I’ve held for a long time that there is a regulatory mechanism in the tropics that keeps the earth’s temperature within very narrow bounds on average (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the 20th Century). This mechanism is the timing and amount of the daily emergence of the cumulus cloud field, and the timing and emergence of thunderstorms.
Now, the current paradigm is that the sun rules the temperature, and our daily experience seems to bear that out. When the amount of sun reaching the surface goes up, the temperature goes up. This has led to the claim that the temperature must perforce follow the forcing in a linear fashion. For those interested in the math, the claim is that changes in temperature are equal to changes in forcing times a constant called the “climate sensitivity”. And much energy has been wasted trying to determine the value of that constant.
Despite hundreds of thousands of hours of both human and computer time dedicated to the quest, here’s the great progress that has been made:
Figure 1. Dr. Nir Shaviv’s comments on the history of estimates of the “climate sensitivity” parameter.
I hold that this stunning lack of progress is undeniable evidence that the underlying paradigm is flawed. As I said above, daily experience shows that the sun rules the temperature … but it turns out that while this is true on land, at sea things are quite different.
To show the difference, I looked at the correlation between sunlight striking the surface, and the temperature. Remember that a positive correlation means that the temperature and the sun are moving in the same direction, as the current paradigm insists. A negative correlation, on the other hand, means that they are going in opposite directions. Here’s a map of the globe showing the correlation between temperature and solar radiation at the surface.
Figure 2. Correlation between the solar radiation at the surface, and the surface temperature. This is calculated on a 1° x 1° gridcell basis.
There are several interesting things about this graph. First, it is easy to see why people have been fooled into thinking that the temperature slavishly follows the forcing. On the land, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, the positive correlation is nearly perfect—when the surface sun increases, the temperature goes up, and vice versa. It leads to the obvious but incorrect conclusion that it is a feature of the whole planet.
But in the tropical ocean, things are quite different. There, we find large areas of negative correlation, where when the sun is increasing the temperature is decreasing, and vice versa.
We have two choices in assigning causation in these areas. Either increasing tropical sunshine at the surface is driving the surface temperature down, which seems highly unlikely. Or, as I said above, increasing tropical temperature leads to increasing clouds, which reduces the amount of sunshine at the surface.
I’m gonna go with Choice B …
There is another interesting aspect of this graphic. We know that the reason that the Earth’s surface temperature is well above that predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is the poorly-named “greenhouse effect”. How can that be, if the temperature doesn’t follow the forcing as the climate paradigm states?
The answer is that other than in small isolated patches, this phenomenon doesn’t occur where the temperature is less than about 24°C. Below that, as the forcing goes up the temperature goes up as daily experience leads us to expect. So the greenhouse effect is able to warm up the planet … but only to a certain point. Beyond that, things start going the other direction.
Next, it is important to note the size of the phenomenon. A negative correlation between temperature and sunshine occurs over an area where no less than 17% of the sunlight is striking the earth. This is more than enough to serve as a thermoregulatory mechanism.
Finally, it is important to remember that this is not a static phenomenon. As temperatures increase and decrease these areas, the sun is moving in the opposite direction. This keeps the tropical temperature, and thus the global temperature, from getting either too hot or too cold.
My best regards to all. I’m still in the Solomon Islands, you’re welcome to read about my misadventures on my blog.
w.
My Usual Request: When you are commenting please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all understand just what you are talking about.
Further Reading:
The Thermostat Hypothesis 2009-06-14
Abstract: The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature.
The Details Are In The Devil 2010-12-13
I love thought experiments. They allow us to understand complex systems that don’t fit into the laboratory. They have been an invaluable tool in the scientific inventory for centuries. Here’s my thought experiment for today. Imagine a room. In a room dirt collects, as you might imagine. In my household…
Emergent Climate Phenomena 2013-02-07
In a recent post, I described how the El Nino/La Nina alteration operates as a giant pump. Whenever the Pacific Ocean gets too warm across its surface, the Nino/Nina pump kicks in and removes the warm water from the Pacific, pumping it first west and thence poleward. I also wrote…
Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet 2013-03-11
I’ve mentioned before that a thunderstorm functions as a natural refrigeration system. I’d like to explain in a bit more detail what I mean by that. However, let me start by explaining my credentials as regards my knowledge of refrigeration. The simplest explanation of my refrigeration credentials is that I…
The constant correlation range across the US seems peculiar. Maybe the graphic or approach is too “broad brush” for finer details, but I would have expected lesser correlations at high elevations.
The dynamic situation at the equator is not revealed in figure 2. The correlation is time-dependent, a fact that is not explored here.
The ‘cold tongue index’ shows, similar to Nino34, variability at the equator, not a static view, as implied by your figure 2:
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/data_sets/cti/cti18502011.gif
One thing that may be overlooked here is the effect of walker cell trade winds on tropical SSTs. Walker trades require a pressure differential from east to west along the equator and that doesn’t happen until the sun is high in the sky. Typical trades in Hawaii don’t occur until afternoon. So this always keeps temperatures rather comfortable during the day. (and remember, walker winds are easterly which means the cooler temps in the eastern pacific are drawn westward)…
Does it follow that testing this hypothesis would require collecting world-wide data on an impossibly small grid over several centuries or more? If so, case closed. Save some research money and move on to more important problems.
Willis Eschenbach December 15, 2017 at 12:06 am
Not sure what your graph is showing, but straight temperatures do not show anything unusual to me.
See eg
or
Just realize that the maximum temps outside the tropics lag the highest sun position with 1-2 months due to the very high heat storage capacity of water.
The correlation between the highest SST areas and the “negative correlation areas” looks near perfect to me.
Willis Eschenbach March 11, 2013 at 11:04 pm
In one of the linked post you commented:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/air-conditioning-nairobi-refrigerating-the-planet/#comment-1245696
Do you still believe that thunderstorms around the equator are capable of driving the Hadley circulation from the tropics to 30 N/S over thousands of kilometers or have you found the actual mechanism in the mean time?
The impolite continuation would be it is the Sun, xx, but I don’t think Willis wrote badly. Of course, there is no need for thunder as the driving force is not electricity but sunshine that the equator gets a lot, moist air increasing the latent heat that is freed in precipitation – not exactly always with thunder I guess. But I couldn’t imagine you need to take every word that literally. I guess Willis has a lot of experience on thunder at tropics, where I have more experience on skating under the ice. All knowledge on nature helps putting things in the right place and scale.
Now you apparently can be snarky to Willis who is supposed to be alarmist, right? – but can you be productive?
Hugs December 15, 2017 at 11:16 am
Thunderstorms is the word Willis used, but Cb’s or cumulonimbi is fine with me, as long as it is clear that they are not the driving force for the Hadley Circulation.
It would be more correct to say that that the thunderstorms and cumulonimbus clouds are an effect of the convection that drives the Hadley circulation.
Ben Wouters December 15, 2017 at 10:25 am
Thanks, Ben. Would we get Hadley cells in the absence of thunderstorms? Sure.
But they would be very weak and poorly defined. Thunderstorms take immense amounts of heat from the surface and use it to push air straight up to near the tropopause. Are you saying that they have no effect on the Hadley cells?
Each thunderstorm releases on the order of 10E+15 joules of energy over its lifetime of about an hour or so. This is about the same as one of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. There is a string of thunderstorms all along the ITCZ … do you believe that is NOT enough energy to drive the Hadley cells?
w.
Willis Eschenbach December 15, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Cb’s use all that energy to rise to their max altitude, so not much left for horizontal movement, maybe some during the creation of the anvil or near the ground as a microburst.
According Wikipedia the average radius of a Cb is 24 km. The distance between equator and 30N or 30S is 1800nm.
Hadley circulation is a thermal wind phenomenon, similar to the sea breeze, but on a much larger scale and includes the Coriolis effect that balances the horizontal pressure gradient force creating the sub-tropical jet.
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/sea/crc.rxml
I hope you weren’t seriously proposing that Cb’s near the equator are responsible for the sub-tropical jetstream 😉
You are aware of the state of hydrostatic equlibrium against gravity the atmosphere is in?
The reason for that most boring graph of climate sensitivity is all to do with psychology.
If they claim 2XCO2 is above 4.5 C no one will believe them.
If 2XCO2 is below 1.5 C then CO2 is mostly harmless and the money gets withdrawn.
In reality 2XCO2 appears to be around the 0.5 C mark from the empirical data, due to negative feedbacks via the water cycle as Willis alludes in his first paragraph. CO2 is therefore completely harmless.
Most of the warming last century was due to the Sun, apparently via cloud cover changes, and also the artificial choice of the IPCC “century” as 1906-2005. The latter added an artefact of about 0.3 C due to the 60 year cycle being at bottom in 1906 and peak in 2005.
One might call this the “band of funding”. And since funding appears to be virtually unlimited, of course it’s going to stay within that band.
comparing land to ocean shows net water + cloud feedback must be negative. must be. IPCC and mainstream need to see some grad student take this thru peer review.
compare land ocean fig 2. only plausible reason is water cycle is net negative feedback. as water cycle increases in volume net warming due to solar is decreased and eventually goes negative.
destroys IPCC assumption that water feedback is +3.
Fred, this has been shown emperically years ago in 2011, there is nothing “new” about it.
Emprical data can be found here.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.co.uk/
Unfortunately the graphs no longer show up and I am not sure what happened to Jonathan Lowe.
PS. great work Willis. collaborate and peer review. this throws a lot of consensus science on its heads.
Based on the Bowen ratio observed throughout the globe, oceanographers have known for several decades that the transfer of heat from surface to atmosphere is dominated by evaporation, whose effect usually exceeds not only radiation, but all other mechanisms COMBINED. Since evaporation, which is greatest in the tropics, ultimately leads to insolation-reducing condensation into clouds, the negative correlation shown here over the oceans comes as no surprise. The notion of “positive water-vapor feedback” postulated by “climate science” is little more than a piece of misguided imagination.
“But in the tropical ocean, things are quite different. There, we find large areas of negative correlation, where when the sun is increasing the temperature is decreasing, and vice versa.”
Choice C) There is negative correlation because of constant mixing of the ocean water is greatest around here for such a large surface area and cool water up-wells to the surface. Greater upwelling occur during La Nina’s similar to conditions like now and less upwelling occurs during El Nino’s. Warm surface ocean water is always flowing towards the western Pacific side. It is natures way of cooling the tropics constantly and warming other ocean currents as it is displaced.
http://physics.gallaudet.edu/OceanMotion/oscar/uvmean/spd/1992/06/spd06_19921021.png
“Current vorticity measures how strongly water swirls around on the surface. Positive (negative) vorticity indicates counterclockwise (clockwise) rotation of water. Vortices in flow indicate turbulence and they are important because it causes mixing of water.”
Therefore it is not either choice A or B, but rather choice B (minor) and C (major).
Why has choice C the most influence?
“Tropical variations in emitted outgoing longwave (LW) radiation are found to closely track changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During positive ENSO phase (El Niño), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Niña).
CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Niña conditions and a net cooling influence during El Niño.”
During La Nina’s the cold upwelling water cools the region by a few degrees centigrade despite decreased cloud levels over the area.
Thanks, Matt, but if the answer is “C) El Nino”, why is the exact same phenomenon of negative correlation occurring in the Atlantic, in the Indian Ocean, off the southern coast of Mexico, and even over a few of the wettest parts of the tropical land?
Also, the El Nino-La Nina phenomenon is constrained to a fairly narrow band along the equator, as your graphic clearly shows … but this phenomenon is much, much wider in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and crosses both the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at points.
Next, the water pumped by the El Nino-La Nina pumping action hits the coast/islands of Asia and splits to go north and south … but there is no sign of this in the Figure in the head post.
So no, I do not see how it could be Nino-Nina. Too many discrepancies.
w.
“and even over a few of the wettest parts of the tropical land”
I strongly agree. I happen to have visited both the SW Pacific and the Amazon basin repeatedly, and they have essentially identical climate regimes. Clear mornings, growing cumulonimbus clouds and a late afternoon cloudburst. It is this constant recycling of rainwater that allows the Amazon to have rainforest climate deep in the center of a continent.
However in the absence of a stabilizing ocean there is greater annual change in the Amazon basin. Most parts have at least a somewhat drier season which is probably the reason only parts of the area have a negative correlation.
I haven’t visited the Congo Basin for obvious reasons, but friends who have (on UN peacekeeping duties) describe exactly the same weather pattern there.
Not just tropical but subtropical. Florida also has regular PM rain.
Southern Florida is tropical. Am/Aw climate in the Köppen classification.
Tty,
The afternoon showers are more typical of central FL, ie Orlando.
I am not suggesting C is El Nino or La Nina.
C is referring to the same phenomenon below, but ENSO is just one of the causes in this part of the world. It is changes in ocean circulation allowing constant mixing of water and especially cold upwelling that contribute towards the negative correlation over ocean. I agree over a few of the wettest parts of the tropical land are majority B, still have influence from C.
[There is negative correlation because of constant mixing of the ocean water]
The answer is C) Changes in ocean circulation allowing constant mixing of water and especially cold upwelling.
Constant mixing of ocean water brings up cold water to the surface via upwelling.
Cold ocean currents in the Atlantic, Indian, west coast of North America towards southern coast of Mexico are causing most of the negative correlation.
http://staff.orecity.k12.or.us/steve.tebor/atm%20currents/current/images/world_circulation.jpg
“Also, the El Nino-La Nina phenomenon is constrained to a fairly narrow band along the equator, as your graphic clearly shows … but this phenomenon is much, much wider in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and crosses both the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn at points.”
The development of El Nino-La Nina often is much wider than the narrow band matching figure 2.
http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom-151101.gif
“Next, the water pumped by the El Nino-La Nina pumping action hits the coast/islands of Asia and splits to go north and south … but there is no sign of this in the Figure in the head post.”
The negative correlation becomes positive correlation after it hits the islands and splits N and S. The positive correlation is because of the warmer ocean being displaced via those directions.
The ENSO is just part of the big picture.
Although there is nothing special about it, the significance is when compared with below.
“CERES data show that clouds have a net radiative warming influence during La Niña conditions and a net cooling influence during El Niño.”
That shows more clouds during El Nino despite an increase in LW.
Therefore if B was the majority answer, how does a negative correlation occur with El Nino and increased LW?
The ENSO index (MEI) only represent a narrow strip much smaller than the actual size of ENSO surface ocean events so misrepresents it to some extent.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/01/what-causes-el-nino-warmth/
Matt, here’s a decent link where spencer covers some of the dynamics that you’re talking about. “Vertical mixing” is key here. In the tropics there is mixing during non el nino conditions. During an el nino, walker cell trades cease and along with it the vertical mixing. This strong mixing at the equator keeps SSTs cooler than they otherwise would be (as evidenced by the warmer el nino SSTs). And of course, there is the upwelling of cool water in the east that is blown westward by walker trades and to a lesser extent by hadley trades. Since walker trades are temperature dependent (due to pressure differential), the warmer SSTs are the faster they blow. Hence with greater warmth comes greater vertical mixing and greater eastern pacific upwelling (during non nino conditions)…
The entire peninsula gets the often daily rain in the wet season, and it is not always in the afternoon.
The daily rains typically begin in SE and SW Florida in April or May along sea breeze fronts (a lift mechanism that overcomes the stabilizing effect if the prevailing high pressure ridge.
Depending on the wind flow, the sea breeze land breeze interaction will create showers just off the East or West coast overnight, and these will move towards the coast and come inland as the sun rises and heats the land. Westerly winds bring rain in the morning to the West coast and these showers then creates an impulse of moisture and lift that propagates to the other coast, so the East coast gets it in afternoon.
More common east winds will bring showers ashore in the morning on the East coast, and the same thing happens in reverse, with afternoon showers to the Western side and also moving northward into central Florida.
Later In the rainy season, with the ground more saturated, and the air more humid and the sun a more direct angle for heating, they can start to pop up anywhere at any time.
Many factors influence the idealized pattern which is not what we actually see every day.
Ahead of tropical waves are zones of divergence and greater stability, and showers are suppressed, and behind the axis of the wave of low pressure the opposite occurs, and increase lifting, divergence and lifting enhance the chances of showers.
These morning storms along the coast move northward as the water warms all summer, and as the belts of moisture work into Central and Northern Florida. Rainy season in Central Florida usually does not start until June or so, and sometimes several weeks into the month.
On days with no storms or few storms, it stays very warm all evening and most of the night, and so the average temp for that day is higher than if big thunderstorms formed in midafternoon and it rained under the evening hours. While it is raining, we get our coolest temps of summer, and once the rain stops, it is mild and humid until morning, unless the rain dissipates before the sun has reached a low angle.
Days with rain are on therefore on average much cooler than days with no rain.
Storms sometimes sweep across the whole state, or form all at once across a wide area, and within a few minutes of the rain beginning thousands of square miles have transported an entire days worth of thermal energy aloft. It does not come back down.
The rain that falls is colder than the surface water that was evaporated and transpired and sucked up into the clouds, that is for sure.
Minutes to transport all of the heat, in the air, in the surfaces and materials on the skin of buildings, in all of the wood and leaves and branches and soil…everything is cooled down by hours of cold rain falling very hard.
Compared to all night long and it never cools down as much if it does not rain.
Convection is incredibly efficient at transporting energy along, to 45,000-50,000′ or more.
And even before the cumulus get big enough to build to the towering phase and the cumulonimbus phase, they are the visible evidence that convection is transporting heat from the surface to several thousand feet up, and warming the atmosphere at all levels in between.
Also, Matt, you say:
“Tropical variations in emitted outgoing longwave (LW) radiation are found to closely track changes in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During positive ENSO phase (El Niño), outgoing LW radiation increases, and decreases during the negative ENSO phase (La Niña).”
I don’t know where you found that but there is nothing special about El Nino-La Nina in that regard. In general outgoing LW increases with increasing temperature. So during El Nino when the ocean surface is warm you get more LW, and less during La Nina.
Tropical correlation of the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) and outgoing LW is 0.52, p-value = 0.001.
So that doesn’t support your hypothesis either.
w.
Robert W Turner December 15, 2017 at 10:09 pm
Robert, you’re still missing the point. Nobody said that it was “cooler during the day when it was sunny”. That has the causation backwards.
What I showed was a negative correlation between sunshine at the surface and surface temperature. What happens is that when the tropics gets warmer, clouds form earlier in the day, as do thunderstorms, and you get more of both. Both of these cut down the incoming sunlight. Net result is that when the tropics is warmer it gets less sunlight, which is the negative correlation I show in the head post.
You can also see this in the daily (10-minute) data from the TAO buoys that I linked to above. When the clouds form in midmorning, despite the increasing TOA sunshine, the temperatures actually drop. Go figure …
w.
Willis, you write
“But in the tropical ocean, things are quite different. There, we find large areas of negative correlation, where when the sun is increasing the temperature is decreasing, and vice versa.”
That is because sunlight penetrates the surface to a depth of 100 meters, but infrared is radiated from a depth of millimeters. So heat must be transported from where it is absorbed to where it is radiated by fluid convection, a relatively slow process that induces phase lags into the temperature record. The electrical analog would be a high value resistor below the surface but a low value above. Intense thermals caused by direct sunlight will reduce the above-surface resistance still further. Over land, the situation is entirely different.
pochas94 December 16, 2017 at 5:24 am
Thanks pochas. I don’t think that is true for several reasons.
First, fluid convection in the ocean is provided by nightly overturning. The ocean and atmosphere differ in that the atmosphere is heated from the bottom and the ocean is heated from the top. As a result, the atmosphere overturns once every 24 hours, during the day, and the ocean overturns the top layers once every 24 hours, at night. This is not a “slow process” as you say, it occurs daily, so there is little lag.
Next, the ocean radiates as much in 24 hours as it receives from downwelling radiation. If it did not, it would continue to heat.
Finally, if your theory were true, we’d see it at work all over the ocean and not just in the tropics.
Regards,
w.
Thermohaline circulation.
pochas 94 is correct.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 6:21 am Edit
Is that supposed to mean something?
Thanks for voting. However, science is not a democracy.
If you want to prove my statements about pochas’s claims wrong, then QUOTE WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG and tell us why. Saying the magical incantation “thermohaline circulation” does nothing for either the discussion or your reputation.
w.
“Thermohaline circulation.
pochas 94 is correct.”
Nonsense. Thermohaline circulation is something completely different. It is the circulation of cold arctic water through the deep oceans and has a circulation time of about 1000 years.
In past hothouse climates thermohaline circulation also included hot mid-latitude brines, which were salty enough to sink despite being warm, but at the present time this only happens in one single place with a very special configuration: the Mediterranean.
tty December 16, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Thanks, tty. I couldn’t be bothered to pick that particular spitball off the wall.
w.
Great Circular Reasoning.
In one sentence in response to this “Thus any back-radiation from the atmosphere is NOT heating some 70% plus of the planet.”
You say “However, if your claim is true, then why aren’t the oceans frozen solid?”
ie they need 400 W/m2 not to freeze.
And here you say “Next, the ocean radiates as much in 24 hours as it receives from downwelling radiation. If it did not, it would continue to heat.”
ie they have to radiate 400 W/m2 otherwise they would overheat
So if you take away the need for it to radiate the equivelent of the downwelling radiation why would it be frozen solid?
It would be in exactly the same state.
gnomish December 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
Nope. It is simple facts. The ocean gets about 170 W/m2 from the sun, measured by CERES satellite. It radiates about 390 W/m2, per Stefan-Boltzmann. What supplies the difference? I (and the scientific world) say downwelling IR, which is measured all over the world. You say … nothing.
fact: rocks are opaque to IR
SO WHAT? If that’s the best you can do in the way of mustering a cogent logical argument, you’re playing in the wrong arena.
w.
I (and the scientific world), don’t you mean and the AGW Climate Scientists?
As there are plenty of Scientists that disagree.
Downwelling Radiation or “Back Radiation” from a colder source cannot heat the Warmer Oceans.
In your last thread on heat exchange I was conducting simple Experiments to test all the things being said by yourself, Ed Bo, Paul & Tim. Unfortunately before I had finished the thread was closed.
As you know I showed that
1. 2 cooling objects of the same temperature did not warm each other, only slowed the cooling.
2. A cooler cooling object makes a warmer cooling object cool much faster.
3. A constantly heated object in atmosphere is also cooled by a colder object, not warmed.
4. The so called Slayer slaying Light Bulb test was completely the opposite and just to make sure I repeated it again.
I just couldn’t understand where I was going wrong.
Fortunately Ed & yourself pointed me to the energy transfer equations with worked examples & as Ed so rightly pointed out the equations did not refer to higher or lower temperatures with regard to transferring energy.
So I went through the examples and used the calculator that you pointed to and then reproduced the equations for myself.
Then I realised where I had been going wrong and it was so simple.
I actually thought that you, Ed, Paul & Tim knew what you were talking about.
Because you see there were no worked examples of cold objects sending energy to warmer objects, it just said the energy was absorbed by the hotter object.
In fact when you plug in the Earth Surface warming the CO2 just like the examples it works fine as does the Steel Greenhouse Sphere sending energy to the Shell.
However if you plug in the reverse, ie the energy from CO2 to the Surface or from the shell to the sphere what happens in both the long equation and the short equation? After all as Ed said the Equations don’t care about hotter & cooler do they, it is just energy transfer.
You get massive NEGATIVE ENERGY TRANSFERENCE that’s what.
So no positive warming energy photons.
So there was nothing wrong with my experiments after all, the warmer object absorbed the negative energy and no warming took place, just cooling.
Can you now show where the Energy transfer equations are wrong to make “Back Radiation” and the Steel Greenhouse work?
As I am so obviously still doing something wrong, I have tried Actual Experiments and now Equations and I can’t get any of them to prove colder objects make warmer ones warmer.
PS, you know the Experiment where I said
“One to test the theory that a mirror will increase the temperature of heated or non heated object.”
and you responded with
“When you decrease the energy loss of an object receiving a steady flow of energy, it will warm up. Put mirrors on all sides of an electric light bulb, for example. Or put a blanket around an electric light bulb. The blanket or the mirrors are COOLER than the light bulb. But if you put them around the light bulb it gets WARMER.
Now, it appears that because the mirrors or the blanket are cooler than the light bulb, your claim is that the light bulb WILL NOT GET WARMER.
Me, I can do that experiment in my head and have 100% certainty about what will happen … the bulb will get warmer. ”
Note how you changed what I said to “A Light BUlb”, did I mention a light bulb, no I said a heated or non heated object.
Guess what a Heated Object at 22.2C with a Glass Mirror placed next does not move even 0.1C.
ie LWIR does not get reflected and absorbed and heat the object
Another Back Radiation Failure.
Pass … as they say, there’s no use wrestling with a pig. The pig likes it and you just get dirty.
I’m done with trying to explain what is better explained by any college thermo textbook. Go buy one and you can argue with the authors instead of me. I’m tired of picking endless spitballs off the wall … I gave you the equations and the online calculator here. Both of them clearly show that your claims are wrong. If you can’t wrap your head around that, you’re far beyond my poor power to add or detract.
Get any college-level beginner’s thermo book, they’ll cover it in there. Here’s an example of a typical illustration, from the University of Sydney.
Note the flow of energy going both directions … the flow that you say doesn’t exist …
Best wishes.
w.
A C Osborn December 16, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Guess what a Heated Object at 22.2C with a Glass Mirror placed next does not move even 0.1C.
ie LWIR does not get reflected and absorbed and heat the object
For that experiment to work the mirror would have to be a first surface mirror capable of reflecting IR in excess of 10micron wavelength, I would suggest a polished Aluminum mirror (preferably gold plated). Since it’s unlikely that you used such a mirror you were basically using a window not a mirror!
For that experiment to work the mirror would have to be a first surface mirror capable of reflecting IR in excess of 10micron wavelength, I would suggest a polished Aluminum mirror (preferably gold plated). Since it’s unlikely that you used such a mirror you were basically using a window not a mirror!
There you go changing the test parameters again.
I already knew that about a glass mirror, which is why I proposed it and good old Mr Eshenbach jumped straight in with both feet as I expected and said a Mirror, but even he had to change the parameters to a white Light bulb where I specifically said a heated object.
You see he doesn’t care what we write, he has these ideas fixed in his head and just repeats the same statements and answers over and over again, whether they actually fit or not, more often than not he repeatedly answer with.
I tried Aluminium foil instead of glass and that didn’t do anything either.
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 10:03 am
For that experiment to work the mirror would have to be a first surface mirror capable of reflecting IR in excess of 10micron wavelength, I would suggest a polished Aluminum mirror (preferably gold plated). Since it’s unlikely that you used such a mirror you were basically using a window not a mirror!
There you go changing the test parameters again.
No, I pointed out what was wrong with your version of the experiment, you didn’t use a mirror!
I already knew that about a glass mirror, which is why I proposed it and good old Mr Eshenbach jumped straight in with both feet as I expected and said a Mirror, but even he had to change the parameters to a white Light bulb where I specifically said a heated object.
Willis defined an experiment he knew would work, a white light emitter and a white light mirror. You on the other hand deliberately chose an experiment that you knew wouldn’t work by choosing a white light mirror which you knew didn’t reflect IR. That’s called dishonesty and cheating.
You see he doesn’t care what we write, he has these ideas fixed in his head and just repeats the same statements and answers over and over again, whether they actually fit or not, more often than not he repeatedly answer with.
No, you consistently try to weasel around to avoid doing an experiment that demonstrates that your position is wrong. A good example is the thermocouple experiment I suggested which was demonstrated to work over 70 years ago, rather than attempt it you did a reductio ad absurdum which you knew couldn’t work.
Phil.
December 17, 2017 at 5:20 pm
No, you consistently try to weasel around to avoid doing an experiment that demonstrates that your position is wrong. A good example is the thermocouple experiment I suggested which was demonstrated to work over 70 years ago, rather than attempt it you did a reductio ad absurdum which you knew couldn’t work.
Well you obviously didn’t explain the Experiment properly what am I missing, is the Quartz that different to glass?
Is the Quartz Tube a Dome like a glass jar?
Please explain.
A C Osborn December 18, 2017 at 4:40 am
Phil.
December 17, 2017 at 5:20 pm
“No, you consistently try to weasel around to avoid doing an experiment that demonstrates that your position is wrong. A good example is the thermocouple experiment I suggested which was demonstrated to work over 70 years ago, rather than attempt it you did a reductio ad absurdum which you knew couldn’t work.”
Well you obviously didn’t explain the Experiment properly what am I missing,
That it should be done ‘in a flame’, 34ºC doesn’t cut it, clearly stated.
is the Quartz that different to glass?
Yes glass would probably melt!
Is the Quartz Tube a Dome like a glass jar?
No a tube is open at both ends allowing flow through.
Please explain.
Should there be any chance that you’d actually try to do the experiment I’d give you more detailed descriptions if needed. Chances of that slim to none based on your normal behavior.
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 10:03 am
I tried Aluminium foil instead of glass and that didn’t do anything either.
Talking about the Al foil, try holding a sheet of it about 1″ front of your face for about 5mins, notice anything?
You are absolutely right I have no intention of doing the experiment as I have none of the necessary equipment.
But I did need to know the parameters, which you have now supplied.
So let me get this right, you are saying the sole affect of the increase in temperature is down to Back Radiation?
is that correct?
As to foil in front of my face.
I have already established the correct interpretation for that.
It is not heating my face by back radiation to my hotter face.
First of all it is blocking the amount of air my face can radiate to and then It is using it’s own radiation as it heats from my face and Conduction to heat the colder air between it and my face which makes my face feel warmer as the air around it is warmer.
You see I did the Experiment with a heated object and aluminium foil with a sensor measuring both the object and the air, taking reading every minute, plus intermittent measurement of the foil.
The foil warmed first and as it is such a good conductor it immediately started warming the Air.
Later the object started to warm, so yes you could say a colder object warmed a warmer object, but NOT by direct back radiation, it is called INSULATION.
You see I have an enquiring mind and just to prove it I added a fan to the same Experiment to keep the air circulating so that it could not warm above Ambient.
Guess what, absolutely no warming of the heated object, not even 0.1C, in fact due to Foil being a very good conductor shifting the wair to the other side of it, the heated object actually cooled 0.5C.
The same thing applies to the so called Slayer Slaying Light Bulb Experiment, how any Scientist or Engineer could fall for that, for exactly the same reasons, only more so, I just can’t understand.
And Yes I did the Experiment with the added Air Temp Sensor to prove it.
But that Experiment was much worse, let me provide you with an analogy, you take a warehouse of 3000 Cubic ft and provide a heating system (Power Source & Radiators) that can heat it on maximum to 30C.
Now take all those Radiators and pack them in to a room of 30 cubic ft, what Temperature do you think the Room and Radiators will achieve running at max?
Then add extra Insulation (foil around the glass) and you get even higher temperatures.
And so many stupid people fell for it, Direct Back Radiation my foot.
So you now know where I am going with your Heated object and adding a quartz tube, I had to establish that the tube was open and flame still applied.
Now I have an experiment for you to be clear about what foil does.
Take 2 identical objects, ie same material, same mass and same shape.
Cool them to around 0C.
Place them on tha same base which is at Ambient.
Place a small foil “house” or box over one and leave the other uncovered.
Now Tell me before you do the Experiment, will the foil Warm the object faster than Ambient Air does?
By the way I will do your Experiment, but probably not with a naked flame, but the Sensor Will be Heated and I will be measuring the air Temperature outside the diameter of the Tube before and after it is applied and probably at the top of the tube as well.
Then I will be able to establish what is going on, except of course for the naked flame part, because you do realise what the tube does to the Airflow to the flame and the fact that you now have a different Oxygen/air flow to it.
You probably did those tests in school where you play about with the air input and gas flow rates to change the heat of the flame, I did it few years before leaving work in our Chem Lab while heat testing materials.
A C Osborn December 18, 2017 at 10:28 am
You probably did those tests in school where you play about with the air input and gas flow rates to change the heat of the flame,
No I did it in the exhaust of a gas turbine combustion chamber.
Willis Eschenbach said, December 16, 2017 at 6:35 am:
CERES isn’t measuring the solar heat flux to the surface of the Earth. CERES measures outgoing radiative fluxes at the ToA only – outgoing SW and outgoing LW.
Moreover, the 390 W/m^2 isn’t a measured value. It’s a calculated value. Derived directly from a surface temperature estimate.
On top of this, asking about the difference between an incoming 170 W/m^2 and an outgoing 390 W/m^2 is mixing apples and oranges. The 170 W/m^2 solar flux is a HEAT flux (net SW), the 390 W/m^2 LW_up “hemiflux” is no such thing. It is – mathematically – merely the slightly larger HALF of the surface radiative heat flux (net LW).
So there’s nothing “missing” here, Willis. The radiative flux moving out of the surface (to the atmosphere and space) is MUCH smaller than the radiative flux coming in to the surface (from the Sun). The difference is covered by NON-radiative losses – the conductive and evaporative heat fluxes.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 6:21 am Edit
Is that supposed to mean something?
Thanks for voting. However, science is not a democracy.
If you want to prove my statements about pochas’s claims wrong, then QUOTE WHAT YOU THINK IS WRONG and tell us why. Saying the magical incantation “thermohaline circulation” does nothing for either the discussion or your reputation.
w.
The thermohaline circulation draws subsurface solar heated waters laterally so that diurnal loss rates are disrupted.
That circulation flows around the entire globe and takes up to 1000 years. In the process it produces significant climate variations depending on when and where the energy content is released back to the atmosphere.
It can therefore modify the tropical response to insolation.
I don’t see that as significantly detracting from your tropical observations but it is an underlying factor which could frustrate your expectations from time to time and place to place.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thermohaline+circulation+diagram&rlz=1C1EKKP_enGB756GB756&oq=Thermohaline+circulation&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.8760j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Sorry to have to say this, but you have not the faintest idea what thermohaline circulation is, and how it works. I strongly suggest that you read up on it.
tty,
So which bit is wrong ?
tty,
See here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/ocean-move-thermohaline-circulation
“The currents flowing through the ocean, a process called thermohaline circulation, can have an impact on climate”
Willis, according to Spencer, the THC causes vertical mixing in the tropical ocean which he describes as an air conditioner for the atmosphere. It should also be noted that easterly walker cell trade winds follow the sun. When the sun is high in the sky that’s when trade winds kick up. (and presumably you would get your greatest vertical mixing at that point) it would be interesting to see just how much cooling comes from daytime clouds verses daytime vertical mixing…
If you repeat your analysis for individual months you will get to different conclusions: Convective transport in the atmosphere and in the oceans is mixing the incoming solar energy.
As a layman, here is a “big picture” idea that combines others’ ideas and knowledge to
roughly describe how the average global temperature has been “set” (like a thermostat) for
the past 600M years, with it varying from 50F to 80F. Lord Monckton opined that the
temperature was very stable and I agree that amount of stability can only come from a
stable system.
During the 600M-year period, the earth got more energy from the sun than it needed to keep
from becoming a snowball. The amount of energy that it got at any particular time in the
last 600M years was determined by the distance to the sun and average solar output at that
point in time. Most of the energy lands in the tropics and then works its way pole ward via
ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. The amount of energy available to be
transported pole ward is mostly determined by the configuration of the land masses and
topography of the ocean floor at that point in time. I refer to the average global
temperature the total configuration of the sun, the earth and the configuration of the land
masses and topography of the ocean floor causes as the earth’s “operating temperature”.
This operating temperature usually changes slowly over time as the total configuration
changes, like an ultra-low frequency output that is essentially DC. There is always the
possibility of glitches having occurred.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/oceanic-downwelling-and-our-low-surface-
temperatures/
The temperature then fluctuates about this operating point by plus/minus 3F to 7F, with
fluctuations caused by the net effect of changes in earth rotation, earth orbit, solar
output, ENSO, PDO, AMO, volcanoes, land use, flora and fauna, air pollution, GHGs,
earthquakes, etc…. This is similar to an amplifier circuit, with fluctuations around the
DC output. Any temperature changes caused by meteor/comet impacts and/or massive volcanic
activity, like a transient, will eventually die out and the earth will return to its
operating temperature at that point in time plus/minus by the net effect of its other
inputs.
Since the earth gets more energy than it needs, the temperature would rise to a point
where the oceans would boil away. What keeps this from happening is your “thunderstorm
thermostat”, which kicks in when the ocean surface temperature in an area reaches ~24C-
~75F. Below that ocean surface temperature, all of the solar energy is used to keep the
earth from turning into a snowball. Above that point, it is an increasingly massive “brake”
to keep the earth from frying, blowing off the extra heat into outer space before it can
work its way to the poles as well as cause deeper mixing in the ocean to cool the surface
to keep from over-braking. So when the operating temperature was at least in the mid/upper
70sF 55Mya, a FULL 20F warmer than today, there was definitely a whole lotta brakin’ goin’
on!!! If the oceans didn’t boil away then, why would they now!!!
There are at least three major inputs that could overcome the extra solar energy and cause
the earth to become a snowball- a meteor/comet strike, massive volcanic activity, and
ultra-extreme pollution/land use change. Since the last one has been eliminated by the EPA,
etc., that leaves the first two inputs as potential “snowball makers”.
From ~600Mya-800Mya, the earth was a snowball at least once and recovered from that. The
global temperature dropped 450Mya from the upper 70sF to ~50F and yet the earth recovered.
When a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs 65Mya, it was in the upper 70sF and again, it
recovered. Right now the operating temperature is ~54F-56F (uncalibrated Mark IV eyeball or
TLAR- That Looks About Right). So the only REAL danger is becoming a snowball, not a frying
pan, as the earth may not have the extra stored heat and higher operating temperature
continent/ocean configuration as it did in the past to recover, if it can, before all
higher life forms die off if either of these were to happen now!!!
If combining your ideas and knowledge with others’ ideas and knowledge at least points in
the right direction of explaining what determined the average global temperature at any
point in time over the last 600M years and its overall remarkable stability, then the 2C
limit of “we’re all going to die” is too absurd to even be funny! It would have to be the
product of egomaniacs who are turning climate science into political science, or worse yet,
a religious cult, for their own personal gain!!!
I really think your ability to step back to see the “big picture” of climate science and
then getting your hands dirty by breaking down your ideas into “first principles” to find
evidence to support your “thunderstorm thermostat” that explained the stability of the
average global temperature over the last 600M years was sheer genius in action- Edison’s
one percent inspiration, 99 percent perspiration! With everyone so focused on the details,
your theory is the breakthrough climate science needs to see that the many other details,
except for the land mass/ocean configuration, are only minor fluctuations which cannot
fully explain the remarkable stability that was there over the last 600M years.
Trying to prove a thermostat without a physical one on the wall is probably next to
impossible because our climate is very complex and unpredictable with a lot of unknowns
and little accurate long-term data as it is still a relatively young science. Add to that
the possibility of “one off” events and/or glitches over the last 600M years that affected
the average global temperature that we are unaware of just adds to the difficulty of that
proof. With the politicization of climate science, you must be awful stubborn to enter the
arena of ideas. Good luck on your future endeavors and thanks for all of your
contributions. I have learned a lot. Keep up the good fight!
I’m re-posting my comment as my initial “rookie” attempt
is unreadable- OOPS!
As a layman, here is a “big picture” idea that combines others’ ideas and
knowledge to roughly describe how the average global temperature has been
“set” (like a thermostat) for the past 600M years, with it varying from
50F to 80F. Lord Monckton opined that the temperature was very stable and
I agree that amount of stability can only come from a stable system.
During the 600M-year period, the earth got more energy from the sun than
it needed to keep from becoming a snowball. The amount of energy that it
got at any particular time in the last 600M years was determined by the
distance to the sun and average solar output at that point in time. Most
of the energy lands in the tropics and then works its way pole ward via
ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. The amount of energy
available to be transported pole ward is mostly determined by the
configuration of the land masses and topography of the ocean floor at
that point in time. I refer to the average global temperature the total
configuration of the sun, the earth and the configuration of the land
masses and topography of the ocean floor causes as the earth’s
“operating temperature”. This operating temperature usually changes
slowly over time as the total configuration changes, like an ultra-low
frequency output that is essentially DC. There is always the
possibility of glitches having occured.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/oceanic-downwelling-and-our-low-surface-temperatures/
The temperature then fluctuates about this operating point by plus/minus
3F to 7F, with fluctuations caused by the net effect of changes in earth
rotation, earth orbit, solar output, ENSO, PDO, AMO, volcanoes, land use,
flora and fauna, air pollution, GHGs, earthquakes, etc…. This is
similar to an amplifier circuit, with fluctuations around the DC output.
Any temperature changes caused by meteor/comet impacts and/or massive
volcanic activity, like a transient, will eventually die out and the
earth will return to its operating temperature at that point in time
plus/minus by the net effect of its other inputs.
Since the earth gets more energy than it needs, the temperature would
rise to a point where the oceans would boil away. What keeps this from
happening is your “thunderstorm thermostat”, which kicks in when the
ocean surface temperature in an area reaches ~24C- ~75F. Below that
ocean surface temperature, all of the solar energy is used to keep
the earth from turning into a snowball. Above that point, it is an
increasingly massive “brake” to keep the earth from frying, blowing
off the extra heat into outer space before it can work its way to the
poles as well as cause deeper mixing in the ocean to cool the surface
to keep from over-braking. So when the operating temperature was at
least in the mid/upper 70sF 55Mya, a FULL 20F warmer than today, there
was definitely a whole lotta brakin’ goin’ on!!! If the oceans didn’t
boil away then, why would they now!!!
There are at least three major inputs that could overcome the extra
solar energy and cause the earth to become a snowball- a meteor/comet
strike, massive volcanic activity, and ultra-extreme pollution/land
use change. Since the last one has been eliminated by the EPA, etc.,
that leaves the first two inputs as potential “snowball makers”.
From ~600Mya-800Mya, the earth was a snowball at least once and
recovered from that. The global temperature dropped 450Mya from the
upper 70sF to ~50F and yet the earth recovered. When a meteor wiped
out the dinosaurs 65Mya, it was in the upper 70sF and again, it
recovered. Right now the operating temperature is ~54F-56F
(uncalibrated Mark IV eyeball or TLAR- That Looks About Right). So
the only REAL danger is becoming a snowball, not a frying pan, as the
earth may not have the extra stored heat and higher operating
temperature continent/ocean configuration as it did in the past to
recover, if it can, before all higher life forms die off if either
of these were to happen now!!!
If combining your ideas and knowledge with others’ ideas and
knowledge at least points in the right direction of explaining what
determined the average global temperature at any point in time over
the last 600M years and its overall remarkable stability, then the
2C limit of “we’re all going to die” is too absurd to even be funny!
It would have to be the product of egomaniacs who are turning
climate science into political science, or worse yet, a religious
cult, for their own personal gain!!!
I really think your ability to step back to see the “big picture”
of climate science and then getting your hands dirty by breaking
down your ideas into “first principles” to find evidence to
support your “thunderstorm thermostat” that explained the
stability of the average global temperature over the last 600M
years was sheer genius in action- Edison’s one percent
inspiration, 99 percent perspiration! With everyone so focused
on the details, your theory is the breakthrough climate science
needs to see that the many other details, except for the land
mass/ocean configuration, are only minor fluctuations which
cannot fully explain the remarkable stability that was there
over the last 600M years.
Trying to prove a thermostat without a physical one on the wall
is probably next to impossible because our climate is very
complex and unpredictable with a lot of unknowns and little
accurate long-term data as it is still a relatively young
science. Add to that the possibility of “one off” events
and/or glitches over the last 600M years that affected
the average global temperature that we are unaware of just
adds to the difficulty of that proof. With the politicization
of climate science, you must be awful stubborn to enter the
arena of ideas. Good luck on your future endeavors and thanks
for all of your contributions. I have learned a lot. Keep up
the good fight!
Ben, thanks for your replies. I now remember having seen
your two extreme scenarios & agreed with your analysis of
their affects. By the time I saw them, I had been thinking
of “smaller” geological projects like moving Antarctica
6000 km further north into the open southern Pacific and
reopening the Central America gap whose closure ~3Mya
may have caused a major drop in the global operating
temperature. My SWAG was doing both would raise the
temperature at least 5F-10F (3C-6C). Other projects
included moving Greenland 750 km SE, lopping off 300km
of eastern Siberia & deepening the Bering Strait, and
moving Africa 400 km SW, with each project raising the
global temp.
The geothermal affect on temperature, especially the
major eruptions, is one factor I had forgotten about and
it would throw a big monkey wrench into anyone’s
attempt in trying to break down the contributions of
the different inputs to the global temperature over the
past 600M yrs as the quality of our knowledge is not that
great that far back. Even our knowledge today of the
oceans and the land below it is very poor. In any case,
the steady state contribution (DC) would alter the
operating temperature and the eruptions would be part of
the adjustments to it (AC), as it’s a one-time event.
Because of their huge thermal capacity of oceans versus
the atmosphere- ~1000:1- they are the key to global
temperature. It’s been described as a big lake of rivers
and IIRC, it takes ~800 yrs to completely mix the
various temperature and salinity layers (convection).
Heat conduction from below would obviously be much
faster. Since the deep ocean water is so cold, maybe its
major contribution to the surface temperature is not
as a heat source but as a heat sink for the surface
water, to keep it from losing much more heat through
evaporation than it does through conduction. With the
“thunderstorm thermostat” cycle, the last “blow-off
thunderstorm” produces a lot of mixing, thereby greatly
reducing the surface temperature leading to a much
smaller thunderstorm the next day. Without that cooling,
thunderstorms would probably continue to grow, thereby
blowing off even more heat, leaving a lot less to warm
the poles. While this sounds counter-intuitive
(half-bass-ackwards), water’s nonlinear thermal profile
makes having less heat may cause a lot less heat loss!
With everyone focused on the high end with the 2c “we’re
going to fry” hype, maybe an overlooked beauty of water
is on the low end. With less heat, there are less
thunderstorms to blow off heat from evaporation, thereby
slowing the heat loss dramatically to mostly that through
conduction and wind convection.
The shallow areas 55Mya did absorb more solar energy to
produce heavier, saltier warm water that was able to sink
deeper into the ocean, thus changing the ocean temperature
profile. When it was quickly transported to the poles via
the many pathways between the continents, the warming
affect at the poles was much greater than at the tropics.
So maybe a better hot extreme scenario would involve
breaking up some of the continents into smaller
archipelagoes with many shallow areas. Adding mountains
to the windward side of the continents would add a lot
of deserts. This is where topography, not just location,
could make a difference, too.
Thanks again. I learned a lot!
Old Man Winter December 18, 2017 at 3:54 pm
It’s the Thermohaline Circulation (TC) which takes hundreds (maybe over a 1000) of years to complete one cycle. The TC is driven by cold, dense water dropping to the ocean floor and spreading towards the equator and beyond. While at the bottom this water is slowly warmed by the ocean floor (geothermal flux, ~100 mW/m^2). Without this warming we would have no TC.
http://www.jisao.washington.edu/sites/default/files/Images/kamenkovich_fig2.jpg
All bottom warmed water has to be transported towards Antarctica before it can surface (solar heated surface layer prevents surfacing almost everywhere) and release its energy to the atmosphere and space. So the temperature of the deep oceans is a balance between geothermal heating minus cooling by cold, dense water (eg AntArctic Bottom Water)
Since the Ontong Java event increased the temperature of the deep oceans perhaps 20K, the geothermal flux alone has added 50-60 times the total Ocean Heat Content at the ocean floor. Stil the oceans have been cooling down since then.
Deep ocean water is NOT cold. It is around 275K, already 20K above the 255K maximum the sun supposedly generates. Ocean surface temperature is simply the temperature of the deep oceans PLUS what the sun adds to that in the mixed surface layer.
Old Man Winter December 16, 2017 at 7:38 am
Sorry, amigo, TL;DR. Please boil your essential ideas down into three or four short clear paragraphs. While I certainly appreciate the effort and passion you’ve put into it, you’re stepping on your own toes with the complexity.
My best to you,
w.
Hopefully, this is much better. Thanks again!
The average global temperature over the past 600M years has varied from
50F to 80F, which is remarkably stable, considering all the changes in
the variables that affect the earth’s temperature. It was a livable
Goldilocks situation- not too hot, not too cold.
The “operating temperature” I define as being that portion of the
average global temperature at any point in time that is just
determined by the average solar output, the average distance to the
sun, & a third factor, the configuration of the land masses and
ocean topography. This would be like the DC output of an amplifier
circuit.
To the “operating temperature” I make adjustments to account for the
net effect of changes in earth rotation, earth orbit, solar output,
ENSO, PDO, AMO, volcanoes, land use, flora and fauna, air pollution,
GHGs, earthquakes, etc., which varies from plus/minus 3F to 7F. This
is similar to an amplifier circuit, with fluctuations around the DC
output.
The average global temperature was 80F 55Mya vs ~60F now because
the land mass/ocean topography was more conducive to absorbing the
solar energy received in the shallow areas and then quickly
transporting it to the poles because of the many pathways between
the continents, thus causing a much higher average global
temperature than today. The operating temperature was probably
in the upper 70sF-lower 80sF then, whereas it is ~54F-56F now as
we’re in an inter-glacial period, with a net adjustment being
positive to bring it up to the average of ~60F.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/oceanic-downwelling-and-our-low-surface-temperatures/
Since the earth gets more energy than it needs, the temperature would
rise to a point where the oceans would boil away. What keeps this from
happening is your “thunderstorm thermostat”, which kicks in when the
ocean surface temperature in an area reaches ~24C- ~75F. Below that
ocean surface temperature, much more of the solar energy is retained
to keep the earth from turning into a snowball. Above that point, it
is an increasingly massive “brake” to keep the earth from frying,
blowing off the extra heat into outer space before it can work its
way to the poles. It also causes deeper mixing in the ocean to cool
the surface to prevent over-braking. So 55Mya, this would have
been needed even more than today to keep the oceans from boiling
away. That limits the high-end temperature, providing stability.
So the only REAL danger remaining is becoming a snowball as it was
for a period of time 600Mya-800Mya. There was also a huge 25+F
temperature drop ~450Mya. Unlike your “thunderstorm thermostat”
braking mechanism at the top end, I don’t know of anything like
that on the bottom end. Since we are in a cold land mass/ocean
topography configuration now, a massive temperature plunge from
here caused by a meteor/comet strike or massive volcanic eruptions
would have a much higher chance of turning the earth into a
snowball.
Thanks, Winter, indeed that is much, much clearer. My one comment is that despite many claims, our knowledge of the climate is worse and worse the further back in time you go. As a result, I’m always skeptical of climate claims from deep time … not saying that they are false, just that the uncertainties get very high pretty fast.
I appreciate your boiling down your thoughts.
w.
Thanks for your reply and honest opinion about the quality of
our knowledge of our climate, especially as you go further
back in time. Since I am just a layman and could not/would
not pursue my idea, I do have two questions for you- just
for intellectual curiosity’s sake:
off the top of your head, do you know of anything that
absolutely disproves or makes it highly improbable that the
land mass/ocean topography is not the main driver on earth
for what determined what the average global temperature
would be over the past 600M years? If it wasn’t, then what,
if there is one, probably was? I do think, but cannot prove,
your “thunderstorm thermostat” is not only a huge factor in
affecting it as well as a major stabilizing factor for it.
What I’m looking for is a qualitative opinion about the
idea- whether it could be valid or is total garbage. I
realize the uncertainties in all the different data would
make it at least nearly impossible to prove, but possibly
easier to disprove.
Hope you had/are having fun in the sun! Thanks again!
Old Man Winter December 17, 2017 at 2:32 pm
The placing of the ~30% land area on Earth does make a difference imo but to me the main driver is the temperature of the geothermally heated deep oceans. Surface temperature is the temperature of the deep oceans PLUS what the sun adds to the top layer. Deep oceans are ~275K ( already 20K above the infamous 255k), so the sun just increases the temperature of the top layer a bit to our present ~290K.
The oceans have been created (boiling) hot, and since that time they have been cooling down (very) slowly, with an occasional heat impulse from large magma eruptions like the Ontong Java event (100 million km^3).
1 million km^3 magma carries enough energy to warm ALL ocean water ~1K.
see
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
The atmosphere merely has to slow the energy loss to space a bit, no surface warming necessary or possible.
Old Man Winter December 17, 2017 at 2:32 pm
Regarding the land/ocean topography:
2 extreme scenarios:
1) all land strung around the equator, with a North and a South Ocean
2) 2 continents centered around the two poles, with one Central Ocean.
ad 1) tropical continent will be very hot and lose a lot of energy via the atmosphere to space again.
The ocean have a lot of area where they can “vent” all geothermal energy added to them at the bottom.
To me this is cold configuration (average planet wide temperature)
ad 2) All solar energy is thermalized in the oceans and released slowly. The deep oceans have (almost) no place to vent the geothermal energy coming in via the ocean floor, so they will be hot for these two reasons => hot configuration
see
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/ben-wouters-geothermal-flux-and-the-deep-oceans/
Ben, Cheifio wrote a post on exactly the same thing a few years back, the input from the sun is trying to slow the cooling rate of the Earth from it’s birth. But Failing, as you say very slowly cooling.
Ben Wouters-
OOPS! Rookie mistake- My reply to your
Ben Wouters December 18, 2017 at 8:19 am &
Ben Wouters December 18, 2017 at 8:29 am
posts ended up below my
Old Man Winter December 16, 2017 at 8:56 am
as the
Old Man Winter December 18, 2017 at 3:54 pm
post. It’s too long to re-post Thanks again!
“The ocean gets about 170 W/m2 from the sun, measured by CERES satellite. It radiates about 390 W/m2, per Stefan-Boltzmann. What supplies the difference? I (and the scientific world) say downwelling IR, which is measured all over the world. You say … nothing.”
The difference is supplied by kinetic energy returning from potential energy as air descends towards the surface along the lapse rate slope. At any given moment half the atmosphere’s mass is in descending mode.
DWIR provides no additional surface heating in itself since any radiative molecule that finds itself warmer than it should be for its height relative to the lapse rate slope will (on average) simply rise higher and cool down.
Nah, the ocean gets about 1000 W/m2 as measured by my solar panels : )
All of which is then slowly released to the atmosphere via evaporation. Moist Air is less dense than dry air so the air rises and this is the cause of ‘weather’.
It is really just that simple.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 7:42 am Edit
Air parcels indeed heat as they descend. However, they also cool as they ascend. The overall atmosphere is in steady-state—for every descending parcel somewhere there is an ascending parcel.
Because of this, the overturning of the atmosphere does NOT generate any net energy, whether kinetic or potential.
Man, I don’t know where to start. That’s so bad it’s not even wrong. According to your claim there would be no DWIR … but DWIR is routinely measured by scientists all over the world. You don’t get to wave your hands and claim it doesn’t exist, that makes no sense.
w.
The heat from descending air is derived from energy taken from the surface in the preceding convective assent and not the current one. That inherent delay in energy throughput results in surface heating.
There is DWIR but it does not heat the surface since it is a consequence of kinetic energy along the lapse rate slope and not a cause. If any radiative material is too warm for its position along the lapse rate slope then it will distort the lapse rate slope to the warm side and reduce convection. That reduction in convection causes it to take longer to rise to its correct height than it would otherwise have taken so during that extra time at the lower warmer height it radiates more to space than it otherwise would have done. The result is net zero surface warming.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 4:00 pm
So if I take heat from the surface today and return it to the surface tomorrow, that results in surface heating? On what planet, particularly for a constantly occurring phenomenon?
Like I said, READ A THERMO TEXTBOOK. You’re making a fool of yourself, and it is painful to watch.
w.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 7:42 am
DWIR provides no additional surface heating in itself since any radiative molecule that finds itself warmer than it should be for its height relative to the lapse rate slope will (on average) simply rise higher and cool down.
Not true, for the radiative molecule the excess energy is in the vibrational and radiative modes which don’t contribute to the temperature, which is due to the translational modes.
According to this:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S08/notes/lecture18.pdf
“statistical physics: thermal energy equally divided among all possible energy modes”.
Stephen, read a little further in your cite 2nd to last bullet, hmmmm what do you make of measurements showing you are incorrect about equipartition, so many mouths (DOFs) to feed energy and not enough energy to go around:
“classical Newtonian physics breaks down: quantum effects prevent 2 vibrational and 1 rotational mode
from being active.”
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 4:21 pm
According to this:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys260/agashe/S08/notes/lecture18.pdf
“statistical physics: thermal energy equally divided among all possible energy modes”.
And as shown in that reference the classical equipartition hypothesis breaks down in the quantum mechanical world, in the last slide it shows that in a diatomic you’d need temperatures exceeding 2,000 to achieve equipartition. Even at such temperatures the Vib/rot modes don’t contribute to the temperature.
Then I will need to amend my description but please indicate whether that applies to just CO2, all GHGs and/or all radiative material within an atmosphere.
Also I need to know whether the inactive modes can pass energy to non radiative molecules via conduction whereupon the receiving molecules would show a temperature rise.
In the end however any radiative imbalances do all need to net out to a zero effect on surface temperature otherwise hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be maintained for the atmosphere as a whole.
If surface temperature rises above that needed to maintain both radiation to space and support the weight of the atmosphere then the atmosphere rises higher which puts the top layer out of equilibrium between the upward pressure gradient force and the downward force of gravity. That layer then gets lost to space which reduces atmospheric weight so that the same surface temperature can push another layer upwards to replace it and then that layer is lost ad infinitum until there is no atmosphere left.
So, there is good scientific reasoning behind my contention that DWIR cannot be allowed to set a higher surface equilibrium temperature if an atmosphere is to be retained.
“That layer then gets lost to space…”
To escape, the layer would need an increase in every constituent particle temperature (KE) to greater than escape velocity otherwise the constituents remain grounded. You have not explained the amount nor the source of the energy required to do so. The layer just falls back without the required velocity of its constituent particles.
H2 is light enough constituent to have acquired the temperature (KE) to reach escape velocity at high altitude over time which is why little H2 remains.
Stephen Wilde December 17, 2017 at 6:54 am
Then I will need to amend my description but please indicate whether that applies to just CO2, all GHGs and/or all radiative material within an atmosphere.
All GHGs, they all have vibrational/rotation modes.
Also I need to know whether the inactive modes can pass energy to non radiative molecules via conduction whereupon the receiving molecules would show a temperature rise.
Excited molecules can transfer energy to collisional partners.
In the end however any radiative imbalances do all need to net out to a zero effect on surface temperature otherwise hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be maintained for the atmosphere as a whole.
If surface temperature rises above that needed to maintain both radiation to space and support the weight of the atmosphere then the atmosphere rises higher which puts the top layer out of equilibrium between the upward pressure gradient force and the downward force of gravity. That layer then gets lost to space which reduces atmospheric weight so that the same surface temperature can push another layer upwards to replace it and then that layer is lost ad infinitum until there is no atmosphere left.
That doesn’t work, as the gas parcel rises it reduces temperature via adiabatic expansion: PV^gamma=constant
No layer gets lost to space, that only occurs when the thermal velocity of the gas molecules exceed the escape velocity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape#Thermal_escape_mechanisms
So, there is good scientific reasoning behind my contention that DWIR cannot be allowed to set a higher surface equilibrium temperature if an atmosphere is to be retained.
I’m afraid not. What you describe is not observed for any of the planets in our solar system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrodynamic_escape
Phil,
I don’t see that those links help your case at all since they all presuppose an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium whereby on average the upward pressure gradient force balances the downward gravitational force.
The point I make is that if one raises the surface temperature via DWIR to a level that supplies an excess of kinetic energy at the surface over and above that required to balance radiation in with radiation out AND maintain the upward pressure gradient force at the right level to balance gravity then that rise in surface temperature will permanently destroy hydrostatic equilibrium and the atmosphere will progressively be lost.
The escape velocity for a molecule at the boundary with space is very different to that for a molecule at the surface. Just adding a fraction of additional kinetic energy will tip it out of balance and it will depart to space.
The solar wind has a miniscule pressure but it is capable of tipping the balance for molecules high up even where the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium.
”The escape velocity for a molecule at the boundary with space is very different to that for a molecule at the surface. Just adding a fraction of additional kinetic energy will tip it out of balance and it will depart to space.
The solar wind has a miniscule pressure but it is capable of tipping the balance for molecules high up even where the atmosphere is in hydrostatic equilibrium.”
No. No. and No. Calculations show the opposite of what Stephen writes. This is not uncharacteristic. Stephen has very imaginative commenting style. Devoid of any calculations or cite.
Some simple, rough atm. meteorological calculations show avg. molecular speeds (at STP) are several hundred m/sec. whereas escape velocity is more than 10,000 m/sec. For N2, only 1 molecule out of 10^335 has the requisite speed to escape, yet there are fewer than 10^44 N2 molecules of all speeds in the entire atm.
Stephen need not lose sleep over “Just adding a fraction of additional kinetic energy will tip it out of balance and it will depart to space.”
Stephen Wilde December 18, 2017 at 8:06 am
Phil,
I don’t see that those links help your case at all since they all presuppose an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium whereby on average the upward pressure gradient force balances the downward gravitational force.
The point I make is that if one raises the surface temperature via DWIR to a level that supplies an excess of kinetic energy at the surface over and above that required to balance radiation in with radiation out AND maintain the upward pressure gradient force at the right level to balance gravity then that rise in surface temperature will permanently destroy hydrostatic equilibrium and the atmosphere will progressively be lost.
Your theory would only apply in that part of the atmosphere where convection occurs, i.e. the troposphere.
The escape velocity for a molecule at the boundary with space is very different to that for a molecule at the surface. Just adding a fraction of additional kinetic energy will tip it out of balance and it will depart to space.
But we’re talking about the tropopause which is of the order of 10km above the surface, and the escape velocity depends on the 1/sort(distance from the center of the earth), which is ~6400 so the difference at the tropopause is negligible. Also the temperature of the molecules up there is ~210K so the kinetic energy is lower so escape velocity is even less likely.
Phil, there is convective overturning in the stratosphere too via the Brewer Dobson circulation and it has been suggested that it also exists in the mesosphere and thermosphere but too weakly for our current sensors to measure it.
So you don’t receive a get of jail card by asserting that my point only applies within the convecting troposphere.
Wherever there are temperature and density differentials ion the horizontal plane then convection is inevitable from surface to top of atmosphere and such differentials cannot be prevented for a sphere illuminated by a point source of light.
As for your point about CO2 molecules not getting warmer due to their ‘inactive’ modes and so not rising you did then accept that they would pass energy to adjoining molecules so that they would rise and take the CO2 up with them.
That closes off your remaining objections.
Stephen Wilde December 19, 2017 at 2:11 am
Phil, there is convective overturning in the stratosphere too via the Brewer Dobson circulation and it has been suggested that it also exists in the mesosphere and thermosphere but too weakly for our current sensors to measure it.
So you don’t receive a get of jail card by asserting that my point only applies within the convecting troposphere.
The stratosphere temperature increases with altitude and is therefore stable to convection, your proposed mechanism will not work there. Also you seem to think that a convecting parcel of warm air will continue rising ad infinitum ignoring the fact that it will cool due to adiabatic expansion until it reaches a stable altitude.
Wherever there are temperature and density differentials ion the horizontal plane then convection is inevitable from surface to top of atmosphere and such differentials cannot be prevented for a sphere illuminated by a point source of light.
As for your point about CO2 molecules not getting warmer due to their ‘inactive’ modes and so not rising you did then accept that they would pass energy to adjoining molecules so that they would rise and take the CO2 up with them.
You seem to misunderstand this, you said: “DWIR provides no additional surface heating in itself since any radiative molecule that finds itself warmer than it should be for its height relative to the lapse rate slope will (on average) simply rise higher and cool down”. However any GHR molecule which absorbs a photon of IR will not be hotter because the energy transferred to it is in the ro/vibrational energy levels and so doesn’t change the temperature which only depends on the translational modes. The excited molecule will now need to lose energy and return to the ground state. There are two ways in which it can do this: collision with neighboring molecules (favored in the lower atmosphere because of the high collision frequency and slow radiation lifetime) or emit light. Despite the preference for thermalization some emission still occurs (it’s a Poisson process) resulting in the ~300W/m^2 DWIR observed at the surface.
By the way I have been explaining this on here for years.
“and even over a few of the wettest parts of the tropical land”
I strongly agree. I happen to have visited both the SW Pacific and the Amazon basin repeatedly, and they have essentially identical climate regimes. Clear mornings, growing cumulonimbus clouds and a late afternoon cloudburst. It is this constant recycling of rainwater that allows the Amazon to have rainforest climate deep in the center of a continent.
However in the absence of a stabilizing ocean there is greater annual change in the Amazon basin. Most parts have at least a somewhat drier season which is probably the reason only parts of the area have a negative correlation.
I haven’t visited the Congo Basin for obvious reasons, but friends who have (on UN peacekeeping duties) describe exactly the same weather pattern there.
Lars P. December 16, 2017 at 7:37 am Edit
You’re sorry? I’m sorry, Lars, but those are OBSERVATIONAL MEASUREMENTS. You get your own opinions, but you don’t get your own facts. Clearly you think that the satellite measurements are wrong, and heck, you might be right, although I greatly doubt it.
But waving your hands and calling them “BS” does nothing but destroy your own reputation. If you think they are wrong then start your own blog and destroy them entirely with your genius insights and hitherto unknown facts … me, I’m not interested.
w.
“You’re sorry? I’m sorry, Lars, but those are OBSERVATIONAL MEASUREMENTS. You get your own opinions, but you don’t get your own facts. “
Willis please, you do not answer and do not even try to look into my argument. I understand it is difficult as there are so many people expressing their points of view but please do an effort beyond hand waving.
I do not argue the observational measurement being wrong.
I argue the idea of looking at ‘backradiation’ as a separate source of heat/energy. This is what I call BS.
It may help for better visualise and understand how the energy flow is slowed down by the atmosphere, but ‘backradiation’ exists only when initial radiation exists.
What I argue is to look at the net heat flows and do not take a member out of the equation. In my view taking a member out of the equation is creating ‘your own facts’. It is the tail waging the dog. It is the fallacy in global warming thinking.
A C Osborn December 16, 2017 at 10:28 am
Sigh. Another person who is unwilling to answer the simple question: if back radiation is NOT heating the ocean as you claim, then what is the energy source that keeps it from freezing? Instead, you want to tell us about some “experiment” or other …
Answer the question or don’t, I don’t care. Just know that if you don’t your reputation with me goes in the oubliette …
w.
Another person who can’t face the fact that Experiments prove he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Plus those Experiments are backed up by your very own recommended Equations.
Show me the Actual Real Life Experiment that proves a colder object’s Radiation, (NOT INSULATION) warms a Warmer Object so that I can test it.
I have proved the opposite for all the earthlike situations you have put forward.
Then you can explain the Mechanics of how this sparse layer of CO2’s Radiation from a Molecule can get released in any large quantities before the energy is lost in a collision with all those other 999,600 molecules surrounding it.
And then those photons manage to negotiate it’s way through Kms of much Denser Atmosphere, getting Denser the nearer the Surface it gets without being Absorbed or deflected. After all it must be absorbed in a collision according to you.
Then explain how the Energy in LWIR can come even close to matching the Energy in White Light, SWIR & UV.
Since when in Science do I or anyone else have to propose an alternative theory, we only have to falsify yours.
A C Osborn December 16, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Another person who can’t face the fact that Experiments prove he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Plus those Experiments are backed up by your very own recommended Equations.
Show me the Actual Real Life Experiment that proves a colder object’s Radiation, (NOT INSULATION) warms a Warmer Object so that I can test it.
OK, take a Bunsen burner or welding torch and put a thermocouple in the flame (in line with the flow) and measure the temperature. Then surround the ThC with a quartz tube about double the diameter of the ThC and measure the temperature again. If you’ve set it up right the temperature registered in the presence of the quartz will be ~100ºC hotter. Such ThC shields have been in use since at least 1949 when NACA produced reports concerning the measurement of temperature in gas turbines using them.
Phil, you said
OK, take a Bunsen burner or welding torch and put a thermocouple in the flame (in line with the flow) and measure the temperature. Then surround the ThC with a quartz tube about double the diameter of the ThC and measure the temperature again. If you’ve set it up right the temperature registered in the presence of the quartz will be ~100ºC hotter.
So I take a quartz tube and place it over an object and it will get hotter, wow Climate Science in Action.
I will rush out to my kitchen and try it now.
Well I haven’t got a Bunsen Burner or a welding torch or a Quartz Tube, but I expect a hot object and a Glass Jar will do.
The object is at 34C with temperature sensor attached and the Jar is at 12C, I have placed the Jar over the object and.
Oh no 100C increase, in fact the object temperature fell at over 5C a minute.
Obviously doesn’t work for for ordinary obejcts and glass jars.
So I tried it again with the jar at ambient 23.8C, the object at 26.8C, the object cooled at 0.5C/minute
I must be msiising soemthing.
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 11:00 am
Phil, you said
OK, take a Bunsen burner or welding torch and put a thermocouple in the flame (in line with the flow) and measure the temperature. Then surround the ThC with a quartz tube about double the diameter of the ThC and measure the temperature again. If you’ve set it up right the temperature registered in the presence of the quartz will be ~100ºC hotter.
So I take a quartz tube and place it over an object and it will get hotter, wow Climate Science in Action.
No, radiation heat transfer in action. This is a common problem in radiation heat transfer texts.
I will rush out to my kitchen and try it now.
Well I haven’t got a Bunsen Burner or a welding torch or a Quartz Tube, but I expect a hot object and a Glass Jar will do.
No it won’t !
The object is at 34C with temperature sensor attached and the Jar is at 12C, I have placed the Jar over the object and.
Oh no 100C increase, in fact the object temperature fell at over 5C a minute.
Obviously doesn’t work for for ordinary obejcts and glass jars.
So I tried it again with the jar at ambient 23.8C, the object at 26.8C, the object cooled at 0.5C/minute
I must be msiising soemthing.
Just about everything, why am I not surprised.
Phil. December 16, 2017 at 4:16 pm Edit
Thanks, Phil. Note that A C still hasn’t answered my question, he’d rather wave his hands, post ludicrous claims, waffle about his experiments. He appears to be totally impervious to suggestions like yours.
Man, the Dunning-Kruger crowd are out in force on this thread. Not one of them appears to have read even the most elementary thermo text, but they are all experts, every man-jack …
w.
Thanks, Phil. Note that A C still hasn’t answered my question, he’d rather wave his hands, post ludicrous claims, waffle about his experiments. He appears to be totally impervious to suggestions like yours.
Man, the Dunning-Kruger crowd are out in force on this thread. Not one of them appears to have read even the most elementary thermo text, but they are all experts, every man-jack …
Indeed Willis! My thought about your theory would be that cloud formation starts at a certain evaporation rate and that limits the ultimate surface temperature reached. This would explain the increase of the surface temperature with salinity as the evaporation rate decreases as salinity increases. Seems plausible.
Willis, you wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that the cooler atmosphere is HEATING the warmer ocean!?
Yes, he is, not just the Atmosphere, but by inference CO2 at -50C.
I designed phased array antennas for 10 years. It’s a nasty business, all those side lobes keep screwing with the focus. Had i known that EMR could be manipulated by giving it a temperature, my ljfe would have been so much easier.
We could have steered our antennas with little heaters on the dipoles. I could have been famous and rich.
A C Osborn December 18, 2017 at 4:42 am
Yes, he is, not just the Atmosphere, but by inference CO2 at -50C.
I’ll ask again, where do you get the CO2 at -50ºC from?
Sigh. Another person who is unwilling to answer the simple question: if back radiation is NOT heating the ocean as you claim, then what is the energy source that keeps it from freezing?
Sigh… We are running in circle as:
back radiation is not an energy source
isolation is not a source of energy.
Everything is clear and easy to understand if one calculates the net heat flows.
Isolation does indeed help reduce the heat flow but it is not a source of energy. One can put as much blankets around a cold body it will still be cold unless it has a source of energy. (btw. yes we are happy that the Earth has a source of energy 😉 with the sun and enough isolation to keep us warm)
The surface loses heat through various channels.
Heat transfer through radiation in the atmosphere is only part of it. It can also be further divided in various mini-channels.
The window of direct radiation to space is one such channel, the water cycle in the atmosphere is another process of transporting heat from surface to higher altitudes. Convection is another process of transporting heat from lower strata to higher.
CO2 does not radiate back from the top of the atmosphere. How long is the path in the atmosphere for the 14-15 um wave?
If one channel gets more isolation, the surface does not get warmed linearly based on a calculated back-radiation. It is the net heat flow through all channels that matter. With calculated back-radiation heat transfer we get a good approximation for short time period with errors getting accumulated over time.
Yes it is not so easy and comfortable as with ‘back-radiation’ but for 100 years calculations the back-radiation approximation get us all boiled down and the greenes conclude that the sky is falling.
If I had to hazard a theory I would say that the delay in the Radiation loss to space due to the atmosphere is the equivelent of a certain amount of extra input to the system
However I do not believe the Earth’s miriad surfaces and especially the Oceans are anywhere the grey body Climate Science says it is, or the disvision by 4 of the Solar input is anywhere realistic of what actaully happens.
Or that the system is ever in Eqlibrium.
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 11:07 am
However I do not believe the Earth’s miriad surfaces and especially the Oceans are anywhere the grey body Climate Science says it is,
You do know that this has beenmeasured?
or the disvision by 4 of the Solar input is anywhere realistic of what actaully happens.
Have you ever done calculus?
Try the double integral of cos(lat)cos(long), lat from -pi/2 to +pi/2, long from pi/2 to pi/2.
Phil. December 17, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Correction, should be:
Try the double integral of cos(lat)cos(long), lat from -pi/2 to +pi/2, long from -pi/2 to +pi/2.
Mr Eschenbach, just listen to yourself.
We don’t know what else it can be so it must be CO2 Back Radiation.
Yet you are prepared to ignore the Scientific Method of testing the theory.
I have applied the SM to your theory and not once but in 3 different ways they reject it.
I have even applied the formula that you pointed out for energy transfer and they reject it.
What is the quote from Einstein about just one experiment?
I do listen to myself. I say we DO know what it is, both from theory and from measurements. It is downwelling radiated energy from the atmosphere.
YOU say the theory and the measurements are wrong, it’s NOT downwelling radiated energy from the atmosphere … so then the question becomes, what is it?
Rather than answer that, near as I can tell, you open up your head and let random words dribble out about how I’m ignoring “the Scientific Method of testing the theory” …
Dude, you’ve been pointed to Anthony’s experiment. You’ve been pointed to the patent for the improved light bulb that uses a process you say doesn’t exist. I gave you the equation that governs back radiation. I gave you a link to an online calculator for back radiation.
There’s nothing that will convince you. I say to you what I said to Stephen Wilde.
BUY A DAMN COLLEGE THERMO TEXTBOOK, DO ALL THE PROBLEMS AT THE END OF THE CHAPTERS, AND DON’T BOTHER ADDRESSING YOUR COMMENTS TO ME UNTIL YOU’VE DONE SO.
Sheesh …
w.
Right you gave me the Calculator & the Equation.
Let’s plug in the Earth’s Surface and CO2, just consider 1Sq metre of the surface and 1.1Sq metre of the Atmosphere.
The Surface at 288k emissivity at .09 and the CO2 at 223k and emissivity at 1.
The Calculator gives Surface to CO2 225 W/m2
My full Equation gives 224.87 W/m2 – close enough for Government work.
However the Short Equation which does not take into consideration emissivity or area gave
249 W/m2, still not too far out.
Let’s move on to the Sphere in Shell, You didn’t give a temperature of the sphere so let’s assume 1000k and 3.5k for the shell.
The calculator gives Sphere to Shell 567000000 W/m2
My long Equation gives 56700000 W/m2
Short Equation gives 56699999 W/m2
Well that all worked out well.
But as Ed Bo pointed out the heat transfer doesn’t know which direction it is going in, so what happens if we calculate how much energy is going from the colder object to the warmer one using the same values.
Co2 to Surface -274 W/m2
As the shell experiment requires some heating to have taken place for your theory to work let’s use 120k instead of 3.5k
we get
Shell to sphere -113376485.4 W/m2.
My Experiments say NO HEATING
Your Calculator & Equation say NO HEATING
One of the last things you said on your previous thread was and I quote.
“Thanks, A C, but as far as I know neither I nor anyone else has said that cold things can make hot things even hotter by radiation alone.”
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 10:07 am
Right you gave me the Calculator & the Equation.
Let’s plug in the Earth’s Surface and CO2, just consider 1Sq metre of the surface and 1.1Sq metre of the Atmosphere.
The Surface at 288k emissivity at .09 and the CO2 at 223k and emissivity at 1.
Why is the CO2 at 223K?
So you seriously want to blow up a hundred years of successful application of the radiation principles espoused by Willis with an experiment you are doing in your kitchen?
Don’t think you can drive me away by your oh so superior attitude, or by browbeating me.
I do not give up.
Show me and all the other posters on here that disagree with you the proof that back radiation from a very very Cold body can warm a much warmer one.
“Show me and all the other posters on here that disagree with you the proof that back radiation from a very very Cold body can warm a much warmer one.”
That’s not the experiment for which you need to prove the premise A C.
Start there though, minimizing conduction, convection to negligible in ~still air. Record the equilibrium skin temperature of the “much warmer one” with an IR thermometer with the “very very Cold body” in view.
Then replace the “very very Cold body” with just a “cold body” in view of the “much warmer one”. Wait for equilibrium, record the new skin temperature of the “much warmer one” and let us know all temperatures you are working with. And enough detail to replicate.
The T response of the “much warmer one” due the DWIR from a just a cold object replacing the DWIR from a “very very Cold body” is the premise which you are trying to test.
Sorry that is NOT how it works, how can the Earth’s Surface see any Colder Objects through the much warmer, by comparison, kilometres of Lower Atmosphere which it relates to.
Only the upper atmosphere just below the CO2 that is warmer than space can see the CO2 instead of space.
So it might work for the upper atmosphere but not the surface.
What will be the result of having a body at 62C in a room at 22C and replacing an object at 22C exposing the original object with another also at 62C.
Does the first object get hotter.
The answer is NO they both cooled, just more slowly
It was the first Experiment that I carried out.
I was told that the only way it works is a la the steel greenhouse. Ie a continuously heated object at Equilibrium.
So what was the result of that experiment?
Exactly the same, the colder the object the more and quicker it cooled the heated object.
I get the distinct impression you guys supporting the cold makes warm warmer think I am dumb, I may be dumber than a lot of people.
But what I do have is logic, I am a very good chess player, a very well trained problem solver and a programmer who has written process control statistics.
As I said I don’t give up unless the subject is totally beyond me like QM etc
A C Osborn December 16, 2017 at 3:40 pm
Sorry that is NOT how it works, how can the Earth’s Surface see any Colder Objects through the much warmer, by comparison, kilometres of Lower Atmosphere which it relates to.
Anywhere the atmosphere is transparent to the wavelength concerned, for example, on our planet that’s 10-13 microns.
“Sorry that is NOT how it works, how can the Earth’s Surface see any Colder Objects through the much warmer, by comparison, kilometres of Lower Atmosphere which it relates to.”
Then you will endlessly do pointless experiments A C. Have fun continuing & commenting on your pointless work.
The DWIR from deep space is your “very very Cold body”, the DWIR from the atm. would be the just cold body replacing space. Once you realize this, your experiments can be developed on point, verifying the correct premise.
”What will be the result of having a body at 62C in a room at 22C and replacing an object at 22C exposing the original object with another also at 62C.”
The result will be pointless for your intentions of verification A C.
Try an object originally at room temperature next to a “very very Cold body” at equilibrium with the “very very Cold body” blocking most of the room temperature radiation in still air on one side of the warm object. Then replacing the “very very Cold body” with just a cold body in a new equilibrium. Then you will be on point taking data of the room temperature object skin temperature.
Phil. December 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm:
Anywhere the atmosphere is transparent to the wavelength concerned, for example, on our planet that’s 10-13 microns.
i invite you to consider a medium that is not transparent to IR as well – like the ocean once you get a rch deep.
or not. not my job to care who gets what
Phil. December 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Anywhere the atmosphere is transparent to the wavelength concerned, for example, on our planet that’s C
What %age of the Surface outgoing LWIR is actually in the 15 microns band?
Answer about 8%.
What “Energy” does it possess in comparision to White Light?
Answer 0.08 Electron Volts compared to 4 electron volts
How much of the CO2 15 micron Absorption band is actually in the 10-13 microns
Answer None according the IPCC
And this is supposed to provide more Energy than the Sun.
It still does not overcome the fact that it can only slow the surface cooling, not increase it’s temperature.
If a 62C object replacing a 22C object cannot warm a 62C object how can photons from a -10C, -20C, -50C object warm an object at 15C?
Place any cool object near warm object and it cools it, so the atmospheric window is an Aid to cooling, if it went directly to space it would cool even quicker than going to the CO2 layer at 15 micron layer.
Trick December 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm
“The DWIR from deep space is your “very very Cold body”, the DWIR from the atm. would be the just cold body replacing space. Once you realize this, your experiments can be developed on point, verifying the correct premise.”
How much DWIR from space, just how many photons from Space get through our Atmosphere, how many would the CO2 Photons be replacing exactly?
It doesn’t matter how many ways I do the Experiment a Cold body doesn’t make a warmer body hotter, it can only ever slow the cooling, but very cold bodies like CO2 at 15 microns and -55C are going to cool it faster than the rest of the lower Atmosphere.
Let’s assume that your CO2 photons will have some kind of an effect.
At 10,000 M height the Density of the Atmosphere is less than 1/3rd of that at the surface, at 16,000 M it is only 1/10. So the 400 ppm of CO2 effectively becomes somewhere between 133 and 40 ppm compared to the lower atmosphere where the greater majority of the molecules reside, so how many CO2 molecules are actually there at 10 to 16km?
So at 10000 to 16000 metres we have a lot less CO2 molecules than in the Denser Atmosphere below that height.
The Energy released as photons can only come from those energised CO2 molecules that have not lost their energy due to collisions with the 2500 times as many other molecules in their immediate space, lets call those “survivors”.
Slightly less than half the photons from those Survivors are heading for the surface, the rest to space.
In the next Metre they are going meet and be absorbed by other CO2 molecules and over half of those new Survivor’s photons are also going to be heading for space, in the next metre the same again and so on, when we get to the area of the Atmosphere where we have Water Molecules and CO2 and a lot more of them per Cubic metre than at 10000 to 16000 metres, we will have a much higher attrition rate.
How many of those original CO2 photons at 10 to 16km will actually survive to reach the Surface and what kind of impact can they have?
Those collisions and absorptions going on in the upper Atmosphere are only delaying the energy released to space, they are slowing the cooling rate, not heating the surface.
”How much DWIR from space, just how many photons from Space get through our Atmosphere, how many would the CO2 Photons be replacing exactly?”
Well we can see the stars from the ground on clear sky nights so enough photons to be above the perception limits of our eyes.
Because the stars twinkle at night we know the atm. constituent particles scatter some of the starlight.
Because IR telescopes move to high places we know some of the starlight is absorbed in the atm. or they wouldn’t bother to move. If there are clouds the starlight photons are scattered and absorbed while the clouds add emitted photons of their own.
”Let’s assume that your CO2 photons will have some kind of an effect.”
A C after this statement you go on to describe the opacity of the current atm. This opacity is well understood and extensively measured. The measurements agree with theory to reasonable accuracy so the theory is reasonably useful to understand increasing and decreasing atm. opacity effects. There are many papers from the early 1990s (built on previous work) & over the next decade as the field was an active research topic.
To answer your question: ”How many of those original CO2 photons at 10 to 16km will actually survive to reach the Surface and what kind of impact can they have?” catchup on the basic papers to understand the methods used and if still interested enough you can use the software developed to answer your question(s).
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 3:16 am
Trick December 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm
“The DWIR from deep space is your “very very Cold body”, the DWIR from the atm. would be the just cold body replacing space. Once you realize this, your experiments can be developed on point, verifying the correct premise.”
How much DWIR from space, just how many photons from Space get through our Atmosphere, how many would the CO2 Photons be replacing exactly?
Approximately zero (corresponding to a temperature of 3K) so in the absence of CO2 virtually all the IR emitted from the surface would go to space with virtually none returning so the temperature at the steady state would be much lower. In the presence of CO2 much more of the emitted IR is returned to the surface so temperature increases. In the absence of GHG’s there would be no DWIR, in the presence of GHG’s the measured DWIR is ~300W/m^2
It doesn’t matter how many ways I do the Experiment a Cold body doesn’t make a warmer body hotter, it can only ever slow the cooling, but very cold bodies like CO2 at 15 microns and -55C are going to cool it faster than the rest of the lower Atmosphere.
Perhaps you’re not doing the experiments correctly, any progress on the thermocouple experiment I suggested to you? What does CO2 at -55ºC have to do with anything?
A C Osborn December 17, 2017 at 1:49 am
Phil. December 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm
Anywhere the atmosphere is transparent to the wavelength concerned, for example, on our planet that’s C
What %age of the Surface outgoing LWIR is actually in the 15 microns band?
Answer about 8%.
I make it about 15%
What “Energy” does it possess in comparision to White Light?
Answer 0.08 Electron Volts compared to 4 electron volts
So what, the energy/photon is lower but there are many more photons so the flux is comparable.
How much of the CO2 15 micron Absorption band is actually in the 10-13 microns
Answer None according the IPCC
Exactly that’s why it’s called the IR ‘window’.
And this is supposed to provide more Energy than the Sun.
Measured DWIR is more than the insolation at the surface. If you put a ‘hot’ mirror (which transmits visible and reflects 2/3 of the IR) above a blackbody at steady state with 170W/m^2 incident visible you’d have 340W/m^2 DWIR. As a result your BB temperature would have to rise to emit 510 W/m^2. (308K vs. 235K)
It still does not overcome the fact that it can only slow the surface cooling, not increase it’s temperature.
If there’s a constant input (like on the earth) then that’s exactly what happens, the temperature increases.
If a 62C object replacing a 22C object cannot warm a 62C object how can photons from a -10C, -20C, -50C object warm an object at 15C?
Flawed experiment, photons at those temperatures will certainly warm an object when replacing ones from -270ºC
Place any cool object near warm object and it cools it, so the atmospheric window is an Aid to cooling, if it went directly to space it would cool even quicker than going to the CO2 layer at 15 micron layer.
Exactly and the presence of CO2 reduces the size of the window.
So many misdirections I am not sure where to start.
So let’s start with this one “if there is a constant input (like on the earth)”, not just a midirection, it is an outright lie.
There is no constant input over the whole surface, otherwise there would never be a night time cooling phase.
So to make your point you are now prepared lie about how the real world works.
You and others keep talking about averages, the world actually does not work on averages, they are only used to make estimates.
At the moment in the northern hemisphere we get 8 hours of insolation (input) and 16 hours of no input, but the Output that was occurring during the day still continues.
The Earth Surface at night is a bog standard cooling body, any kind of retardation in that cooling is not warming.
The surface may end up warmer or cooler depending on that rate of retardation.
Without H2O it would be very much faster cooling as displayed in deserts.
The real world does not fit your statement at all. It also does not fit that CO2 has a greater impact than solar or H2O.
You also state that replacing a -270C object with a -50C object with a cooling body like the Earth at night will make it
warmer, again no it won’t it will only slow the cooling. The emitter will end up warmer when the process is finished, but the initial temperature of 22C will NOT GO UP, without extra Input.
You do not appear to understand the difference between Heating & Reduced Cooling.
You also keep asking where I get the Temperature for CO2, well let me turn that around, what do think the Temperature is where the 15 micron window is in the Atmosphere, as all the other frequencies that CO2 operates at are saturated by H2O
That will do for starters.
tty, thanks for that last attempt.
You have described insulation, you have not described Heating, which requires that the initial temperature rises. So you say that Back Radiation provides insulation ie reduced cooling.
So even by your description CO2 does not raise the temperature of the surface it only slows the cooling.
It does Not Input 300 or 400 Watts/m2 and raise the temperature, it delays that amount leaving it.
Which is what I said to Mr Eschenbach, it is Equivalent to but not actual heating.
Quite how you think a cold object at whatever temperature CO2 is has an affect from 10+ km away I am not sure.
Because if I separate my much hotter objects by even a few metres their affect on each other is not even measurable.
A C Osborn December 18, 2017 at 7:27 am
So many misdirections I am not sure where to start.
So let’s start with this one “if there is a constant input (like on the earth)”, not just a midirection, it is an outright lie.
There is no constant input over the whole surface, otherwise there would never be a night time cooling phase.
So to make your point you are now prepared lie about how the real world works.
That was in reference to your experiment, and the input to the earth is constant, that the earth rotates doesn’t change that.
You and others keep talking about averages, the world actually does not work on averages, they are only used to make estimates.
At the moment in the northern hemisphere we get 8 hours of insolation (input) and 16 hours of no input, but the Output that was occurring during the day still continues.
In my part of the northern hemisphere I get 9hrs of daylight, you must be further north.
You also state that replacing a -270C object with a -50C object with a cooling body like the Earth at night will make it warmer, again no it won’t it will only slow the cooling.
I didn’t say that at all, I made no reference at all to “a cooling body like the Earth at night”. what I said was: “photons at those temperatures will certainly warm an object when replacing ones from -270ºC”.
The emitter will end up warmer when the process is finished, but the initial temperature of 22C will NOT GO UP, without extra Input.
If the 22ºC object is at a steady state near an object at -270ºC and then the -50ºC replaces it then the temperature will certainly go up from 22ºC.
You do not appear to understand the difference between Heating & Reduced Cooling.
The misunderstanding is all yours.
You also keep asking where I get the Temperature for CO2, well let me turn that around, what do think the Temperature is where the 15 micron window is in the Atmosphere, as all the other frequencies that CO2 operates at are saturated by H2O
Everything from the surface temperature on upwards. The saturation by H2O is a myth, check out Clough and Iacono, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 100, No. D8, pp 16,519-16,535, August 20, 1995
A C Osborn December 18, 2017 at 7:57 am
So even by your description CO2 does not raise the temperature of the surface it only slows the cooling.
It does Not Input 300 or 400 Watts/m2 and raise the temperature, it delays that amount leaving it.
Actually no, there is a measured Downward IR flux of that magnitude.
Quite how you think a cold object at whatever temperature CO2 is has an affect from 10+ km away I am not sure.
Simple, it isn’t anywhere near 10km away.
To convince me you just have to show me how the warmer body knows that the photon comes for a colder body and it is therefore not permissible to absorb it.
You are confusing heat flow with radiation. They are two different things. Heat cannot flow from a colder place to a warmer (except for very small scale fluctuations, heat is a statistical phenomenon). Radiation most certainly can.
I did NOT say it was not permissable to absorb it.
What I said was the photons and their energy made no increase in the temperature of the warmer body, it still cooled it.
In that case you are even more ignorant than I realized. A photon that is absorbed by an atom or molecule inevitably raises its energy level. Conservation of energy you know.
If it is a very cold night and I dive into my swimming pool, I get cold. If I climb out of the pool into the cold air I get even colder.
If I then climb into the spa, at 90, I warm up quite a bit.
My body is at 98.6 and the water is colder than my body, but I am getting warmer by being in there.
tty, if I am ignorant, so is my Thermometer, as we did it together.
Do you really believe that an Ice cube makes an object at ambient warmer?
Because I can assure it DOES NOT happen.
In fact tonight I even tried a constantly heated object at 40C and another heated object at 24.9C 3 degrees above ambient.
Absolutely no heating of the Hotter object, in fact it cooled 0.5C.
menicholas December 17, 2017 at 1:12 am
If it is a very cold night and I dive into my swimming pool, I get cold. If I climb out of the pool into the cold air I get even colder.
If I then climb into the spa, at 90, I warm up quite a bit.
My body is at 98.6 and the water is colder than my body, but I am getting warmer by being in there.
Because conduction heat transfer depends on deltaT and in the spa the deltaT is much lower than in the cold pool. So your heat loss rate is sensed by the nerves in your skin and sends signals to the hypothalamus to regulate your metabolism, your metabolic rate will cause your internal temperature to rise if uncontrolled usually by controlling your heat loss, probably causing you to sweat to prevent thermal runaway (hypothermia). Sweating doesn’t work so well in a pool!
CdT/dt=( heatreleaserate-heatlosscoef(deltaT)) = 0 at steady state
I realize this is probably a hopeless task, but I will try one more time. Heat always moves from warmer to colder, but radiation can move both from a hotter object to a colder and from a colder to a hotter, but the hotter object will be putting out more (and on average more energetic) photons so the net energy flow will be towards the colder object.
However the flow from the colder object will decrease the net flow from the hotter object, and therefore keep it at a higher temperature than it would otherwise be. Incidentally this is how a thermal blanket works. It will keep you warm despite having practically zero insulation and being colder than your body. The “back radiation” from the blanket decreases the heat loss from your body.
Willis,
I am now ready to describe the problems with the ‘proofs’ provided by you and Robert Brown.
i) Real world convection requires uneven surface heating but your column has a uniformly heated base so that little or no convection will occur.
ii) Real world convective overturning requires separated rising and falling columns to minimise conduction between them Think in terms of the rising and falling legs of the Hadley cells on Earth. Your model forces them together so that conduction is maximised
iii) Real world convection requires an exponential density gradient with molecules free to move apart in three dimensions which gives maximum conversion of KE to PE and a steep lapse rate slope. Your model allows only moving apart in the vertical plane due to the parallel sides all round which barely gives any density gradient at all.
So, to support your contention that an atmosphere with no GHGs would become isothermal you and Robert have created a model that effectively eliminates the real world features that make an isothermal atmosphere around a planet impossible.
Stephen Wilde December 16, 2017 at 4:14 pm
No, you’re clearly not ready. Are you really a dumb guy, or do you just play one on the web? What part of this seems unclear to you?
To everyone at the end of the head post …
and to Joe Born
and to you
and to you again
Come back when you’ve extracted your head from your fundamental orifice and you are ready to follow a simple request. I’m not interested in your stupid games.
w.
I have told you clearly how and why your model does not adequately replicate the real world scenario.
Except, Stephen, your telling does not agree with testing. The same problem puzzled scientists had when their telling of the specific heats of diatomic atm. gas was not in agreement with testing. As your link describes, it took the development of quantum mechanics to explain the test results.
A separate issue, Trick.
There is no need to consider radiative gases at all in connection with convective overturning. That is why the US standard atmosphere works without any radiative element.
All the avg.d natural radiative effects, condensation and some convection are already included in the US Standard Atm. because it is made up of 1000s observations in midlatitude tropics.
Yes, and it all nets out to zero as I keep telling you.
Close to zero (~1 W/m^2 rounded, out of 240) as no global temperature series is strictly constant.
In so far as it differs from zero in one place or at one time then there will be an offset in some other place or at some other time otherwise hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be maintained.
That would mean a constant global T reading in all the series which is not evident. The global temperature varies & trends and the atm. is still retained & mostly hydrostatic.
“ii) Real world convective overturning requires separated rising and falling columns to minimise conduction between them.”
Once again, simple lab testing of uneven surface warming causing convection in a fluid in a gravity field shows this description is not physical in meteorology Stephen. Testing shows ascending columns (as in thermals for gliders) exist but similar descending columns are only a myth. As Lorentz pointed out in his 1955 foundational paper on the subject.
As long as you deny that adiabatic descent exists then you are bound to remain misguided. Every high pressure cell in the troposphere is a descending column and there is evidence of a slow convective overturning in the stratosphere too.
I don’t know what you think Lorenz said. Most likely you have misinterpreted him.
”I don’t know what you think Lorenz said.”
That’s repeatedly obvious. Acquire the paper, it is free on the internet.
“Available Potential Energy and the Maintenance of the General Circulation” E. Lorenz 1954
”As long as you deny that adiabatic descent exists then you are bound to remain misguided.”
Testing denies it, shows every high-pressure cell in the troposphere moves surface fluid laterally in at surface T to replace the low-pressure fluid rising in thermal updraft columns – for that witness glider pilots circling to gain altitude. Stephen will remain misguided by his imagination until he learns from the actual uneven surface warming testing.
Need the link again?
Stephen Wilde December 19, 2017 at 2:02 am
As long as you deny that adiabatic descent exists then you are bound to remain misguided. Every high pressure cell in the troposphere is a descending column and there is evidence of a slow convective overturning in the stratosphere too.
I don’t know what you think Lorenz said. Most likely you have misinterpreted him.
Perhaps you should read it, you might learn something?
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Available_Potential_Energy_1955.pdf
Phil,
I am familiar with that Lorenz article and must have first read it soon after publication in 1955. It is your interpretation of it that I am not familiar with.
Lorenz points out that the bulk of directly observable atmospheric motion is caused by local variations from the general background adiabatic profile and he calls the energy arising from those variations ‘available’ potential energy which is simply a local energy imbalance that creates local weather phenomena such as thermals and storms. Subsequently that separate form of potential energy has been used in the concept of Convectively Available Potential Energy (CAPE)
That does not imply that there is no net adiabatic uplift in rising columns and no net adiabatic descent in falling columns, which, taken together and averaged around the globe as a whole net out to zero and hold the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.
You and Trick completely fail to understand the essence of the Lorenz paper.
What goes up must come down so it is puerile to suggest that the air rising in thermals then fails to come down again or to deny that when it does so it warms up at the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
Stephen Wilde December 19, 2017 at 10:51 am
Phil,
I am familiar with that Lorenz article and must have first read it soon after publication in 1955. It is your interpretation of it that I am not familiar with.
I made no interpretation of it I merely gave a link to the paper.
a.c. you tried. there’s a scotoma – a belief that has been accepted as true and which makes any contrary notion unmemorable. typically, these things require a near.death experience to reset.
nice try, tho.
gnomish December 16, 2017 at 5:13 pm
So you are emulating your heroes and refusing to quote what you are talking about. Perhaps you don’t realize that it makes your objection unintelligible.Who has such beliefs, which beliefs are they,why are they wrong, you can’t be bothered with trivia like that. You just want to attack random nameless people and fling poo at people who do understand thermo … not impressive in the slightest.
w.
gnomish December 16, 2017 at 10:10 pm
Still no quotes, still no demonstration that I’ve made any mistakes, just endless deflection away from any actual science … if you want to watch some unconnected movie, go for it.
Me? Pass …
Sigh …
w.
” you’ve extracted your head from your fundamental orifice”
” attack random nameless people and fling poo”
” Are you really a dumb guy, or do you just play one on the web?”
“Oh, please, not this crap again.”
“I’m tired of picking spitballs off the wall.”
“Until then, talk to the hand.”
“Saying the magical incantation “thermohaline circulation” does nothing for either the discussion or your reputation.”
“You’re making a fool of yourself, and it is painful to watch.”
” destroy them entirely with your genius insights and hitherto unknown facts ”
” your reputation with me goes in the oubliette …”
” you open up your head and let random words dribble out”
“Man, the Dunning-Kruger crowd are out in force on this thread.”
“Come back when you’ve extracted your head from your fundamental orifice”
” I’m not interested in your stupid games.”
trollolol
willis’ compelling arguments have persuaded me, so i have made sure to quote them.
i probably missed a few. i think there was one calling somebody a pig, too…
Clyde Spencer December 15, 2017 at 12:46 pm
Such a universal statement is not warranted. Typically, if either warm air passes over the water, or the water surface receives incoming IR, water vapor will be evaporated from the surface, resulting in it cooling.
In order to cause evaporation the temperature must have increased, the evaporative cooling must be less than the heating and a new higher steady state would be reached. Your answer violates thermodynamics.
Phil. December 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm Edit
Yeah, but perpetuum mobiles are so much fun …
w.
phase change occurs with no change in temperature
gnomish December 17, 2017 at 9:44 am
phase change occurs with no change in temperature
Not according to Clyde. 🙂
Willis,
Would you please describe the inputs to your correlation graph of temperature and radiation?
What time period for observations, is ocean SST or air temperature just above or water temperature to a selected depth? Is the radiation averaged over a time period or is it for a time of day like noon?
I am wondering how the boundary between positive and negative correlation regions is set. Does it really on assuming a sensitivity factor?
The data are interesting but not quite clear to those like me who have not studied the source material too well. Geoff.