
micro6500 says, May 4, 2017 at 5:51 am:
True. So why do YOU care? We are human beings. We live in a MACROscopic world. In our world the principles of THERMODYNAMICS are what applies, not the principles of QUANTUM MECHANICS. The only way for our macroscopic brains to get from the chaotic quantum (MICROscopic) realm and its individual photon emission, scattering and absorption events to the thermodynamic (MACROscopic) realm and its radiative fluxes/transfers is through statistics (probabilistic averaging). And as you employ these statistical (mathematical) methods, you effectively make all individual photons disappear; they rather merge into an ordered macroscopic pattern, much like with photo-engraving, when zooming out from the individual dots to a full and understandable image. Then you find a power density flux. A net movement of radiant energy through the radiation field. The net of ALL individual photon movements (frequencies and directions) through each and every point in space, at each point in time.
Look, you cannot justify a claim of a strictly THERMODYNAMIC effect (like a rise in U and T) by invoking a fundamentally QUANTUM MECHANICAL phenomenon, which doesn’t pertain to things like temperature and pressure in the first place. AT ALL. You say photons don’t care whether they come from a cool place or a warm place. True. But then they also don’t care which way the NET movement of radiation through the field BETWEEN those two places goes. Or at what end a rise in U and T occurs and at what end a drop in U and T occurs.
Photons don’t NEED TO care about these things! WE do! Because WE’RE the ones who WANT to understand the causal links operating inside the Earth system. And IF we want to know and understand such things with regard to the temperature of the Earth, then it is CRUCIAL to know the fundamental distinction between HEATING and INSULATION.
No one’s saying they’re not. But that’s not the issue. The surface T drops at night. It might drop fast or it might drop slow. But it does drop. The surface actually COOLS. This is all you need to know to understand that IR photons from the atmosphere are not able – directly and all by themselves – to raise the surface T.
The surface receives and absorbs huge amounts of photons from the atmosphere throughout the night. So why, then, does the surface U and T still drop? Why are these incoming IR photons not able to raise the surface T?
Care to take a guess?
I’ll help you along with a simple analogy:
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lies, say, two dimes. Two people are standing on either side of your hand, one holding a single dime, the other one nothing at all. (The two people are really just one; they simply represent the dual nature of the exchange at hand. You’re the surface, the two people are the atmosphere, and the dimes are photons.)
Here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your hand, at the very same moment as the other one grabs the two that were there already, removing them from your hand. That is, these two actions/operations happen simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
People have a tendency to look at and interpret ONE event at a time. Theoretically. Mathematically. And that’s where they get confused. They analyse its effect IN ISOLATION from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. They only look at the photon absorption and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that there are (two) SEPARATE thermodynamic effects (an actual change in U and T) being caused by (two) SEPARATE thermodynamic processes. There aren’t. There is just the one.
The NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t give the surface ANY energy at all (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
No. The branch of physics connecting the quantum and the thermo realm is “statistical mechanics”. Like I pointed out above. There are no individual photons to be seen in a probabilistic average. We know the photons are THERE, but we don’t need to know the whereabouts of each any every one of them. In fact, we couldn’t know. That’s precisely WHY we need statistics in this case.
Yes, and that “same answer” is that IR photons from a cooler atmosphere CANNOT – directly and all by themselves – raise the temperature of the already warmer surface. It’s that simple. They could only do it if the air above the surface were actually … WARMER.
The atmosphere INSULATES the surface of the Earth, it doesn’t HEAT it. The SUN is what’s heating it. Because it is HOTTER than the surface, the atmosphere is NOT.
That’s all I’m saying. If we could all just agree to this simple fact, then we could perhaps move on to more constructive discussions.
Thermodynamics is a specific subset of quantum electrodynamics for blackbodies. The reason it might matter is cooling rates do change, and treating it all as blackbody spectrum is naive.And for the same reason, a number of the the processes involved in this energy ballet are line emitters and receivers, and they definitely are not BB’s.
Fast or slow is the question, and it’s both on the same night. And there isn’t huge amounts of photons from the atm throughout the night all over the world, most are from water, and it changes. And it still drops at times, because the sky is so cold.
Can you agree with this?
micro6500 says, May 4, 2017 at 11:38 am:
Huh!? Please elaborate …
What in the world does this have to do with anything?
Yeees. But it’s still COOLING, micro. The temperature still drops. Hence, there is still a LOSS, and only a loss, in U. Which means the IR photons from the cooler atmosphere CANNOT raise the T (and U) of the warmer surface, directly and all by themselves.
Why do you think that is, micro?
I haven’t said anything to the effect that there cannot be “reduced cooling rates”. What I’ve said is that the T can’t be seen to go UP. Because you can’t get a rise in T from reduced cooling rates alone, only from “increased heating rates” …
How is this in any way relevant to the issue we’re discussing …?
Agree with what? That there are fewer “sky photons” in some locations than in others? Well, I guess we can agree on that, yes. But so what?
Michael Moon “The energy in the atmosphere comes from the SUN…”
…via the planet SURFACE. Once re-radiated from the surface and if reabsorbed in the atmosphere, it does no further work. It merely replaces the energy lost to space as it thermalises to support atmospheric volume via temperature.
Radiation in the atmosphere is a consequence of radiative gas. It is a conduit of cooling. It thermalises to maintain the S-B law relationship of Th^4-Tc^4 (where Tc is the background temperature of space).
ssat wrote on May 1, 2017 at 4:34 am, “It is [incoming radiation] which has performed the work done on raising the altitude of the centre of mass of the atmospheric column with changes in radiative gas concentration.”
Eh? “Work done on raising the altitude of the centre of mass of the atmospheric column”? I have no idea what you’re getting at. Is that an oblique reference to the (disproved) “gravity induced temperature gradient” theory?
ssat continued, “The radiation from radiative gases within the atmosphere is a conduit for distribution of incoming energy for conversion to temperature.”
I’m pretty sure that doesn’t make any sense at all.
ssat continued, “Carbon dioxide does not modify the Lapse rate.”
Ask Google about that:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lapse+rate+feedback%22
ssat continued, “Re-radiation from carbon dioxide does no work on the atmospheric column. You are chasing your tail.”
Huh? How is Mike “chasing his tail?” He said nothing about CO2 doing “work on the atmospheric column.”
Later, on May 2, 2017 at 1:28 pm, ssat wrote, “Radiation in the atmosphere… thermalises to maintain the S-B law relationship of Th^4-Tc^4 (where Tc is the background temperature of space).”
That doesn’t make any sense, either. Radiation “thermalizes” when it is absorbed by matter, and the S-B Law governs emission of radiation, not absorption. It has nothing to do with the background temperature of space, either (which, itself, is as tenuous a concept as space, itself, is tenuous, since a true vacuum has no temperature, and space is mighty close to a true vacuum).
None of what you’ve written seems to make any sense, ssat.
@Dave Burton “None of what you’ve written seems to make any sense, ssat.”
Let’s look at the points you raise;
1. To start or increase a greenhouse effect, there has to be a temperature increase in the atmospheric mass (by definition). That increases atmospheric volume. There is work done on the mass of the atmosphere as its (column) centre gains altitude.
2. At steady state (dynamic equilibrium), some energy enters the atmosphere via re-radiation from the surface. It is energy being lost to space. Via collision induced absorption and emission, that energy flows upward and outward. It is doing no work: the atmosphere is not expanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision-induced_absorption_and_emission
3 & 4. You may be following the idea that, with additional CO2, the effective height for CO2 radiative cooling to space increases to an initially colder level so leading to a slight increase in forcing. That can be seen to be insupportable by inspection of this diagram;
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
Which shows that as the average altitude of emission increases it takes its temperature with it. There is no reason to hypothesise that the lapse rate modifies in order to accommodate the idea of a radiative imbalance at TOA.
5. S-B law relates to temperature. A hot surface radiates to anything cooler around it. If you know the temperature of each then you can calculate the radiative power of the hot relative to the cold. For Earth > space the temperatures are 255K and 2.6K respectively. (Google “average temperature space”). The 255K is derived from this equation although 2.6^4 is small relatively and usually ignored. That doesn’t negate the validity of the Thot^4 – Tcold^4 relationship.
Taking them in reverse order…
5. A hot surface does not “radiate to anything cooler around it.” It simply radiates, without regard to anything around it.
The “average temperature of space” is completely irrelevant, and not just because a hard vacuum doesn’t radiate. An object at a certain temperature radiates no differently whether it is surrounded by the deep vacuum of space or immersed in hot oil (until the object’s own temperature changes, of course).
There is no “Thot^4 – Tcold^4 relationship.” Don’t take my word for it, look up the S-B law.
The only person I know who makes that mistake is PSI”s Joe Postma.
ssat, are you Joe Postma?
.
3 & 4.. That diagram does not show the statement to be “unsupportable.” The diagram i perfectly consistent with the statement.
Lapse rate modification is not hypothesized “in order to accommodate the idea of a radiative imbalance at TOA.” In fact, lapse rate feedback is negative, reducing greenhouse warming.
.
2. Re: “energy enters the atmosphere via re-radiation from the surface. It is energy being lost to space. Via collision induced absorption and emission, that energy flows upward and outward.”.
“Via collision induced absorption and emission” is a non sequitur..
When radiation from the surface is lost to space, it’s not absorbed or emitted by anything.
When radiation from the surface is absorbed by radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, it warms the atmosphere.
Heat energy in the atmosphere is continually being transferred between air molecules, via collisions.
Sometimes a radiatively active molecule gives up its energy by emitting a photon, before it has a chance to lose the energy by collision with another air molecules. Such emission is either reabsorbed by other radiatively active molecules in the atmosphere, or it leaves the atmosphere (which cools it).
.
1. Have you attempted to calculate that work?
“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” -Peter Drucker
I’ve never seen anyone else mention it, and my intuition suggests it is negligible. But sometimes my intuition is wrong.
Hey, Burton. Just upthread you’ve directly accused me of being a “Sky Dragon Slayer” who doesn’t “want to find out anything, and (…) never, ever, apologize.” By association, I am apparently also “not a 2nd Law guy”, but rather one “who doesn’t understand” it.
I have asked you specifically to back up these accusations. What is it exactly that make me a “Sky Dragon Slayer” and “a guy who doesn’t understand the 2nd Law”? And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that I “don’t want to find out anything” and “never, ever, apologize”?
Have you got the decency (and guts) to explain?
OK, again;
5. There is always something around a hot surface. Even if that is space. Nothing exists in pure isolation unless, of course, you know the boundaries of all stuff?
3 & 4. S-B relates to emissive power. For a black body in isolation that power is the Boltzman constant x temperature to the fourth power. As Earth does not fit that description then the working form of S-B applies which is that the effective radiating power is the emissivity x Boltzman constant x the difference in their temperatures to their fourth powers. Therefore, there is a Thot^4 – Tcold^4 relationship in any practical application of S-B.
If you don’t think lapse rate modification is not hypothesized in order to accommodate the idea of a radiative imbalance at TOA, then why do you link to statements that say it does? viz;
“Greenhouse warming is generally expected to slightly reduce the average temperature vs. altitude lapse rate, disproportionately warming the atmosphere at higher altitudes, in the tropics. That should increase radiative energy losses to space, thus reducing overall warming.”
There is also this from your earlier link, same author;
“The effective height for CO2 radiative cooling to space increases to an initially colder level so leading to a slight increase in forcing. This slight forcing at the surface must also lead to more evaporation from the ocean reducing the lapse rate…”
2. Not a non-sequitur at all. Energy radiated from the surface is energy lost to space. It has been absorbed, delivered the energy demanded of it and makes its way outward. At steady state, it does no work on its way: if absorbed by a radiative gas, it replaces energy lost from TOA. However many CIA’s and CIE’s it goes through.
Now, if a radiative (greenhouse) gas is added, work will be done in expanding the atmosphere as temperature has increased. There will be a radiative imbalance leading to heating. That will end with a greater greenhouse effect once radiative balance has been attained.
1. “Have you attempted to calculate that work?”
It is not necessary to calculate the start of a GE. It is evidential;
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an IR radiative gas. Add a few molecules of CO2 to a pure nitrogen atmosphere: both the surface and the CO2 will radiate to space and the average altitude of that outgoing radiation would be from just above the surface. Add more CO2 and the average altitude of that radiation increases.
A Greenhouse Effect (GE) exists if the average bottom atmospheric temperature is greater than the average temperature of radiation escaping to space. The magnitude of the GE is the temperature difference between the two. At greater altitudes that magnitude is less. The phenomenon of temperature diminishing with altitude is termed Lapse Rate.
Can I remind you that calculation of GE has led to overstatement of it. Specifically that DWIR is a contributor when it is merely a consequence.
Kristian, I’ve replied here.
Dave says: “To purchase an item at the store, I gave the cashier $20 and he gave me $15 in change.”
Kristian says: “No, no, no! That’s incorrect! You paid $5 for the item!
Kristian — This logic is where you veer into (or at least close to) Slayer territory, and I can see why Dave lumps you in with Postma et al.
In an earlier comment you say: “So all talk of photons from the atmosphere somehow heating/warming the surface directly and/or directly causing an increase in evaporation rates is thoroughly misguided.”
To anyone who understands the underlying physics, the energy in the absorbed photon serves to increase the energy of the absorbing body, leading to a higher internal energy in the body than if the photon were not absorbed — just as change from the cashier leads to a higher “wealth” for the purchaser, compared to getting no change back (for the same amount proferred).
This is a perfectly valid way of analyzing the phenomenon, and it is frankly the best way of explaining the underlying physics, but you always insist that it is completely invalid. No wonder so many people think you are no better than Postma or Cotton!
Now, I view you instead as a devotee of the 18th Century caloric theory, regarding heat flow as a physical substance in motion. But we have understood for 200 years that there is no actual caloric. Sometimes it is a convenient shorthand to talk about it as if it were a real substance flowing, but you improperly reify it.
Since the mid to late 19th Century, we have understood radiant heat transfer as an exchange of two radiant energy flows, tied together ONLY by a common geometry (the path EMR takes from Point A to Point B is the same as EMR takes from Point B to Point A). Now, it is more common to talk about the individual flows as radiant energy fluxes, with the difference being the (metaphorical) heat flux, but Clausius referred to them as the “ascending and descending transmissions of heat”. Just a slight semantic shift since then.
Just as a cashier must understand the underlying principles of a purchase to grapple with the gross transfers of money proferred and change given, a scientist must understand the gross transfers of radiant energy. To say that this is incorrect, as you do, is nonsense, or at best sophistry.
3. & 5.
ssat wrote, “… effective radiating power is the emissivity x Boltzman constant x the difference in their temperatures to their fourth powers.”
Wrong. There’s no “difference in temperatures.” There is only the source temperature.
Also, neither of those statements that you quoted suggest that “lapse rate modification is… hypothesized in order to accommodate the idea of a radiative imbalance at TOA,” (and they are not by the same author).
Pay attention to what Trick told you.
2.
ssat wrote, “…Energy radiated from the surface… has been absorbed, delivered the energy demanded of it and makes its way outward.”
Huh? That makes no sense at all.
1.
I retract my suggestion that if you think that the work done lifting the altitude of the center of mass of the atmosphere is significant, when the atmosphere warms due to the greenhouse effect, you need to quantify it.
You do not need to quantify it. It cannot possibly be significant, because it occurs just once for any temperature change. There’s zero “lifting work” done holding the atmosphere at any temperature, so it cannot affect equilibrium warming from greenhouse effect or any other forcing, at all.
if you follow the high and low cooling rate lines to where it would cross the line showing where the sun came up, and it’s about 18F,hardly insignificant.
The entire atmosphere is constantly overturning so that significant work is being done all the time. That work requires 33k above S-B to sustain it
ssat said, May 3, 2017 at 12:25 pm:
daveburton responded, May 3, 2017 at 6:44 pm:
P/A (the term on the lefthand side of the S-B equation, the “thing” we want to find) is always the effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy away from a warm object into cooler surroundings (or the effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy to a cool object from warmer surroundings). This is the “net LW” or the “radiative (heat) flux”. P is “power” [Watt = J/s] and A is “area” [square metre]. That’s power per area or W/m^2.
How, then, to derive this effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy mathematically? Well, Stefan and Boltzmann found out already back in the 19th century. On Josef Stefan’s take on this matter:
“After distilling the data from all of the sources, he [Stefan] concluded that for a body at 373K and another at 273K, the radiative power was 697.8 W/m^2, although he was not terribly confident in the result. He noted that this analysis had a “hypothetical nature and reasoned support for [it] was impossible, so long as measurements are not made of radiation to surroundings at absolute zero, or at least a very low temperature” (translation from Dougal). Although Stefan himself never computed a value for the proportionality between the radiative power and the differences in the temperature to the fourth power, based on his deduced heat flux between the two bodies mentioned above, it can easily be determined to be 5.056 *10^-8 W/m^2 K^4.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222604898_Josef_Stefan_His_life_and_legacy_in_the_thermal_sciences (p. 799)
And, more directly:
“The absolute amount of energy radiated by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of the body’s emitted radiation over that simultaneously absorbed by it, the latter dependent on the energy radiated to it from its surroundings. If you, however, have the relationship between temperature and heat radiation established in a formula, you can use this to derive a value for the absolute amount of the body’s emitted energy. But such an absolute amount is only hypothetical in nature.”
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf (p. 411)
The basic version of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation looks like this:
P/A = σ T^4
where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, basically the (invariable) radiative heat transfer coefficient.
This is what it looks like when the temperature/radiation of the surroundings can be ignored in the calculation, as Stefan puts it above: “(…) radiation to surroundings at absolute zero, or at least a very low temperature”. This is a situation where the object under study can be considered a “pure radiator”, because its own emissive power (determined only by its own temperature) is essentially equal to the effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy away from it (the “net LW”, the “radiative (heat) flux”):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html
However, in most real-world situations, this simple version is not sufficient to calculate the radiative transfer. Why? Because the ambient temperature (and/or the temperature/radiation of “opposing” objects/surfaces) can’t be ignored without significant error – it is simply too close to the temperature of our object/surface.
Hence, you need to include a term for the “opposing” temperature/radiation:
P/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
P/A is still the effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy from the warmer object to the cooler surroundings (“net LW”, “radiative (heat) flux”), but now it is no longer equal to the emissive power of our object itself, no longer determined by the temperature of our object only. It is rather determined by the temperature DIFFERENCE between the object and its surroundings.
So ssat is absolutely correct on this particular point, and Burton is just being silly and stubborn.
BTW, the “net LW” can also be “net SW” (when considering e.g. the Sun). So really the “net EMR”.
Ed Bo says, May 3, 2017 at 6:22 pm:
No wonder indeed. It’s because people like you, who OBVIOUSLY haven’t read and understood what I actually write, insist on making up their OWN straw man versions of my position on this issue, based rather on their preconceived ideas of what someone like me (an apparent “contrarian”) SHOULD be saying about these things.
OF COURSE a constantly heated object will be forced to become warmer on average if you INSULATE it. Insulation is a “thing”. It works. It doesn’t violate any laws of thermodynamics.
But that’s not what I’m talking about here at all. You’ve missed my point. Here’s my very first comment on this thread. The reason I entered the fray is only because of something specific being stated by Mike Jonas, the author of the OP:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/30/sun-cloud-ocean-update/#comment-2490428
It should be rather clear from this that I am NOT in any way claiming that the presence of the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated global surface of the Earth doesn’t somehow contribute to the fact that the average steady state temperature of this surface is waaaay higher than that of the lunar surface. I’m not even addressing this circumstance.
Kristian:
Oh, I understand what you write, and the fact that it’s nonsense! At best, you simply have a semantic disagreement — which you immediately undermine with your own sloppy writing.
When Mike and Dave talk about photons from a lower-temperature source “warming the ocean”, they are saying that the ocean will be warmer absorbing these photons and their energy than if there were none of these photons hitting the water, OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (such as a separate [solar] source).
This is undoubtedly true (unless you deny the 1st Law — where does the energy in these photons go?)
So when you say, “So the energy carried by the incoming photons CANNOT directly produce a rise in ocean surface T…”, you are completely wrong from the perspective of adding this energy to a system that did not have it, but did have an separate power source. Sl*y*rs claim this as well — that was Dave’s point.
And you maintain the same semantic confusion when you try to make an ironclad distinction between “insulation” and “heating”. If I (with a body surface temperature of ~35C) am out in an ambient of 10C, I put on a jacket. With it’s high thermal resistance (“insulation”), it allows the clothes in contact with my skin to be at about 25C, and the energy my skin receives from this 25C covering (both conductively and radiatively) permits me to maintain my body temperature given my metabolism.
This is true even though the energy transfer from my skin to my coverings is greater (satisfying the second law). But the resulting net transfer is less than if my skin were in direct contact with 10C ambient.
The better the insulation, the higher the temperature of the objects my skin is in contact with, and the more energy I receive from these objects. These are inextricably tied together.
If all you have is a semantic dispute with these people who describe the same phenomenon differently from how you would, it’s really tiresome and a waste of everyone’s time.
+1
What complicates things, is many of the emitters that are tied to climate science are not black bodies, but line emitters that operate under their own rules. While you can quantify the beam power in w/m^-2 as you would a BB (which is useful to do), they are not thermal emitters exclusively, and classical thermodynamics buries the spectrum and duty cycle in an average.
Kristian wrote, “P/A (the term on the lefthand side of the S-B equation, the “thing” we want to find) is always the effective thermodynamic transfer of radiant energy away from a warm object into cooler surroundings.”
Wrong.
It is the radiant energy emitted by a black body radiator. It has nothing to do with the object’s surroundings.
Kristian wrote, “This is what it looks like when the temperature/radiation of the surroundings can be ignored in the calculation, as Stefan puts it above: ‘(…) radiation to surroundings at absolute zero, or at least a very low temperature’.”
You’ve misunderstood his meaning. He was describing the challenges of measuring it, only. Emission has nothing to do with surroundings.
Kristian wrote, “However, in most real-world situations, this simple version is not sufficient to calculate the radiative transfer. Why? Because the ambient temperature (and/or the temperature/radiation of “opposing” objects/surfaces) can’t be ignored without significant error – it is simply too close to the temperature of our object/surface.
Hence, you need to include a term for the “opposing” temperature/radiation:
P/A = σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)”
That’s nonsense.
There is no “opposing” temperature. Radiation from other sources can make measurement of your emitting object’s radiation challenging or impossible, but it doesn’t change that radiation.
What do you think “A” is, in the equation, P/A = σ T^4 ?
It stands for Area: the surface area of the emitting object.
Even if you wanted to calculate the difference in radiative emissions between an object and its surroundings (which is pointless, but seems to be more or less what you are trying to do), the surface area of the emitting object is not the surface areas of its surroundings. They have nothing to do with one another. You can’t just pretend that they are the same, combine the two equations, and factor out “A” from both, as you have done.
What’s more, greenhouse gases do not resemble black body radiators. Not only are their emission spectra wildly different, there is no “A”.
For an atmospheric gas, the closest analogue to the “A” in the S-B equation is the amount of the gas in the atmosphere: the partial pressure of the gas multiplied by its volume.
The radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere is proportional to both the product of the fourth power of the temperature and the partial pressure of the CO2. When the partial pressure is zero, so are the radiative emissions.
What do you think the radiative emissions are from deep space? It is believed that in some regions of space the vacuum is so hard that there are as few as ten atoms of anything per cubic meter of space. What do you think P/A is for that?
Ed Bo says, May 5, 2017 at 6:50 am:
Hehe, I’m afraid you don’t, Ed. It’s not enough just asserting that you do. You have to show it too. You don’t.
Case in point. You don’t understand. This subject obviously confuses you profoundly, even though you seemingly try your best to come off as some kind of authority.
If you think this is all about semantics, Ed, then you are truly confused. Then you simply aren’t able to fully grasp what this discussion is about. There’s a thing called “cause and effect”. When you describe the thermal interaction between the surface and the atmosphere the way you and Mike and Dave do, then you’re completely losing track of cause and effect in the Earth system. You’re confused without knowing you’re confused. So this issue surely runs deeper than pure “semantics”.
Of course it’s true. But you still forget that it is only the DIFFERENCE in photon absorption and emission events that determines the radiative effect on surface U (and T). You can’t look at photon absorption events in isolation and draw conclusions about changes in surface U and T. Just as you can’t look at photon emission events in isolation. You have to look at BOTH at the same time. It’s all one single, integrated process. If you focus all your attention on just one side of it and ignore the other, you can’t know what’s happening THERMODYNAMICALLY (that is, with the surface U and T).
You appear unable to understand this basic fact, Ed.
What’s more, these guys aren’t actually saying what you CLAIM they’re saying. They are actually saying – in plain words – that the IR photons from the cooler sky – directly and all by themselves – cause the temperature of the already warmer surface to rise, or they likewise cause an increase in evaporation. This is – in thermodynamics – called HEATING. Only the Sun does this. Because the Sun is warmer than the surface. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface. And so cannot heat it. It IS heated. By the surface.
All the empirical evidence you need in order to understand that individual IR photons from the atmosphere can and do not have the ability to increase the U, and thus the T, of the surface below, is to observe what happens at night. The surface COOLS. Its T drops. Hence, there is a consistent LOSS, and only a loss, in U, “internal energy”.
What the IR photons from the atmosphere CAN do is “reduce the cooling rate” of the surface, by making the net loss in energy per unit time from the surface, as the night passes, smaller. However, the surface is STILL cooling. Its temperature STILL goes down. There is STILL only a LOSS in U. There’s no gain anywhere. There’s potential gain. But the potential is never realised. Because the photon exchange is simultaneous, instantaneous and continuous. And there are always more photons going OUT than coming IN. Statistically. Probabilistically. As long as the surface is warmer than the atmosphere above, that is …
You can’t get a rise in T from reduced cooling rates alone, only from “increased heating rates” …
That’s the fundamental difference between “heating” and “insulation”, Ed. Heating raises the T of a system by increasing the direct GAIN in energy (+Q_in → +U). In the Earth system, this mechanism is represented by an increase in the solar heat at the ToA (+ASR). Insulation, however, does it the other way around. It can also potentially raise the T of the system, by it would be accomplished rather INdirectly, by reducing the LOSS of energy (–Q_out → +U). In the Earth system, this mechanism is represented by a reduction in OLR at the ToA (Earth’s heat loss to space).
An interesting distinction between the two warming mechanisms is this:
# An increase in HEATING will lead to an increase in heat loss over time, from the rise in T; +ASR → +T → +OLR.
# An increase in INSULATION, however, will not conversely lead to an increase in heating, but rather also to an increase in heat loss over time, from the rise in T; –OLR → +T → +OLR (assuming the ASR stays constant).
So you see the signature pattern of each mechanism. Over time, if T goes up as a result of an increase in the HEATING, then OLR should be observed to rise with the temps. If T goes up as a result of an increase in the INSULATION, however, the OLR should NOT be observed to rise over time, and certainly not at the same pace as the temps. It would merely, at each increment, rise back to where it were. From the rise in T. The warming mechanism, after all, is in the initial reduction in OLR.
Who’s the one using semantics in order to avoid sticking to reality, Ed? That’s you.
What you’re trying to say here is nothing but a jumbled mess. And you evidently don’t even understand why it’s a jumbled mess. Talk about being confused.
If the IR photons from the sky could indeed directly and all by themselves produce an actual RISE in surface T, then the surface T wouldn’t go down during the night, would it? It would … rise. It doesn’t. Why do you think that is, Ed?
We’re not talking about being warmer RELATIVE TO some other situation. We’re talking about one and the same surface being warmer (having a higher T) at t_1 than at t_0. +U. +T. Do you get what I’m saying? That’s direct HEATING. That’s NOT “reduced cooling”. Reduced cooling is how insulation works. They’re not the same thing.
I’m fully aware of the three-body exchange and how that works. But the specific claim here isn’t about the atmosphere + the Sun and what this combo will do to the surface T. The claim is distinctly that the IR photons from the atmosphere – ALONE and DIRECTLY – will raise the surface T. And/or its evaporation rate. Not RELATIVE to something else, but in ABSOLUTE terms, for the surface itself.
What is this nonsense!? I’m not trying “to make an ironclad distinction between “insulation” and “heating”.” There IS an “ironclad distinction” between them. They’re completely separate – in fact, opposite – thermodynamic processes. I’m sorry you can’t see this.
No, you don’t “receive” any energy from these objects, Ed. You might exchange energy with them, but there is NEVER any GAIN in your internal energy [U] from this particular thermal exchange. You’re not HEATED by these objects. You only LOSE energy TO them. Always. IOW, you COOL to them. That’s the whole point. The increase in T comes from the energy from your body not being able to escape as readily to your surroundings as it would WITHOUT the extra clothes. Your skin is involved in TWO separate heat transfers at the same time, Ed. One is its Q_in (body core to skin), and one is its Q_out (skin to surroundings (whatever they might constitute)). The former is heating, providing a GAIN in U, while the latter is cooling, providing a LOSS in U.
If you could only stick to this coherent and consistent way of describing thermal interactions like this, you’d be fine.
Yes, but it is hot compared to the sky, just not as hot as the ground the Sun warmed is.
There are times under clear skies where it stops cooling.
I don’t really disagrees with your quote here, what I have tried to point out, it is IR photons that is the source of that slow down.
That is what my discussion is about, how this rate in temperature loss changes, significantly as air temp near dew point temp. And because it’s a temperature based change, that is how nonlinear regulators, regulate.
In your analogy, you still have 2 or 3 dimes in the palm of your hand when you look, but they are never the same ones.
Dave Burton,
It’s quite obvious that you seriously don’t understand this subject. And you’re only being silly and stubborn about it. Your last post here (May 5, 2017 at 8:39 am) is just too stupid to be commented on directly.
Look, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE in physics that you need to account for BOTH the T of the object under study AND the T of its surroundings in order to be able to find how much your object loses (or gains) per unit time via radiation as a result of its thermal exchange with its surroundings:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html
This is sooo basic. The fact that you obstinately refuse to admit even this fundamental piece of knowledge
just goes to show how silly, childish, and/or ignorant you really are.
Yes, the emission from EACH object is determined by their OWN temperature only (assuming they’re blackbodies). But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the (net) energy being transferred from the one to the other during the thermal exchange between them. Then what you need to know is their temperature DIFFERENCE …
This is not a matter of opinion, Dave. It’s just the way it is. And you will just have to live with it, I’m afraid.
”There is no reason to hypothesise that the lapse rate modifies..”
Of course not as fixed lapse rate was an assumption in constructing Fig. 1 as noted in the caption from Held, Soden 2000. Further on the authors remove that assumption: “ultimately because the moist adiabatic lapse rate decreases with increasing temperature.”
The moist adiabatic lapse rate is not the issue. The issue is the planetary average lapse rate. Usually referred to as the Normal lapse rate. If you hold albedo constant in calculation of GE then you must accept that, for any delta t, atmospheric water vapour is constant, cloud cover is constant and lapse rate is Normal.
“lapse rate is Normal.” Yes, not constant(T), your global avg. normal LR would vary with global avg. surface temperature as the authors write.
It cycles daily, especially on clear days and nights.
Fig. 1 is for climate Micro, not weather.
I’m not talking about weather.
?ssl=1&w=450
http://www.climatetheory.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/greenhouse-effect-held-soden-2000.png
I copied your picture to point out the text, I don’t think it is fixed. I know it actively regulate how much it cools over a pretty wide range, and because it regulates to a temperature, it just doesn’t turn the cooling down until a little later, but still arrives to nearly the same temp.
That’s why co2 doesn’t, and hasn’t caused the expected warming. Min air temps just follow dew point, and max air temp is limited over water by clouds and thunderstorms.
”I’m not talking about weather.”
Then your “It cycles daily” should be “cycles over 30+ years”.
Micro: ”I don’t think it is fixed.”
The authors: ”assuming a fixed atmospheric lapse rate.”
”That’s why co2 doesn’t, and hasn’t caused the expected warming.”
Actually the ~80year expected future surface warming from 1st principles and test due added CO2 ppm has been reasonably closely observed. Not exactly just reasonably as there are 9+ radiative forcings on climate all acting together with natural cycles, CO2 is only one of those RFs.
if you were validating your theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the troposphere, you wouldn’t wait for 30 years to determine field strength for that climate. You would find what effected field strength and then select for the worst case conditions and measure it. If your physical system of interest is a oscillator, you look at the limits of the environment parameters to determine the boundaries. Once you have a theory of operation, you can explore a wider set if conditions. Once you think you know what defines long term trends, climate, you can search your collected data to see if it violates these conditions over say 30 year periods (though still sort of dumb). Which is why I included data from the 40s on, showing minimum temp did follow dew points over a large set of station years. Confirmation of my hypothesis over climate scale time periods.
First the ipcc says it’s not likely measurable before the 50s, which happens to have recorded warmer global temps than now, when you look at the Air Forces daily station record summary. Of measurements, vs places never measured but included anyways.
Of the remaining period, temps went down until the mid 70s, went up some in the 80s, and again in 99-2000 with changes to the ocean cycles. Which also included a step in dew points, to which min temp just followed. Because the atm actively adjusts nightly, not as weather, but climate.
”Min air temps just follow dew point..”
There is nothing fundamental about that though on a clear day with light winds, it works well enough overnight to have been long usefully noticed.
Dew forms not at the air temperature, dew forms on surfaces (or it would not be visible as dew), so the temperature of those surfaces must drop below the temperature at which condensation of atm. water vapor equals evaporation from the surface. When this occurs, net condensation may become visible as dew. And that surface temperature is a big function of its net radiative night cooling rate toward the sky & surroundings as you must know.
That exact surface temperature at which dew forms, is not well defined either, at best only an approximation, a best guess. Even though the meteorological definition of air dew point IS well defined & commonly reported.
Micro 5:46pm, min. temp. and dew point correlation is long known in meteorology, to confirm your hypothesis you will need to show a fundamental 1st principle theory reason; none has been found to date AFAIK. If you can find & show one, you will have an original paper opportunity.
Top post EM energy balance is ~5yr.s mid-80s, Newer balances have now been published over 10+ years adding CIs.
I did. Read this.
What Determines the Nocturnal Cooling Timescale at 2 m
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjjqcaGt8XQAhVD9YMKHZ0iCa4QFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1029%2F2003GL019137%2Fpdf&usg=AFQjCNF8lW-CCS7EPxfpANvf5ZKO1PcNfQ
Then follow my name to the nonlinear cooling page. That’s what is happening, the transmission of energy at night from the surface to space is nonlinear , 2 parts. Absolute humidity is key to the high cooling rate below 50 or 60% relative humidity, and above that, rel humidity is key to the low rate. The range od cooling rates give reasonable gain, and since it is a temperature effect, it removes 70 or 80 % of the accumulate energy from co2 before it even slows the cooling rate down.
?? Search on dew returns 0 hits.
Did you read the pdf?
Micro, I skimmed the pdf looking for any mention of dew, there was none to be found so I computer searched it to confirm. The paper appears to just curve fit the data (I read the intro.), no fundamental 1st principle theory reason dew point and min. temp. correlation is found because the paper does not even mention dew. Perhaps you can be more specific.
They looked at both absolute humidity (dew point), and rel humidity, and found no correlation. They didn’t because it isn’t a linear correlation, it’s a nonlinear function, like what transistors have. In this case, I think the 2 cooling rates they are searching for in the paper are absolute humidity for the first curve, and rel humidity over 60% or so for the cause of the second curve, two different rates temps drop. I’ve seen this in my home weather station data, and the data they used for that paper. But I recognized it had 2 states, and you can’t run linear correlation code on nonlinear functions. They have surface net radiation data, which I don’t have, so I got their data, my graph (follow my name). Looked for the signs of a clear sky (smooth day time radiation and temp swings). What you see in the net radiation is there are two cooling rates, and they correlates to the rates temps drop. So the high cooling rate is ~55W/m^-2, and in the middle of the night under clear skies it drops to net ~15W/m^-2, and this switches at a specific temperature, is correlated to high rel humidity, just not low rel humidity. Because the switch is temperature based, the previous days max temp has a nonlinear correlation to the following mornings min temp. In other words adding a degree to yesterdays clear sky temp, doesn’t add a degree to this mornings min temp. And on days like I had here a week ago, it stopped cooling at 3 or 4 am, and it was clear out. The difference would be zero.
This is why co2 doesn’t do much. I think net radiation drops in part because the lower atm lights up in ir from condensing water vapor, and it does have a 15u emission line, and that could be like shining a flashlight on co2. Co2 might be making the switch better.
Really need full incoming and outgoing radiations, not just net, and spectrographs, not watt/m^-2. To see why it drops, I think there are multiple reason, but they don’t particularly matter as much as they stop cooling based on a reference temp (dew points ie absolute humidity level) when it should still be dumping full speed to space, the optical window is still frigged.
Thanks, interesting. My takeaway is as yet no fundamental 1st principle theory reason yet found for dew point and min. temp. correlation being long observed.
“Really need full incoming and outgoing radiations”
That data IS available at the NOAA ESRL met. station of your choice. You will want to read Feldman 2015 also as they use spectral measurements in the way you are discussing at 2 sites over a decade. You will find their existing work useful.
Sure, min temp run into it every clear night, and converts a lot to water. Dew points (ie water vapor) limits how cool it will get in some given number of hours. Cold air temps at night, far below the air temp that evaporated the water vapor into the air, some of it gets converted back to water. On land some gets lost to the water table. that why min temp has a nearly 98% correlation with dew point. There is a large change in the energy in a cubic meter of air at the surface, between max and min temp, but it seems to mostly just do what temp does. I don’t think there’s enough energy in condensing water vapor, but it does have the whole water column compressing as it cool to work with.
And back to LR, I think if you look at a full solar day, we’d see the LR operating in a full cycle, as a heat pump to warm(limit cooling) the surface at night.
It is also possibly an optical effect, as the atm fills up with trillions of spherical mirrors. Just because we can’t see ir, doesn’t mean there isn’t an ir fog.
But I go back to the net radiation, it’s dropping a lot based on air temperature, and then the spicket is turned almost off, on longer nights well before morning. There is little to no co2 warming after a night of clear sky cooling.
I’ll have to go look at that again, Thanks. I’ve learned a lot since the last time I was there.
The problem is at least with their paper, they filtered out water vapor. It is the working fluid in our atm (again where LR fits in). You’re not going to figure out long term climate, without figuring out how the non-weather daily cycle operates.
Yes, Feldman 2015 focused on the spectral signal from CO2, which you then could incorporate from the site closest your conditions as a reasonable known to figure against your investigation into the night IR glow total signal in order to isolate relative strength of humidity signal from that of CO2 IR glow.
I went and looked, the stations I found only has solar and long wave measured separately, and not spectrums (that I could find, if it is there, shoot me the link please).
So I would expect to see is that the integral of the energy from water vapor compared to the intergal of the energy from co2, that water would go down, when co2 goes up. But you have to account for the changes in the amount of water vapor.
I just noticed this, thought I should address it
While true, and it does matter as temps reach equilibrium, that’s not really what I’m talking about. I’m referring to air temp to dew point, fog is the end state, from a cooling under clear calm skies in the middle of the night, something related to this process is reducing the net cooling rate. There’s a lot of energy in a cubic meter of air that has to be lost to go from max temp to min temp, ignoring the surface. Heck it could just be all of the photons emitted, and then reabsorbed by another close molecule evaporating again. But you can see it in cooling rates, you can see it in net radiation, and you can see it’s effect on the correlation to min temp. It also explains why the NH got warm in 2000.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
First time you mentioned fog, you’ve been all about dew in this thread up to this point. Fog condensing out and dissipating is as interesting as dew forming, air dew point not so much.
It’s all part of the same process, though I accept your point.
I say dew because it happens long before fog happens, and if i mentioned fog peiople would expect to be seeing fog, and there isn’t anything visible.
But Surfrad detected it, it’s the increase in down welling (net drops to near zero) the entire time of min air temp.
Fog and dew are not the same (or they would have the same name), dew forms as f(solid surface temperature), fog forms as f(gas air temperature).
The records show 4/27 in State College was a clear, calm (1-3mph) night, high humidity (91%), stable barometer (29.8). There was likely dew forming on some solid surfaces with view of the clear sky. The DW increases after 3:00am concurrent w/added clouds as does the low (55 to 57 near 6am)* as sky is becoming overcast by 6:00am concurrent with a drop in surface humidity (to 88%). There was likely NOT fog forming.
Surfrad is showing the DW change concurrent with added DW radiation from water in clouds not near surface fog.
Later in the day after 6:00pm there were afternoon thunderstorms, which cause the perturbations shown later on.
*Of course some would say this increase in near surface air temperature is not possible overnight but there it is, recorded near 3am and 4am. Possible, no 2LOT violation. Only those that don’t look at weather records and/or do lab experiments fall into that trap.
I did not look at the weather report for that night in pa. But I have been outside under the clear calm skies that didn’t have any clouds, nor fog (while imaging galaxies), and yet the cooling rate slowed or stopped, and the original graph shows a similar reduction in net radiation, and other than a few clouds one afternoon the skies should have been mostly clear.
Find one of those then from surfrad: No clouds, weather shows clear all night, calm all night and yet the DW increases to zero net as in 4/27 chart you posted.
“A hot surface radiates to anything cooler around it.”
A hot surface also radiates to anything warmer around it. And a colder surface also radiates to anything warmer around it. Evidence: Penzias/Wilson picked up the faint intensity (your 2.6K brightness temperature) of the CMB radiation using an ambient horn antenna on the much warmer surface in the Spring of 1964 in New Jersey.
While you can tune to channel 7 (if it’s still dead space), with an analog tv, and detect some of the noise from the big bang (which points out how soon you won’t be able to do this, because digital will just show black), that’s a Dewar on their receiver, it’s cooled.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/michael.fletcher/penzias_wilson_10.jpg
Correct, thank you. But Tcold^4 – Thot^4 would be nonsense, if that was your point.
Yes, a dewar was used, good point Micro. That demonstrates how faint the intensity of the signal. The horn antenna at ambient concentrated the CMB faint raw intensity (in W/steridian) collected over a hemisphere of steridians and the dewar allowed that faint intensity concentration to be detected.
“But Tcold^4 – Thot^4 would be nonsense”
Not nonsense ssat, the minus vector on q would make good sense, would indicate the direction AND magnitude of net energy flux (depending on your arbitrary choice of coord. system).
“Not nonsense ssat…”
OK, accepted. I have evidently missed your point. Unless it was to support the 2.5 degK which daveburton, May 2, 2017 at 7:48 pm dismisses. In which case, thank you.
Its now tomorrow here. Goodnight.
My point is (if you return) that Fig. 1 is built assuming a constant LR in order to make an early less complex point. Later, the authors relax that assumption to more physical, more complex LR varies with surface deltaT for deltaCO2 keeping the total system energy constant as deltaCO2 cannot add to total system energy (delta CO2 burns no fuel). The lapse rate would start at the new deltaT at surface go thru same Teff at higher Z and rotate slope about that point for lower constant T in stratosphere as total system energy is held constant.
If you look at Fig. 1, total system energy increases with deltaCO2 (all LR z at higher T) which is not physical. Fig. 1 is just a simplification to illustrate their talking point.
Fair enough.
There is a daily pumping action around the Carnot cycle, at least that what it looks like, and it definitely has a big impact on daily minimum temp.
“…deltaCO2 cannot add to total system energy (delta CO2 burns no fuel)”
Delta CO2 adds to total system energy as it adds to the energy capacity of the atmosphere by raising the effective radiating level. That capacity is satisfied by IR from the surface. The GE is augmented by delta CO2.
If the Normal lapse rate is modified by delta CO2 then that is an additional effect. If it is not then that hypothesis is wrong. That can only be supported by accurate LR measurement wrt time. Where is that? However, should it show a change in Normal LR with increasing surface air temperature, the latter has been caused by altitude increase of ERL, it is not the cause of it. (delta CO2 is burnt fuel)
The elephant in this room is the hypothesis that DWIR from delta CO2 is GE cause and not that CO2 modifies the LR. Currently, both are only effects of greenhouse gas. Neither has been shown to be causative except in CO2-centric computer models.
Now, back to the day job. I have a deadline looming.
“Delta CO2 adds to total system energy..”
No, Delta CO2 only can move the sun’s energy around, to the lower atm. regions, from the upper regions.
“accurate LR measurement wrt time. Where is that?”
In the meteorological balloon data gathered daily. And sounding rockets.
“delta CO2 is burnt fuel”
The CO2 didn’t burn the fuel, only the sun burns a fuel for the main warming of earth total system.
@ur momisugly micro6500 May 3, 2017 at 2:03 pm: Tyndall’s demonstration apparatus re energy transfer has been used to claim that he proved cooler can heat hotter. But they never noticed, being sloppy, that the receiver was cooled internally by ice-water flow.
I have had it brought to my attention that the night to morning condensation-radiative loss-re-evaporation cycle can handle all energy input on its own, easily.
Any heated gas or evaporate leaves for higher places, starting instantly. making space for cooler gas, descending, and so on.
Brett, Tyndall’s apparatus included cold water flow not to the gases tested but in Tyndall’s words: “To prevent the heat of conduction from reaching the plate of rock-salt S” thru lab air at the end cap of his test chamber from the boiling water source.
A significant factor in ocean temperature (and weather) is the heat generated by the friction of the daily earthtide. I don’t see any provision for this in the models discussed here. Is that an intentional omission or an oversight?
To see the big picture, you have to start small. No electric force, no life as we know it.
“In Lesson 1, it was explained that atoms are the building blocks of matter. Furthermore, it was explained that material objects are made of different types of atoms and combinations of atoms. The presence of different atoms in objects provides different objects with different electrical properties. One such property is known as electron affinity. Simply put, the property of electron affinity refers to the relative amount of love that a material has for electrons. If atoms of a material have a high electron affinity, then that material will have a relatively high love for electrons. This property of electron affinity will be of utmost importance as we explore one of the most common methods of charging – charging by friction or rubbing.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/Lesson-2/Charging-by-Friction
“Paleomagnetic records indicate that the geomagnetic field has existed for at least three billion years. However, based on the size and electrical conductivity of the Earth’s core, the field, if it were not continually being generated, would decay away in only about 20,000 years since the temperature of the core is too high to sustain permanent magnetism.”
https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html
I thought this documentary was interesting.
For those who might pay attention to an authority, some would say THE authority, the following regarding radiant heat transfer calculations by NASA. In 1965. Abstract follows. The equations for radiant heat transfer are given, with detailed explanations. Discusses energy transmitted as photons with wavelengths. The numerous references that conclude the article are well worth reading. Some of the references are in the AIChE Journal, (American Institute of Chemical Engineers).
CALCULATION OF RADIANT HEAT EXCHANGE BY THE MONTE CARLO METHOD
by John R. Howell,
Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio
TECHNICAL PREPRINT prepared for Winter Annual Meeting
of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Chicago, Illinois, November 7-11, 1965
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1965
Technical Memorandum NASA TM X-52101
ABSTRACT: “Because of the complex nature of radiative heat-transfer calculations
in many practical cases, especially where surfaces are involved, the use of
digital computing machines becomes mandatory. It follows that methods that
take advantage of the assets of these computers should be utilized. The
Monte Carlo method is discussed as a means of solving radiative-transfer
problems, and the literature dealing with its application is reviewed. An
example problem is presented and discussed with regard to a Monte Carlo solution. Applications of the method to general problems in radiation are pointed out, and the areas where advantages over more conventional techniques exist are examined.”
Thanks to Mike Jonas for an insightful and serious post. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the fringers that frequent Principia aka the “Sky Dragon Slayers” and the lapse-rate-lunkheads ran amok.
Congratulations on derailing yet another thread with your junk science. I leave you with (besides closing the thread) this poem submitted by one disgusted commenter via email:
Sky Dragons:
The Second Law they twist and shove,
to slay their dragons from up above.
But this I know by actual test:
Use a blanket and you’ll shiver less.