Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at the Notrickszone, there’s much buzz over a new paper entitled Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law Points to a Very Low Climate Sensitivity, by Robert Holmes. The Notrickszone article is headlined with the following quotation from the paper:
“In particular, formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.”
– Holmes, 2017
And here’s the abstract:
Abstract: It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa.
This method requires a gas constant and the knowledge of only three gas parameters; the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere. The formula used is the molar version of the ideal gas law. It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures on planets with atmospheres >10kPa. This indicates that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three mentioned gas parameters.
Given this, it is shown that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.
Instead, it is a postulate of this hypothesis that the residual temperature difference of 33°C between the S-B effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.
Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards. Here is a look at the various planetary atmospheres:
And finally, here is his math that leads to his mystery formula. From the paper:
Molar Mass Version of Ideal Gas Law Calculates
Planetary Surface Temperatures
The ideal gas law may be used to more accurately determine surface temperatures of planets with thick atmospheres than the S-B black body law [4], if a density term is added; and if kg/m³ is used for density instead of gms/m³, the volume term V may be dropped. This formula then may be known as the molar mass version of the ideal gas law. The ideal gas law is;
P V = n R T (1)
Convert to molar mass;
P V = m/M R T (2)
Convert to density;
PM / RT = m / V = ρ (3)
Drop the volume, find for density;
ρ = P / (R T / M) (4)
Find for temperature;
T = P / (R ρ/M) (5)
[VARIABLES]
V = volume
m = mass
n = number of moles
T = near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin
P = near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa
R = gas constant (m³, kPa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹) = 8.314
ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³
M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass gm/mol⁻¹
Now, I agree with all of that. Well, other than the strange form of the last equation, Equation 5. I’d simplify it to
T =P M / (ρ R) (5)
But that’s just mathematical nitpicking. The underlying math is correct. That’s not the problem. The problem is where it goes from there. The author makes the following claim:
In short, the hypothesis being put forward here, is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of various planets obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.
… So what?
I mean that quite seriously. So what? In fact, it would be a huge shock if planetary atmospheres did NOT generally obey the Ideal Gas Law. After all, they’re gases, and it’s not just a good idea. It’s a Law …
But that says exactly NOTHING about the trajectory or the inputs that got those planetary atmospheres to their final condition. Whether the planet is warmed by the sun or by internal radioactivity or whether the warming is increased by GHGs is NOT determinable from the fact that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law. They will ALWAYS generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated.
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.
Look, we could start up ten million nuclear reactors and vent all their heat to the atmosphere. The planet would assuredly get warmer … but the atmosphere wouldn’t stop obeying the Ideal Gas Law. The variables of density and temperature and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass would simply readjust to the new reality and the Ideal Gas Law would still be satisfied. You could still use his Equation 5 version of the Ideal Gas Law to calculate the temperature from the other variables, regardless of whether or not the atmosphere is heated by nuclear reactors.
So I’m sorry, but the underlying premise of this paper is wrong. Yes, planetary atmospheres generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, duh, why wouldn’t they … and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law. They will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so you can’t rule out anything.
Best of another sunny day to everyone,
w.
MY USUAL POLITE REQUEST: When you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT so we can all understand what you have an issue with.
Another version of a sky dragon argument using the bicycle pump analogy. The ideal gas law PV=nrT does say that if you raise P you will raise T. Which will then cool, and all bicycle and bike pump owners know. But pumping to raise P in the fixed tire V requires work (energy input). “Adiabatic auto-compression” from gravity ‘work’ happened exactly once, as earth formed and contracted out of the solar accretion disk. Earth has had ~4.5 billion years to cool since. The paper conclusion is completely bogus.
I would have thought that the evaporation and precipitation of water effectively powers an atmospheric cycle in the troposphere which provides the work of auto-compression since the formation of the earth.
Sorry, late back—been quite a day. Phase state changes of water do indeed indirectly power climate. They provide convection and precipitation and regulate the water vapor feedback.
But they have nothing to do with BS “adiabatic autocompression” of the atmosphere by gravity.
Sorry Peterg but I cant quite agree with your comment. The atmosphere is in effect the working fluid of a heat engine converting thermal energy into mechanical work (wind, elevating water to levels above sea level etc). The main feature of a heat engine is that it cannot be 100% efficient (second law of thermodynamics – entropy always increases). This means that in addition to energy injection at the hot junction there must be energy dissipated at the cold junction which in this case is the tropopause or lower stratosphere. No energy loss at the cold junction – no heat engine and no work output which in this case means no wind and no water elevated to higher altitude by evaporation and rainfall. The only way the atmosphere can lose energy at this altitude is by radiation to space but the only components of the atmosphere that can radiate energy at these temperatures (thermal infrared) are the greenhouse gases. That is after all exactly the definition of a greenhouse gas – one which can radiate energy in the thermal infrared range of wavelengths (or if you prefer a gas with an emissivity significantly greater than zero at these wavelengths). Without GHG’s the upper atmosphere could not cool and convection would cease. The atmospheric cycle is driven by energy input at the surface (from sunlight absorbed by Earths surface and from there coupled to the atmosphere) plus energy loss at the tropopause to space by green house gases. Without those nasty GHG’s there would be no weather, no lapse rate, no on going water evaporation, no clouds. Just a clear blue static sky all at uniform temperature. Oh and by the way, without clouds, earth’s albedo would be very low so the surface would not be absorbing 240 watts/sqM but more like 340 watts/sqM which would give it an SB temperature of about +5C (278K)
Michael Hammer
I agree, except there is clearly more than one cold junction in the Earth’s planetary atmosphere.
We know from the studies of thermal radiation that there is an atmospheric thermal emission window in the infrared spectrum.
It is this window that allows for the unimpeded thermal emission from the solid ground directly out to space. We see this process working most obviously at night when in winter, on still air cloudless nights, ground frost forms first while the air above remains warmer than 0C and a thermal inversion layer is created.
It is this same process of night time direct cooling of the ground that leads to the formation of the coastal land breeze, the night time flow of radiatively cooled air from the land to the sea.
It is also this process of direct cooling of the ice surface in winter that leads to the flow of radiatively cooled air from polar continental ice caps down to the ocean as the katabatic wind, the cold air drainage from the ice cap of the ultimate land breeze.
While we can discuss whether the radiative cooling to space of air lifted to the tropopause governs the structure of the Hadley Cell, in particular its latitudinal reach (it does not, the latitudinal reach of the Hadley Cell is determined by the rotational speed of a planet) it is the process of direct thermal emission ground surface cooling that determines the structure of the Polar Cell, particularly if the polar cell is built around a high elevation ice cap, such as Antarctica.
Michael H,
I agree with a lot of that. But it isn’t true that without GHGs the atmosphere would be still. As Donald K notes below, and Philip M above too, there are still horizontal temperature gradients that can power a heat engine. And energy from that heat engine also powers the heat pump (described here) that creates and maintains the lapse rate.
Michael Hammer: “Without those nasty GHG’s there would be no weather, no lapse rate, no on going water evaporation, no clouds. Just a clear blue static sky all at uniform temperature.”
Stephen Wilde, 2/7 @ 4:06: “If one starts with a GHG free atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium then the downward force of gravity is on average exactly offset by the upward pressure gradient force caused by surface heating via conduction and convection. That balance must apply at every height for an atmosphere to be retained.”
Earths’s surface pressure =14.7 pounds/ square inch = 2117 pounds/ square foot = about 19,000 pounds/square yard.
It would be impossible for the sky to have uniform temperature without greenhouse gases, as MH says. It simply makes no sense. It would mean that the pressure at each level of the atmosphere makes no difference whatsoever, so that the surface temp under 19,000 pounds/square yard, receiving energy from the sun as well as from the surface heating, would be exactly the same as the temp under 500 pounds/square yard pressure much higher up. Please explain how this can be.
Michael Hammer: Without GHGs, “Just a clear blue static sky all at uniform temperature.”
How does that work? If we have a molecule of, say, O2 at the surface pressure of 14.7 pounds/square inch and it has a temp of 255K (we’ll say for the sake of argument) then when it gets at the top of the atmosphere where the pressure is much, much less (we all agree on the pressure gradient, at least) and it therefore becomes a relatively lonely molecule, by what mechanism does this molecule maintain its 255K within the surrounding space that is much, much colder?
It’s time to squanch that ludicrous idea that has somehow started to circulate. All things radiate, including non greenhouse gases. I think the people that so desperately want to dismiss adiabatic auto compression as something that doesn’t exist have done a swell job so far in demonstrating that nature can’t work without it.
Wow its hard to follow the timeline of comments in wordpress. Everything seems to get jumbled up together however to comment on the replies to my comment.
A number of people consider the absence of a lapse rate unacceptable, as far as I can tell because thre ascending air would be expanding and thus cooling. That would be true if the air was ascending but without convection it would not be. It would be static. The pressure gradient would simply be a reflection of the weight of the air column above any point within the atmosphere. Once the air reaches the same temperature as the surface there is no net heat transfer from surface to air so we have a static atmosphere with no heat transfer in or our. No heating of the air near the surface so no increase in temperature driving convection. The lapse rate arises because of convection and cooling from above but if there is no cooling from above and no convection then the lapse rate does not need to occur.
Someone commented that my argument is wrong because all things emit infrared energy. I am sorry your experiences mislead you. Virtually all solids do have a significant emissivity in the infrared but the gases oxygen and nitrogen do not. If you want to argue pedantically that the emissivity is not exactly 0.000 fine, maybe it’s 0.001 but from a practical point of view that might as well be zero. Nitrogen and oxygen neither absorb nor emit thermal infrared energy to any significant extent.
Nick Stokes and at least one other (Sailboard?) comment that the earth’s surface could be both the hot junction and the cold junction either separated temporally (day vs night) or spatially (equator vs poles). Yes that would be possible but there is a practical problem in terms of that driving a heat engine. Cold air is denser than hot air so the cold air would form an insulating layer over the surface (ie: it would form a temperature inversion). Since air is a very poor conductor of heat the amount of cooling of the air above would be minimal and the air above would not descend since by definition it would have to be hotter than the air below if it was to cool – pass energy to the surface). Technically the argument is valid but practically I suspect the impact would be trivial.
Consider the stratosphere, this is a large layer of static atmosphere where there is no convection. The temperature gradient is positive (rising with altitude) simply because it is heated from above due to absorption of UV energy from the sun by oxygen and ozone. In fact that would still occur because oxygen DOES have a significant absorptivity for UV energy. As some have stated in the comments what would happen would the stratosphere would extend down more or less to the surface with a positive temperature gradient all the way (temperature rising with altitude) . There would not be clouds because for clouds to form the water vapour has to condense and this releases large amounts of energy. There is nowhere for that energy to go it would heat the surrounding air which would make it too hot for the water vapour to condense in the first place .
Michael
Atmospheric convection by surface heating is not the only mechanism by which air can be made to move. Surface cooling by direct thermal radiation to space is just as important as this surface radiative cooling also maintains a thermal lapse rate in the atmosphere above.
Have a look at Fig 1. in this paper by Pan, W et al. 2002 The temperature structure of the winter atmosphere at South Pole it demonstrates the presence of a winter tropopause at an elevation of 8km at the South Pole. The vertical temperature profile in May and June clearly shows that, above the surface inversion layer associated with the radiative cooling of the ice surface, there is a fall in temperature as height increases, a standard feature of a troposphere, namely a vertical lapse rate.
Even more interesting are the profiles for deep winter when the fall in temperature with height extends right up through the stratosphere.
Let us suppose we fired a rocket vertically into space from the South Pole. At what height above the icecap would the rocket pass from the night shadow of the Earth and out into sunlight?
This question can be solved using simple Pythagoras right angle triangle geometry:-
Earth’s Polar Radius 6356.752 Km
South Pole Icecap Elevation 2.835 Km
Antarctic Circle Degrees 66°33′47.0″ South
Antarctic Circle (Decimal) 66.563056 South
Sine of Antarctic Circle 0.9175
Sine Angle = Opposite/Hypotenuse
Hypotenuse = Sine Antarctic Circle/Polar Radius = 6928.352 Km
Height of Shadow Zone = Hypotenuse – (Polar Radius + South Pole Elevation) = 568 Km
The answer is that the rocket would have to climb to an elevation of 568 km above Antarctica before it became sunlit. The formal definition for the edge of Earth’s atmosphere is the Kármán line and this is at a vertical height of 100 km, so it is clear that in mid-winter no part of the atmosphere above the South Pole can be lit by the sun. So we can be absolutely certain that the atmosphere at the South Pole in mid-winter is in a state of continuous darkness.
Clearly the idea that the temperature profile in the Earth’s troposphere is maintained by direct solar thermal radiation is in trouble when we look at the temperature profile data for the South Pole in mid-winter as the atmospheric profile has a vertical lapse rate.
So what is going on? Well descending air heats by adiabatic auto-compression and so, as the stratospheric air descends in the polar vortex over the South Pole driven by the surface pressure reduction caused by the mechanism of direct to space ground surface radiative cooling of the ice and the associated lateral down slope advection (export) of this cold air via the density current drainage of the katabatic wind, a vigorous circulating mass transport of surface wind is created across the ice cap of Antarctica, from which wind energy can clearly be extracted.
Opps! Typo here:-
Hypotenuse = Sine Antarctic Circle/Polar RadiusHypotenuse = Polar Radius/Sine of Antarctic Circle
but the km number I used is correct …
(no wonder I failed A level maths :-0 )
I am personally extremely thankfull for the Sky Dragon guys!
I read the Nikolov et al paper several years ago, they had me fooled for about 3.7 seconds, then I concluded that it was really true that the “Climate Deniers” were all nuts, but soon, after having mostly been doing economics for a very long time, it led me back to my books from university on heat transfer, fluid mechanics and atmospheric physics to the point that I really appreciated and understood in a broader context my graduate thesis using Navier Stokes to investigate the Zeldovich equation for the reaction kinetics of nitrogen oxide.
And I found sources like Antony Watts’ and Judith Currie’s internet sites that amply proves that critics of the current political truths of global warming are all but nuts!
Political truth’s. Doesn’t exist.
Ever heard of gravity?
Ah so once air is convected into the upper atmosphere it has no gravitational potential energy. Interesting version of “physics.”
AIr that is moving up cools, air that is falling heats.
Net affect? None.
Yeah, if the source of the energy is the air itself. It’s not, the source of the energy IS the sun. Adiabatic auto compression is merely retention of this energy in the atmosphere. What percent of the energy is fed back to the surface from the solar lifted air? That’s probably something being worked on and would probably already be figured out if the GHG fixation weren’t in place.
“AIr that is moving up cools, air that is falling heats.
Net affect? None.”
No. Suppose you move the same air, first up then down. Going up it cools, is denser, and you have to do work to raise it. But in rising and on arrival, it is absorbing heat from the environment.
When it goes down, it warms. That means that you have to do work to force it down. And as it gets there, it gives heat to the environment.
Nett result – a heat pump. You have done work and forced heat downward against a gradient.
That is assuming the temperature gradient is below the DALR. Otherwise, air rising cools, but ambient cools faster. The air accelerates, etc. The pump becomes an engine. That is why the DALR is a stability limit.
And the fact that the heat pump pumps heat downward forces the gradient up toward the DALR limit. That’s why we have a lapse rate.
“Going up it cools, is denser, and you have to do work to raise it. But in rising and on arrival, it is absorbing heat from the environment.
…
And the fact that the heat pump pumps heat downward forces the gradient up toward the DALR limit. That’s why we have a lapse rate.”
This is funny. Remind me what the ‘A’ stands for in DALR again… Now reconcile that with “…it is absorbing heat from the environment.”
As the packet rises (due to lower density) it performs PV work on the surrounding atmosphere. Since this is an adiabatic process there is no heat transfer, so the only source of energy for that work is the internal energy of the parcel of air. Lowering U lowers its state variable T leading to a cooler packet of air. The opposite happens as the now denser packet falls. PV work is done on the packet increasing it’s internal energy/temperature. And since this whole process is adiabatic the trip itself does nothing to the energy balance of the atmosphere. It’s purely the inputs/outputs that change that and not some mythical heat pump pumping energy from space down to the ground.
“And since this whole process is adiabatic”
It actually isn’t. Adiabatic is a useful approximation for rapid rise. It isn’t an edict about the facts. But there is no way that the air can rise and just stay there at the same temperature. It does come to the temperature of ambient.
It’s actually similar to the reversible/irreversible components of the Carnot engine. That is a thought experiment, and you can separate the phases cleanly. In the real world you can’t, but heat engines still work.
RE Nick
**“And since this whole process is adiabatic”
It actually isn’t. Adiabatic is a useful approximation for rapid rise. It isn’t an edict about the facts. But there is no way that the air can rise and just stay there at the same temperature. It does come to the temperature of ambient.**
A parcel of air does not stay at the same temperature. Only the energy content is the same. That is why the temperature rises as it descends into higher pressure and gets compressed. When the parcel rises it expands in lower pressure and cools but the energy in that parcel remains the same if it is dry. Adiabatic is more than a useful approximation. Other than forced lift air rises and falls due to differences in density. There is no loss or gain in energy in a DRY parcel going up or down. In the real atmosphere mixing with surrounding air causes changes in the parcel. In moist air evaporation and condensation cause changes.
Nick Stokes and other, please see my comment above in reply to PeterG.
I think a perfect example of rising and falling air in the real climate can be felt and witnessed with perfect clarity on the island of Hawaii. High rain fall on the Hilo side from high moisture wind driven air, dry arid windy conditions on the Kona side after the volcanoes help squeeze all the moisture out.
Perhaps my observations are crap…I’ve only visited the island once.
“It’s actually similar to the reversible/irreversible components of the Carnot engine. That is a thought experiment, and you can separate the phases cleanly. In the real world you can’t, but heat engines still work.”
Heat engines do indeed work (and the real world is closer to adiabatic transitions than isentropic as in the ideal Carnot cycle), but your explanation was simply wrong. Somehow you seem to think that something other than buoyancy driven by density changes is driving this process, i.e. the parcel must overshoot its equilibrium location in the column and remain there so it can be colder than the surrounding air and steal heat. I can’t help you with that mistake. Thermal conduction to the surrounding column is poor and the location of the parcel in the column is dictated by its density which in turn is dictated by its temperature just like all of the surrounding air. Adiabatic is a very good approximation. Claiming that it’s not highly non-adiabatic (or a close approximation) while using the name is just bizarre.
Correction: Claiming that it IS highly non-adiabatic while calling it adiabatic is bizarre.
“Claiming that it IS highly non-adiabatic while calling it adiabatic is bizarre.”
Who did that? I didn’t even call it adiabatic. You introduced the term, drawing attention to the A in adiabatic. The fact that there is a theoretical DALR is not a claim that any particular flow is adiabatic.
In fact, it is just a function of time and length scales, as expressed by the Rayleigh number. In a large mass of air rising rapidly, PV work is happening a lot faster than heat can move in or out. When the rate of rise slows, or the air parcel breaks up (reducing the length scale), the balance changes, and any heat gained by compression or expansion is mixed into the environment.
It’s like that bike pump that gets talked about. If you pump vigorously it gets warm, as does the air in the tyre. Adiabatic heating. But it doesn’t stay warm forever.
@Nick Stokes
“Going up it cools, is denser, and you have to do work to raise it. ”
However the column of air starting at one square meter will be significantly greater at 50 KM, 100 KM, 200 KM etc. Fifty years since I got my degree in math and don’t even want to try to figure the difference in the number of molecules of “atmosphere” at each level.
Essenhigh’s Lapse Rate Model
For those seeking a quantitative thermodynamically sound model of the atmospheric lapse rate see:
Robert E. Essenhigh (2006) Prediction of the Standard Atmosphere Profiles of Temperature, Pressure, and Density with Height for the Lower Atmosphere by Solution of the (S−S) Integral Equations of Transfer and Evaluation of the Potential for Profile Perturbation by Combustion Emissions.
Essenhigh RH. Prediction of the standard atmosphere profiles of temperature, pressure, and density with height for the lower atmosphere by solution of the (S− S) integral equations of transfer and evaluation of the potential for profile perturbation by combustion emissions. Energy & Fuels. 2006 May 17;20(3):1057-67.
The government maintains a fairly large committee on “the Standard Atmosphere”. The Essenhigh papers confirm the dry atmosphere standard atmosphere model, and extends it to include water vapor. Both use the gas law and molar mass in the equations and confirm that the atmosphere’s temperature, pressure, and density are primarily governed by the basic physics. Essenhigh confirms that the effects of radiative gases, CO2 at 20% of the radiative effects and H2O 80%. CO2 has small effect on the atmospheric temperature, but the model is sufficiently accurate to make calculations of the effects due to additional CO2.
But, as Eschenbach and others have shown, water vapor has huge effects on atmospheric circulation and acts as a regulator of the temperature.
What people have a hard time understanding is that 80% is the regulated amount, not the limit of what it is able to regulate. This is how it counters the increase in CO2, the WV curves, are all defined by pressure and air temp of dry air, and the effect that slows cooling only happens after it’s cooled significantly, not before. So what happens when the dry air is a little warmer in the afternoon from co2, it just cools longer before the PV curve for that amount of water vapor has to increase the % of the WV cloud water molecules condense, even if they absorb a photon, and re-evaporate, that photon was lighting up the water vapor cloud in these wavelengths, and over laps co2, like shining a red flashlight on something red in the dark. This energy supplements losses from the surface which are driving lower temperatures, driving WV to condense, it’s just more energy is released that it takes to cool that molecule that same amount if it didn’t have to condense to cool.
The point, you can’t add these together and read a trend.
Philo,
The 80/20 WV/CO2 ratio (4) is off by a factor of about 3. The ratio is more like WV/CO2 at 12-15.
Isn’t that the point Ferenc Miskolczi was making in his paper when he states that Earth has a controlled greenhouse effect?
Miskolczi, F. M. 2007 Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres IDŐJÁRÁS Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.
I haven’t read this, but will.
But I have found other suggest such a mechanism simular to what I found.
I in general presume they are likely talking about the same effect.
ristvan
In other scientific words, what you’re saying is, on yer bike mate.
Brit term for ‘get stuffed’. 🤣
Yup. You got it. Gives skeptics the abonimable color of deniers.
Regards from the other side of the pond.
9.8m/s²
Not once, 9.8m per second worth of force. Or 9.8Newton per meter each second.
96N/m², or 96Pa
You got that right! I remember years ago reading a paleontology article stating that the x% warmer Carboniferous Period was brought about by an atmosphere 10% more dense than our current atmosphere. I immediately wanted to check what percentage in warming was brought about by a y % increase in atmospheric pressure. I got the PV = nrT formula, and realized that the problem was insoluble because I had one equation with two unknowns.
Years ago, a sky dragon posted on this site- I asked the question in all seriousness, “given an atmospheric density 20% greater than Earth at the distance of Mars- what temperature do you get?” , and naturally didn’t get a straight answer.
–Years ago, a sky dragon posted on this site- I asked the question in all seriousness, “given an atmospheric density 20% greater than Earth at the distance of Mars- what temperature do you get?” , and naturally didn’t get a straight answer.–
Well, Earth at Mars distance, would probably have 20% greater density then Earth at Earth distance from the sun
Or sea level air should be colder, and therefore more dense.
Or air mass of air is about 1.2 kg per cubic meters at about 20 C.
120% of 1.2 is 1.44 kg per cubic meter.
Chart for air density at temperature, hmm. Here:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html
looks like 1.5 kg per cubic meter is about -50 C
Oh, here:
at 70 F air at 1 atm pressure: 1.199 kg per cubic meter
and at -20 F at 1 atm: 1.445 kg per cubic meters
[-50 F at atm: 1.551 kg per cubic meter and 0 F is 1.382 kg per cubic meter]
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html
So depending on temperature, here at earth distance from the Sun, we have higher density
when it’s colder, though average air temperature is about 15 C [59 F]. And chart says 60 F
is 1.222 kg per cubic meter – 20% increase of that is 1.4664 kg per cubic meter.
So Earth would have to have an average temperature of about -20 C or less to have average air density 20% greater than Earth at Earth distance from the sun.
Now if Earth was at mars distance, would obviously would be colder than at earth distance.
And it seems to me, it would have average temperature of less than -20 F [-28.89 C].
Roughly I would say the tropics could be fairly warm. Or currently our tropics have average temperature of about 26 C. And at Mars distance, our tropics might be near 0 C in terms of average temperature.
Earth’s average ocean surface temperature is presently at about 17 C. And at Mars distance most of Earth’s oceans would be frozen and have average temperature well below freezing.
We currently have an average land surface air temperature of 10 C, and it’s being warmed by having the higher ocean temperature. At mars distance the Earth’s ocean would not doing much to warm the land surfaces. Nor would fairly cold tropical ocean be doing much to warm the rest of the world. Roughly it seems quite possible that Earth’s polar region might colder than Planet Mars polar region. And seems possible that in addition to freezing water, in polar regions, one could CO2 could freeze out of the atmosphere.
Or if believe CO2 causes warming, one might get less CO2 in the atmosphere, but I don’t think much would freeze out, nor that CO2 causes much warming.
Btw, I think if Earth had 20% more atmosphere, I think Earth would have a more uniform temperature. Earth’s average land surface would be become warmer than 10 C. And though not much warmer, and one would have a higher air density at sea level.
Mars is 1.524 au from the sun. Temperature is inversely proportional to distance ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL- which it isn’t. SQRT of 1.1.524 is 0.81 times earth temperature, but that assumes the same amount of cloud cover as at earth, which wouldn’t happen unless it had the same temperature as an earth 1 au away.
We get an average of 324 watts from the sun now, about 30% of which is reflected away by clouds. Adding in latent heat, our current atmosphere increases that surface wattage by a factor of about 1.51 to 490 watts at the surface. That would give us a temperature of (490/390.7)^0.25 *288 K =304.8 K if it all went into sensible heat. For Mars, multiply by 0.81 to get 246.9 K.
About 30% of the 324 watts we get from the sun is reflected away. Multiply that 246.9 K by (1/.7))^.25 and I get close to 270 K. Our current atmosphere has a net magnifying effect of 490/324 watts =1.51 after factoring that negative cloud feedback. What additional effect would a 1.2 atmosphere have? If it was
1.2 times that current 1.51, we’d get an additional 1.2^0.25 times 270 K= 282 K, warm enough for liquid oceans. Of course, in my comps, no heat was going into evaporation or convection, so the actual planet would be somewhat cooler than that, and have a lot drier climate than earth.
It’s probably higher than 30%, I don’t think enough credit is given to glare off water, water near the terminators lines will be reflectors, and the surface will be radiating to a very cold sky as well.
” “Adiabatic auto-compression” from gravity ‘work’ happened exactly once, as earth formed and contracted out of the solar accretion disk.”
Seriously? One-off gravity? Nah, gravity still works, and is still doing the “work” of accelerating the massive sub atomic particles that make up the molecules in the air towards the center of the earth; thereby compressing them.
Gravity is not you and your bicycle pump. It does not quit to allow the molecules to separate and cool.
Radiative and adiabatic effects are BOTH real, and they are integrated through pressure broadening. Atmospheres follow both the Boltzmann curve AND the ideal gas law. The information is so entangled that you can stand back and say the properties of atmospheres can be accounted for by pressure alone or radiation alone; but you are really just describing the combined effects of both.
@Rud Istvan,
What you describe with your bicycle tire is the heat death of the planet. Entropy complete, equilibrium complete, no further work can be extracted; cold, smooth.
We don’t live on that planet. We are lumpy, warm, work can still be extracted from many disequilibria, and entropy is nowhere near done with us.
“The information is so entangled that you can stand back and say the properties of atmospheres can be accounted for by pressure alone or radiation alone; but you are really just describing the combined effects of both.”
In the sentiment of the never to be forgotten post from a Real Climate groupie many years ago.
gymnosperm, I love you, can I have your babies?
Oh crap, Willis…here it comes.
What??….don’t tell me you have a Tesla heading right at your house??
Rerouted from space!
I thought that was Musks new preferred delivery method
Hopefully his landing method for delivery is improving
https://youtu.be/JMOGh4ZZca8
The core Falcon 9 of the FH stack was by far the more expensive piece of hardware than the 2 boosters. Looks like high winds were outside limits and forced the stabilization system beyond controllability limits. Good thing it was a drone ship.
Interesting. The Falcon 9, in spite of the subsequent failure, looked like it might have made a successful landing on a larger landing target. It appeared to have the correct vertical landing attitude. It is hard to judge the downward velocity at platform level but it did seem to hover there a bit. Dunno.
This video dispels a lot of false information previously circulating on the Internet and even “reliable” news sources about the failure of the F9-H center core landing . . . many had stated that the core had a “failure to ignite” of one or more main engines intended to provide deceleration thrust and that the core stage hit the water at 300 mph. Obviously, false.
The video is from 2015. Not of the recent center core Falcon 9 crash.
Thanks for allowing the debate– I presume without censorship of civilized comments that disagree with what here appears to be the consensus view?
Before we start saying how all those people who disagree with Willis don’t understand physics, remember that that is EXACTLY what the alarmists say about the skeptics.
The only remaining option is to take the higher ground and disagree with everyone.
“The only remaining option is to take the higher ground and disagree with everyone.”–David
OK, David, I disagree. 🙂
/sarc
I though the Great Sky Dragon had been banned from these precincts?
In any case, I shall let others take up their shield and their sword to slay it today. Too much to do, too little time to post a basic physics lesson.
Adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere raises the tropopause. The height of the tropopause is determined by the radiation equilibrium surface temperature, the radiation equilibrium temperature at the radiation-effective top of the atmosphere, and the lapse rate.
Dr. Roy Spencer, a skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, says the greenhouse effect exists and causes the lapse rate. Without greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.
Without greenhouse gases, the tropopause would be vanishingly low and the troposphere would be vanishingly thin, and essentially all of the atmosphere would be a stratosphere of uniform temperature.
Without greenhouse gases and the effects thereof … there would not be us … life …
But water vapor in the troposphere is the dominant GHG providing the GHE. Not CO2 at variable trace quantities.
And it is water vapor across the vast majority of the globe that minimizes diurnal temperature swings and moderates the air temps. At the South Pole surface, at an altitude of 10,000 MSL on the very cold icepack, the GHE of pCO2 reverses sign.
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
What if the greenhouse effect of water vapor is real, and the pressure effect of the atmosphere is also real?
Don,
IMO that is the case.
Temperature is basically set by air pressure, but water vapor and clouds can and do retard loss of heat from the surface.
Maybe, but don’t forget only part of the spectrum is even affected, and some of the other parts are clear or have nothing but water lines, so when it’s not real humid those by pass co2 entirely to space.
How much exactly does 0.04% of the atmosphere raise the troposphere?
It varies over the world, as ratio of CO2 to H2O varies, as clouds vary, and with latitude and season because incoming radiation varies. I have yet to see a good one-size-fits-all or global average figure for how much of the greenhouse gas effect is from CO2.
For a better answer, I can say how much the tropopause height will increase from a doubling of CO2, with assumption of 3.7 W/m^2 per 2xCO2 (which includes increase both from increase of CO2, and from the altitude range that emits downwelling radiation getting warmer from more CO2 but no other feedbacks), and the climate sensitivity being the zero-feedback (other than the positive one I mentioned) figure of .3 degree C per W/m^2, for 1.1 degrees C of warming. And I will assume the stratosphere’s temperature does not change (It has actually cooled during MSU/AMSU satellite observations). The tropospheric lapse rate generally averages about 6.5 degrees C per kilometer. If my assumptions are good, this means doubling CO2 and the 1.1 degree C surface temperature increase from that will raise the tropopause about 170 meters.
” If my assumptions are good, this means doubling CO2 and the 1.1 degree C surface temperature increase from that will raise the tropopause about 170 meters.”
Hmm, and how much does the 3-4% of water vapor [30.000 to 40,000 ppm] in the tropics raise the tropopause?
And another question does night cause troposphere to fall- or 10 C drop in temperature due to night also cause falling.
I seems that the 10 tons per square meter of sky falling could cause some heat.
Also when water vapor disappears when it condenses into a cloud, it is also similar to the sky falling..
How far does the top of the troposphere drop at night?
At least a few hundred feet.
And what I’m explaining doesn’t have any clouds, I’m doing astrophotography, that’s why I noticed it not cooling while it was still clear, and feels a lot colder than air temp did.
Lot of energy just there.
–How far does the top of the troposphere drop at night?
At least a few hundred feet.–
170 meters could be said to be at least a few hundred feet
And at night, it can cool a few degrees at least
–And what I’m explaining doesn’t have any clouds, I’m doing astrophotography, that’s why I noticed it not cooling while it was still clear, and feels a lot colder than air temp did.–
What? What do you mean, “…not cooling while it was still clear,”
?
It’s clear here [about 48 F] and probably get close to freezing- later on, say maybe around
1 degree lower per hour.
–Lot of energy just there.–
Yes. Even very cold air has lots energy in miles of colder air above it.
You need to measure it, might average 1°/hr, probably not a constant rate.
oh, read your post lower down.
So…
I would say it is due to latent heat [of water vapor].
Or with dry air, one wouldn’t have it as much.
If the atmosphere was transparent to both shortwave and longwave radiation, and the surface of the earth had the same reflectivity to short-wave radiation as it currently does with clouds and all, then the surface of the earth would be somewhere at the current temperature of the upper troposphere. However even though the atmosphere would be quite stable, its temperature lapse rate would still be the dry adiabatic lapse rate because of the movement of molecules due to temperature causing compression as they wander down and expansion as they wander up.
Air molecules changing temperature as they wander upward or downward into altitudes that have different pressure? Where is a downward-diffusing air molecule going to get its increase of energy from for that temperature increase?
Also, if an object such as a mass of air can become non-uniform in temperature from mere thermal agitation, this means thermal agitation causing a source of usable energy (a temperature difference), and I don’t buy that. And if an air mass of uniform temperature should become non-uniform in temperature without a net gain or loss of kinetic energy of its molecules, then its entropy would decrease. Again, I don’t buy that.
Without greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.”
Thats almost funny, it is so wrong.
If water was not becoming water vapor (then becoming liquid [or ice]) there would less weather,
and no rainy or snowy weather.
I agree with your description except for one thing. The atmosphere would not be a uniform temperature. There would still be a lapse rate. Essentially you would have uniform energy which would include potential energy. The kinetic energy would be higher near the surface.
Without convection, heat conduction will make the temperature of the atmosphere uniform more than molecules gaining/losing potential energy as a result of losing/gaining altitude will make the lower atmosphere warmer and the upper atmosphere colder. Consider that the stratosphere, which has about or a little over 25% of the mass of Earth’s atmosphere, has a general lack of a trend of getting colder with increasing altitude.
If molecule motion alone (or in combination with nothing else except gravity) can cause a temperature gradient, then one can make a perpetual motion machine powered by a thermocouple. If this can be built, even on paper, then what would lose energy on a continuous basis from this being built?
Actually there would be some convection even without GHG. Some heat would be transferred from the ground by conduction, and N2 isn’t quite transparent to LWIR. But yes, it would be weak.
But then it is very unlikely that any planet could have an appreciable atmosphere without GHG.
How would the ground transfer heat to the atmosphere if the ground is not warmer than the atmosphere? Without greenhouse gases and convection, the atmosphere’s temperature and the ground’s temperature would be the same.
Actually, I have thought about this, and there is a way for there to be convection and a lapse rate without greenhouse gases, and that’s convection forced by a horizontal temperature gradient. On a planet with a GHG-free atmosphere, its atmosphere will be warmed by the surface at the planet’s equator and cooled by the surface at the planet’s poles. In that situation, I envision a thin troposphere layer flowing equatorward along the surface from the poles to the equator, and above that a stratosphere whose polar regions are cooled by conduction to the surface and which descend while being cooled, and once that air starts going equatorward because it can’t descend any more, it changes from being part of the stratosphere to part of the troposphere. And at the equator, rising tropospheric air is cooled as it rises, but has to get heat by heat conduction from below as it rises, and once it starts going poleward instead of rising more, it becomes stratosphere. I expect a lapse rate in such a troposphere, but I also expect the tropopause on such a GHG-free planet to be low, as well as lower towards the poles than towards the equator. And maybe the tropopause being split in the tropics, between a lower tropopause between the equatorward-moving (lowest) and poleward-moving layers of the atmosphere, and an upper tropopause above where rising air over the equator starts moving poleward, although only a fraction as high above the ground as the Earth has now if Earth were instead a dry rocky planet whose atmosphere lacked GHGs.
Donald L Klipstein said:
” On a planet with a GHG-free atmosphere, its atmosphere will be warmed by the surface at the planet’s equator and cooled by the surface at the planet’s poles. In that situation, I envision a thin troposphere layer flowing equatorward along the surface from the poles to the equator”
Your description is exactly why Dr Spencer as someone quoted above is so wrong. To someone standing on that planet, there would be huge winds, of a varying nature as the planet goes from night to day, and random changes driven by dust clouds. That person would say that there is “weather” on the planet,
The ‘tropo’ ‘pause’ is where movement (tropo) caused by convection stops (pause). Convection in the earth’s atmosphere is largely driven by the hydrologic cycle. Water vapor molecules (lighter than Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules) and warm from the water heated by short wave solar energy, evaporates from the Earth’s surface rises convectively removing latent heat of evaporation from the surface and then ‘releasing’ the energy at height on condensation and again on freezing. The cold rain returning to the surface to cool it further [really WIllis should remember this he revisited it not too many posts ago!]. CO2 as a ‘well mixed gas’ will not drive convection, does not carry latent heat and therefore has little or no effect on convective currents (the tropo) in the lower atmosphere – the tropo sphere. Indeed, if it is claimed that CO2 by absorbing infrared photons and then giving the energy to Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules in collisions heats the atmosphere then CO2 will actually reduce convection lowering the tropopause.
Correct. At the temperatures of earth’s air, CO2 is not a condensing gas.
The suggestion that the average Convection frequently busts through the Tropopause and into the stratosphere. Cumulonimbus storm cloud tops can routinely exceed 35,000 feet to almost 50’000 in the big ones.
Thus, the tropopuase is not define by convection, but by a temperature profile.
I’m trying to follow you here. Wouldn’t anything that warms air in the troposphere cause that air to rise and isn’t that literally convection and wouldn’t that, therefore, raise the tropopause because any warmer than usual blob of air by definition should climb higher than usual?
Ian W: Greenhouse gases heat the N2 and O2 where greenhouse gases absorb more radiation than they emit (such as in the lower and middle troposphere). Greenhouse gases cool N2 and O2 where greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb (such as around the tropopause). This is true of both CO2 and water vapor, and independent of the fact that one of these greenhouse gases carries latent heat and the other does not.
@Joeljoelobryan February 6, 2018 at 8:04 pm
“The suggestion that the average Convection frequently busts through the Tropopause and into the stratosphere. Cumulonimbus storm cloud tops can routinely exceed 35,000 feet to almost 50’000 in the big ones.”
Storms in the ITCZ often reach 70,000ft. You are suffering the mathematicians problem of seeing the tropopause as a totally flat surface, it is not. The large convective storms will by sheer momentum penetrate past the ‘lapse rate’ limit and by carrying warmer air higher they by definition have raised the tropopause. It is like a sea surface and can have waves and disturbances – it is not a mathematically flat plane.
@RW February 6, 2018 at 8:08 pm
I’m trying to follow you here. Wouldn’t anything that warms air in the troposphere cause that air to rise and isn’t that literally convection and wouldn’t that, therefore, raise the tropopause because any warmer than usual blob of air by definition should climb higher than usual?
The convection due to the small (very small) amount of ‘heat’ from an IR photon being ‘absorbed’ then that energy passed as kinetic energy to nitrogen and oxygen molecules is unlikely to cause those larger gas molecules to convect in a way sufficient to measurably ‘raise the tropopause’ in the way that the storms formed by th powerful hydrologic cycle do.
Donald Klipstein says: “Greenhouse gases heat the N2 and O2 where greenhouse gases absorb more radiation than they emit (such as in the lower and middle troposphere). Greenhouse gases cool N2 and O2 where greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb (such as around the tropopause).”
Michael Hammer says, way above: “Nitrogen and oxygen neither absorb nor emit thermal infrared energy to any significant extent.”
So to clarify this, what’s going on? I’m not sure I understand what MH is saying, and it seems to me this contradicts what DK is saying.
I’m not trying to be difficult, I’m trying to sort things out so that maybe we can come to some conclusion about this discussion over pressure and the GHE that makes sense.
Thanks in advance.
So probably the first thing to remember gases, like a pane of glass can be clear for some wavelengths and opaque for others, some astrophotography filters have very sharp edges between clear and blocked.
Gases interact with light wavelength by wavelength, N2 and O2 are clear in visible light, and iirc most IR wavelengths at Earth surface temps.
But air is a good conduction insulator, as long as you limit convection. That why most home insulation is air gaps trapped to limit it.
But it still warms and hold a lot of energy ~28 kJ/m^3 in those deserts for just dry air. And it dropped an average of almost 16kJ/m^3 over night.
Tropics average 73kJ/m^3 max and drop only 11.5kJ/m^3
An increase in CO2 reduces the lapse rate which offsets the greenhouse effect.
Planetary temperature for the majority of the paleo record does not correlate to the atmospheric CO2 level.
As far as I know, this could be the proper name for the effect I found, where late at night under clear skies, the cooling rate slows, but as a minimum there is still nearly as large differential as when it’s dropping 3-4F/hr earlier that same evening. But because this effect is a temperature effect, and the energy barrier of all that stored latent heat that has to be radiated to cool.
That’s what this shows
William Astley: Planetary temperature and CO2 do correlate. The usual argument against CO2 change causing temperature change is that CO2 change usually lags temperature change. But, there is a reason why this was what usually happened before the past one or two hundred years: When atmospheric CO2 changed as a result of temperature change, that was because CO2 shifted between the atmosphere and the oceans as a result of temperature change affecting the solubility of CO2 in water, and this reinforced temperature changes that were started by something else. What’s different now: The sum of atmospheric and hydrospheric (and biospheric) CO2 and other carbon-cycle carbon being increased by transfering carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere.
Micro6500: Regarding your graph: I will find to cite where I hashed this out before. The marked slowdown of temperature drop is not caused by water in vapor form, whose concentration does not increase in the wee hours even though the relative humidity approaches 100%. The cause is an emergent phenomenon releasing latent heat – condensation of water vapor into dew on the ground. Note how net outflow of heat decreases as the night goes on after sunset because the ground is getting cooler, but becomes steadier at a notably slowed rate in the wee hours once formation of dew starts replacing some of the heat being lost by outgoing radiation.
Donald, it slows down hours after there’s dew on the ground, that can’t be it.
But there is a massive column of air full of water most the planet that has to cool and condense more and more of the water in it as it gets cold.
I think you’re wrong on this.
Regardless of our last discussion.
Donald L Klipstein:
:What’s different now::
Nothing is different now. It is just your belief system causing you to thin k that our added CO2 makes a significant change. The ice core records already have proven that high CO2 does not slow the rate of temperature decline. Just look at those slopes downward again. If CO2 was so powerful, the rate of temperature decline would be flatter.
In any case, the author has pointed out that the anthro CO2 warming effect is so tiny that we are obsessing over nothing. We need to forget this religious argument and enjoy the fruits of CO2 greening of the earth.
Yes Donald I completely agree with Dr Roy Spencer. Without GHG’s there would be no wind, no weather, no clouds, no rainfall and no lapse rate. The reason is quite simple and outlined in my comment above in reply to PeterG (second comment from the top at 1:41 pm).
Hilariously wrong. Surface conduction will heat the atmosphere and set up thermals. Wind is the result. Dust gets picked up. As you stand in the sand storm will you still insist on your point?
“Without greenhouse gases, the tropopause would be vanishingly low and the troposphere would be vanishingly thin, and essentially all of the atmosphere would be a stratosphere of uniform temperature.”
I believe there are some worlds in the outer solar system whose atmospheres contain no GHGs, due to the cryogenic temperatures of their atmospheres being below the freezing point of GHGs. Do we have enough observations to confirm or refute this hypotheses?
I think we’re still looking for a planet or a not-quite-a-planet that has an atmosphere that lacks GHGs. One issue in the outer solar system is atmospheres tending to have methane, which is a greenhouse gas. And there are other gases whose molecules have three or more atoms that are not all of the same element, and most of those are greenhouse gases. Although now, I see a need to look up whether this is the case with ammonia.
Donald L. Klipstein, February 6, 2018 at 1:25 pm:
I don’t know whether that is an accurate rendition of what Dr Spencer said, but in any case I don’t think it is correct. As I understand it, there is a basic lapse rate that is caused simply by gravity. This can be modified by various factors, such as convection and the presence water vapour. Greenhouse gases may modify it too, but they cannot and do not cause it.
Gravity causes the basic lapse rate by distributing the energies of the molecules that make up the atmosphere in such a way that the faster-moving molecules will tend to be located towards the bottom and the slower-moving ones will tend to be located towards the top. Since temperature corresponds with average kinetic energy, this implies that a temperature-gradient corresponding with altitude, or a “lapse rate” in other words, is created in the atmosphere. This is created independently of greenhouse gases and other modifying factors and would still exist without them.
Cassio: “Gravity causes the basic lapse rate by distributing the energies of the molecules that make up the atmosphere in such a way that the faster-moving molecules will tend to be located towards the bottom and the slower-moving ones will tend to be located towards the top. ”
Sorry, that makes too much sense.
Casio
Yes, I agree.
That statement; “…the greenhouse effect exists and causes the lapse rate. Without greenhouse gases, there would be no weather.”
Whoever made it, is one the oddest claims I have ever heard in the climate debate.
Its no wonder that Judith Curry get out of the field because of what she said was ‘climate craziness’.
“the underlying premise of this paper is wrong.”
Is his math wrong? Are his formulae wrong? Not seeing it.
And showing a Pressure x Temp graph of the various planets and Titan that doesn’t account for received solar energy…. so it is useless to the argument either way without that.
“Is his math wrong?”
His logic is wrong. Willis is absolutely right. Holmes is just putting in the data needed to verify the IGL. It doesn’t show that the IGL is determining temperature. You have to put in both pressure and molar density. Pressure is determined by mass (and g); temperature is determined by heat flux balance, and that then determines the molar density.
The results look surprisingly accurate; that is because it is very likely that the density is simply calculated by someone using the IGL.
So you don’t believe in gravity?
He’s written a very nice equation that proves the cart is pushing the horse at it’s current velocity.
>¿<
All the potential energy was gained when the atmosphere fell from space to the earth billions of years ago.
Since then, every time one molecule moves up, another molecule moves down, so gravitational potential can’t change. If it can’t change there is no energy to be derived from it.
That’s because the horse is on it’s Union contracted coffee break
I disagree with MarkW, though it greaves me sorely. The gravitational potential of the atmosphere doesn’t change, ON AVERAGE” ( sorry, no italics). That doesn’t mean that smaller pieces of the atmosphere don’t circulate up and down, transporting heat aloft and compressing air at bottom to generate higher temperatures.
The fall in temperature we know as the lapse rate is the decompression effect. The reverse is equally true. The gravitational potential is a constant process of compression and expansion based around the average temperature of the atmosphere.
John, didn’t I say that?
It’s much simpler than that. Ideal or not, it takes only two variables to completely describe the thermodynamic state of a gas. Holmes says that if you know the pressure and molar density, then temperature is accurately “modeled” by the ideal gas law. If you know the pressure and molar density, the temperature is specified whether the gas is ideal or not. At earth conditions, the ideal gas law is a very accurate equation of state. But even if we had some weird atmosphere nearer the critical point of its constituents, another of the many equations of state (Van der Waals, Redlich-Kwong, Peng-Robinson, etc.) would still allow one to calculate the temperature from pressure and density.
Look it up in any first year thermodynamics text. This is freshman material masquerading as advanced science.
RWturner: “So you don’t believe in gravity?”
What is wrong with this RWTurner guy, with this repeated nonsense post throughout? If he thinks someone is posting something that somehow contradicts the existence of gravity, let him say exactly how, otherwise leave the discussion to the adults.
That’s prettily described what’s been done. +1
And furthermore, it boils down to an Occam’s Razor argument.
GHE Theory – with all the complications of absorption bands (and wings) of radiatively active gasses, counting watts and energy fluxes. Trying to define an ERL and how it changes by latitude, by water vapor content, by other GHG content.
Adiabatic autocompression Hypothesis – 3 gas law parameters with the IGL and the S-B equation.
If both can explain all the observed physical behaviors of the system, then the simpler explanation is preferred.
The problem is of course, the Big If.
But that’s Science. And dogma, personal belief, consensus are all part of post-normal science. Not actual science.
However when the simpler explanation is demonstrably wrong, it shouldn’t be choosen.
Has that been demonstrated?
It has certainly been asserted.
By the beginning of the 17th Century, there were quite numerous long-term observations of Jupiter with the newly invented telescope. Those observations showed Jupiter clearly had 4 large moons orbiting it. The motions of all the other known planets though could be adequately described by Ptolemaic deferents, epicycles, and an equant. They made reasonably accurate (for the time) predictions of the planets’ motions.
http://i63.tinypic.com/20r226x.png
However the Jupiter moons were a crisis. This was a complete inability for Geo-centric orbital theory of Ptemolomaic mathematicians to describe their motion, and a failure of their underlying model that everything in the heavens revolved around the Earth.
Their Solution: They ignored it the Jupiter moons problem presented.
Along came Kepler with his insights of an ellipse and heliocentrism, then geocentrism proceeded to crumble.
Kepler and heliocentrism won the day based on simplicity and agreement with observation.
There is this observation and GHE theory based explanation described in this paper:
“How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
The authors’ observations are “explained” by the authors by asserting that at the South Pole surface, at an altitude of 10,000 MSL on the very cold icepack, the GHE of pCO2 reverses sign in this situation.
That should really be a Wow!!! statement for the Consensus to accept for GHE theory. That should be a crisis for GHE theory if one considers the implications that this reversal effect only applies to the high South Polar regions.
So the challenge to Robert Holmes and his Adiabatic auto-compression hypothesis is to explain the South Pole observations without having to invert the basis of your argument as GHE theory apparently must.
joelobryan
The problem people have, including Nick Stokes, is that they think it is a circular argument. I did too, at the start. I decided to derive the maths myself and to try to understand the argument being made. It took a while, then I realized that it was not a circular argument. The initial surface warming is calculated for a no atmosphere planet. The key variables are distance from the sun, etc., as listed. The calculation of the “greenhouse” effect is then done. It is not circular reasoning.
joelobryan
Let me introduce here the concept of concavetion.
There is no upward vertical convection of air in winter over the vast bulk of East Antarctica, there is instead a continuous downward vertical movement of air towards the ice surface, namely the polar vortex.
I assume that you are familiar with the weather phenomena of the daytime Sea Breeze and its night time counterpart the Land Breeze?
The sea breeze arises because of the enhanced rate of daytime heating of the land surface by sunlight compared to the sea. The land breeze arises because of the differential rate of night time cooling of the solid land surface by infrared radiation to space compared to that of the liquid seawater that has a much higher heat capacity and is able to replenish by fluid overturn during surface cooling.
Convection is a process by which air rises vertically upward, specifically for this case air that has been warmed by contact with an illuminated surface that is converting solar energy to heat. Obviously this insolation driven process takes place during the daytime, but what happens at night when the corresponding land breeze forms? In this case air cooled by contact with a solid ground surface that is radiating heat to space, increases in density and flows down slope, off the land and out to sea. This land breeze caused by the differential cooling of the land, is not associated with the vertical upward convection of warmed air, rather it is associated with the down slope lateral advection of cooled air; but what is the name of the night time process that generates this flow of dense air from the land to the sea?
A digression:-
The root convect in convection is derived from the Latin word convectus to carry from one place to another i.e to convey. The word convect is loosely related to the term convex which is used in optics to describe the shape of a bulging lens that is thickest in the middle. Convection in Meteorology can therefore also relate in concept to the upward bulging of the atmosphere that we observe in the formation of cumulus clouds, we see a similar process of upward vertical bulging in a lava lamp. In optics the opposite of convex is concave; a lens that is thinnest in the middle. Cave, cavity & cavitation are all related examples of words used to describe an enclosed space, a hollow, or a gap from which material has been removed.
Consider Antarctica, we have there the world’s largest and most isolated island continent. In winter the central high ice plateau of East Antarctica, south of 80S, experiences a night that lasts for months. As a consequence of the geography of Antarctica the ice surface in winter cools so intensely that the strongest night breeze in the world is created, the katabatic wind. What we observe on the ice plateau of east Antarctica in winter is a vigorous process of thermal cooling of the ice surface by radiative heat loss to space through the transparent infrared atmospheric window. This cooling demonstrates that solid surfaces are the most efficient thermal emitters, because solids can transmit flexural shear waves, whereas fluids and gases cannot. Solid surfaces are therefore more efficient thermal radiators than gases because it is the process of flexure that determines if a gas molecule can intercept and emit infrared radiation, something that only polyatomic molecules can achieve.
The cooling of the air at ground level in East Antarctica creates a dense air mass that is then advected down slope off the ice plateau as a vigorous katabatic wind. Consider a stack of cards from which the lowest card is continuously been removed, the stack will fall into the cavity generated at its base. I want to introduce here a term I have adopted to describe this phenomena of cold dense air being generated by night time radiative cooling of a solid surface, the word is concavetion. Concavetion is the process that permits the vertical descent of air into the “cavity” created both by the radiative cooling at the ground surface and the associated lateral advection that exports the cold dense basal layer to the side as a ground hugging katabatic wind. Concavetion is therefore the opposite of convection and is a process driven by night time ground surface cooling rather than day time ground surface heating.
A few years ago during 2008 there was a live data stream from the automatic weather station (AWS) based on Dome Argus in Antarctica. The AWS located there measured temperature both above and below ground (the ice surface) in a continuous daily record. Three sensors measuring air temperature were placed at elevations of +4 m, +2m & +1m while four more sensors, placed at sub-surface depths of 0.1m, 1 m, 3m & 10m, measured the ice temperature in the ground.
The location of the Dome Argus AWS at latitude: 80 22′ 02″S, longitude: 77 32′ 21″E and with a surface elevation of 4,084m provided a unique insight into the climate of East Antarctica. During the austral winter of 2008 Dome A was in darkness for 24 hours a day from sunset on 16th April 2008 at 0725 UTC until sunrise on 26th August 2008 at 0556 UTC. During this period of 142 days Dome Argus receives no direct sunlight and the air temperature sensors of the AWS recorded the night time cooling and the formation of an intense thermal inversion layer at the ground as the high level ice surface radiated heat to space through the thin dry winter air.
Because of its unique winter location we can be sure of the following features of the weather at Dome Argus.
1. No direct solar heating by sunlight can possibly have occurred at this time during the depths of winter.
2. The crestal elevation of the site means that all advected surface air that reaches here has to climb up the dome to reach the plateau and therefore must be cooled by adiabatic lift.
3. The residual summer heat in the ground ice cannot be heating the descending air above 4m because of the thermal inversion caused by radiative cooling at the surface of the ice prevents direct thermal contact.
4. So the only source of energy that can maintain the higher air temperatures at 4m and above is the heating of descending air from aloft by tropospheric adiabatic auto compression.
Let’s have another look at Fig 1 in Pan, W. et al. 2002. The temperature structure of the winter atmosphere at South Pole this figure records the presence of a winter tropopause at an elevation of 8km at the South Pole. The vertical temperature profile in May and June clearly shows that, above the surface inversion layer associated with the radiative cooling of the ice surface, there is a fall in temperature as height increases, a standard feature of a troposphere, namely a vertical lapse rate.
But there is no insolation at the South Pole in winter and so no radiant energy to heat the ice surface and cause buoyancy driven atmospheric convection. So how is this lapse rate maintained? What we observe on the ice plateau of East Antarctica is the winter night time process of concavetion, which results in the downward vertical motion of air in the polar vortex falling under gravity towards the ice surface. This fall causes the descending upper air to loose potential energy and to thereby gain heat by adiabatic auto compression so maintaining the observed lapse rate in the tropospheric winter air above the South Pole.
Ideal gas law does give T out if put among others, density and pressure in. But density is affected by the greenhouse effect as well.
No seriously who could think rho M just defines T even when there’s a mathematical dependency binding them together?
It’s difficult for me to understand the gravity compression argument in the atmosphere. The displacement of one molcule going up by another molecule coming down (or moving sideways or whatever) means no net work is being done by gravity. Right? Am I missing something here? Have I misunderstood the argument?
rip
Well, there is compressional heating of falling air-masses like the Chinook winds. But for a fixed-volume atmosphere like Earth it has to be balanced somewhere by an equal mass of air cooling by rising.
This is exactly my thought on this. It seems insane to me to think energy is ‘created’ somehow by gravity. Sure, it can ‘generate’ potential energy for something (in this case air), but that’s only turned into kinetic energy by falling toward it. If energy is then used to get further away, that’s the kinetic energy returned to potential energy, rinse & repeat.
And that expansion cools off some of the warming that was otherwise input into the system.
When the heating stops, the atmosphere cools and contracts, and the compresion could heat the system. However once equilibrium is again reached, the system becomes static.
When the volume of the atmosphere expands at the height of the solar cycle, satellites in low orbits are threatened by it.
Jer0me you are confusing heat with temperature; heat is energy, temperature is the effect heat has on a mass under specific conditions.
Paul,
I don’t think I am. If the energy remains the same, merely switching from potential to kinetic and back, how can that affect the temperature? The only way is to add more energy (the sun) or retard cooling (theoretically by ghg).
OK, the MASS of Earth’s atmosphere is fixed. Jeesh.
The misunderstandings about this post are astonishing. Anth*ny above was right to warn about it….
Rob Bradley: “Should the entire atmosphere heat up, it expands, as there is nothing at the top to contain its expansion.” So then as our atmosphere heated up in the geologic past, it would have dissipated to space? Doesn’t gravity constrain/”contain” the expansion?
but rising air cools because as rises it becomes less dense and if that cool air falls, it increases in temperature because becoming more dense. Or Chinook wind could be wind that force up, say 1000 meters, and becomes cooler and then if falls 2000 meters and it gets warmer then where it started because the air fell further than it rose.
But most of convectional heating of air, doesn’t involve air masses rising- the average velocity of air molecules increase, and the kinetic energy rises [rather than the molecules going up]. and also goes the other way when surface cools.
Jer0me,
Potential Energy (PE) is the energy of position of a mass in a gravitational field. Its formula is m*g*h (mass times gravity times height).
The potential energy of a mass does not have a temperature, the mass only has energy by virtue of its place (height above a datum).
So if we have two solids of equal mass held at the same height above the surface of the Earth, even if one mass is cold and one mass is hot, they both have the same potential energy. On being released and allowed to fall both solid masses (hot and cold) will achieve the same increase in velocity (kinetics) as their potential energy is converted into motion due to the acceleration of gravity v = a*t (velocity equals acceleration multiplied by the time elapsed) but of course the temperature difference between the two masses will remain the same.
Kinetic energy is energy of motion (velocity). Its formula is 1/2 * m * V^2 (mass times velocity squared all divided by 2).
Any mass rising vertically upwards in a gravitational field is slowed down by the force of gravity, the mass loses kinetics but it gains potential energy as it rises.
Temperature is motion. Potential energy is not motion. If it helps consider this: – a mass at absolute zero resting on the ground still exerts a force on the resisting surface by virtue of its mass. The mass produces a pressure on the ground even though the mass is at absolute zero and has no motion (temperature).
Any mass of air on the ground can only rise if it is lifted by a force, which can be due to buoyancy difference caused by thermal heating of the air by sunlight or the displacement upwards by a colder more dense air mass coming in from the side (the advection of a cold arctic air mass) that forms the katabatic lifting potential of a cold weather front.
Don132 February 7, 2018 at 4:19 am
Don, The simple answer to your question is No, gravity does not constrain the expansion, indeed the fact that gravity does not stop the escape of gases to space is relevant to our understanding of how some planets retain an atmosphere and what the molecular constituents of that atmosphere are, while other planets do not have an atmosphere with any significant mass.
Planet Earth has an atmosphere containing the gases Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon and Carbon Dioxide, but no Helium; our Moon does not have any significant atmosphere. Because both the Earth and the Moon circle the Sun as a co-orbiting pair of twin planets, both bodies experience the same intensity of sunlight throughout the year. Gravitational strength is the key difference between the Earth and the Moon that allows the Earth to retain an atmosphere at our orbital distance from the Sun. The strength of the surface gravity on the Moon at 1.625 m/s/s is much lower than the Earth’s gravity of 9.81 m/s/s and so the Moon is unable to retain a low molecular weight atmosphere at this distance from the Sun. It is the strength of a planetary body’s gravity that determines the Escape Velocity, from its surface and it is the value of the escape velocity (determined by the planet’s mass) that allows a given planet to retain low molecular weight gases within its atmosphere under a particular intensity of solar heating.
If we start with a mixture of two gases, one of which is light, for example Helium, with a low molecular weight of 4 g/Mole and one which is heavy, such as Carbon Dioxide, with a higher value molecular weight of 44 g/Mole then, even though both gases within the mixture will have the same kinetic energy (1/2 * m * V^2), the average velocity of the particles for each gas in the mixture will be significantly different. The Carbon Dioxide molecules will move much more slowly that the Helium atoms do because their greater mass means that the kinetic energy of motion for the CO2 molecule is carried by a particle with 11 times the mass of the Helium atom. The implication of this difference in particle velocity for the two gas species is profound. For a low mass and therefore low escape velocity planet orbiting close to the heat source of sun, the lighter molecular weight atmospheric gas will more easily achieve escape velocity, even when the heavier atmospheric gas will not and so will be retained. In effect Helium gas escapes from the Earth because the temperatures found in the Earth’s upper atmosphere are too high for the mass of our planet to retain this low molecular weight (and therefore high average velocity) gas.
Some notes on Escape Velocity
Escape velocity is the instantaneous velocity an object needs to achieve in order to completely escape from the gravitational field of a massive body (a planet for example).
Some things to remember: –
1. For these calculations we assume that no energy loss occurs due to friction with the atmosphere.
2. As the body rises away from the surface it will slow down and lose velocity as its distance away from the planet increases and therefore its potential energy increases.
3. The escape velocity has the same value (but opposite direction) to the maximum impact velocity – the velocity an object that was initially stationary with respect to the planet would achieve if it fell onto its surface starting from an infinite distance away and falling solely under the influence of the planet’s gravity.
Escape velocity of Earth = 11.186 km/s
Maximum temperature of the Earth’s Exosphere is 1350 Kelvin
Let us assume that the Moon has an Exosphere with a temperature of 1350 Kelvin (the same as the Earth’s).
Helium μrms @ 1350 Kelvin = 2.9 km/s
The Escape Velocity of the Moon is 2.376 km/s, this value is too low for the Moon to be able to retain any Helium gas.
Philip Mulholland February 15, 2018 at 3:57 am
Quite an explanation!
Thanks.
By George the Dragon Slayer – you’ve got it!
Yep. Sigh…
You are completely missing the energy source that started the process. Solar energy provides the energy to lift the air in the first place. The “molecule coming down” didn’t magically get there, it was essentially lifted by solar energy. When that molecule falls, that gravitational potential energy is converted back into kinetic energy.
When the molecule rises, it gives up the heat that sun put into the system.
There are no free lunches.
” it gives up the heat that sun put into the system”\
Yeah, to potential gravitational energy.
When one molecule rises, another falls. The energy given to the one is lost by the second.
Isn’t the potential gravitational energy a function of proximity to the source, especially for the distances being discussed here? Surely there is less gravitational potential energy for molecules in the stratosphere than there is for molecules in the troposphere or at the surface.
RW February 6, 2018 at 8:31 pm:
It’s actually the other way around, RW: the higher the molecule is above the planet’s surface, the greater is its gravitational potential energy.
For locations inside a planet’s atmosphere, a molecule’s gravitational potential energy can be calculated as the simple product of the molecule’s mass (m), the acceleration due to gravity (g) and its altitude or “height” (h) above a baseline referent (normally sea level); i.e. mgh.
Okay, one molecule goes up, and one molecule goes down, but all the molecules are still around the planet — none have gone from the planet, and the reason is that gravity is still holding them ALL near the surface in a density gradient that gets bigger, moving from top of atmosphere to bottom. The weight of the entire atmosphere is still mushing the molecules together, isn’t it? Gravity is still doing work on the whole atmosphere, isnt’t it, even with the continuous displacements of molecules between the different densities? It all (the whole atmosphere) still gets worked on, or else those up molecules would be flying off into space, and, eventually, all molecules would fly off into space — with no atmosphere left to argue about.
I am having trouble seeing that gravity does not do any net work, when it is working all the time to hold the ENTIRE mass of air to the globe.
I’m just getting started with my confusion, so forgive me — this might continue for a while, if the mods allow.
I do not see CO2 as an evil dragon, nor do I see the evil-dragon slayers as enemies. I see CO2 as a friendly dragon, and I tend to be drifting towards a friendly dragon/non-CO2-greenhouse-effect-believer.
The pressure route might be rough, but I need to work out how it is so totally wrong, and, as yet, I do not.
Robert,
the definition of work is force times distance. Gravity is constantly applying a force but
if the average distance is unchanged then there is no work done and no energy gain or loss. More formally gravity is a conservative force and so you can easily prove that there is no change in energy for any closed loop.
The paper is nonsense for all the reasons that Willis and others have pointed out. And if you don’t believe them think of what would happen if the sun stopped shinning. If this paper was correct then the temperature of the earth would remain at 33K since that is apparently what the ideal gas law would predict. Which is clearly nonsense. The reason being that both the pressure and density of the atmosphere would adjust themselves to give a temperature equal to about 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic microwave background).
Germinio,
But in that case, there would no longer be an atmosphere. The gases would freeze and condense on the surface of the planet (unless earth’s internal heat produced enough energy to keep them liquid).
The ideal gas law requires gases to work. Thanks to the sun, we have a gaseous atmosphere.
Germinio,
I think that I am not seeing the premise of the paper as you are. I think that the sun IS a consideration, and to think that gravity ALONE is somehow causing the air to heat the planet is ridiculous, of course. I’m thinking that gravity is doing something to the air mass in such a way that the Sun’s energy is used a certain way.
Molecules that are closer together at greater density (density caused by gravitational compression at the surface) can heat up more than molecules higher up in the atmosphere (at less density/less gravitational compression).
If the paper is making the claim you say about gravity alone without the sun, then it’s trash. But I’ll have to go read it in depth, I guess, to assess its claims better.
This, of course, is not a new idea. It’s a rehashing of an idea that has been trashed, reborn, and trashed again, as I see it. There’s some appeal to it, because it resurfaces from time to time to get a fresh look.
I’m actually amazed that Anthony allowed it.
Robert,
the paper is nonsense. And has nothing to do with gravity which is another question entirely. The paper would appear to claim that the ideal gas law PV=nrT can be used
to predict the temperature of the atmosphere. Which of course it can but only if you already know the pressure and volume. But equally well you could use the temperature given by the predictions of the standard greenhouse gas theory to predict the pressure
and so use the ideal gas law to “prove” that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With the ideal gas law there are 3 unknowns, Pressure, Volume (or density) and Temperature and so there
is usually a way to alter one of those to ensure that the ideal gas law is satisfied.
Compression only heats while it is being compressed. Once the compression stops increasing, the heating stops.
— Germinio
February 6, 2018 at 3:29 pm
Robert,
the definition of work is force times distance. Gravity is constantly applying a force but
if the average distance is unchanged then there is no work done and no energy gain or loss. More formally gravity is a conservative force and so you can easily prove that there is no change in energy for any closed loop. —
With air molecule distance traveled is nanometers, and as air warms the distance traveled before colliding and changing direction, is shorten. Or assuming average velocity of air molecules remains the same and if a shorter distance is traveled by average molecules- then the air is warmer.Or if more molecule are in given volume and average velocity is same, they travel shorter distance and the air is warmer.
A molecule rises, trading kinetic energy for gravitational potential.
The molecule collides with other molecules at the higher altitude, exchanging energy.
Molecule falls, trading gravitational potential for kinetic energy.
collision and energy exchange again.
repeat.
Result: potential field driven kinetic energy gradient.
Energy is constantly being pumped into the lowest levels and into the ocean by short-wave solar radiation during the day time. At night water vapor in the boundary layer slows radiative EM energy escape. CO2 is a very minor bit player in that as wv absorption saturates the CO2 absorption bands. The only place CO2 GHG theory can reasonably be invoked are in very dry deserts and similarly arid regions.
Clouds of course alter all that. Clouds and precip are the bugaboo factor the models cannot model, so the modellers enter those clouds and precip-evap effects through parameters. The amount of energy they are tuning can make the climate models do whatever they want. Cargo cult science.
Joel, you stated “The only place CO2 GHG theory can reasonably be invoked are in very dry deserts and similarly arid regions.”
And what do those regions show, massive diurnal temperature swings, ie CO2 is doing practically nothing, whereasby comparison in the presence of H2O those swings are attenuated.
LOL. Has someone been explaining here that if it gets cooler when you climb, it is actually because of less CO2 traces trapping heat ?
Maybe Stanley should replace the vacuum with CO2 in there thermoses. Since conduction and emissivity aren’t important at all. /s
Well, its a hypothesis first of all, not a theory. So I guess I would expect him to now demonstrate his hypothesis using data (and NOT models).
If I read this correctly, he claims that one can predict, within some range of error (and I didn’t see that), the average near surface temperature without knowing the exact gasses involved, but just their mass. This would seem to me to be an important finding, if he could verify it. It would mean the structure and behavior of the gas molecules is not as important as just their mass. CO2 would have no real relevancy due to its absorption behavior or energy.
“adiabatic auto-compression” – no clue to how this explained something. I think I understood the claim, but not the mechanism in the hypothesis.
Your thought experiment of adding a bunch of nuclear reactors to create heat doesn’t really address the same claim (at least as I understand it) – yes the gases would be hotter, and yes they would adjust to still be a nearly ideal gas, but having greenhouse gases or not would make no difference to the eventual equilibrium.
I am not supporting the idea, just trying to understand it.
As I understand the theory and Willis’ argument, the Ideal gas law would be upheld REGARDLESS of whether or not Green House Gas heating is real, because if it is happening the warmer atmosphere expands and rebalances the equation. It doesn’t matter where the extra 33 degrees comes from, GHG, radioactivity, farting unicorns, whatever. The atmosphere will adjust to that temperature by changing it’s volume and density, and the ideal gas law equation will balance.
~¿~
Solar radiation warms a solid surface. Gas surrounding this surface collides with the surface and heat is converted into kinetic energy in the gas. This causes convection. Since the planet has gravity, this rising air is merely converting kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy. When the air falls back to the surface, this gravitational potential energy is converted back to kinetic energy. Simple, elegant, and unequivocally true despite the persistent d-nyeal just because they didn’t think of it.
Simple, elegant and true, and not having any impact on the temperature of the gas.
So you’re saying that if the atmosphere of Earth were only 10% of what it is now it would be just as warm on the surface? SMH
However the heat is mostly transferred from the surface to the gas by radiation (and evaporation for latent heat). Gases are very poor heat conductors so heat transfer by conduction is slight.
@tty – That’s not true at all. If most of the heat were transfer within the atmosphere were to take place via radiation and the timescales of heat transfer were too short for conduction to be the primary mechanism for heat distribution, you’d have a clear energy difference between infrared active gases and non active gases. Instead, we have Brownian Motion and the Kinetic Theory of Gases to explain heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Has anyone taken into account the fact that moist, rising air columns must also entrain CO2 to altitude? There is a fantastic amount of this air. Or does the “magic molecule” refuse to give up its heat until it is close enough to warm a Mann?
“If I read this correctly, he claims that one can predict, within some range of error (and I didn’t see that), the average near surface temperature without knowing the exact gasses involved, but just their mass. This would seem to me to be an important finding, if he could verify it. It would mean the structure and behavior of the gas molecules is not as important as just their mass. CO2 would have no real relevancy due to its absorption behavior or energy.”
I don’t know this theory, but if put some gas in greenhouse on the Moon- if gas is low density- near vacuum like the Moon. The gas will not have a temperature- it won’t warm a thermometer.
But if gas is at 1 atm pressure it will warm up to be over 100 C. And if air is half density at Earth sea level pressure, it will be cooler.
And doesn’t matter what the gas is.
I think this will be a useful discussion. I tend to side with those who believe that pressure causes the greenhouse effect, but at this point I’m open-minded and would like to hear a good, civilized discussion that doesn’t get too much in the weeds with the math.
For starters, exactly why is the bottom of the Grand Canyon warmer than the rim? Because the sun warms the surface and it cools from there? But I’ll bet this is true even on cloudy days. What if there were a week of completely overcast days– would the rim then be warmer than the bottom since cold air sinks? Phantom Ranch, on the bottom, is consistently warmer than the rim. http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/preciptemps.htm
There is snow atop Mauna Loa and balmy tropical beaches below the mountain, but air at both locales is believed to have about 400 ppm of CO2. The air is less dense (at lower pressure) at 13,679 feet than at sea level, hence cooler. There are relatively fewer air molecules per unit volume at the volcano-top Keeling Curve observvatory, but allegedly the same ratio of CO2 to other atmospheric gases.
Advocates of an important CO2 greenhouse effect have trouble explaining this fact.
All explanations for the working of the atmosphere on Earth MUST be tested by reference to known observations such as the Grand Canyon. In addition (as explained by Nikolov & Zeller) we expect the physics to be the same on all rocky planets with significant atmospheres. Therefore we should test the explanations against the known data from these other planets as well.
Explanations which fit everything are much much more likely to be nearer the truth of the matter than those which only fit some things or sometimes.
This is so basic and fundamental I wonder why I had to say it here? (Doh!)
“For starters, exactly why is the bottom of the Grand Canyon warmer than the rim? ”
Because it is lower in the atmosphere. Normally the temperature conforms closely to the local lapse rate since this is the equilibrum state. However there are local and temporary deviations, e. g. when there is an inversion in winter.
The theory is that the sun warms the ground and that this heat convects upwards according to the lapse rate, which is ultimately driven by greenhouse gases. However, the problem I see is that I assume that the Grand Canyon is warmer than the rim even on cloudy days, and even while cold air sinks.
So I’m not sure that the Grand Canyon shows anything one way or another. But another conundrum is that mines deep in the earth are typically hotter than the surface. How do we explain that? Are they that much closer to the earth’s core?
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tvick/how_deep_can_a_mine_be_before_the_heat_is_too/
OK, and this: if it really is true that the molten core is heating the mines, then what does that say about how this same core might be affecting surface temperatures?
The pressure of the atmosphere on the earth’s surface is 2117 pounds/ square feet; nothing to sneeze at.
Maybe random thoughts but I suspect the problem is not so simple as: “it’s greenhouse gases, stupid.”
@don132
“The theory is that the sun warms the ground and that this heat convects upwards according to the lapse rate, which is ultimately driven by greenhouse gases.”
Lapse rate do NOT depends on GHG, or the sun, or the clouds. It was part of my cursus, as an exercise, to calculate dry lapse rate (just like it appears in wikipedia, just check), and it just depends on gravity and specific heat. Moist lapse rate is somewhat more sophisticated, but still do not depend on GHG.
Dry laps rate is close to 1K/100 m, and the Grand Canyon is up to a mile deep in some place, no wonder it gets hotter down.
“So I’m not sure that the Grand Canyon shows anything one way or another.”
Indeed. It is just the lapse rate all the way down. You are right, won’t show nothing.
“But another conundrum is that mines deep in the earth are typically hotter than the surface. How do we explain that? Are they that much closer to the earth’s core?”
Down when drilling, temperature increase ~4K/100m, and even more where volcanic heat exist. Becasue of Earth’s core heat.
“what does that say about how this same core might be affecting surface temperatures?”
Don’t mistake heat and temperature. Temperature build up down there because heat from the core has hard time leaking away (4 billion years later, and it is still hot deep down … while permafrost exist). Geothermal heat is small at the surface, only a fraction of a W/m², 5 magnitude order lower than the sun.
–“But another conundrum is that mines deep in the earth are typically hotter than the surface. How do we explain that? Are they that much closer to the earth’s core?”
Down when drilling, temperature increase ~4K/100m, and even more where volcanic heat exist. Becasue of Earth’s core heat.
“what does that say about how this same core might be affecting surface temperatures?”
Don’t mistake heat and temperature. Temperature build up down there because heat from the core has hard time leaking away (4 billion years later, and it is still hot deep down … while permafrost exist). Geothermal heat is small at the surface, only a fraction of a W/m², 5 magnitude order lower than the sun.–
Wiki: “Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth’s interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is about 25–30 °C/km (28–34 °F/mi) of depth near the surface in most of the world.”
So 2.5 to 3 C per 100 meters.
And unless mine placed in vacuum, the air will be denser at lower depth.
With Messinian salinity crisis, the Mediterranean Sea became dry and due to the lower elevation
the air temperature was warmer in bottom of the deep basin- though it’s thought to have been a bit less than lapse rate of 6.5 C per 1000 meters
You forgot atmospheric auto-compression, which is +10C per km of depth.
Death Valley is farther from the equator than Mount Everest but is typically significantly warmer nonetheless.
Imagine the hottest afternoon you’ve ever known at home. Imagine hopping a ride on a super weather balloon up to, say, 35000′ — same latitude, same time. A lot colder up there.
I figure the bottom of an atmosphere has a higher temperature than the rest of it because there are more molecules (all of them, being hotter than absolute zero, bounding about with some energy) for my thermometer to interact with, i.e. to experience some energy transfer from.
I further imagine that, all else being equal (planet size, gravity, local sun, &c), the temperature at the bottom of a thicker atmosphere will be higher than that at the bottom of a thinner atmosphere, regardless of the mix.
I’m no authority, though.
Total rebuttal of the now famous “33 Kelvin greenhouse effect” is here : https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdf
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Chapters 3.7.3, 3.7.4 and 3.7.5.
This is good for people who understand physics. Won’t help “climate scientists”, and even less warmunist or Gaia cultists.
As it is std procedure for the “cult” to attack messenger instead of content, better to anticipate…
So what is the crendential of Robert Ian Holmes? It would be prudent to know a little about the guy before parroting his study in all directions. He may simply be a student.
I think Holmes is a student, but that doesn’t matter. All that matters in science is whether your conclusions are supported by observations of nature or controlled experiment confirming predictions made thereupon.
“All that matters in science is whether your conclusions are supported by observations of nature or controlled experiment confirming predictions made thereupon.”
In theory yes, but in practice in the real world science and everything else does not work like that. The very existence of the warming/change meme is proof that science is based on PR/marketting and infested with politics. It all boil down to credibility and trust. For the vast majority of the voting public, first impression is all that matter.
Robert Holmes in reply,
“Kenneth,
I address the ‘circular’ argument (i.e. for Titan) in my paper.
Not sure what he is claiming here; is he asserting that the molar mass version of the Ideal Gas Law is wrong?
A law through which one can arrive at the temperature by the measurement of just three gas parameters, pressure, density and molar mass, for diverse places such as Venus, Earth (anywhere in the troposphere). Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (anywhere in their atmospheres) Titan – and it even works for the center of the Sun?
What I have presented is a hypothesis. So, Sebastian, let’s test the hypothesis; start anywhere on the surface of the Earth and measure these three parameters, calculate the temperature by use of this formula;
T=P/((R x ρ/M))
Still not convinced? Let’s try another planet – anywhere >10kPa in its atmosphere, (which is where the effects of the GHE supposedly are).Even quicker, post here a link to a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming effect from the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Actually, I think there will be a very long wait for this one.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/#comment-1250805
CACA will eventually go the way of eugenics, its early 20th century equivalent. No amount of PR can permanently offset the scientific method.
But lots of highly credentialled, renowned scientists, living and dead, agree with the lad.
Sunsettommy February 6, 2018 at 3:20 pm
Robert Holmes in reply,
“A law through which one can arrive at the temperature by the measurement of just three gas parameters, pressure, density and molar mass, for diverse places such as Venus, Earth (anywhere in the troposphere). Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, (anywhere in their atmospheres) Titan – and it even works for the center of the Sun?
What I have presented is a hypothesis. So, Sebastian, let’s test the hypothesis; start anywhere on the surface of the Earth and measure these three parameters, calculate the temperature by use of this formula;
T=P/((R x ρ/M))
Still not convinced? Let’s try another planet – anywhere >10kPa in its atmosphere, (which is where the effects of the GHE supposedly are)
Ok Venus, it doesn’t work, the CO2 at the surface is supercritical and the Ideal Gas Law equation of state doesn’t apply.
Yes, we know he is a student. Today I was a student under my wife’s supervision of the baking of a delicious cake and that turned out fine (2nd cake baked by me in 62 years!). Anyway if you cannot still remember Richard Feynman talking about “it doesn’t matter who said it” you need to do some basic revision (about the principles of science). So if Robert has a PhD or is simply the toilet cleaner at the local school is IRRELEVANT. What we need to look at is the paper and what it says .
So lets have a look. Looks like the formulae are correct. Some of the conclusions and arguments look logical, but are ALL of them logically robust ? It is very easy to let your preconceived ideas sway you one way or the other. This must be resisted.
I only started looking at this paper yesterday and it is a very novel approach to the subject.To go through it carefully is something that might take a while, I expect Robert himself took weeks working on it. IF I find something SPECIFIC that is wrong I will be sure to let you know (and the author himself).
Finally if there is still some doubt can we apply our minds to devising either a laboratory experiment or a field experiment to test something relevant.
‘In a new peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal Earth Sciences last December (2017), a Federation University (Australia) Science and Engineering student named Robert Holmes …’ is how the NoTricksZone post starts.
Thanks, it clear it up.
He has the only qualification required to study science: an open and enquiring mind
Comments from Ned Nikolov via Twitter where there was an earlier discussion:
Yes, I’ve seen the paper by Holmes (2017): http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf …
It has a serious methodological flaw. The author uses the Ideal Gas Law to “predict” T of planets assuming that the atmos. density ρ is INDEPENDENTLY measured, which it’s NOT. So, his method is circular!
Holmes (2017) did not realize that the near-surface atmospheric densities of planets reported in the literature have actually been calculated using the Gas Law. So, by using density to “predict” planetary temperatures, he basically gets into what’s called a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT.
So, Holmes’ analysis did not “disprove” the GH theory, because it’s based on an elementary methodological error. I wonder how a paper with such flawed logic had passed peer review? I noted that it was under review for just 10 days before acceptance. Something isn’t right here!
Robert Holmes reply to Ned,
“Robert Holmes’ reply:
—
Ned,
“..air density is a function of pressure & temperature. This is demonstrated by the fact that air density is lower at the equator and higher near the poles for nearly the same surface pressure.”
My paper shows that air density at the South Pole is 1.06kg/m3 in other words, only slightly below the global average – yet the pressure is a very low 68kPa. It’s the low pressure which mainly results in the low average temperature of -49C.
“One cannot use the Gas Law to conclusively prove the lack of a radiative GE.”
I realize that, and I did not even try to do this! The radiative GHE certainly exists in our atmosphere; the forcing from it has even been measured and quantified. However, that does NOT mean that there is any net atmospheric warming arising from it!
On Earth, temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass via;
T=PM/Rρ
Pressure, density and molar mass are mainly determined by insolation and auto-compression.
I think that we are in broad agreement.”
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/05/shock-paper-cites-formula-that-precisely-calculates-planetary-temps-without-greenhouse-effect-co2/#comment-1250866
Dear Robert,
Please, allow me to clarify a few points:
1. On Earth and any other planet, the average atmospheric pressure at the surface (P, Pa) is determined by the mass of gas above a unit area (Ma/Ap) and gravitational acceleration (g,, m s-2), i.e. P = (Ma/Ap)*g, where Ma is total atmospheric mass (kg) and Ap is planet’s surface area (m^2). This definition implies: (a) the average surface atmospheric pressure is INDEPENDENT of temperature and air density; (b) the thermodynamic processes at the surface are ISOBARIC in nature meaning that they occur under nearly constant pressure for a given elevation.
2. It follows from the above that a differential heating of a planetary surface by the Sun will cause variation in air density due to a differential expansion of the atmosphere. This is clearly observed in the different heights of the tropopause between equatorial and polar regions. At the Equator, the troposphere extends to about 17 km altitude, while at the Poles its depth is only 8-9 km. Yet, the pressure measured at equivalent altitudes is nearly the same between Equator and the Poles. Therefore, on a planetary scale, air density is a DEPENDENT variable governed by pressure & temperature, not a determinant of temperature as assumed in your Eq. 5. Hence, your assertion that “… temperature is determined by the interplay of pressure and density, with some influence from molar mass” is physically INCORRECT. My point is further supported by the fact that your model (which is basically an inverted form of the Gas Law equation) contains NO solar radiation. Where is the solar heating in your equation? In other words, what controls the air density in your model? In the real atmosphere, gas volume (thus density) is controlled by pressure and solar heating.
3. Since, on a planetary scale, pressure only depends on atmospheric mass & gravity, the Gas Law essentially represents a single equation with 2 unknowns – temperature and air density. You need a second independent equation in order to objectively solve for the 2 unknowns. Otherwise, the system is undefined! In the absence of a second equation, you’ve simply decided to use density as a determinant of air temperature in contradiction to observed atmospheric dynamics. This makes your choice arbitrary and devoid of physical meaning. Your model becomes, therefore, circular, because you use air density as a predictor of temperature while, in ISOBARIC systems, density in fact depends on temperature!
3. Please take a look at this paper, which demonstrates, how to properly predict average planetary temperatures using two truly INDEPENDENT drivers – solar radiation and surface atmospheric pressure:
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ. Pollut. Climate Change 1:112. doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112
URL: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
While that may be true for the other planets let us consider which measurements we can make on Earth.
Holmes needs to make following measurements:-
P the near-surface atmospheric pressure in kPa – We can measure that.
M the near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass – We can measure that.
R the gas constant (m³, kPa, kelvin⁻¹, mol⁻¹) – We can measure that.
and finally ρ the near-surface atmospheric density – We can measure that too.
Let me introduce you to the Dasymeter invented in 1650 by Otto von Guericke and used to measure the mass-density of a gas
So for the Earth all 4 elements of the equation can be independently verified and the equation the produces T the near-surface atmospheric temperature in Kelvin.
Phillip,
The question is not about the validity of the Gas Law. Nobody questions that! The issues is about the correct physical causality as I’ve explained in my replay above. On a planetary scale, because of the ISOBARIC nature of near-surface thermodynamic processes, air density is a PRODUCT of pressure & temperature, not a determinant of temperature as assumed by R. Holmes in his Eq. 5!
“and no, that doesn’t mean that you can diagnose or rule out heating processes simply because the atmosphere obeys the Ideal Gas Law.”
CO2 is not a heating process. CO2 acts to help distribute heat, but it does not create heat. It does not matter if water vapor or CO2 splits the heat distribution process 80/20 or 78/22 or 70/30.
At some height in the troposphere heat in = heat out.
From that height, say 10 km, down to the surface, the temperature rises according to the ideal gas law, giving us the “greenhouse effect”.
Changing the CO2 concentration does next to nothing, as the author points out. There simply is a slight shift in how the troposphere moves energy to the poles, to the other side of the world, to heights into the stratosphere, and the exact timing of heat movement every day, maybe by a minute or two.
I agree with the author, we will never measure the CO2 warming effect separate from natural variation.
On earth, water rules, and the trivial addition of CO2 does next to nothing.
The radiative cartoon of Hansen is interesting, but meaningless for earth. It earns him big money though, obsessing over it our added CO2.
Nobody has ever claimed that CO2 creates heat. It slows down the rate at which heat that is being added by the sun can escape.
MarkW: Until you open the vents in the greenhouse (to stick with the GHC theme) surely? That’s to say, “what about convection”? Doesn’t that and the effects of water vapour overwhelm any CO2 effect?
Nigil, Water vapor regulates how how cold the surface gets late at night by converting WV to water and using the stored energy to supplement about 35W/m^2 at this site in Aus.
You can see the roll off in net radiation in the middle of clear skies.
What I found looking in the optical window is Zenith temps still have nearly the same delta temps,as when it’s cooling at high speed at sunset, and then it changes speed there’s a 35W/m^2 reduction of outgoing energy, down from 55W/m^2 to about 20W/m^2
When there isn’t a lot of WV, dew point falls faster, and it cools a little more.
But at the surface, sea level enthalpy in the tropics is about 73kJ/m^3, and drop about 9kJ/m^3. US SW Deserts has a average peak of about 36kJ/m^3, and dropped 16kJ/m^3, nearly half.
In the tropics, the water vapor level at the surface has far more stored energy in latent heat of evaporation, than the deserts do, why they cool so much at night, this effect is enabled by air temps nearing dew point, and desert dew points are so low, and then when it gets there there isn’t a lot of wv available to condense, in the tropics, it’s never ending.
Hang on a minute.. I thought the back radiation downwards from the CO2 molecules was trillions of little ping pong ball like photons and that these photons carried energy and when they pinged into the surface of the earth that energy was given up and the molecules of the earth were heated up. THAT was what all the talk about “back radiation” was, transfer of heat energy TO the surface of the EARTH , FROM the CO2 molecules. why I have even seen diagrams with W/m^2 downward radiative flux which ADDS WATTS into the surface. How could I have been so stupid?
Obviously there is no heat from CO2, it’s just slowing down heat going out.
MarkW have you got a link please as to when the IPCC, Trenberth and all the others actually did abandon talk of “BACK RADIATION” please as for the life of me I cannot find it .I checked the IPCC reports and couldn’t find a “correction”, or indeed any kind of “apology” ?
Better to think of it in terms of photons your grace. Cold things do absorb AND emit them, in all directions including earthward – just fewer. Thickening up the layer of GHGs above, eg adding H2O, means there is just a few more earthward photons. Still many more coming up from below, but because the NET number has diminished slightly the surface temperature increases slightly. Calling them watts just confuses things.
Water vapor and convection mitigate the affect of CO2, they don’t eliminate it.
The atmosphere has to warm first before it can rise.
The water has to warm before evaporation can increase.
MarkW,
That’s a physically incorrect notion coming from misinterpretation of lab experiments using containers that hamper convection. An open convective atmosphere cannot “trap” radiant heat as wrongly conceptualized in the 19th Century. See this paper: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
@zazove
“Thickening up the layer of GHGs above, eg adding H2O, means there is just a few more earthward photons. ”
indeed, but the keyword is FEW
This is no different from multi-layer insulation, which leaks heat in ~1/N (N number of layer), meaning the marginal new layer efficiency is in 1/N².
On Earth, only ~10% of ground emissions get through the GHG insulator to space already. N is huge. The effect of new layer is smaller than noise.
Thank you, an excellent summary of what I took from the NoTricksZone post.
Addressed to ‘sailboarder’, sorry.
Real science strikes again! Cue the gravity d-nyers.
You must believe that repeating nonsense will render it sensical.
Repeat a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. Get enough people shouting it and no one can be heard who can point out it’s a lie.
‘Four legs good. Two legs BETTER! Four legs good. Two legs BETTER!’
~¿~
Physics lessons are in order…
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/feynman-explains-how-gravitational.html
MW, behave please.
Why wouldn’t this be testable by experiment? A long, tall box ( dimensions to be determined) with a heat sink maintained on top. An atmosphere in miniature and full solar spectrum light shone down into it. Add, subtract CO2, water, whatever. I don’t see why it can’t be demonstrated in miniature as many other things can. Less compression for sure but an 8 or 10 story tower should provide enough to demonstrate any effect at play. No?
It’s suggested in the paper that the Grand Canyon provides a good example with fixed temperature differences between the north and south sides and the bottom.
Sometimes people dig themselves into a hole. Which is interesting because if they were to literally dig a hole and have a thermometer about their person…..
Fixing temperatures is the role of governmental authorities! Scram! Here come the Klimate Kops!
I would suggest that it is possible that the bottom is warmer because reflection from the canyon walls tends to heat the bottom, not necessarily because of any gravity gradient. This might be tested by sampling the temperature along the canyon bottom and noting the local separation of the canyon walls to see if there is a correlation.
DJ Hawkins: “… the bottom is warmer because reflection from the canyon walls tends to heat the bottom, not necessarily because of any gravity gradient.” My suspicion is that in the early morning, when the heat from the canyon walls has dissipated and the sun has not yet risen and cold air has sunk, the bottom is still warmer than the rim.
“In general, temperature [at the Grand Canyon] increases 5.5°F with each 1,000 feet loss in elevation.” https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/weather.htm This corresponds to the lapse rate, which suggests that the heating of canyon walls doesn’t play a significant role in the temperature difference between the rim and the bottom.
So the traditional view of the GHE is that GHGs raise the emissions height, and the distance between the heating of the ground by the sun and the emissions height gives rise to the lapse rate, since the heat convects upward from the warm ground at 5.5F for each 1000 feet. But I fail to see why just nitrogen and oxygen wouldn’t do much the same thing? Deserts can get very hot during the day and even with almost no water vapor there’s still a lapse rate; yes, the ground is continually heating but would not the ground be continually heating even if the atmosphere were pure N2 and O2? Does it make sense to say that without GHGs there would be no lapse rate, and that our planet would be radiating from the surface at 255K even though there are 2117 pounds/square foot of atmospheric pressure (or 19,053 pounds/ square yard) bearing down on N2 and O2 at the surface while these two gases are heated by the sun and by the surface as well? Sorry, but 19,000 pounds/square yard seems like a lot of compression to me. It’s doing nothing to the temperature? It’s not affecting how the volumes of gas closest to the surface can hold heat? It can be discarded while we only consider the radiative effects of the GHGs?
None of this is to say that GHGs don’t affect the lapse rate, but I’m wondering if we can really say that they cause it?
Yes, John. This is exactly the kind of thinking we should be doing. I note that Robert does reference the work of R. Graeff (2007). A scaled up version of Graeff’s apparatus would give, according to the hypothesis, a larger temperature difference. For example a 10m high column of Argon is postulated to produce a 3K top-bottom difference due to gravity. 3K being highly significant and easily measured.
10m is easily manageable for a good laboratory and you can construct 2 identical apparatus sets , one horizonal and the other vertical to look at this. A mere $1 Million will produces masses of useful data here.
Rather a good return if you get a confirmation result as you will have just bought yourself a lottery ticket for the Nobel. And if you get a negative result you can shut all the dragon slayers, Nikolov and Zeller, D**G C****N, etc up for good.
What’s not to like for both the “Catholics” and the “Protestants”. I reckon both sides should get together and crowd fund it. In fact let both sides do their own IDENTICAL EXPERIMENTS. Then if they don’t agree we will (eventually) find out who are the lying B’stards.
The column doesn’t even need to be straight. But it would need to be well insulated to exclude outside influences. There are universities where a 10m tall column could be installed in a stairwell without obstructing the normal flow of traffic.
It has already been done in Germany a few years ago and confirms what you suggest it should confirm, a Gravity induced gradient.
The Reverend Badger (and others including Robert Holmes and Den Volokin), there is a very clear and elegant proof that Robert Holmes, N&Z, and other gravity-makes-it-warmer theorists are wrong. This is the proof by Dr. Robert Brown of Duke University. It is entitled “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates”. Let me gently suggest that you read it and try to find any errors in it. Please report back any flaws you might find in it.
In addition, there is another proof, perhaps less clear and elegant but just as strong, that not only gravity but no process can heat the surface of a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere above the corresponding S-B temperature. Again I invite you to point out any flaws in that proof and report them back here.
On the other hand, if you join the long, long list of people who cannot find flaws in both proofs, will you then join John Maynard Keynes in saying “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”
My best to you, I look forward to hearing what you think are the flaws in each proof … and since both proofs reach the same conclusion, you need to invalidate both proofs, not just one.
w.
I told you in another thread why both ‘proofs’ are wrong.
Neither of them accounts for the potential energy created when gas molecules move apart in ascent or closer together in descent along a declining density gradient with height. Both involve columns with vertical sides which does not reflect a true density gradient around a sphere open to space.
The issue is not just simple gravitational potential energy created when a molecule is lifted up against gravity but rather the potential energy created when molecules move further apart. That is the mechanism behind the gas laws and the quantity of the latter is vastly greater than simple gravitational potential energy.
All that potential energy returns as kinetic energy (heat) when air descends and recompresses along the density gradient.
At any given moment half the atmosphere is in descent mode and that is where the additional surface heating above S-B is coming from, not DWIR.
To the extent that DWIR exists (and it does) there can be no surface thermal effect because convection then slows down to neutralise such radiative imbalances.
Convection will always run at a rate that ensures the surface is at the required temperature to both radiate to space at the same rate as radiation comes in from space AND leaves enough additional surface kinetic energy (heat) to keep the atmosphere suspended in hydrostatic equilibrium against the downward force of gravity.
More GHGs providing more DWIR to the surface simply makes the lapse rate slope less steep and thereby reduces the rate of convective overturning for a net zero thermal outcome at the surface. A steeper slope speeds convection and a less steep slope slows down convection.
With a completely non GHG atmosphere the lapse rate slope is at maximum steepness and convective overturning runs at its fastest to ensure that enough heat gets back to the surface via downward conduction in time to match energy in from space with energy out to space whilst keeping the atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Thus the lapse rate structure already has the effect of DWIR baked in and more or less DWIR just causes a suitable convective adjustment with zero surface temperature change.
Rev, Graeff continued his experiments in to 2012, there are 2 write ups by Lucy Skywalker over at Tallblokes here
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/graeffs-experiments-and-2lod-replication-and-implications/
and here
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-second-law-seminar/
Willis: “no process can heat the surface of a planet with a non-GHG atmosphere above the corresponding S-B temperature. ”
I think Stephen WIlde has already given an elegant explanation for why this is wrong: “If one starts with a GHG free atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium then the downward force of gravity is on average exactly offset by the upward pressure gradient force caused by surface heating via conduction and convection. That balance must apply at every height for an atmosphere to be retained.”
It seems to me that if you have a lapse rate, then bingo, you’ve got a temperature gradient at the surface that’s warmer than 255K. At the surface we have the sun heating not only the surface, but also a layer of atmosphere under significant pressure that receives heat from both the surface and the sun.
It seems that the whole problem with greenhouse theory is that it trips up by giving too much emphasis to radiative effects, as if that’s the whole story.
Willis Eschenbach February 7, 2018 at 12:32 pm
It should be clear that the atmosphere does not INCREASE the temperature of the surface by whatever mechanism. It merely reduces the energy loss to space. (so yes, without atmosphere it would be colder)
What is the relevance of Dr. Brown’s text for our atmosphere? The atmosphere is anything but adiabatic.
Simplified: solar energy is thermalized in the surface (mostly water). This warmed surface transfers energy to the atmosphere that releases this energy eventually to space. So energy loss to space is by radiation from the surface (atmospheric window) and the atmosphere.
The atmosphere exists because it is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium (HE) against gravity.
HE is in the end the driving force for all large scale phenomena in the atmosphere like the Global Circulation cells (Hadley, Ferrel and Polar), jet streams etc.etc.
So,
Nice condensation! Pretty succinct and I find no flaw in your connection of these two statements or the statements themselves.. I predict those who don’t like it will try to complicate it, not refute your message.
Well, let’s try to make an argument that is nice and simple.
The atmospheres of Planets follow the ideal gas law. They will do this if GHG’s have no effect. They will ALSO do this if GHG’s increase global temperature by slowing the rate of energy (heat) release.
The theory doesn’t prove one way or the other whether GHG’s cause warming, because the temperature of the atmosphere sets the volume and density. The Ideal Gas Law is upheld regardless of where the heat comes from.
OK, John harmsworth is on one side and schitzree on the other. Lets have a look.
Consider 2 rocky planets with thick atmospheres orbiting at the same distance from , just for fun,our very own sun. And lets be really silly and have them in earth orbit as well. And even more ridiculously one has an atmosphere identical to the earth. Let this planet be E1.
Spec: E1 in earth orbit, same atmosphere as earth.
Now the other planet is E2 (how did you guess!). surprise surprise this is going to be identical to E1 EXCEPT for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will contain NO GHGs. It will be a nice mixture of various gases with exactly the same pressure, density and molar mass as E1. Just NO GHGs.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas theory for Earth predicts that E1 will have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 Because of GHGs.
The alternative theory/hypothesis of Robert predicts they will have identical temperatures. But interestingly the figure is the same as the other theory. Coincidence? Maybe.
How would you eliminate the possibility that a simple formulae with no reference to the percentage of GHGs in an atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature of a planet with a very specific (todays) percentage of GHGs.Well have a look at other planets, some with huge GHG percentage (Venus). Obviously a simple formulae with no reference to GHGs would be expected to not fit 8 planets. And yet it does.
The ONLY way that is possible IF the GHG theory is correct is that changes in GHG percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass to make Robert’s formulae fit. But you could change the pressure/density/molar mass in EXACTLY the same way numerically using non GHGs to get the same result.Therefore the GHG theory MUST be incorrect.
Robert knows it is a simple logical argument and he mentions it simply in a couple of sentences in his paper. Unfortunately it’s not immediately obvious or simple to everyone. My work around is a bit long winded but I hope it helps.
It was based on a long discussion I had in one of the Stack Exchange forums with my 2 hypothetical rocky planet examples, even with PhDs over there it was a real struggle to make headway. Those science based forums are one of the least useful places for serious discussion, 50% of the contributors are simply consensus gatekeepers. Thankfully WUWT is much better.
(47.376%)
Just my little joke, Anthony. Seriously good idea to have this posted.Can we do it again next year?
Reverend Badger ( and what exactly is that?) I think what you’ve explained is what I think Connolly and Connolly have found for our atmosphere, namely, that GHGs have no effect on pressure/density/molar mass, which in turn can be converted to temperature. https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
RB, me and John are not on opposite sides of the argument. I’m not saying GHG’S effect the temperature. I’m saying it DOESN’T MATTER if they do or not, the equation will still work.
Imagine if a rouge planetoid smashed into Mercury and created a massive dust cloud between the Earth and the Sun, blocking out 20% of the Sun’s light. The Earths temperature would clearly drop to a new lower level. At that temperature the Earths atmosphere would decrease in volume and increase in density. This is basic physics, it’s what matter does. And the Ideal Gas Law equations would still balance out. Because it’s a scientific Law. That’s why we call it a law.
Volume, Density, and Temperature are all linked. If you change one, the others MUST change. It doesn’t matter WHY one of them changed, they will always balance out. So the fact that they balance doesn’t prove one way or the other whether GHG’s can warm a planet.
“The ONLY way that is possible IF the GHG theory is correct is that changes in GHG percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass to make Robert’s formulae fit. But you could change the pressure/density/molar mass in EXACTLY the same way numerically using non GHGs to get the same result.Therefore the GHG theory MUST be incorrect.”
No you couldn’t as we know what is coming in via Solar absorbed, and what temperature that should give (255K).
It does – as seen from space.
So the two (as they should do) balance.
The GHE is slowing LWIR to space.
It is energy that has arrived but it is “backed-up” a tad whilst MORE SW energy is absorbed – that is the extra 150 W/m^2 of the GHE.
It is not “free” energy magically created by gravity, as this *theory* proposes.
total nonsense tone.
Let me say thus one more time, there’s an optical window that is open to space, that lets energy out with not restrictions. Other side bands being blocked, doesn’t alter this at any time.
“Let me say thus one more time, there’s an optical window that is open to space, that lets energy out with not restrictions. Other side bands being blocked, doesn’t alter this at any time.”
No they are not.
Yes yes all physicists are wrong and you are correct.
Stands to reason.
They have also cooked Modtran to show a GHE that doesn’t exist too?
BWhahahaha
What that shows is the middle has very little interference from any gases. Low low spot at 10u, means it’s beaming to space from the surface, where the other 2 peaks are radiating from those gases.
That’s the window! You can see through it. Some houses have them where they are clear to visible light, and they are opaque to UV and IR, isn’t that special they can tune materials by wavelength.
Rev Badger, (February 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm)
“Clearly the existing greenhouse gas theory for Earth predicts that E1 will have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 Because of GHGs.
The alternative theory/hypothesis of Robert predicts they will have identical temperatures. But interestingly the figure is the same as the other theory. Coincidence? Maybe.”
========================
For your hypothetical rocky planets:
Perhaps you should include another option for the temps of E1 and E2; that E1 could be cooler than E2 due to GHG allowing absorbed solar energy to be radiated to space whereas E2 would not have that ability.
What is the (47.376%)?
Let me summarize the debate in another way. Imagine a literal greenhouse. How does it work?
If you were to measure the optical window from above the greenhouse, you’d find that the greenhouse roof is opaque to infrared radiation, so you could surmise that the greenhouse is warmer than the outside air because the glass absorbs infrared and then the air inside the greenhouse is warmed by back radiation — the Toneb hypothesis.
Alternatively, you could surmise that solid surfaces inside the greenhouse are warmed by solar radiation, these solid objects warm the air due to molecular collisions (oh boy look gas IS conductive), and this air then rises and is replaced by cooler air. But what happens to the rising warm air, it’s convection is blocked by the roof, much like convection in the troposphere is blocked by gravity. This process retains heat within the greenhouse.
Here’s the kicker, both processes undoubtedly contribute to why the air inside the greenhouse is warmer, but what is their relative importance? Do you really think that the radiation being emitted by the glass is the more of a contributing factor to the warmth inside the greenhouse than the blocked convection? Would replacing the roof with an infrared transparent material cool the greenhouse more than allowing the convected air to escape? This is literally what the adherents to the GHG climate hypothesis are claiming.
Well, that failed hypothesis’ days are numbered and there is a major case of foot in mouth disease going around that I hope will soon be cured.
And what would happen if you were to believe that auto compression is not a real and important phenomenon? You’d be forced to compensate for the additional heat in the atmosphere by conjuring up ridiculous GHG sensitivity hypotheses, you’d create climate models using these hypotheses, and then you’d project temperature projections based on this changing variable. And then what would you do if these models using these hypotheses all grossly overestimated the warming? You could, a) conclude that the hypotheses are wrong and adjust your model, or b) adjust data ex post facto, claim the heat is where you can’t measure it, and claim the heating just hasn’t happened yet for some unknown reason.
Lastly, this effect shouldn’t be imagined as a local weather phenomenon like chinooks or pressure at the bottom of the grand canyon. It’s represented on the large scale atmospheric circulation patterns. Regions of the planet where there is a net upward movement of air show lower amounts of outgoing LWIR, regions of the planet where there is a net downward movement of air show higher amounts of outgoing LWIR, especially when looked at as a residual from the trend.
RWturner February 7, 2018 at 8:58 am: Thanks again, everyone knows how to cool a greenhouse or conservatory, open the windows(!) but few seem to make the connection. Polytunnels work but polythene is transparent to IR. Special grades of polythene are available that absorb IR to prevent scorching of delicate plants by incoming IR. A useful piece of trivia for winding up GHG warmistas if one is in the mood.
Nigel
Correct.
Open the windows and the ‘greenhouse’ will soon be the same temperature as ‘outside’, – even though SW radiation is still streaming through the glass and hitting objects which then emit LW radiation.
The atmosphere is open.
From a comment on the NoTricksZone post. ‘Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell proposed in his 1871 book “Theory of Heat” that the temperature of a planet depends only on gravity, mass of the atmosphere, and heat capacity of the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it. Many publications since, have expounded on Maxwell’s theory and have shown that it applies to all planets in the Solar System.’
Would anybody care to comment on that and prove Maxwell wrong?
Who is this James Clerk Maxwell that questions the Great Mann?
A Trinity Man! (But so is the Astronomer Royal which spoils that one a bit.)
https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/alumni/famous-trinity-alumni/
James Clerk Maxwell published theories with actual predictive skill.
“Would anybody care to comment on that and prove Maxwell wrong?”
How about quoting what Maxwell actually said?
Yes, sorry, I can’t find anything better than the comment from ‘NoTricksZone’ which is why I asked for help from the ‘grate branes’ of WUWT.
Nowhere in “Theory of Heat” is there a passage precisely reproducing that alleged quotation:
https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/maxwell1872.pdf
Nor does Maxwell even use the words “planet” or “planetary”.
He does however mention “atmosphere” 52 times and “gravity” 59.
Gabro: Thanks for the link, looking through it now. Meanwhile thanks to RWturner: February 6, 2018 at 2:49 pm above for this. Physics lessons are in order…
The link starts:
‘Feynman explains how gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy convert to create the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect, without greenhouse gases
Excerpts from The Feynman Lectures, Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics, which prove the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal greenhouse effect is correct, and would occur in a pure atmosphere containing only the non-greenhouse gases N2 & O2 (99.94% of our atmosphere)’
Maxwell: “In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29.” http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/maxwell-established-that-gravity.html
Nick Stokes February 6, 2018 at 2:39 pm: How about quoting what Maxwell actually said?
Too long to post here but page 300 – 302 of the third edition, 1872, seems to cover it.
Maxwell starts by saying (page 300, para. 2) that vertical columns of gas in thermal equlibrium have equal temperature throughout but then states (p 300, para. 5) ‘This result is by no means applicable to the case of our atmosphere. Setting aside the enormous direct effect of the sun’s radiation in disturbing thermal equilibrium, the effect of winds in carrying large masses of air from one height to another tends to produce a distribution of temperature of a quite different kind, …’
I think the original comment at NoTricks Zone was reaching a bit but this seems to be what it was about.
Nigel S,
That’s a good find on p 300. The link is given by Gabro above. I think it is worth reproducing. I’ve merged parts of p 300 and 301, with a bit of coloring. The red shows what he thinks of these gravity theories. The blue relates to what I was describing here. Winds drive air up and down, doing work and driving a heat pump. That is what maintains the lapse rate.
Nigel S,
That’s a good find on p 300. The link is given by Gabro above. I think it is worth reproducing. I’ve merged parts of p 300 and 301, with a bit of coloring. The red shows what he thinks of these gravity theories. The blue relates to what I was describing here. Winds drive air up and down, doing work and driving a heat pump. That is what maintains the lapse rate.
Nick, I have downloaded the Theory of Heat myself. You could profit from reading it. He links the Poisson Relationship (the Gas Laws) to both experiments and the real atmosphere. A great physicist and a great experimenter. Hartmann and Berthold Klein have reproven his work in modern times.
Nick Stokes: Yes, thank goodness for ‘The extreme slowness of the conduction of heat in air’ otherwise all these layers of clothing I’m wearing would be less effective.
(My capitals and bold) What that says is that if our earth was further from the sun, say just outside the orbit of Neptune, that our surface temperatures would be the same as they are here and now. Or even out in intergalactic space. Or beside Mercury even.
OK Nigel, that’s settled then, the sun plays no role in determining our surface temperature right? Of course, that’s why our global temperatures are the same in summer and winter! Now I get it! The thermometer in my window that says -35°C is just an optical illusion!
OK /sarc off
Are you really sure he wasn’t misquoting Maxwell? Who was one of the founders of modern physics, not to mention being a scot.
I think that this whole discussion is moving from the ridiculous to the mindless.
I’m sure Holmes is wrong but I’m too
busylazy to work out the logic. Plus it’s so long since I learned physics, I’d probably get the argument wrong anyway.“No I’m not saying that at all!” (to quote the learned Prof. Peterson)
I quoted a comment (not mine of course) and asked for comments from the ‘grate branes’ here because despite being a fellow alumnus with Newton and Maxwell I’m not close to the same leauge but some here evidently are.
Spelling being yet another issue …
SR, the insolation when compared to ours here is usually and necessarily computed by using for instance the decimal fraction of our distance from the sun (AU). That is how we do it for both planets and aired moons. Because of the need for one optical depth minimum for full effectiveness, atmospheres of more than 0.1bar are prefered.
Insolation is a required part of the calculations for obvious reasons but it may have been neglected above.
This is the problem with using averages for somethings, remember in this case, we get a much larger burst of energy for part of the day, and then it decays. As well as there’s a lot of range in the daily temperature range which redistributes heat from one place to another as air and WV. That graph I keep showing has 18F (~10C) of additional warming from water vapor, as compared to if water didn’t condense.
I’m still agnostic on whether the pressure hypothesis is right or not, but I don’t think it has to conjure energy up to get close, I found about half already.
The perpetual energy argument makes absolutely no sense and is only evidence that they are simply dismissing this unequivocal truth out of hand. It’s not perpetual energy, it is energy retention, a positive feedback into the energy budget of all atmospheres. When your energy budget models have a glaring omission of a major positive feedback, you tend to overcompensate others to make up the difference and if that specific variable you’ve over estimated changes (CO2) you might just overestimate the influence that change will have.
We must have picked up a lot of atmospheric mass since the Little Ice Age. It does make sense if we consider the Younger Dryas was caused by sorcerers who withdrew air from the atmosphere and froze everyones a55e5 off.
And don’t get me going on the Glacial maximums! In both Greenland and Antarctica, when they hit the pre 15000 ybp layer there was a huge sucking sound as the ice reclaimed its lost atmospheric gases from those frigid days. I tell ya someone could have been killed.
The atmosphere is a mix of gases and temperatures trending toward lower at altitude and poleward. The adiabatic effect is the concentration of heat (higher temperatures) at lower altitudes. The average temperature of the atmosphere is a function of the heat input (sun) and the speed of heat transport to altitude and escape. His theory just describes the relationship between heat input and surface temperature. He doesn’t say that input never varies. He does say that speed of transport is basically constant regardless of the constituency of the atmosphere.
I am inclined to think he is right. it is important to remember that heat content and temperature are not one and the same. Gases compress and heat. As they heat they re-expand and seek to rise. This process absolutely transports heat to altitude. Condensing gases (water) multiply this transport greatly as they carry far more heat (latent heat).
Yes, it’s basically just a model to test whether the composition of the atmosphere determines the temperature at the surface.
Abstract
A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
So is a car “radiator” a radiator or a conductor, similarly is the daytime earth surface cooled by radiation or by conduction to whole atmosphere which includes tracss of CO2
Think about it and ramifications.
If you were to replace the vacuum tube inside a thermos with three gases (CO2, H2O, N2) which one would cause the thermos to lose heat fastest at temperatures where none of the gases would condense? The non conductive and non infrared active gas or one of the infrared active but conductive gases? My money would be on H2O, the most conductive gas.
GT, it is both, but mostly a conductor enhanced by forced airflow and speed of travel together. Original engine radiators used zero pressure evaporative cooling. Even done in the massive Schneider Trophy winners of Mitchell, which foreshadowed the Spitfire. Water needed replenishment, easy in stationary engines once used on most farms, or just enough, to save weight, in racing planes
The NCEP GDAS and CPC temperature and height analyses are used to monitor processes in the Stratosphere and Troposphere. In the table below are zonal mean time series of Temperature.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
The basic question is: what determines the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere on planets with dense atmosphere?
The ease with which conduction can occur between surface and air molecules is what determines the vertical temperature gradient.
Denser air conducts more readily so the temperature can rise higher.
The lapse rate slope follows the density gradient with height so one can regard the lapse rate slope as a product of the rate at which the efficiency of conduction declines with height
Where an atmosphere has radiative capability (as they all do) one can also regard the vertical temperature gradient as representing the changing balance between radiation and conduction as one moves up the vertical density gradient.
Conduction is greatest at the surface relative to radiation and least at top of atmosphere relative to radiation.
Conduction drives the surface temperature above that predicted from radiation alone. The more conduction the greater the divergence. Thus the surface temperature enhancement is a product of conductive capability and not radiative capability.
“The troposphere on Venus contains 99% of the atmosphere by mass. Ninety percent of the atmosphere of Venus is within 28 km of the surface; by comparison, 90% of the atmosphere of Earth is within 10 km of the surface. At a height of 50 km the atmospheric pressure is approximately equal to that at the surface of Earth.[20] On the night side of Venus clouds can still be found at 80 km above the surface.[21]
The altitude of the troposphere most similar to Earth is near the tropopause—the boundary between troposphere and mesosphere. It is located slightly above 50 km.[17] According to measurements by the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the altitude from 52.5 to 54 km has a temperature between 293 K (20 °C) and 310 K (37 °C), and the altitude at 49.5 km above the surface is where the pressure becomes the same as Earth at sea level.[17][22] As manned ships sent to Venus would be able to compensate for differences in temperature to a certain extent, anywhere from about 50 to 54 km or so above the surface would be the easiest altitude in which to base an exploration or colony, where the temperature would be in the crucial “liquid water” range of 273 K (0 °C) to 323 K (50 °C) and the air pressure the same as habitable regions of Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
He seems to have nailed 8 out of 8 planets. My only question would be, do the planetary temperatures coincide with their distance from the sun?
Roughly, but Uranus and Neptune have temperatures (at altitude where their atmospheres equal Earth’s sea level pressure) nearly equal, despite Neptune’s being about 11 AU farther from the sun (19.2 v. 30.1).
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/
Hmm. Does this maybe imply that Neptune has some internal heat source, as from maybe a radioactive core?
Mel,
Neptune does appear to have an internal heat source, like Jupiter and Saturn, but not as yet supported for Uranus.
http://www.solstation.com/stars/neptune.htm
But it is otherwise similar to Uranus.
jh – yes.
Laws shmaws as there’s only one solution to the greatest threat to mankind ever and that’s lobster thermidor-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/massive-crayfish-that-didnt-exist-25-years-ago-are-capable-of-cloning-themselves-and-its-terrifying-scientists/ar-BBIMqcs
I officially declare CO2 a second order problem unless it’s marbled crayfish exhalations.
OK, gravity pulls the heavier, cool air down and that cooler air displaces the warmer air effectively pushing it up.
The driver here isn’t the Sun, it is the area where the air is being cooled enough to be heavier and pulled down, is it not?
In other words, if up to the Sun, all the air would eventually become the same temperature, but the heat is “lost in space” so down comes the cooler air.
Further, the energy supposedly gained by the falling air is lost as that air pushes the air it displaces up, is it not?
So, ask Schroedinger’s cat: is the system always in equilibrium or never in equilibrium?
“OK, gravity pulls the heavier, cool air down and that cooler air displaces the warmer air effectively pushing it up.”
No.
It is buoyancy.
Same as a hot air balloon, it rises because it has less mass/weight than the air it displaces and vicky verky.
It is Archimedes’ Principle, which states that the buoyant force on a submerged object is equal to the weight of the fluid that is displaced by the object.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/WindTunnel/Activities/buoy_Archimedes.html
Gravity has done it’s work on the atmisphere and the “heat” that process causes dissipated eons ago.
Work done on the atmosphere is caused by the solar input and by Earth’s rotation.
Air is constantly in motion (thermals, baroclinic uplift, turbulence over ground, subsidence from regions of convergence aloft etc). When air moves up/down other air has to move down/up. It is this (as Nick Stokes says) that produces the “heat pump” that maintains the LR, this modified by LH release and the GHE but always tending towards -g/cp.
And why does mass matter? Gravity.
Try floating a boat in water on the ISS.
“And why does mass matter? Gravity.”
It does matter.
As I said, it sets the LR by virtue of compression.
Greatest compression at the bottom – molecules closer together – more collisions – higher temp.
The atmosphere is then in static balance (in the absence of ALL other effects).
What then moves depends on local temp changes ….. density changes > buoyancy.
Not gravity.
Air moves independent of the gravity field BUT within it.
Against it even.
Whilst it does that an equal volume of air moves down. Zero sum BUT with the maintenance of the LR.
Extrapolating it to space just illustrates your misunderstanding.
As the (hypothetical) balloon on ISS has the same weight whatever it’s temp and it would displace an equal amount of capsule air of the same weight so therefore is a zero sum.
tonyb, buoyancy only exists in gravity. Hence it is a pseudo-force in physics. Same for gravity, IIRC, though let’s not go there for now (grin).
Rushes to the cupboard, takes out the bottle of compressed CO2 for the soda stream….it’s like at 20 bars or something…it should be like RED HOT!!!!
Measures its temperature……..DAMN!
Exactly.
Anyone who says it heats up wgen you compress it should just be told that it cools when you let it expand, so the net effect is zero, just like a fridge.
But our atmosphere is not exactly like a bottle of compressed gas, is it? So I suspect your analogy is an attempt to simplify something that might be more subtle and complex than many believe.
More importantly, the gas law relationship really only works for true adiabatic processes when you are talking about compression/expansion cycles. As soon as heat can move out of or into your “system”, all bets are off.
Jerome, because insolation is integral to the existence of an atmosphere, as opposed to a layer of N-O etc. ice. Keep pumping if you want to copy the real effect.
Of renowned climate experts there would exist an overwhelming consensus in agreement with Mr Eschenbach, for reasons he and others have expressed. Why is it still a thing? Why doesn’t a pile of books radiate heat?
zazove February 6, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Because heat is net energy flow.
Piles of books radiate energy, however. You can verify that yourself with a stand-off thermometer …
w.
Yes of course but I meant ‘extra heat’ that comes from some gravitational pressure. Ie hotter than their surroundings somehow.
zazove you are strawmanning again. Now where are my matches…….grin
Another question: why only changes in atmospheric humidity affect changes in the vertical temperature gradient?
“Another question: why only changes in atmospheric humidity affect changes in the vertical temperature gradient?”
It doesn’t.
See mine and Nick Stokes’ comments on here.
Lol, all it will take to prove that wrong is to measure zenith temps with an IR thermometer over days with different absolute humidity.
In fact there’s a NASA paper explaining how to calibrate your IR thermometer to measure TPW.
micro:
By concentrating on experiments in your back-yard concerning atmospheric humidity and it’s known GHE does not mean that CO2 does not act as a GHG, and your “findings” are neither surprising nor applicable to the planetary atmospheric mass, where CO2 has a more dominant CO2 role.
It’s a massive fail, as I’ve tried patiently to explain to you in several posts over several Blogs.
There is a reason why we call your type a sky-dragon slayer, there are no sky-dragons and they don’t need slaying.
But please do carry on, you are harmless enough.
Tone, Co2 is as well mixed in my backyard as it is in Australia where I’m getting my net radiation data from (this paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL019137/pdf ).
You ever do any kinds of circuit analysis? Clear sky radiative properties as simple enough to figure out. It’s a lot like characterizing antenna on an antenna field, or transmission line characterization of striplines, and circuit boards, it’s just the radiative properties, the dialectic properties, stuff like that. It works the same on that level, it just follows SB statistics instead of Ohm’s law, but even simple transformers are just em wave generators magnetically coupled to an identical receiver. Same as 2 co2 molecules coupling a photon from one to another.
I did this professionally for 20 years, where I had to teach others how to use these tools, as well as being licensed by the FCC at 17 to operate Broadcast stations, big photon generators, designed to send photons to liked sized wavelength specific antennas.
Earthnull is showing that. I took notice of a puzzle recently when looking at the CO2 filter which shows that the colder areas are those with the higher CO2 concentrations. That shows the insignificance of CO2 versus wv.. Wv streams into an area, and temps raise 10s of degrees F. When the wv moves on or snows out, then temps drop once again, and that seems to concentrate CO2 in the colder areas, …https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-258.75,66.32,672/loc=89.997,62.527
One of my neighbours lives in an old converted water mill. The mill wheel still works and he has coupled a small electrical generator to it. Now as I know the stream never stops flowing and the generator output is real energy this looks like free perpetual energy (practically). Where does it come form. Well obviously we know it is the potential energy of the water at the top of the wheel. So gravity drives it. Is gravity the source of the energy?
I say there is more to it. Gravity is the means by which the potential energy can be extracted. You wouldn’t be able to extract anything with gravity unless there was a mass there that could fall. So it’s not perpetual as the mass will fall and be gone. But then there’s more. The stream keeps flowing.
Why does the stream keep flowing and the mass which can fall never run out? Because it is continually replaced. By what? By the mass (water) that has fallen. But to get it back into the stream you have to do work on it. Where does that happen, where does the energy to get the water back up the top come from?
KER- CHING !!
The source of the energy is the SUN. The heat energy from the sun is converted into the potential energy of mass when it goes up, rises by e.g. water molecules in rising air. Gravity provides the means by which energy can be extracted from the higher mass.
So in the case of the water mill we are using gravity to extract energy from, ultimately, the Sun. It’s not that we are extracting energy from gravity.
Now you understand the water mill try extending the argument to the atmosphere and consider how the surface of the earth gets hotter when there is an atmosphere compared to the hypothetical no atmosphere rocky earth2. Remember gravity does nothing without mass but its a one way process (DOWN!). Gravity doesn’t do UP.
“Remember gravity does nothing without mass but its a one way process (DOWN!). Gravity doesn’t do UP.”
I think this is where you are going wrong with this your grace. Gravity is not a one way process. Seesaws go in both directions. Net energy zero minus friction. Energy in from space versus energy back out, net zero after billions of years of equilibrium. Lots of seesaws but no power.
Rudi
Rudi, thanks so much. I am about half way through writing a book and still had not really come up with a catchy title. Would you mind very much if I used it? I will give you a proper mention in the “thanks” and append your full name and (if applicable) all the letters you have after your name.
“Gravity is not a one way process. Seesaws go in both directions”
$19.95 at Amazon (est)
You have my blessing.
Avogadro says read Charles’s law.
I was hoping someone would point this out. They can start by stating what exactly they think they are measuring when they measure the ‘temperature of a volume of gas’.
Then they can describe what happens if you squeeze more molecules to that volume of gas all with the same average kinetic energy because that volume is at sea level rather than above sea level.
The problem with mathematicians is that they don’t really understand the logic of the gas laws. Or the importance of Avogadro’s hypothesis to Charles’s Law.
see what happens when skeptics try to change modes from doubting science to actually doing it?
you get sky dragons
doubt is not enough
Are you saying you agree with the Sky Dragon science?
This is beyond even your usual level of inanity, Mosher.
Oh the hilarity. English and psychology majors lecturing us on science.
Yes every real scientist who has ever done real science has always been right.
Are you aware that science constantly proves science wrong and that is the whole point?
Steven, get a grip. Are you saying that to be sceptical of a scientific theory shows something crazy about the doubter? I know you don’t believe that – you demonstrated intelligence and insightfulness once but since BEST you have become a security guard protecting virtually any and all turf, yes, event the stuff of your side’s equivalent of skydragons. I’m sure you also know that the dangerous warming proponents have a phalanx of empty-headed supporters, just as there are “non believers” who mindlessly dismiss the AGW propositon out of hand.
You know that there is, however, a highly intelligent group with scientific and mathematical proficiency and specialized knowledge that are the strength of this site. Anthony lets anyone have a say, so, yes there is always chaff which sometimes overwhelms the threads – but less so than in dangerous warming supportive sites which, these days, which put out much more snark than science from the supposedly scientifically “literate” core. I know that inside your mind you recognize that the thoughtful contingent here has had a very large beneficial effect on the actual science (it goes unsung, but thats not why such thinkers come here, anyway)
A lot of posters here need to study up on tephigrams, versions of which have been used by meteorologists for decades. This would help them understand the ideal and not-so-ideal laws of thermodynamics that control the atmospheric temperature in the convective troposphere up to radiative dominant altitudes, and help them understand where ‘lapse rate’ comes from. And it’s not OK to redefine well understood atmospheric convective thermodynamic effects with pseodo-scientific terms such as ‘auto-compression’….
+1
“Auto-compression” is a valid scientific term, most often encountered in mine ventilation literature.
Correct; ‘Auto-Compression’ is a widely used term in mine ventilation. We ventilation engineers calculate how hot the mine will get for the mine-workers by including this well-known effect in our calculations. Auto-compression starts at the tropopause and extends down to below surface.
Robert,
I thought you might be a mining engineer, given your use of that term.
My apologies to you mining engineers, it’s a term I have never heard despite decades of compression related engineering work.
“Auto-compression starts at the tropopause and extends down to below surface.”
Yes it does, which is why the Earth’s non GHE temp of 255K is fixed at around 8km presently and the -g/Cp relation extends down to the surface to realise 288K.
If you dig a big hole it would extend down that as well.
Why do you find that needs sky-dragon slaying physics to explain?
However the atmosphere doesn’t go extending the depth of the atmosphere whilst containing it’s volume, as we do in a mine shaft. The atmosphere is free to expand and contract, which is why we cannot apply Charles’ Law to it.
So “auto-compression” is a synonym for the “lapse rate”?
Yes Toneb, conceptually the same. And reviewing tephigrams and the thermo behind them is rewarding for those trying to understand atmospheric phenomenon.
You mean, just as it’s not OK to redefine radiative physics with the pseudo-science that the skeptics use?
It’s easy to lob bombs from our side of our favored paradigm, but maybe that other paradigm has some validity, too. Isn’t that exactly the problem with the alarmists– they stick to their favored paradigm come hell or rapidly-rising seas?
Maybe we should chill on the paradigms and try to understand what the other side is saying. They may be the dense ones, yes, or one the other hand and God forbid, we may be a little dense, too.
Pretty pictures on internet hype DO NOT make it so (ok, a former Army guy quoting a Navy bridge command myth, except the McCain did NOT make it so).
I thought this cute picture of the solar system, with its title, was a joke but now I see it is the ultimate truth of the matter. It’s a shame we have not yet reconstructed the temperature dial on the antikythera though. Quite important for interplanetary travel, I always thought it was odd that on Star Trek they never took an overcoat, hat and scarf with them into the transporter. Obviously they KNEW that if it had a breathable atmosphere at reasonably close to earth pressure it MUST be near earth temperature. Simples!
A comment about Pierre Gosslin’s NoTricksZone. Always an interesting read, but I find one has to be quite careful with the ‘sciency’ stuff. He and Kenneth Richards will post anything that is ‘skeptical’ irrespective of its quality. This post is an example of when that lake of basic climate science QC goes awry.
Since you have not provided any evidence, you are just blowing smoke. I have asked multiple times for you to provide the error in their maths, and you have not done it.
As willis said, there is no error in the math. The error is thinking that the math shows anything other than the ideal gas law appears universal.
… and it has been pointed out many times that their ‘maths’ is not being questioned – just the conclusions they erroneously draw from it.
As a chemical engineer, I use the ideal-gas law very frequently, but it alone cannot be used to demonstrate anything about whether gases in the atmosphere can trap heat.
To illustrate this point, let’s compare a point on land on the equator of the Earth during one of the equinoxes with a point on the equator of the Moon. If the weather is clear, the point on the Earth’s equator would receive about the same average radiation power from the sun during one Earth day as the point on the Moon would receive during one lunar day. If the point on Earth is in a desert area, the surface temperature might vary from about 280 K at night to about 320 K at the hottest part of the day. The surface temperature on the Moon varies over a much wider range, with a much lower night-time minimum and a much higher daytime maximum.
The reason for this is that the Moon has no atmosphere, and acts like a Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody, radiating away heat according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and receiving radiation from the sun with no filtering from the atmosphere.
The Earth’s atmosphere, during daylight hours, absorbs much of the radiation from the sun, particularly in the high-energy ultraviolet part of the spectrum, so that the point on the Earth’s equator does not heat up as much as the point on the Moon’s equator. At night, some of the IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere (particularly water vapor), but some of the heat is transferred to the atmosphere by conduction and convection, and the atmosphere’s specific heat prevents it from being cooled too much at night.
Also, since the Earth’s surface is about 70% covered by liquid water, there is always some evaporation of water into the atmosphere during sunlit hours (which cools the surface). If some of this water vapor condenses into clouds, this transfers heat to the atmosphere. Even on clear nights, once the temperature of the atmosphere reaches the water dew point, the condensing of water vapor into dew or frost heats the atmosphere, and the surface air temperature cannot decrease below the dew point.
The question that Holmes should consider is WHY do planets have the atmospheres that they do? This depends on the gravitational acceleration on the planet’s surface (which increases with the diameter of the planet) and the amount of radiation received from the sun.
Mercury has a weak gravitational field and receives much more solar radiation than the Earth, so any gas molecules on Mercury quickly reach their escape velocity (due to Brownian motion) and escape into space.
Venus has a gravitational acceleration similar to that of Earth, but receives twice the solar radiation as the Earth. Venus is too hot for water to exist as a liquid, and it would escape Venus’ gravity as a vapor, as would nitrogen and oxygen, but CO2 molecules are heavier and slower, and cannot escape Venus’ gravity despite the high temperature.
The Earth’s distance from the sun enables water to exist as a liquid, while its gravitational pull is strong enough to hold nitrogen and oxygen in its atmosphere. It should be noted that the noble gases helium and neon, which have lower molecular weights than nitrogen, are rare in the Earth’s atmosphere, while argon (whose molecular weight is higher than that of oxygen) is plentiful at about 1%. The presence of liquid water on the Earth’s surface is its main temperature regulator, due to the cooling effect of evaporation during sunlit hours, and condensation as dew or frost during nighttime hours.
The Moon’s gravity is only about 1/6 of that of the Earth, so even though it receives about the same amount of solar radiation as the Earth, any gases quickly escape its gravity, and it has no atmosphere.
The gravity on Mars is much weaker than on Earth, but Mars receives less than half the solar radiation as Earth. Mars is too cold to form liquid water, but its gravity is strong enough to hold a thin carbon-dioxide atmosphere, whose pressure is too low to absorb much IR radiation.
The outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) have much stronger gravity than on Earth, but receive much less solar radiation. They have thick atmospheres of mostly methane (which can remain in the vapor phase at temperatures down to -250 F), but do not receive enough solar radiation for IR absorption to warm their surfaces very much.
And yet after all that, climate scientists are claiming an existential threat from 1 to 2 additional molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules. Ludicrous in the extreme. History will eventually laugh a hearty belly-laugh at the likes of Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Santer, and all the other CO2 alarmist hucksters.
“Ludicrous in the extreme.”
Appeal to incredulity again.
Not a valid scientific argument.
The maxim “they know than you” is true.
“The surface temperature on the Moon varies over a much wider range, with a much lower night-time minimum and a much higher daytime maximum. The reason for this is that the Moon has no atmosphere.”
An dense atmosphere contains more heat, ie, it takes the same energy transfer longer to warm it up. The reverse at night. So of course the temperature swings are higher on the moon.
Steve Zell February 6, 2018 at 4:37 pm
Most of what you write makes sense, but not the above.
Although the atmosphere does play a role, the main reason is the surface material.
The lunar regolith has a low heat capacity and is a very poor conductor, so the surface warms up quickly during daytime. Day temperatures are close to radiative balance temperatures. Night temperatures not so. They are way above radiative balance temperatures. Should be ~3K, actually ~70-100K.
On Earth ~70% of the surface is water with a high heat capacity.
A full day of solar energy in the tropics is just capable of warming 10m water ~0,5K.
This is the main reason for the small difference between day and night temperatures on earth.
What amazes me in the discussion above is that the Hydrostatic Equlibrium our atmosphere is in isn’t mentioned at all afaik.
I have a question for those who can do the math.
We have ocean currents on this planet that distribute heat from the equator to the poles.
My understanding of the black body 255K calculation is that it likely does not take this into account, and that the 255K is the average for the entirety of the earth surface temperature.
If we remove evaporation from the ocean and the atmosphere completely, but we use the information about convection of the oceans from the hot tropics to the cold arctics, what would the average temperature of the Earth be?
My though on this is that radiation follows temperature to the 4th power. If the Tropics cool significantly and the rest of the Earth Warms modestly, wouldn’t the equations come to a different value than the 255K calculation presents?
A, I can do the math. But as AR3 said, doing the math of a nonlinear dynamic climste system (Earth) is a fools errand. I dont like fools.
rud, now, now, none of that here!
“If we remove evaporation from the ocean and the atmosphere completely, but we use the information about convection of the oceans from the hot tropics to the cold arctics, what would the average temperature of the Earth be?”
Cover the ocean with black plastic and Earth’s average temperature would lower.
Currently ocean average air surface temperature is 17 C and land air surface is 10 C, and tropical ocean warms the rest of world- due to ocean currents and evaporation.
Ocean is warms by sunlight passing thru a transparent ocean and absorbing the energy of sunlight. Black plastic would prevent this and water is poor conductor of heat.
The plastic on tropical ocean would get hot and radiate more energy into space and cause the ocean to absorb less energy. And tropical ocean wouldn’t warm the rest of the world very much.
Currently ocean area warms land area, with plastic it wouldn’t, so land area would have lower average temperature than 10 C.
I would guess the average global temperature would be about 5 C, rather than 15 C.
Sigh. CO2 deals with radiation.
Gravity makes the lapse rate.
Air moving upward against gravity trades kinetic energy (speed) for potential energy. Air moving downward trades potential energy for kinetic energy. No change in overall energy.
Temperature is a measure only of kinetic energy. You change that, you change temperature. That’s the lapse rate. Whatever heat you have, gravity will try to shuffle it downward.
Gravity don’t care about energy. (at least outside blackholes).
Buoyancy in a gravity field is a topic you should explore Mike.
And you were doing so well in some of your other replies.
So from temperature dependent qualities of the near surface atmosphere, the near surface temperature can be calculated. Gordon Bennett!
Wills
You said;
“And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.”
.
I do not rely entirely on the Ideal Gas Law in coming to this conclusion.
There are ten reasons as to why I state that more CO2 does not cause any measurable net warming in the troposphere; the gas law is only the final nail in the coffin, for example;
1) because every planetary body with a thick atmosphere has a clear thermal gradient, which always starts at 10kPa – regardless of the presence or not of GHG
2) recent papers show that convection dominates over radiative transfers in all atmospheres >10kPa – meaning that on Earth radiative energy transfers take a back seat in the troposphere
3) my knowledge of the physics of star-formation led me to believe that this aspect of gas thermodynamics had been neglected in our atmosphere.
4) growing evidence that the alleged ratio of forcing since 1750 (anthropogenic vs natural) was wrong
5) growing evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 after feed-backs was low, or even zero
6) growing evidence that factors other than CO2 drive climate change (clouds, climate cycles).
7) growing evidence that Venus was not hot because of the greenhouse effect of CO2
8) there is no empirical evidence, quantified in a published paper, that more CO2 causes any warming anywhere in the atmosphere
9) my knowledge of auto-compression indicated what the real reason for the residual temperature effect on planetary bodies was
10) Lastly, that a small input change of one gas (i.e. +0.03% of CO2) into the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not possibly change the three gas parameters enough to increase global temperatures by 3C, as alleged by the IPCC.
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Indeed you do. You say that formula 5 (and 6), by itself, TOTALLY RULES OUT the possiblity that GHGs do something, viz:
Now, if you want to make an argument based on all your other considerations, fine … but that is NOT what you said in your paper.
Thank you for your willingness to fight for your ideas. However, your claim, that because atmospheres follow the Ideal Gas Law that THEREFORE the effect of CO2 is vanishingly small doesn’t pass the laugh test. And that is exactly what you’ve claimed.
w.
Wills;
I stated; ‘formula 5 (and 6) as presented here, totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports’.
.
I stand by this statement 100%. This is in effect the null hypothesis – that natural factors such as cloud changes, atmospheric changes, albedo changes, solar changes and natural climate cycles still dominate the climate today.
What the IPCC claim is essentially your position; that man has taken over 97% of all the drivers which cause climate change, and consequently we are now living in the ‘Anthropocene’.
If you really believe this, then scientific evidence is needed; produce here a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming in the troposphere caused by our CO2.
“If you really believe this, then scientific evidence is needed; produce here a peer-reviewed published paper which quantifies any warming in the troposphere caused by our CO2.”
No you do the opposite. On that disproves it.
The science is empirical going back to Tyndall, Arrhenius and others ~150 years ago.
“Empirical” meaning repeated observation/experiment/theory, has not found it wanting.
I somehow think you haven’t either (sarc).
Toneb,
Complete bs. The science does not go back 150 years. You are just repeating the typical propaganda espoused by Weart and his revisionist history of global warming.
“Complete bs. The science does not go back 150 years. You are just repeating the typical propaganda espoused by Weart and his revisionist history of global warming.”
If by “bs” you mean what it often means here – the real world, then yes it is.
However most of us (thankfully) live in the above ground.
Certainly scientists do – as they have, as I said, observed/measured and theorised it for indeed ~150 years.
That you don’t want it to be true doesn’t make it so.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
That you want it to be true does not make is so, either. Just as I said, the article you posted was by Spencer Weart giving a revisionist history of global warming, with a huge dash of fantasy.
11) the majority of GCMs (or most) predict (an emergent phenomenon of their equations and tuning) a troposphere hot spot in the tropic at mid troposphere levels, based on a strong CO2 GHE formulation. None is observed in 37 years of satellite troposphere temperature monitoring while CO2 increased 23% since 1979. (332 to 408ppm).
“None is observed in 37 years of satellite troposphere temperature monitoring while CO2 increased 23% since 1979. (332 to 408ppm).”
How true it is. Yet Willis and Toneb carry on as if their pet hypothesis is true.
At this point in history, truly amazing.
Yet, being clever people, one day the realization will hit and we can all move on to accept that a tiny bit of warming, which we will never be able to measure, is nothing worth spending time and money on.
“Yet Willis and Toneb carry on as if their pet hypothesis is true.
At this point in history, truly amazing.
Yet, being clever people, one day the realization will hit and we can all move on to accept that a tiny bit of warming, which we will never be able to measure, is nothing worth spending time and money on.”
It’s not a “pet” hypothesis.
You have obviously not noticed that it is empirical science.
IOW no one has observed the (physics actually) to be wrong.
And by “no one” I mean people who are a damn sight cleverer than you, me and Mr Nikolov.
Shouting up out of your rabbit-hole a denial of it does not make it so.
What is “truly amazing” is the rampant D-K syndrome on display in this thread, all whilst trying vainly to slay non-existent sky-dragons.
joelobryan February 6, 2018 at 8:16 pm
Reply
sailboarder February 7, 2018 at 5:21 am Edit
sailboarder, if you weren’t so lazy you’d have looked to see what my “pet hypothesis” about the troposperic hot spot might be. I wrote an entire post on the lack of the “tropospheric hot spot” …
This in part is why I ask people to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS. In this case, because you refused my polite request to quote my words and you didn’t do your homework, you end up looking like a total fool. READ MY WORK BEFORE YOU MAKE ASININE STUPID COMMENTS ON WHAT YOU IMAGINE IT TO BE!!!
Sheesh … why is this so complex for some folks?
My post on the subject of the LACK OF a tropospheric hot spot is here …
w.
Willis acts like he sees the “sky dragons” as a threat to his pet cloud formation. How about this twist: The “sky dragons” are not only compatible, they help explain the cloud formation Willis has observed. When the temperature gradient gets high enough, convection picks up suddenly. Near the equator at sea level I’m guessing this gradient tends to be associated with a narrow temperature range. Convection driven winds kick up waves, thus evaporation, thus cloud formation. The evaporation and cloud formation amplifies the lapse rate threshold on surface temperature.
hanelyp
Yes but it is nothing to do with the sky dragon approach.
I’ve tried to tell Willis many times that the conduction/convection explanation for the surface temperature enhancement is entirely consistent with his observations and that his observations are themselves a product of the effect of atmospheric pressure on the ocean surface due to the way that surface pressure affects the amount of energy taken up by the phase change from liquid to vapour in evaporation. Changing pressure alters the amount of energy needed to break the bond between water molecules.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, so here goes:
Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Yep, it was patented shortly after the “CO2-slowed-cooling-that-makes-air-hotter-than-it-would-otherwise-be” … permanent energy source.
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards.
You’re forgiven (^_^), and interesting, since the greenhouse theory, as I first saw it, did precisely this, with the claim of back-radiated heating, … until the claim conveniently changed to “slowed cooling”, … which amounts to roughly the same thing, when I considered it more closely.
I actually tend to agree that the author has not demonstrated what he claims here. In fact, I have an even bigger problem that might cause you (and others, I’m sure) even greater disagreement with me — namely that the two temperatures traditionally used to calculate that 33-degree difference are NOT comparable in the way that they are ordinarily compared. I do NOT see average near-surface air temperature as being the same “species” as black-body planetary temperature — these are incomparable — the subtracting of one from the other seems like a bogus stunt — similar to subtracting two oranges from three apples to get one apple. In my view, that number, derived THAT way, should not even be in the discussion. It’s a hoax. All it is … is a temperature difference. “So what?”, as you might ask — “it says nothing of the trajectory, etc., etc.” It says nothing about CO2 being an underlying cause.
Look, we could start up ten million nuclear reactors and vent all their heat to the atmosphere. The planet would assuredly get warmer … but the atmosphere wouldn’t stop obeying the Ideal Gas Law. The variables of density and temperature and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass would simply readjust to the new reality and the Ideal Gas Law would still be satisfied. You could still use his Equation 5 version of the Ideal Gas Law to calculate the temperature from the other variables, regardless of whether or not the atmosphere is heated by nuclear reactors.
… an interesting thought experiment that makes me ask questions like, “How would ten million nuclear reactors of vented heat change density and mean near-surface atmospheric molar mass?” — I don’t know, but I wonder. If you know, then thanks for enlightening me.
They [planetary atmospheres] will always obey the law regardless of how they are heated, so you can’t rule out anything.
Yes, but will the SYSTEM of planets always obey the ORDER we see in different values of the law derived for individual atmospheres in the whole system? Why do we see the order in the different values that we see? It’s not just a law determining one value, then another. It’s a law determining an ORDERLY SEQUENCE of values in the system.
I’m supposing that if entirely different mechanisms were determining different planetary temperatures, then we would not see this ORDER that we seem to see.
Every one of Willis’ statements is wrong, but the nuclear reactor line is the most laughable.
Temporarily heating the atmosphere artificially in this way does not respond to Holmes’ argument. After such an infusion of heat dissipated, Earth’s climate system would revert to the natural status quo ante.
[“every one of Willis statements is wrong” – yet you offer not a single thing to say why or how. In my opinion: PUT UP OR SHUT UP -Anthony]
For “statements”, please read “objections to Holmes’ paper”.
Anthony,
I provided copious examples.
His totally ignorant claim that “auto-compression” doesn’t exist, for instance. Simply another example of his ignorance of the most elementary physics. No surprise, since he had never studied physics.
Why you let such a scientific ignoramus pollute your site, I don’ t know.
[You’re right, there’s an easy solution to “pollution” in the form of ad hom attacks too. Goodbye- Anthony]
It’s not ad hom to point out that Willis’ nuclear reactor argument is idiotic, just as most of the posuer’s drivel is.
Just ask Dr. Spencer.
[Saying the IDEA is idiotic, no that’s not ad hom, but saying this is: “Why you let such a scientific ignoramus pollute your site, I don’ t know.” Being an anonymous coward with nothing more than a handle while calling somebody names from the comfort of anonymity (translation: chicken) is also not in your favor. You aren’t arguing the issue, you are arguing the person, and offering nothing but insults as rebuttal. You’ve been on moderation for bad behavior here, and now with this, extended to “straight to the bit bucket” privileges. Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony]
Willis is right: “ The underlying premise of the paper is wrong”
However gravity does very much determine the lower surface temperature; for at 14.7 Lbs./sq.in. the vapour pressure of water is 0.2563 Lbs/sq.in at 15.56 C (288 K)..
Since evaporation takes place when the Partial Pressure of water falls below this; this determines the amount of water that is contained in the atmosphere and the cooling effect of the atmospheric Rankine Cycle. The Hydro Cycle.
Should the surface temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect or for any other reason; then this Rankine Cycle accelerates in exactly the same way your kettle does when you turn up the heat and so maintains a constant temperature, give or take the leads and lags.
(100 C for your kettle and 15.56 C for the earth.)
Simple really.
Does this mean all the proxies that show a global temperature up to 22 C are wrong? Or does it mean the atmosphere must have been different back then?
First of all I agree that no energy is created through “adiabatic auto-compression”. While I haven’t read the paper, I’m not aware of any known planetary atmosphere that doesn’t have some kind of GHG. This makes any claim of no greenhouse effect difficult to demonstrate.
But do we really need a greenhouse effect to determine the temperature of an atmosphere? One thing that GHGs do is absorb surface radiation and transfer that energy to the atmosphere as kinetic energy. This allows the atmosphere to contain more energy than an atmosphere without GHGs. This will expand the atmosphere. Since more energy will be absorbed at lower altitudes due to higher density, this will create a lapse rate.
That’s it. Notice I never mentioned back radiation. The lapse rate is all that is required to make the surface warmer than the S-B computation. There is also no need for any gravitational compression. The gravity produces the density of gases that leads to a lapse rate just by its existence.
The next question would then be whether back radiation makes it even warmer. I think the answer is yes for several reasons. However, you don’t need back radiation to create a warmer planet and you certainly don’t need “adiabatic auto-compression”.
Could the reason for there not existing (if that is so) any known planetary atmosphere without some kind of GHGs be that without those GHGs atmosphere has less ability to cool and has thus slowly warmed and expanded away to space? And for the same reason would it not be that an atmosphere without GHGs is capable to accumulate/contain more energy than an atmosphere with GHGs and thus better ability to get rid of accumulated energy/heat?
I refer to my comment(s) below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2736856
Richard M – if you have a nice word with the mice they will design a planet for you of any size, pop it into any orbit and surround it with whatever mixture you like of gases with NO GHGs. It wont be necessary for you to tell them what lapse rate you want. You can just measure it OR work it out from universal physical laws and equations already known.
Try it in your head as a thought experiment first (the mice do charge a lot for planets).Pencil and paper are cheaper.
I’m no physicist so please forgive my stupid questions, but does greater atmospheric density due solely to pressure hold greater amounts of heat? It seems to me that the closer you move toward a solid from a gas the greater the capacity for absorbing and retaining heat as long as there is continual input of energy from some external source. If that’s the case, is the greenhouse effect enhanced with increasing atmospheric pressure? Can this explain the high temperatures on Venus for example without going into the actual volume or percentages of the gases? In other words if you have 2 bodies with the same volume of GHGs but vastly different pressures due to stronger gravity, does it affect the GHE?
the high surface temp of Venus can and is fully explained by its pressure without resorting to a GHE of CO2. Note: Venus also has no H2O in its atmosphere or surface. Such high temps long ago caused the dissociation of the H2O molecules into their diatomic atomic constituents and H2 escaped to space. O2 combined with minerals or formed stable CO2.
joelobryan
You are correct about Venus.
Folk need to rid themselves of the Jim Hansen idea that Venus is hot because of the GHE of CO2; even NASA still say its hot because of the GHE.
Venus – very hot but it’s not the greenhouse effect causing it. A little thought will bring even the non-expert to agree that Venus is not hot because of the GHE.
The greenhouse effect supposedly works by short-wave radiation hitting the surface and then being re-radiated as longwave, which is then trapped by the GHG.
First, very little of the sun’s direct radiation even reaches the surface of Venus due to its opaque atmosphere – papers say less than 20W/m2;
Jelbring, H. (2003). The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass. Energy & Environment, 14(2), 351-356.
Moroz, V., Ekonomov, A., Moshkin, B., Revercomb, H., Sromovsky, L., Schofield, J., . . . Tomasko, M. G. (1985). Solar and thermal radiation in the Venus atmosphere. Advances in Space Research, 5(11), 197-232.
.
Second, Venus has a long ‘day’ of 117 of our days, meaning the night lasts 58 Earth days. Yet there is no real difference in temperature between the day and the night.
How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?
Third, the critical pressure of CO2 is 7,380 kPa. The critical temperature is 30 C. In those super-critical fluid conditions, it’s hard to say whether Venus has an atmosphere or an ocean.
My calculations suggest that the ‘bottom’ 4km of the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas – it’s a super-critical fluid. How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?
Fourth, the specific heat of air is higher than CO2, so replacing the 90.9atm pressure atmosphere with a O2 & N2 mixture of the same surface pressure would see the temperature rise, not fall.
“How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?”
Appeal to incredulity.
Why shouldn’t it?
Do you not get to be hotter for longer if your house has better insulation?
Put enough CO2 molecules in the way of OLWIR then a lot doesn’t get out.
Meanwhile SW solar arrives at the surface on the sunlit side.
“The greenhouse effect supposedly works by short-wave radiation hitting the surface and then being re-radiated as longwave, which is then trapped by the GHG.”
It doesn’t have to hit the surface. All that is required is that the SW penetrates to some depth before it is thermalized (absorption). The heat has to get out, from whatever level.
“How can the GHE ‘trap heat’ and work for 58 days without any sun?”
The GHE doesn’t need sunlight to work. It just blocks heat radiated by a hot body. And Venus does stay hot during the night.
“How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?”
You probably can, but it isn’t the issue. The question is whether GHGs impede the pathway for the heat to escape. Most of that pathway is clearly gas.
The specific heat is totally irrelevant.
The basic issue is, the surface of Venus is very hot, mean 737K. That surface radiates 16000 W/m2. That’s about 100 x the sunlight received. If nothing is blocking that radiation, how can it be sustained? And why doesn’t Venus look red hot?
“the high surface temp of Venus can and is fully explained by its pressure without resorting to a GHE of CO2.”
Then why does the temp of Venus as seen from space not correspond to it’s actual surface temp, but instead to it’s solar constant minus it’s albedo?
Why would the heat (from as you say) compression not be visible as viewed from space.
(given that you deny that LWIR is not *blocked* by CO2)
And then you would have the situation where more heat is coming out than went in.
Free energy!
So your bike tyre remains permanently hot after you pump it up.
After the work required to do it stops?
Work meaning pushing the atmosphere’s molecules together.
NOT the act of keeping them together.
The heat dissipates thereafter.
Try to conceive of the -g/Cp relation at work to make a LR.
On the other hand why are we not utilising *you* perpetual free energy, that is apparently available in presence of a gravity field?
It’s the density that matters, so no need for CO2, argon suffices.
“Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments.”
https://goo.gl/Pq6FDG
The demonstration described in the paper I linked above shows also that CO2, even being slightly denser than argon, is able to shed away excess heat more efficiently.
“On the other hand why are we not utilising *you* perpetual free energy, that is apparently available in presence of a gravity field?”
Surely we are: As hydro-electricity! Also wind, solar and geothermal ‘free’ energy are also exploited.
Joel, there is the sulphuric acid formation and disassociation band , but that ends up net zero energy flux of course.
By converting gaseous Oxygen and solid Carbon (coal) into gaseous CO2 humans have added mass to the atmosphere. This will raise the temperature increasing the H2O content further increasing the mass of the atmosphere. We’re all doomed but not in the way we thought!!
If that were true it would be a tiny increase in mass and hence tiny effect on temperature. We’re also taking out O2 in all the rusting metal we’ve made, N2 in all the ammonia we make, etc. If you’re worried, just keep on eye on the air pressure, a measure of the mass of the atmosphere in a way, and if it hits new highs and continues to grow relentlessly, then you would have your proof.
“Surely we are: As hydro-electricity! Also wind, solar and geothermal ‘free’ energy are also exploited.”
True, but that is not “free” in the sense that we just tap into a gravity field and hey presto, free energy flows at every point, which is what this sky-dragon slaying concept does – that of constant work being done on the atmosphere under gravity, and so constantly heating it.
“My calculations suggest that the ‘bottom’ 4km of the Venusian atmosphere is not even a gas – it’s a super-critical fluid. How can you have the ‘greenhouse effect’ without any gas?”
Oh OK ……
http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
http://mentallandscape.com/C_Venera_Perspective.jpg
The classic view of the radiative GHE for planet Earth is that Earth’s atmosphere is largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance, whereas it is significantly opaque to the wavelength of outgoing LWIR.
That process cannot happen on Venus, because the Venusian atmosphere is not largely transparent to the wavelength of incoming solar irradiance. Despite Venus being much nearer the sun and hence having far more solar irradiance at TOA, at the surface there is only about 4 W/m2.
So we know that incoming solar is not directly heating the surface of the planet Venus, as it does on planet Earth, because there is less solar irradiance reaching the equatorial surface of Venus than reaches the surface of Antartica here on planet Earth, by a large margin.
Further, there is all but no diurnal range, ie., there is all but no temperature difference between the temperatures of the Venusian day, and those of the Venusian night, notwithstanding that the night on Venus lasts some 117 Earth days (about 4 months). We see a difference in planet Earth in the Arctic and the Antarctic when there is no sun for a few months.
And what about Mars? Mars in its atmosphere has about the same number of molecules of GHGs as does planet Earth. It has more than an order of magnitude more CO2 molecules, but of course less water vapour molecules. Despite having more molecules of GHGs, and despite these molecules being closer together, Mars has no measurable GHE.
In fact, if you were to stand at the equator of Mars, the temperature is around 20 degC at your feet, but 0 degC at your head. all those molecules of CO2 are not doing very much. Why is Mars so cold and why does the temperature drop so quickly in just 2 metres. According to NASA, it is because Mars has a thin atmosphere.
The Martian atmosphere is remarkably like that of planet Earth, except for non GHGs. The real difference between the two atmospheres, is that on planet Earth we have vast quantities of Nitrogen, Oxygen and other non GHGS leading to a massive atmosphere with thermal capacity and thermal inertia/lag. If one were to strip Earth’s atmosphere of all the non GHGs, one would have an atmosphere very similar to Mars with about the same weight, density and pressure.
NASA says (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/mars/in-depth/):
The heat easily escapes because the atmosphere lacks thermal mass, and thermal inertia. All those molecules of CO2 are doing nothing to impede the loss of heat. All these molecules of CO2 are nt acting like a blanket reducing the heat loss, and there is a drop of temperature of 24degC in just 2 meteres (24degC at your feet, 0 degC at your head).
If one reads the geo-engineering papers on Mars, they discuss making the atmosphere more massive so as to increase the temperature on the surface, they do not discuss the need for more GHGs.
Just because there are greenhouse gases. i.e. gases which can radiate energy in the thermal infrared range of wavelengths, and which are necessary to cool the earth, it doesn’t mean that the supposed greenhouse effect of 33degC is real – far from it.
That’s why even Gavin Schmidt admiitted the GHE was more of a thought experiment than an observable state.
Good post
Thanks
Good post
Thanks
I’ve been working on this for years and have explained it in detail on several occasions to Willis who failed to follow the logic.
Latest version here (though there are subsequent versions incorporated into the comments sections of several of Willis’s previous ) posts:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
The fact is that maintaining convective overturning within an atmosphere suspended off the surface against gravity requires energy, that energy cannot be radiated to space if convection is to continue and that energy causes a surface temperature rise above that predicted by the S-B equation.
No GHGs needed. If GHGs are present then convective changes automatically neutralise the thermal effect of any radiative imbalances.
Otherwise no atmosphere could remain suspended off the surface.
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 2:00 am
And we have another winner who is too good to follow a simple request to QUOTE MY WORDS. This allows him to spread falsehoods about what I have said and done.
Stephen, if you want to accuse me of something, then grow a pair and quote what I said. Hiding behind handwaving accusations merely damages your reputation, not mine.
w.
It isn’t an accusation, merely a reporting of facts that you are free to rebut as you wish.
You know my detailed proposition so if you still do not accept any component you can set out your remaining objections here and I will tackle them again.
To the best of my recollection without spending hours trawling through old posts the sticking point was your contention that the energy needed to lift an atmosphere off the ground was able to be dissipated without the atmosphere falling to the ground.
If that is an inaccurate representation of your position then please put me right.
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 10:22 am
If you had quoted something I said, THEN it would be a “reporting of facts”. But nooo, you’re too elevated a personality to deal with actual facts.
I can rebut facts, Stephen. But I cannot “rebut” your handwaving substance-free accusations.
Are you really that stupid, or is it merely stubborn recalcitrance? What do you not understand in the request that you need to QUOTE WHAT IT IS THAT YOU OBJECT TO?
w.
It is my proposition that you object to so it is you that needs to specify what I said that you think is wrong.
It was reasonable for you to expect to be quoted verbatim in the early days but now that your output is so voluminous it is no longer reasonable.
You should be prepared to restate your position as necessary and correct those who get it wrong.
Anyway, my post narrowed it down to a specific issue for you so let’s hear what you say.
Let me recap the bidding. You accused me of not being able to follow your logic, viz:
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 2:00 am
In response, I asked you to point to wherever it was that I had “failed to follow the logic”. A simple request. All you had to do was to point out the location where I did whatever you are accusing me of doing, so we can all get the facts.
In response, you’ve done everything except back up your unpleasant accusation with facts. You even go so far as to say:
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 11:04 am
Say what?
I have no clue where I might have “failed to follow your logic” as you have accused me of doing. And now I have to specify things? That’s insane. I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF, how on earth can I possibly “specify” anything?
Time to either put up or shut up, Stephen. Either point out where I “failed to follow your logic” so we can judge for ourselves, or I’m through with this nonsense.
w.
The sticking point we arrived at was that you asserted that the energy absorbed by an atmosphere could be dissipated away without the atmosphere falling to the ground.
Please address that issue. Did you intend to assert that or not?
SW, lets make it real simple. You lose.
The loser is the one who blocks progress by refusing to address an issue.
Once Willis accepts that the energy absorbed by an atmosphere during its formation remains present forever or until the atmosphere falls back to the ground he is in checkmate.
The ideal gas law does not say that if you raise p, you will raise T (at V = const) – it depends on the change in the amount of the gas (n or m) or density. The temperature rise is not a consequence of ideal gas law, but from the compression work and the pumping process not being slow enough to be isothermal. When the tire (and the air inside) cools to ambient temperature after the pumping, p will decrease too, according to ideal gas law p1/p2=n1/n2=ρ1/ρ2
Ideal gas law is just an equation of state, which links the three state variables: temperature, pressure and density. If any two of them are known, the third is given (fixed) by the gas law.
This was a reply to the first comment by ristvan.
My post at Feb 7th 2.00 am seems to have hit the spam filter for some reason. Hope it gets through shortly.
You have to look at the atmosphere as a system of molecules bouncing around. The 33K greenhouse effect is only at the surface, the average temp of the whole atmosphere is still only the black body temp, when measured at the center of mass of the atmosphere, where the air pressure is 1/2 the surface pressure. On Earth with it’s weak amount of CO2 and on Venus with it’s overwhelming amount of CO2, that’s the case, and shows that gh gases aren’t a major factor. If gh gases are a major factor then why is Venus’ average atmospheric temp over the whole volume only the black body temp?
Venus has a much denser atm than Earth.
Willis said:
“Whether the planet is warmed by the sun or by internal radioactivity or whether the warming is increased by GHGs is NOT determinable from the fact that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law. They will ALWAYS generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated.
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims in the above quote.”
Which is correct on the face of it BUT the point is that if GHGs were able to alter surface temperature or atmospheric density without altering gravity or atmospheric mass then the atmosphere would go out of hydrostatic equilibrium and be lost either by falling to the surface or by drifting off into space.
For example:
If one starts with a GHG free atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium then the downward force of gravity is on average exactly offset by the upward pressure gradient force caused by surface heating via conduction and convection. That balance must apply at every height for an atmosphere to be retained.
If one then adds GHGs so as to raise surface temperature and thereby reduce surface density then the consequent expansion of the atmosphere would create a topmost layer where the upward force exceeds the downward force and that layer would be lost to space.
Losing the topmost layer would reduce total atmospheric mass so that the same surface temperature would push the reduced weight of the atmosphere a little higher again to replace the lost layer and again the renewed topmost layer would have the upward force exceeding the downward force and it would be lost in turn.
And so on until there is no atmosphere.
So, by applying basic physics it is implicit that GHGs don’t do anything to surface temperature.
SW says: “If one starts with a GHG free atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium then the downward force of gravity is on average exactly offset by the upward pressure gradient force caused by surface heating via conduction and convection. That balance must apply at every height for an atmosphere to be retained.”
That, I think, is the gist of it.
My basic conclusion (so far) is that the compression caused by gravity must affect the heat capacity of parcels of air nearest the surface, since those parcels are under about 19,000 pounds/ square yards of pressure. Expressing the pressure in square yards I think makes it clearer how much pressure really is bearing down on us, even now. This dynamic between gravity and convection/conduction seems to be a logical and elegant way to express the lapse rate, so I don’t see that the GHGs add much of anything to this basic mechanism.
If we had no GHGs, would the mechanism that Wilde described still hold? Yes. Why would it not? If we don’t need GHGs to describe the lapse rate, why would we need them to describe why the surface isn’t radiating away at 255K?
Don asks: ”If we had no GHGs, would the mechanism that Wilde described still hold?”
The mechanism described by Stephen doesn’t hold with or without GHGs. That mechanism is but Stephen’s imagination at work. To lose an atm. in real life, escape velocity for the atm. constituents must be exceeded & is a fact Stephen doesn’t mention. H2 at Earthian temperatures is light enough to reach escape velocity so that part of the atm. HAS escaped & there is very little original H2 left. Same for a lot of the original helium.
”If we don’t need GHGs to describe the lapse rate, why would we need them to describe why the surface isn’t radiating away at 255K?”
Because the adiabatic lapse derivation assumes temperature changes slow enough with increasing z height so calculations work out only g and total Cp needed in the calculation. Since O2,N2 make up almost all the air Cp, the rest don’t make much difference.
Where GHGs matter is the z=0 value for temperature to start lapsing from. The standard atm. for the midlatitude tropics shows this start temperature inclusive of all the natural GHG effects at the time standard lapse was developed. Reduce the GHGs and you reduce the temperature at z=0 but do not affect the adiabatic lapse since g and Cp don’t change (much) as GHGs change.
Conversely, increase the GHGs and you increase the start z=0 temperature but do not affect the adiabatic lapse since g and Cp don’t change (much). As long as the increased temperature doesn’t change much with increasing z.
Trick says: “Where GHGs matter is the z=0 value for temperature to start lapsing from.”
Yes that’s the theory, isn’t it? But then you agree that what raises the earth’s surface temp from 255K to 288K is gravity and pressure and atmospheric density, without any need to consider GHGs? Because you say, “the adiabatic lapse derivation assumes temperature changes slow enough with increasing z height so calculations work out only g and total Cp needed in the calculation. Since O2,N2 make up almost all the air Cp, the rest don’t make much difference.”
Has this z value movement, caused by GHG, been measured? Is it real or theoretical?
You say, “Reduce the GHGs and you reduce the temperature at z=0 but do not affect the adiabatic lapse since g and Cp don’t change (much) as GHGs change.” But I believe this confuses what you said earlier; it isn’t that the temperature at z changes, it’s that z itself, the emissions height, changes, while the temperature stays the same and the lapse rate proceeds from there. But, I don’t buy that GHGs affect the lapse rate nearly as much as the theory holds.
I don’t think anyone has effectively refuted the very simple logic that Wilde has laid out: “If one starts with a GHG free atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium then the downward force of gravity is on average exactly offset by the upward pressure gradient force caused by surface heating via conduction and convection. That balance must apply at every height for an atmosphere to be retained.” I believe people need to think about this more instead of immediately pondering ways to refute it. He has described the lapse rate elegantly, and with no need for GHGs. If it seems not to make sense, then maybe thinking about the actual pressure bearing down on the surface atmosphere will help it make sense; this pressure is not trivial.
”But then you agree that what raises the earth’s surface temp from 255K to 288K is gravity and pressure and atmospheric density, without any need to consider GHGs?”
Do not agree. The sun raises the avg. near surface T from 255K to 288K as GHG parameters alone are increased from zero to natural amounts by formally tested basic atm. physics.
Once you know avg. density(0) and avg. P(0) either at avg. 255K or 288K then the associated avg. T can be ideally computed from IGL. The problem is measuring the avg. P and avg. density to begin with. The other approach, energy balance, also works fine to get avg. T but you need planetary measurements also.
Today it seems easy, but before the NASA probes there were only estimates for the other planets avg. T, some were remarkably close others not so much. Earth already had measured surface avg. T, avg. P so could ~calculate Earth avg. density.
As far as refuting Wilde, nothing he writes gets the atm. constituents up to escape velocity, the temperatures aren’t high enough for heavy N2, O2 et. al. molecules. If below escape velocity, molecules and atm. are retained. Pretty sure Wilde can not even compute escape velocity for a certain molecule, never have seen him write a formula for that, for anything btw.
“If we had no GHGs, would the mechanism that Wilde described still hold? Yes. Why would it not? If we don’t need GHGs to describe the lapse rate, why would we need them to describe why the surface isn’t radiating away at 255K?”
.
Good points here Don.
We certainly don’t need GHG to describe the lapse rate (or auto-compression as I call it) why would we?
All the 6 surfaces in my room are emitting 390 Watts. What is the temperature in the centre?
(6 x 390)/6.
It says above he sun is providing 255 Watts and we have to find a further 33 Watts to get 288 Watts.. So (255 +X)/2 = 288.
x = 576 – 255 or x =321 Watts. To get 288 Watts you need a second source of 321 Watts in addition to Suns 255 Watts.
Am I doing something wrong?.
Just realised it’s 288K
To The Reverend Badger;
Yours is the most concise and elegant explanation I have seen in support of the conclusions in my paper. Well Done!
Robert,
May I refer you to this?:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Stephen
Thanks for the link.
Your material makes perfect sense to me.
I think the key point is this;
.
“So is it atmospheric mass returning kinetic energy to the surface (retrieved from potential energy in descent) or is it DWIR that causes the greenhouse effect. It cannot be both.”
.
Indeed it cannot be both, and I am pretty sure that it is the former.
Robert – you are too kind. I grasp the logic sort of intuitively then try to check it myself bit by bit. My thought experiment of 2 planets one with GHG and one without is one I have had for years. Trying it out on some of the physics PhDs and one NASA scientist in the Stack-Exchange forum sort of confirmed the BS of CAGW as they never answered even the simplest of questions, just danced around it, posted dozens of graphs and told me I was asking the wrong question. When the moderators actually warned me I might be asked to leave as my posts were “unpopular” it really hit home.
There has been a fair bit of “dancing around” in this thread. The culprits know who they are – enough said!
If someone asks me a question about atmospheric physics and what I think I will try to answer it honestly provided they do it politely and accord me the same respect. Those who are rude,evasive and unhelpful here on WUWT are not furthering the cause of increasing our understanding of this subject.
Your paper is, I suspect, not the whole story but is sufficient to entirely refute the GHG theory. It adds some insight into how the atmosphere really works but the end answer will possibly incorporate something from Stephen Wilde, Nikolov and Zeller and D**g C****n (Ask Anthony about the *** if you don’t know). All of you guys should be working together ideally but for now make sure you all read one another’s work in great detail and with careful consideration. The truth will gradually coalesce.
Rev B,
My description is simple and complete and needs nothing more from others.
Good job.
“Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards. Here is a look at the various planetary atmospheres:”
So called adiabatic auto compression is not a permanent energy source but it is an energy store.
It is a closed loop of (originally solar) energy captured via conduction by the system of convective overturning which developed within the atmosphere during the period of time that the atmosphere first formed.
It can never be radiated to space until the sun is switched off whereupon the gases in the atmosphere will fall to the ground as frozen solids.
Gravity “traps” solar energy on this planet and every other planetary body with an atmosphere, not greenhouse gasses, which make little or no contribution to the temperature at the surface. This is the atmospheric thermal effect described by https://twitter.com/NikolovScience.
Might have been a bad idea for Anthony to put this under the ‘bad science’ section 🙂
Mi casa su casa.
This is under the ‘bad science’ section!
You are kidding – right?
Not kidding. Look at the home page and go to your article or click here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/bad-science/
HAHAHA I am in with the ‘shrinking beetles’, the ‘conceptual penis’ and other ‘crackpots’ like Svensmark and Shaviv!!!
That is so funny!
One has to laugh.
Anthony pulled a similar one on me when I wrote a post pointing out that the Trenberth diagram was wrong because it omitted energy returning to KE from PE beneath descending columns of air but I put up with some mockery because at least he had the courage to publish it.
Your work amongst that of others is proving me to have been right.
And he has the old Climate Realists site where I first contributed listed under the ‘Transcendent Rant and Way Out There theory’ section.
Maybe he should reconsider?
We live in a world where an accurate and provable description of reality, is called ‘Bad Science’ or ‘Way Out There Theory’ – not on mainstream sites (which would be bad enough), but on skeptical sites!
I am honestly still laughing!!
You have 100% made my day mate!
If the lapse rate is created by the greenhouse effect why can it be calculated with reference only to physical properties and no reference to radiant properties at any point? If the surface temperature is dependent on downwelling LW radiation why can the spot temperature at any point be calculated with no reference to the LW radiation only incoming SW radiation? If DWLR in excess of the incoming energy from the sun really can raise the temperature of the earth’s surface then why can’t we measure that ability to do so or recover that energy if it is real?
Extrapolate out the 2 slopes to see where they intersect the rapid increase that was sunrise, that’s just the change to stay above dew point temp.
A 35W/m^2 drop in net outgoing, oh, it has to add 35W/m^2 up too!
You are looking at internal eddies in the system. The issue is how to compute the mean temperature of a planet with an atmosphere which — sky dragon-denier insults aside — can be done without reference to the composition of that atmosphere. All things being equal a planet with a higher atmospheric pressure will have a higher mean temperature at the surface. That is irrespective of the composition of that atmosphere. It’s gravity wot done it.
No it’s not an eddy, it’s energy getting bled off as needed because the state change has more energy than an equal drop in temp without the state change.
That’s how they make voltage regulators, and switching supplies come in a pulse at a time, and there’s storage to bleed energy from to maintain the output voltage.
The atm has multiple independent agents operating. Tone doesn’t understand what that means apparently
I have a question for those who believe that CO2 warms (not merely slows cooling of) the atmosphere. Would you be saying the same things if CO2 increases warming by 10%, or if it increased warming by 0.000000001%?
Sky Dragons aside, i think the important point made by this thought experiment is that temperature is only one of several possible changes that could occur in the atmosphere in response to some new forcing.
Sure, if all the other variables stay constant, temperature should go up. But what if instead the volume or density or molar mass of the atmosphere adjusted slightly? When you’re talking about a fraction of a degree Kelvin increase over decades, that’s a pretty small fractional change.
Are we even looking for these tiny fractional changes in the total volume of the atmosphere, or total density, or total pressure?
If not, then we could easily be over estimating the temperature change in the model assumptions.
We may be progressing. Note that the sun provides the energy, no one claims otherwise. Atmospheres provide mass of a gaseous kind, obeying those Laws. Gravity acting on mass
causes pressure and lapse rates arise from gas physics.
@NikolovScience “Our P-T empirical relationship reveals the LONG-TERM steady-state controllers of climate. Solar irradiance & pressure determine the ENERGY ENVELOPE, within which other atmospheric processes operate such as IR radiative transfer & cloud dynamics.”
Didn’t someone in Australia patent a gigantic field of glass panels surrounding a chimney with the idea that the heated air under the glass would rush up the chimney and drive fans to generate electric power?
Looks like I was wrong about that. It was a US patent. They are referred to as solar updraft towers. More than one experimental tower has been built, and a commercial one is in the planning stages in Arizona.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/arizona-getting-colossal-solar-updraft-tower-in-2015/
Why are there questions here about whether gravitation compression creates energy or not? There is no argument that greenhouse gases create any amount of energy. The energy comes from outside the earth, from the sun. Both processes store energy from the sun for a short time, the exact time apparently being uncertain for GHGs.
I have seen green house effect calculations purporting to prove that delay is as short as two milliseconds between initial radiation from a solar heated surface and radiating out of the atmosphere versus contentions that the delay is, on average, some number of hours. Regardless, that energy must eventually be lost again, radiated away, but in the meantime the solar energy does many things here within the earth-atmosphere system. One of the things input solar does is provide heat that causes air to raise and expand, taking the temperature causing energy with it. This storage can be for some considerable time.
As the air raises it expands, cooling without losing energy. Jim Steele’s recent article here on last year’s Napa California grass fires explains how seasonal cooling in the Arizona high plateau brings colder, thus denser, air down the gravity well into California, heating it by as much as 50 degrees C as it compresses. This increases local temperatures greatly. This force feeds any fires that get started. Similar forced fires burned considerable acreage in Southern California a bit later in the year. When there are no fires, the local temperatures are simply many degrees warmer than they would be otherwise.
Input solar energy is obviously stored in many other ways. Plants use it to convert matter to a higher energy form, some of which can be retained for very long periods. Solar energy penetrates into water where some of it can be retained, apparently for centuries and longer.
There seems to be no controversy about these other activities. With adiabatic heating, no energy is created to heat the falling air and thus the country into which it flows; it is just energy from the sun that was stored in that air earlier in the season. Likewise, the arguments about GHG heating do not involve any new energy, just energy stored in molecular bonds. Arguments about adiabatic cooling/heating and whether any energy is created seem simply to be distractions, straw man arguments, that avoid any real questions.
“There is no argument that greenhouse gases create any amount of energy.”
Well, if you look at the Kiehl-Trenberth energy balance diagram, you will see 341 Wm-2 of incoming solar radiation at the TOA, but then we see 517 Wm-2 of energy striking the earth’s surface. If that is not energy creation, I don’t know what is.
I think you miss the whole idea of the paper, if the average temperature of all planets that we have these variables for, can be calculated with this formula to a very precise degree, without the need to look at the composition of the atmosphere, it says a hell of a lot about what can and cannot regulate natural variation. If c02 was a large driver, then the two planets closest to us, Venus and Mars, both mostly c02, should deviate quite a bit from these calculations, due to the so-called downwelling of c02. I am not so sure what is so hard to understand – he is not concluding the temp stays perfectly constant, he is concluding that if you can use these variables, which are not dependent on ‘greenhouse gases”, and predict the average heat of planets, then of course greenhouse gases are NOT the main drivers of a baseline temp. Like it our not we have an atmosphere due to gravity (and possibly our magnetic field helps maintain it). Venus is hot DUE TO SO MUCH MATERIAL IN THE ATMOSPHERE, not because it is mostly c02. Mars is frigid, but the percent of its atmosphere that is c02 is almost the same as venus, but its atmospheric pressure is very small compared to earth, and almost insignificant compared to venus. The idea that Venus at some point had a runaway greenhouse effect is backwards logic. Venus has high pressure because the density of its atmosphere, no matter the composition of that atmosphere. I am not discounting heat from the sun – but venus is covered in cloud and receives very little warning from the sun, and its six month long day is about the same temp as its 6 month long night. Why? Because atmospheric pressure dominates. YES the earths weather patterns are much more complex than either planet, but it will always seek equilibrium based on these very real gas laws.
Mr. Eschenbach knows how to “poke the bear.”
So you replace terms in the Ideal Gas Law with equivalent values and the lower atmosphere still seems to obey the IGL. Big Deal!
It’s like a magician during a card trick who forces someone to take the two of diamonds and then tells everyone it’s the two of diamonds. There’s nothing amazing here. The real surprise is when the magician thinks he’s actually done magic.
Jim
The author is right and Willis is wrong because the author states:
“Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.”
Note that the author specifically excludes the “greenhouse effect”, i.e., CO2. Willis then disputes this with his “ten million nuclear reactors” example, but the author didn’t exclude that, he excluded only the CO2 greenhouse effect. So Willis’ rebuttal was off-topic. The author’s model of solar insolation + adiabatic gravity-induced compression is quite compelling if it indeed matches the surface temperatures across the Solar system.
The adiabatic heating prediction by Holmes is correct to the extent of the accuracy of the ideal gas law to model the states of atmospheric air. As noted by many commenters, an alternative equation of state could be selected to improve accuracy.
However, the use of an equation of state to calcuate a temperature of a given air volume at a known state (ground-level) is an improper use of the thermodynamic equations. Even if one accepts the dubious assumption of abiabatic heating, the use of an equation of state in the form of change in Pressure/Volume (expressed in the form of molar density as you please) results in a predition of change in temperature between State 1 and State 2 consistent with the assumptions embraced (adiabatic and constant mass in this instance).
In short, the proffered calculation is a prediction of what engineers call PV-work expressed as a temperature change from some (in this article) unstated reference condtiion wherein the PV work would be zero m³-kPa. What the number is not is a prediction of the actual temperature of the final state. Many who have enjoyed the North American winter will attest that ground-level air temperature can vary quite widely despite realtively small changes in barometric pressure.
The PV work equation could be as easily used with an adiabatic and isothermal (constant temperature) assumption which would predict exactly zero temperature change (well, duh) and a change in molar density. The equation is useful to calcuate a change of energetic condition between two given states; it is not useful to a priori calculate the temperature of a single, given state.
“Many who have enjoyed the North American winter will attest that ground-level air temperature can vary quite widely despite realtively small changes in barometric pressure.”
.
Low pressure is what is making the South Pole so cold. It is not pressure change which is making the US so cold, this is caused by an increase in density. A 10% increase in density causes a 28C fall in temperatures.
[?? .mod]
“A 10% increase in density causes a 28C fall in temperatures.”
At constant volume. And pressure moves in the same direction as temperature only at constant density. If Robert would look at any weather station’s history over say a week, it will be obvious that at some times pressure and temperature are moving in opposite directions.
“At constant volume. And pressure moves in the same direction as temperature only at constant density. If Robert would look at any weather station’s history over say a week, it will be obvious that at some times pressure and temperature are moving in opposite directions.”
.
Volume is not a parameter I use.
Sure, pressure and temperature can move in opposite directions; who said they couldn’t?
A glance at current Canadian temperatures show a higher pressure than average – but a lower temperature than average; again, this is due to a much higher density than average.
“At constant volume.”
Well, at constant pressure, which it pretty much is. The error is the assumption of causation. As said often elsewhere, you have two thermo variables to define a state, and the equation of state, here IGL, fixes the third. In this case, pressure is determined by mass of air, and temperature is determined by polar vortices etc. That then fixes the density, by IGL.
The contrary causation makes no sense. What would make the density change, if not temperature?
“Well, at constant pressure”
Yes, thanks Nick. P=density*R*T.
”Sure, pressure and temperature can move in opposite directions; who said they couldn’t?”
Robert Holmes said they couldn’t in the abstract:
“It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures”
Inspection of any weather station data shows there is no obvious relation between pressure and temperature in Earth atm. Sometimes temperature goes up and pressure goes down. Sometimes temperature goes down and pressure goes up. The IGL is not a good predictor of anything unless it can be supplemented by a constraint: Air density goes up as temperature goes down provided that pressure is constant.
Robert Holmes; ”Sure, pressure and temperature can move in opposite directions; who said they couldn’t?”
.
Trick; “Robert Holmes said they couldn’t in the abstract”
.
Robert Holmes (from the abstract); “It is here demonstrated that the information contained in just these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures”
.
I have no idea how you translated the latter sentence into me saying that pressure and temperature always go in the same direction!
It is obvious from the formula that this is only true if both the density and the molar mass do not change at the same time.
Let me clarify in a sentence or two for those of you who seem to be totally confusing themselves as Trick is.
Example; Earth’s global average near-surface air temperature.
The formula is as clear as day; it reveals that on short time-scales, air temperature is completely determined by a singular battle between air density and air pressure.
(Why the stipulation of ‘short time-scales’? Because on longer time-scales there will also be some input from molar weight, due to changing atmospheric constituents)
Robert, yes air temperature is completely determined by pressure and density (and M or Rspec). There is nothing surprising about it.
”I have no idea how you translated the latter sentence into me saying that pressure and temperature always go in the same direction!”
Because that is what you wrote: “these three gas parameters alone is an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures”.
How many times have you been told cold air is denser than warm air? This is true only if qualified by other factors asserted being held constant like pressure. In weather station data by inspection there is no obvious relation between pressure and temperature as you assert. Other parameters are NOT held constant.
Any weather station data shows these three gas parameters alone are nowhere close to an extremely accurate predictor of atmospheric temperatures. If you think there is an obvious IGL relation, then actually pull down some data from any weather station of your choosing over a week. You will not be able to confirm your assertion from the data.
PS: Humorously, there are other factors affecting weather station temperature according to Anthony like the odd BBQ pit, tennis court, airport runway and jet exhaust!
And exactly what happens to the heat of evaporation trapped in the water vapor ( a GAS ) as it rises in this atmosphere and suddenly collides with a dust particle and turns back into water (Liquid). I see massive amounts of energy transported high into the atmosphere above thew so called CO2 “IR TRAP,” CAP, Insulator, whatever but never hear anyone talk about it. WHY?
usurbrain February 7, 2018 at 1:23 pm
The rising air normally cools according to the DALR (Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate).
When condensation occurs within the rising air it is warmed by the released latent heat and thus cools more slowly, now according the MALR (Moist (or Wet) Adiabatic Lapse Rate).
This all assumes the air surrounding the rising (or sinking) air in is Hydrostatic Equilibrium and the process is adiabatic
This is basic meteorology, so perhaps talk to a meteorologist ;-).
usur, it is because they wilfully pursue a falsehood. Similar to claiming drugs expand conciousness, often same people. Curious, that.
Earthflux 20%plus by windows; convective: WV 80%, other gases radiating 20% approx..
Does it clarify to note that the ideal gas law applies to a closed system? Geoff.
Willis wrote: “In fact, it would be a huge shock if planetary atmospheres did NOT generally obey the Ideal Gas Law. After all, they’re gases, and it’s not just a good idea. It’s a Law ”
Unfortunately, it is difficult to apply the Ideal Gas Law to the atmosphere, because it doesn’t have a fixed volume. Temperature is not a function of pressure because volume is allowed to change.
The atmosphere isn’t a sealed system with a fixed volume, it is like a cylinder with a movable piston. The force hold the piston in place is the weight of the gas lying above the piston. That weight diminishes with altitude.
Those who believe that the 33 K GHE is due to pressure usually start by assuming that the atmosphere has a fixed volume and go wrong from there,
Frank: “Those who believe that the 33 K GHE is due to pressure usually start by assuming that the atmosphere has a fixed volume and go wrong from there.”
No, that’s not what’s assumed. What’s assumed is that 19,000 pounds per square foot, roughly, of atmospheric pressure at earth’s surface must impact the atmosphere’s capacity to hold heat, and as the pressure decreases with altitude, that must also affect the atmosphere’s capacity to hold heat.
Those who assume that it’s all about radiative physics are, in my opinion, stuck on the paradigm that says radiative physics takes top billing. Others of us think that the paradigm that says that pressure plays a important– even dominant– role in atmospheric physics, makes sense. So far it seems to me that those who want to defend the dominance of radiative physics are too intent on defending a paradigm that they’ve looked through for so long, rather than looking at the evidence.
Surface pressure is dominant simply because greater density increases the effectiveness of conduction.
The closer packed are the molecules at the surface the more energy they will draw from the irradiated surface and the higher the temperature can rise.
The declining density gradient with height marks the declining efficiency of conduction as density falls.
As density falls radiation increases relative to conduction until at top of atmosphere all is radiation to and from space.
The lapse rate slope describes the changing balance between conduction and radiation as one travels up along the decreasing density gradient.
SW: “The closer packed are the molecules at the surface the more energy they will draw from the irradiated surface and the higher the temperature can rise. The declining density gradient with height marks the declining efficiency of conduction as density falls.”
OK, good. So, to move the argument along and actually address specific issues, michael hammer says that without GHGs: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2737619 “Once the air reaches the same temperature as the surface there is no net heat transfer from surface to air so we have a static atmosphere with no heat transfer in or our. No heating of the air near the surface so no increase in temperature driving convection. The lapse rate arises because of convection and cooling from above but if there is no cooling from above and no convection then the lapse rate does not need to occur. … Nitrogen and oxygen neither absorb nor emit thermal infrared energy to any significant extent.”
My question to MH would be, what would the temperature of GHG-free atmosphere be, then, if the earth is at 255K (for the sake of argument)? And to SW, what is your response to MH?
My reply to MH is that you cannot suppress convection for a sphere lit by a point source of light.
There will always be density differentials in the horizontal plane so the scenario he proposes is impossible.
Once convection begins there is a steady flow of energy from surface to air at the base of rising columns and an equal flow of energy from air to surface at the base of descending columns.
There will be a lapse rate reflecting the decline in density with height even without GHGs and there is no requirement for any energy to depart to space from the top of the atmosphere.
The cooling with height is instead created by the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy as air moves upward along the lapse rate slope.
Don132: Thanks for the reply. I used to complain loudly about radiation getting top billing in the “climate show”. I hated the hype. Convection is extremely important to surface temperature. Speeding up the Hadley circulation can remove any extra heat at the surface produced by GHGs. Then I had a my personal “Eureka moment” and realized that radiation is the only thing that carries heat into and out of our planet. (We can quibble about and then neglect things like radioactive decay and the thousand years it takes for the deep ocean to impact surface temperature and heat from fossil fuel.) Aside from radiation, everything else merely moves heat around INSIDE our climate system – the atmosphere, a thin layer of land surface and the mixed layer of the ocean (the top 50 m on an annual time scale). When radiative cooling to space slows (by GHGs for example) or incoming radiation increases (more active sun or fewer clouds or aerosols), the climate system must warm SOMEWHERE. It doesn’t need to happen equally everywhere or at the surface.
So I eventually stepped back from prejudice against radiative forcing and recognized radiation’s predominant role. Perhaps you can too, but it was really difficult for me to abandon the justifiable skepticism that politicized climate science had produced in me.
Later I realized that the rate at which radiation leaves the upper atmosphere for space in the long run limits the rate at which heat leaves the surface by convection. If heat leaves from the surface any faster, the upper atmosphere warms, the lapse rate falls and convection shuts down. For example, if the rate of evaporation follows the C-C equation, the flux of latent heat increases 7%/K or 5.6 W/m2/K. However, if radiative cooling to space from the upper atmosphere doesn’t increase at a rate of 5.6 W/m2/K (K rise in Ts), then the lapse rate will become more stable, convection will slow, and humidity near the surface will increase. The planet’s climate feedback parameter (-3.2 W/m2/K for just Planck feedback) is the rate at which radiative cooling to space (and reflection of SWR) changes with Ts. On a planet without feedbacks, evaporation/precipitation couldn’t increase with warming at 7%/K = 5.6 W/m2/K, because a gray body at 288 K with emissivity 0.61 won’t permit it. Fortunately, the earth isn’t a simple gray body. Climate sensitivity (K/(W/m2)) is the reciprocal of the climate feedback parameter (W/m2/K)
Anytime one attempts to connect the temperature and pressure of our atmosphere using the ideal gas law confront an unsolvable problem: the volume isn’t fixed.
Don132 wrote: “What’s assumed is that 19,000 pounds per square foot, roughly, of atmospheric pressure at earth’s surface must impact the atmosphere’s capacity to hold heat.”
“Heat capacity” originates with conservation of energy. If more energy enters an object that leaves, then conservation of energy demands that the difference becomes “internal energy” (translation, rotation and vibration of molecules) aka higher temperature. Heat capacity is the factor that converts excess an energy imbalance (J) into a rise in temperature (K). If one pushes a piston on an isolated cylinder of gas the PdV work done on the gas will raise the temperature of the gas. However, if you wait long enough, the imperfect insulation on any isolated cylinder will allow heat to escape and the temperature return to the temperature of the cylinder’s surroundings.
For pressure to change the temperature of a gas, PdV work must be done. Pressure (Force/Area) alone doesn’t do any work or change internal energy. Work (energy) is force*distance. For a gas, that is Force/Area times distance*Area (volume). The distance (dx) a piston moves becomes a change in volume (dV). When a parcel of air in the atmosphere descends, it contracts under higher pressure (and warms). However, elsewhere in the atmosphere another parcel of air must be rising and cooling, and no NET work is done. To some extent, the atmosphere is like a scuba diver in the ocean with a weight belt to produce neutral buoyancy: No work is done moving upward vertically, because an equal weight of water moves down as you move up. And the vast pressure at the bottom of the ocean doesn’t make it warmer.
I took a long journey through climate science. Good luck with yours.
Frank,
Net work was done during the formation of the atmosphere and during the first convective overturning cycle. The thermal consequence of that net work remains until the atmosphere falls to the ground again.
It is no use trying to dismiss the thermal effect of conduction and convection by simply saying that all SUBSEQUENT convective cycles net out to zero.
Frank
“Unfortunately, it is difficult to apply the Ideal Gas Law to the atmosphere, because it doesn’t have a fixed volume. Temperature is not a function of pressure because volume is allowed to change.”
.
In my formula, which I call the molar mass version of the ideal gas law, I got rid of the volume so it’s not a problem. This formula works perfectly in the atmospheres of any planet with an atmosphere.
Temperature is completely decided by three gas parameters; pressure, density and molar mass.
”Temperature is completely decided by three gas parameters; pressure, density and molar mass.”
Actually only 2 parameters, pressure and density. One only needs to measure avg. pressure(z), avg. density(z) to get the avg. temperature(z) to instrument accuracy.
For Venus, NASA measured the atm. density(z) and already knew pressure(z). Once NASA had measured the atm. density(z), researchers really did use IGL to get Venus’ atm. temperature(z) curve. However they were only able to measure density(z) down to a certain altitude and extrapolated in troposphere to get their resultant atm. temperature(0) at Venus’ surface.
Trick
“Actually only 2 parameters, pressure and density. One only needs to measure avg. pressure(z), avg. density(z) to get the avg. temperature(z) to instrument accuracy. ”
.
On Earth we need molar mass as well. This is because of water vapour, which because of its much lower molecular mass than the atmospheric average must be taken into account. A 1% fall in molar mass reduces temperature by 2.8C.
“A 1% fall in molar mass reduces temperature by 2.8C.”
You have strange ideas on cause. Strictly, the IGL is an equation of state for a material, and if you change the composition, you have a different equation of state, even if it is just a different M. But that aside, it is always the case that if there is a change, the degrees of freedom, 3 in this case, will adjust somehow to accommodate. The IGL just defines one constraint. It doesn’t say that there will be a change in temperature.
If some water evaporates, the temperature may change if there is heat taken from the air in evap. The surface pressure can’t change much, else pressure gradient and acceleration. So the main response will be a change in density. That in turn will lead to convective instability, but that is not a matter for the IGL.
Of course it is !!!
The IGL describes the real world response to density variations.
Robert, congratulations on your paper. It is a clear and concise explanation of the Gravito-thermal theory and furthermore, it works!
Don’t pay too much attention to the criticisms here. Everyone has a theory.
George, that appears to be the case; everyone has a theory – even my taxi driver today!
“A 1% fall in molar mass reduces temperature by 2.8C.”
With other parameters held constant. The other parameters are not constant in earth atm. as any weather station’s data will show on daily, weekly (etc.) time frames.
Robert wrote: “In my formula, which I call the molar mass version of the ideal gas law, I got rid of the volume so it’s not a problem.”
I beg to disagree. In your derivation (copied below), temperature is a function of both pressure (P) and density (ρ). The mass and number of moles of gas is a conserved quantity, but their density changes with the volume they occupy. As I said, above:
“Those who believe that the 33 K GHE is due to pressure usually start by assuming that the atmosphere has a fixed volume and go wrong from there.”
P V = n R T (1)
Convert to molar mass;
P V = m/M R T (2)
Convert to density;
PM / RT = m / V = ρ (3)
Drop the volume, find for density;
ρ = P / (R T / M) (4)
Find for temperature;
T = P / (R ρ/M) (5)
ρ = near-surface atmospheric density in kg/m³
M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass gm/mol⁻¹
Frank, a common misconception, putting the cart before the horse.
Frank, indeed, IGL is tainted by containers. Not so in the unconfined atmosphere, nor is it when using the mylar balloon of the Berthold Klein experiment. Which warmista fear so much they cannot say its name…..
Brett wrote: “indeed, IGL is tainted by containers.”
You might look at this from a different perspective: A cylinder of gas with a piston that can move or not move. The IGL applies to both. The cylinder contains a fixed number of molecules. If the piston is locked in place, then volume and density are fixed. If not, they can change, like an atmosphere.
The other variable is whether or not the cylinder is so well insulated that the gas stays hot when compressed or is gradually returns to the temperature of its surroundings. We call the former “adiabatic”. Any atmosphere that contains GHGs emits and absorbs thermal infrared. But the rate at which the temperature is changed by thermal infrared can be slow enough that the expansion and contraction of air associated with vertical convection is essentially adiabatic.
However, despite what Steve Wilde says, the heat given off when the atmosphere formed (potential energy converted to kinetic energy as gas fell onto the surface 4.5 billion years ago) has long since been radiated to space.
That heat is constantly replenished by ongoing convective turnover. It is still present and will be present until the atmosphere falls to the ground.
Volume changes but mass does not so the pressure is the same at the surface regardless of volume.
Therefore the IGL works perfectly in the atmosphere even though it is comprised of non ideal gases. The variation caused by the non ideal nature of real world gases is too small to matter for all practical purposes.
Since pressure at the surface remains the same on average even if the atmosphere expands and since pressure determines density any increase in volume is self limiting in thermal consequences because expansion leads to less density at the surface so that conduction declines, the gases cool and the atmosphere shrinks back again.
So, temperature is not a consequence of pressure per se but rather a consequence of mass and gravity at any given level of irradiation and those three elements work as described by the IGL with variable pressure from place to place leading to consequent local or regional variations in the efficiency of conduction being merely a by product of that interaction.
“Therefore the IGL works perfectly in the atmosphere even though it is comprised of non ideal gases.”
Another unfounded assertion without actually looking at, and confirming from, weather station data. A better point would be departure from gas ideality doesn’t cause any known terrestrIal atmosphere phenomenon.
WIlde wrote: “So, temperature is not a consequence of pressure per se but rather a consequence of mass and gravity at any given level of irradiation and those three elements work as described by the IGL with variable pressure from place to place leading to consequent local or regional variations in the efficiency of conduction being merely a by product of that interaction.”
Now move the Earth to an orbit of 10 AU where incoming SWR is 1/100 the current value. Keep the same clouds for simplicity or let them change. Surface pressure is UNCHANGED because the same mass of atmosphere lies above. The volume shrinks (and the density increases) as the temperature falls. Or do you think that the temperature of our planet at 10 AU will be the same as 1 AU? How can the temperature remain the same if we radiate 240 W/m2 from the TOA at today’s temperature, but will receive only 2.4 W/m2. Use your common sense.
Since insolation is one of the three variable parameters (the others being mass and gravity) you have to adjust for distance from the sun so the temperatures will not be the same.
Frank, Stephen asserting: “temperature is not a consequence of pressure per se but rather a consequence of mass and gravity at any given level of irradiation” is just in his imagination. His past defense has been that he found this idea in a text in the 1960s but can’t cite the text, nor find it.
I’ve challenged Stephen many times if what he writes is true then he ought to be able to calculate earth global mean surface temperature from just mass, insolation and gravity for which I’ve given him the data. That stumps him so far, he can’t do so. Because his thesis is wrong.
A modern beginning meteorology text easily computes earth global mean surface temperature 288K from radiative 1LOT energy balance from measured input data (insolation, albedo, atm. emissivity, sigma). Stephen is not a student of atm. radiation as it is difficult involving calculus which is beyond even Stephen’s robust imagination.
Trick wrote: “A modern beginning meteorology text easily computes earth global mean surface temperature 288K from radiative 1LOT energy balance from measured input data (insolation, albedo, atm. emissivity, sigma). Stephen is not a student of atm. radiation as it is difficult involving calculus which is beyond even Stephen’s robust imagination.”
I understand where insolation, albedo, and sigma come from, but temperature depends on emissivity and emissivity is usually calculated from temperature. However, emissivity can be calculated by using the Schwarzschild eqn to calculate the change in outward flux as radiation passes through our atmosphere.
Steve Wilde gets fixated on certain thought patterns that have fundamental flaws he refused to recognize or forgets. We all tend to have this problem and need to listen to those who make sense or recognize contradictions we can’t resolve. I’m mostly writing for the benefit of others who might be confused by Steve or who are open minded enough to want to hear alternative positions. That isn’t always very productive.
Frank 9:26pm:
…brightness temperature depends on emissivity
….emissivity is usually calculated from thermometer temperature
@ Frank February 10, 2018 at 9:26 pm
and @ Willis
What strikes me is that those who hold the gravitational position aren’t stepping up to the plate and helping me as I stumble along. I’ve even provided helpful pathways to reason this through, such as suggesting that even though argon doesn’t radiate IR, it does radiate in other spectra, and as such it’s possible for it to lose energy as it moves away from the surface (irrespective of what pressure is doing) and if this is so then the atoms would lose velocity and the gas cool. Not getting much help on that one!
So I have to conclude that Willis is right regarding the isothermal GHG-free atmosphere because I see no other way out. Stephen says that any perturbations in the surface will set up convective turning; I don’t buy it, and even so, so what? The atoms are all isothermal (ultimately) and they can participate in convection all they want, they’re only moving from a region of one temperature to another region of the same temperature. If that heat can’t be convected away or radiated away or conducted away at the TOA, then it can only radiate away from the surface. Do the argon atoms emit in other frequencies and thereby lose velocity and thereby lose heat? No one seems to think so.
So T =pM/Rd in a GHG-free atmosphere doesn’t seem to say anything about how that atmosphere loses heat.
Willis has been patient overall; a big thanks for that! I really wasn’t trying to prove you wrong in the first place even though yes, I was quite sure you were wrong. I was trying to figure it out.
Don,
You are missing that Ke becomes Pe during ascent and Pe becomes Ke in descent.
That is why convective overturning matters.
All the molecules in an atmosphere have the same total energy (Ke + Pe) but Pe which does not register as heat increases with height and Ke declines with height so for a convecting atmosphere there must be a temperature decline with height even in a non radiative atmosphere.
The radiative proponents must address two critical issues:
i) How to get an isothermal, static atmosphere with no convection when it is impossible to arrange perfectly even surface heating. Even the slightest unevenness will allow less dense molecules to rise above more dense molecules. A declining density gradient ensures that once convection starts it will involve the full height of a non radiative atmosphere because a rising parcel of air only expands as fast as the density of the surroundings declines so that the density differential continues all the way to the top.
ii) How to avoid losing the atmosphere when the upward pressure gradient force in the top half of an isothermal atmosphere will exceed the downward pressure from the weight of the less dense molecules above. In that situation hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be achieved.
Until those issues are properly addressed the radiative hypothesis as applied to a non GHG atmosphere is simply a waste of all our time. All the thermal characteristics of a non GHG atmosphere are non radiative and so the radiative hypothesis cannot apply.
“Do the argon atoms emit in other frequencies and thereby lose velocity and thereby lose heat?”
Yes, Ar gas emits/absorbs at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time as the bulk of the emission testing shows.
“No one seems to think so.”
Prof. Planck did. After his work was published around 1900-1914, Ar and other noble gas emission became a research topic in the 1920s and 1930s as the paper you linked demonstrates several papers in the ref.s. You found one paper testing for Ar emission in the 1.2-1.7 micron bandwidth (just see the title). Many other specialist authors published experimental noble gas data covering other bandwidths. Reading/citing the bulk of this work gets you to the top triangle of Willis’ pyramid.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 6:45 am: “Yes, Ar gas emits/absorbs at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time as the bulk of the emission testing shows.”
But the issue is would it net absorb at the surface (because of the relatively high energy there) and net emit at TOA. If so, then at TOA argon would lose energy, atoms would slow down, gas would cool. I have no idea so I’m asking; I’m not stating.
“But the issue is would it net absorb…”
Net of what?
Don132 February 11, 2018 at 3:41 am
@ Frank February 10, 2018 at 9:26 pm
and @ Willis
What strikes me is that those who hold the gravitational position aren’t stepping up to the plate and helping me as I stumble along. I’ve even provided helpful pathways to reason this through, such as suggesting that even though argon doesn’t radiate IR, it does radiate in other spectra, and as such it’s possible for it to lose energy as it moves away from the surface (irrespective of what pressure is doing) and if this is so then the atoms would lose velocity and the gas cool. Not getting much help on that one!
Argon can only radiate in any part of the spectrum if it’s in an excited electronic state, that requires it to have been excited by EUV below ~108microns. In a pure Ar atmosphere the upper layer would absorb the small amount of the EUV like the thermosphere, however below that there would be no excitation so a GHG free troposphere.
To help Don, rising air doesn’t lose any energy as it cools. It converts heat in the form of KE to PE which is not heat and the process is fully reversible in descent. Total energy KE + PE stays the same for all atmospheric molecules once the atmosphere achieves hydrostatic equilibrium.
Don132, Trick, and others: Don wrote: “So I have to conclude that Willis is right regarding the isothermal GHG-free atmosphere because I see no other way out.”
Asking whether a GHG-free atmosphere will be isothermal isn’t a very profitable question. The answer may depend on how you believe a planet with such an atmosphere will behave. If the polar regions receive less sunlight than the equatorial regions, then convection is going to move heat from hot to cold and turbulently mix the atmosphere. If you imagine a planet in interstellar space with a surface evenly heated by radioactive isotopes in the ground, you get a different answer. To complicate things, quantum mechanic says that all transitions are possible, but some are extremely rare. If I understand correctly, Ar, N2 and O2 can emit thermal infrared, but their emission is negligible compared to CO2, CH4, N2O, and even man-made CFCs. But even a pure Argon atmosphere would have some emission and absorption. So I try to avoid answering questions about atmospheres with no GHGs.
I also avoid answering the question of the Earth’s temperature without GHGs. That depends on how albedo changes. The moon doesn’t have any GHGs and its surface temperature hard to calculate correctly (it varies with latitude) and requires assumptions about the effective heat capacity of the surface. It rotates once a month, and so is very hot during the “day” and cold at “night”. For me, the GHE is 150 W/m2, the difference between average surface emission and average TOA emission.
The best answer I have heard: If an isolated column of gas (or liquid) in a gravitation field spontaneously developed a temperature gradient, a heat engine or thermocouples could be used to extract work from that gradient. That would create a perpetual motion machine. Feynman makes this argument in Volume 1 of his lectures. Isothermal is what you expect from thermal diffusion (molecular collisions).
Nothing in nature is perfectly uniform so even that planet floating in space would have convection.
Since you cannot have an isothermal atmosphere with convection it is critical to the surface temperature enhancement to consider whether or not a non radiative atmosphere could become isothermal with no convection.
If it cannot then the gravito thermal effect is correct and the radiative effect is wrong.
Quite simply one cannot prevent convection on a sphere lit by a point source of light because surface heating is bound to be uneven and that is all you need for convection.
Thus Willis’s ‘proof’ is dead in the water.
Frank February 7, 2018 at 3:13 pm
Unfortunately, it is difficult to apply the Ideal Gas Law to the atmosphere, because it doesn’t have a fixed volume.
Holmes has removed volume from the equation and applies the gas law at the surface only
Roger: See my reply to Holmes. The change in volume become a change in density. Think a little.
Frank February 7, 2018 at 3:13 pm
The IGL does not apply to the atmosphere as a whole.
It should be valid however for limited volumes, where the local pressure and temperature should result in a certain density.
Ben Wouters wrote: “The IGL does not apply to the atmosphere as a whole. It should be valid however for limited volumes, where the local pressure and temperature should result in a certain density.”
You are correct, the Ideal gas law applies locally. However, a parcel of gas at a given altitude (which determines the local pressure can have ANY TEMPERATURE, because that parcel can occupy ANY VOLUME. Temperature is proportional to the mean kinetic energy and determined by how much energy (radiation) enters and leaves the parcel. IF more energy enters than leaves, the temperature will rise and the volume will increase. Some of the excess incoming energy will be consumed by the PdV work that is done when the gas expands.
PV = nRT
n/V = P/RT
The local pressure is determined by altitude. The local temperature depends on incoming and outgoing radiation. The local density varies with the local temperature. This is how the IGL is applied to systems where the volume can change. Only in closed systems with a fixed volume is pressure a function of only temperature or temperature only a function of pressure.
The stratosphere at 20 mb is warmer than the troposphere at 200 mb due to absorption of UV. The volume occupied by a mole of gas at 20 mb is more than 10X bigger than a 200 mb. If the temperatures were 250 and 200 K respectively, the volume occupied by one mole would be 12.5 X larger.
Frank February 10, 2018 at 1:39 pm
Perhaps ANY temperature is stretching it a bit, but this is imo correct.
To determine density we have to consider a given volume, irrelevant whether we use cm^3, dm^3 or m^3, as long as we use the same volume when comparing different parcels.
So, we can use equations derived for ideal black bodies on bodies that are NOT ideal black bodies, and we can use equations derived for ideal gases on gases that are NOT ideal gases.
I sense problems in the details of both. There’s got to be a better way.
I’m still having issues with something as basic as thinking we can correctly compare planetary effective temperature and average near-surface air temperature. … or choosing 6000K as the effective temperature of the sun, and where this layer of effective temperature supposedly is in the gradient of temperatures of the sun, and comparing this with where the layer of effective temperature of Earth is supposedly located with respect to its other layers, and how the layers of sun and earth effective temperatures can be considered to represent equivalent concepts and called the same layers of the same ideal, non-ideal black bodies.
There appears to be lots of room for confusion and/or sculpting of arguments to give priority to any number of insights.
I asked Stephen Wilde to point out the flaws in two separate proofs that gravity cannot warm a planetary surface on an ongoing basis. The proofs are here and here.
In response Stephen said:
Stephen Wilde February 7, 2018 at 1:59 pm
Several things.
First, Stephen, you told us “in another thread”? WHAT THREAD WHERE? In a galaxy far, far away … I am so tired of your endless unsubstantiated claims. You don’t seem to get it. Your handwaving goes nowhere with me.
Next, my proof doesn’t involve columns with vertical sides. My proof says nothing about columns, whether vertical or not. In fact, the word “column” doesn’t appear even once anywhere in my proof.
Which of course means you are attacking a straw man based on your imperfect memory … which is why I insist on people quoting what they are objecting to.
Next, you seem unclear regarding the process for refutation of a claim or a proof. Let me see if I can explain it. Over at “Digging in the Clay” Verity Jones has an excellent graphic showing the hierarchy of disagreement. The graphic deserves wider circulation. The types of disagreement range in a spectrum from the strongest, refuting the author’s central point, all the way down to the weakest, name-calling. Here’s the graphic:
The graphic is based on How to Disagree by Paul Graham, which is well worth reading.
One thing I’d like to highlight is that in the linked article the author says (emphasis mine):
Now Stephen, you have not even begun the process of refuting either proof. To my knowledge, no one has ever refuted either proof. To do so, as Graham says, you have to quote what you think is wrong — “You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken.”
I’d put your most recent comment at the level of “Contradiction — States the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence”.
How would you rate your comment?
Regards,
w.
PS—Note how I linked to your “most recent comment” above? That way people will know exactly what I am referring to, and there won’t be confusion or misunderstanding … please do us all the same courtesy.
Willis stated;
“I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of planet obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.”
.
Willis is wrong. I could do no better than to quote a simple thought experiment, written by “The Reverend Badger” I present it here;
“Consider 2 rocky planets with thick atmospheres orbiting at the same distance from, just for fun, our very own sun. And let’s be really silly and have them in earth orbit as well. And even more ridiculously one has an atmosphere identical to the earth. Let this planet be E1.
Spec: E1 in earth orbit, same atmosphere as earth.
Now the other planet is E2 (how did you guess!). surprise surprise this is going to be identical to E1 EXCEPT for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will contain NO GHGs. It will be a nice mixture of various gases with exactly the same pressure, density and molar mass as E1. Just NO GHGs.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas theory for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 Because of it’s GHGs.
The alternative theory/hypothesis of Robert predicts they will have identical temperatures. But interestingly the figure is the same as the other theory! Coincidence? Maybe.
How would you eliminate the possibility that a simple formulae with no reference to the percentage of GHGs in an atmosphere accurately predicts the temperature of a planet with a very specific (todays) percentage of GHGs. Well, have a look at other planets, some with huge GHG percentage (Venus). Obviously, a simple formula with no reference to GHGs would not be expected to fit 8 planets.
And yet it does.
The ONLY way that is possible IF the GHG theory is correct is that changes in GHG percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass to make Robert’s formulae fit. But you could change the pressure/density/molar mass in EXACTLY the same way numerically using non GHGs to get the same result.
Therefore the GHG theory MUST be incorrect.”
My input;
The Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law says that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they MUST have the same temperature. Yet one of them contains GHG and the other does not.
In this way it is seen that either the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the (33C or whatever is claimed) greenhouse effect is correct – both cannot possibly be correct.
”In this way it is seen that either the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law is correct or the (33C or whatever is claimed) greenhouse effect is correct – both cannot possibly be correct.”
Both IGL and GHG effect are correct, tested science Robert. To explicitly refute the central point (Willis’ pyramid top) of The Reverend Badger: you can’t get identical Earth’s at the same avg. density(0) as in the thought experiment you clip, one with natural GHGs and one without.
The problem I find in your paper is that NASA measured density(z) for Venus and, with p(z), used IGL to calculate temperature(z) which is the forward process. You can’t now use that knowledge of Venus temperature(z) to reverse engineer the IGL and claim anything new. Your paper simply rewrites the Venus research papers in reverse. I find nothing new in your paper.
Same deal for the other NASA measured planets. Ask if you need a ref. for the original NASA paper(s). They are easy to find for yourself.
Trick
If you quote someone, then quote them in context, otherwise you may be accused of putting up a straw man.
.
“Both IGL and GHG effect are correct, tested science Robert. ”
.
You claim here that the GHG effect is ‘correct and tested science’. I assume that in part, you refer to the GHG CO2. If this science is so correct and tested, then why isn’t there a published paper which quantifies / measures the supposed warming from ‘extra’ CO2 in our troposphere?
Trick.. Your comment is interesting:
“The problem I find in your paper is that NASA measured density(z) for Venus and, with p(z), used IGL to calculate temperature(z) which is the forward process.”
Can you confirm that the Venus probe did not measure both temperature and pressure on its decent to the surface? Can you confirm that the composition of the atmosphere was not known is some way through measurement?
The ideal gas law is p*V = n*R*T. R is a constant. I can pick any variable as the dependent variable and the other three can be anything (as long as I keep the gas relatively ideal). If I pick pressure then pressure is function of the other three values, p(n,T,V). If I pick volume then V(n,T,p). If I pick temperature then T(n,p,V). If I pick number of moles then n(p,V,T).
If I read Willis correctly, your equation is simply p*M = ρ*R*T. You’ve replaced V with M and n with ρ. Essentially I can still do the same with your equation. If I pick pressure, then p(T,M,ρ). If I pick molar mass, then M(T,p,ρ). If I pick density, then ρ(T,M,P). And finally, if I pick temperature, then T(p,M,ρ).
What you and “The Reverend Badger” don’t seem to understand, is that the values of M and ρ will adjust to the new temperature and pressure of planet E2 or any other planet.
Jim
sailboarder, NASA measured Venus atm density(z) by radio signal occultation experiments as their probe transmitted through Venus atm. The density modulated the carrier wave signal a measurable amount in a way that allowed atm. density(z) to be determined. I’d recommend pulling the original Venus papers for exact answers on how that works & what and how they knew of p(z), R. Very interesting application of IGL.
Essentially same process used for other planets & moons with atm.
Trick.. thanks. The Russians had their probe in the upper, earth like, region:
“The VEGA balloons were 3.5 – meter diameter super -pressure helium balloons. (An engineering model of the balloon is shown in figure 2) A 7 – kg instrumented payload package (figure 2, inset) was carried at the end of a 13 -meter tether. The payload was powered by primary batteries, with instruments to measure temperature, pressure, wind speed, light intensity, and aerosol density, as well as a low – power radio transmitter and system control
electronics”
So what you are saying is that from that altitude the IGLs are used to calculate the surface conditions. Is that not empirical ? How can one then assert circular reasoning? I could post the atmospheric composition in the Venus paper I read, but that is not necessary with the direct measurement of density. The circular reasoning assertion is in my opinion not correct.
”Is that not empirical ?”
NASA’s T(0) for Venus is indeed empirical using the experimentally verified theory of the IGL from their measured density(z) and obtaining p(z).
”How can one then assert circular reasoning?”
A search shows I didn’t assert the term circular. Btw the Russians also had the Venera series landers.
Robert 7:15pm: ”If you quote someone, then quote them in context, otherwise you may be accused of putting up a straw man.”
A straw man changes the proposition; my direct quote did not do so and the context is easily found in the directly above comment. Your practice of long quotes is laborious. I prefer the style of more focused quotes.
The papers you seek are too numerous to cite; I’d recommend anyone start by pulling the papers you mention in your article & then pulling their ref.s, and supplement with a basic atm. thermo. text as some of the paper terms and discussions are specialist in nature. I did so for a few you listed and found where the IGL parameters you mention were actually initially sourced to form a view nothing was new or novel in your paper.
Trick
“NASA’s T(0) for Venus is indeed empirical using the experimentally verified theory of the IGL from their measured density(z) and obtaining p(z).”
These NASA scientists thus ignored radiative effects and used PV=nRT? Does that mean they do not accept Hansen’s approach? That is totally a paradox. Do they fight internally I wonder, or do they just celebrate how many billions Hansen brings in to launch rockets and satellites?
Can’t be, can it?
sailboarder 6:09am: “These NASA scientists thus ignored radiative effects and used PV=nRT?”
No, researchers used IGL in form of P(z)=density(z)*R*T(z)
All the radiative, orbital, weather effects so forth are already naturally in the Venus atm. density(z) that NASA measured. IGL reduced to one eqn. one unknown: T(z). Pull the original papers, you can trace them back through the ref.s in the top post paper.
Trick
OK, that is a different form of the same equation, which I derived myself. The odd thing was that the units required a depth, to get the V. I used 1 meter, ie, the earths surface, and derived the 287K.
Again, imo the radiative effects are just one of the internal means for the troposphere to move heat around and cool the planet. Agree? Yes? No?
Willis..
Your first reference:
” The EEJ assertion, that the dry adiabatic lapse rate alone explains the bulk of so-called “greenhouse warming” of the atmosphere as a stable feature of a bulk equilibrium gas, is incorrect.”
Stable feature, no. There is constant churning in the atmosphere to disgorge the insolation.
Your second reference:
“They say that somehow a combination of gravity and a transparent, GHG-free atmosphere can conspire to push the temperature of a planet well above the theoretical S-B temperature, to a condition similar to that of the Earth.”
In your refutation, what insolation do you use for earth and your reference non GHG earth planet? Clearly, they are not the same, so the surface temperatures would be different. That’s not similar to start with.
sailboarder February 7, 2018 at 6:21 pm
sailboarder, I have no idea who said that or where. A bit of context would be useful.
Thanks,
w.
W
The text is in the conclusions section of your link reference 1, which you submitted to Steven above in your pyramid post.
sailboarder February 7, 2018 at 7:39 pm
Thanks for the clarification. That’s Robert Brown’s proof, not mine.
w.
Willis..
I admit o going down rabbit holes with debating the “greenhouse” effect of CO2. For example, was the IGL used along with the Russian probe to calculate the surface temperature of Venus? If so, they did what this author did. They clearly did not invoke radiative theory since the IGL does not include such a calculation. Call me mystified.
I think the important question is what is the surface delta T (sensitivity), associated with the higher levels of CO2. The author uses molar density changes to calculate a tiny number. So far I agree.
So what could be a test? How about using minimum night temperatures in the lowest humidity level areas of the world. The central Antarctic would be a candidate would it not? How about the Sahara desert in the driest part of the year? Clearly, if there is going to be a sensitivity due to CO2 it should show up there first, by progressively warmer nights.
Here’s the day too day change in both min and max temp for the SW US deserts
micro6500
Your day to day changes I assume are averages over each year. In any case, I cannot see a trend. That is suggestive of no heat trapping effect of higher CO2 levels. Agree?
Yes.
Correct
Agreed
Yes
😉
Trick – JPL vs GISS
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be something off about the “proof” cited here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
Unfortunately, the link to the paper that this proof is trying to refute no longer leads to the paper being refuted, but I found it anyway in a Google search, skimmed it quickly, and noted that it was a very idealized thought-experiment set-up, where the picture of the model in my mind did not match the picture of the column of gas in the supposed “proof” against it.
I envisioned a spherical-shell diagram, but the supposed “proof” shows a rectangular representation of what I assume is a long cylinder with a thin tube (wire) connecting the bottom to the top, which seems like a different set up that has the system going outside itself, so it may route back inside itself to violate the adiabatic set up, which seems like a trick, rather than an explanation of a fault, hence, maybe even a straw man. It’s very confusing, and I think it looks more like an argument against how a thought experiment was set up, with possibly some confusion between the two authors on terminology.
I’ll try to wade through it all again with greater focus, but that’s gonna take some time. Maybe I will resolve my bad feeling about it, … or maybe not.
Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates by Robert G. Brown,
Duke University Physics Department, … in the WUWT article here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
… claimed to refute
The “Greenhouse Effect” As A Function Of Atmospheric Mass by Hans Jelbring, Energy & Environment, Vol. 14, Nos. 2 & 3, 2003, .. located here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjGg_yR8JbZAhVE21MKHRqIAW8QFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fruby.fgcu.edu%2Fcourses%2Ftwimberley%2FEnviroPhilo%2FFunctionOfMass.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0DE5HBeN13t2TSft1AHGRg
Well, as I hinted earlier, I had a funky feeling [so scientific, I know] about this supposed proof, and given other comments that I have read elsewhere (from years back), I’m still not ready to dismiss the gravitational approach. See, for example, the comment here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/hans-jelbring-the-greenhouse-effect-as-a-function-of-atmospheric-mass/#comment-14237
The story seems so much more complex than “nails-in-the-coffin” posturing might first lead one to believe.
Needless to say, I am not ready to bury this approach yet.
Robert Kernodle February 7, 2018 at 9:22 pm
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be something off about the “proof” cited here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
I agree. Consider this quote:
“If we assume a constant temperature in the adiabatically isolated container,…”
But the atmosphere temperature varies with height.
So the model used and thus the refutation are not valid.
Bob and Roger: You are correct: Brown is assuming what he wants to prove.
Consider a plane in an isolated cylinder of gas in the absence of gravitational field. If the cylinder is in EQUILIBRIUM, the same number of gas molecules must be traveling upward through the plane as downward through the plane. Now turn on the gravity and wait for equilibrium to be restored. The pressure and density of the gas just above the plane are slightly lower than below, but we don’t know if there is a temperature gradient across that plane. If there is no temperature gradient the average molecular speed will be the same above and below the plane. There will be more molecules traveling upward than downward. Those deriving thermo-gravity ignore this density difference. Between collisions, there the downward moving molecules crossing the plane will accelerate slightly from gravity and the upward moving molecules will decelerate slightly. That will compensate for the difference in density if the column is isothermal.
However the temperature gradient in our atmosphere isn’t determined by such molecular motions (even though they are a thought experiment with an isolated cylinder in a gravitational field. In the real atmosphere, heat is transferred vertically by four mechanisms: convection, radiation, molecular collisions, and finally gross molecular motion. The mechanism that transfers heat the fastest will be the one that controls the lapse rate. Convection produces a lapse rate of -g/Cp and bulk motion means molecules will not fractionate by molecule weight. Thermal equilibrium produced by radiation alone produces a curved lapse rate. With molecular collisions, the upward moving molecules have slightly less kinetic energy, but this difference in our gravitational field is many orders of magnitude less than the amount of kinetic energy that will be randomly exchanged by the collision. Finally, gross molecular motion converts kinetic energy / temperature into potential energy – producing thermogravity and a -g/Cp lapse rate with fractionation of molecules by molecular weight.
In the troposphere, we observed a lapse rate of -g/Cp AND no fractionation by molecular weight. Our lapse is therefore caused by convection.
Above about 100 km, the atmosphere becomes enriched with lighter gas molecule because of fractionation by molecular weight. This is because molecular collisions are rare at this altitude and molecules can interconvert a significant amount of kinetic and potential energy between collisions. This is where thermogravity could operate. However, temperature isn’t defined in a thermodynamic sense when molecule are not colliding frequently.
Frank February 9, 2018 at 1:18 pm
Most of what you write makes sense. Have to disagree with this though:
Convection does not produce a lapse rate. The -g/Cp (Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate) only gives the temperature change of a (limited) volume of air rising (or sinking) within an atmosphere that is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium.
(and no condensation takes place, otherwise the MALR applies)
Since the process is assumed to be adiabatic there is no influence on the surrounding air.
Convection is mostly limited to the lower 1-2 kilometers of the atmosphere. Exceptions eg the large cumulonimbus clouds that may reach into the tropopauze. Often no convection is happening at all (eg during the night).
Average temperature profile for mid latitudes is ~6,5 K/km for the tropsphere. DALR is ~9,8K/km.
A lapse rate develops wherever there is convection of gases within a declining density gradient though there are inversion layers within the system especially at the tropopause.
There is convection in the stratosphere within the Brewer Dobson circulation and there will also be convection higher up but the air is so thin that we have never been able to observe it.
Gravity creates the density gradient in the first place.
Ben Wouters wrote: “Most of what you write makes sense. Have to disagree with this though: Convection produces a lapse rate of -g/Cp” Convection does not produce a lapse rate.
Thanks for the kind reply. You are correct that I made errors when oversimplifying .
Does convection produce a lapse rate? I think so. The atmosphere becomes unstable towards “buoyancy-driven” convection when the lapse rate exceeds a critical value. Above that value, a rising air parcel expands and cools, but is still less dense than the air above. So, the parcel continues to rise. When buoyancy-driven convection has transferred enough heat vertically (raising the temperature higher in the atmosphere), rising air expands and cools, but is now as dense as (or more dense than) the surrounding air. The air no longer rises spontaneously. The shut down of spontaneous buoyancy-driven vertical convection leaves a MALR – on the average. (The MALR is the DALR, -g/Cp, modified to account for the heat released by condensation.) Individual radiosonde soundings, however, are highly irregular due to the chaotic motion of air masses, and inversions produced at night. Unstable lapse rates (CAPE, Convective Available Potential Energy) are not instantly discharged.
The internal energy in temperature can be combined with the energy in PdV work to produce a concept called “potential temperature”. When latent heat is added, it becomes “moist potential temperature”. In the link below, you can see the regions of our atmosphere with the same moist potential temperature produced by buoyancy-driven vertical convection halting at the MALR. (These are annual average temperatures.) Where moist potential temperature increasing altitude, stable lapse rates (no convection) generally exist and radiative equilibrium is controlling the atmosphere’s temperature.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2012/02/12/potential-temperature/
The combination of these two processes is called radiative-convective equilibrium. Where radiative cooling fails to remove heat from the surface fast enough and an unstable lapse rate develops, convection supplements radiative cooling, leaving a MALR behind.
In most of the troposphere, we observed a MALR AND no fractionation by molecular weight. In these regions, the lapse rate is caused by convection. In others, it is the result of radiative equilibrium.
Fractionation by molecular weight occurs above 100 km, the “turbopause”. (See wikipedia.) Above there, turbulent mixing no longer carries heavier molecules as high as lighter ones. Thermo-gravity is derived from the princple that the sum of kinetic and potential energy is conserved. Clearly this concept doesn’t work in the troposphere, where heavier CO2 molecules have 52% more potential energy at any given altitude, but have the same temperature (which is proportional to kinetic energy).
Steve Wild wrote: A lapse rate develops wherever there is convection of gases within a declining density gradient though there are inversion layers within the system especially at the tropopause.
No, a lapse rate CAN BE produced by ANY PROCESS that transfers heat vertically in the atmosphere: convection, radiation, conduction (molecular collisions) and molecular diffusion. That lapse rate can be zero. Thermo-gravity is derived applying the principle of conservation of energy to molecular diffusion: The altitude/potential energy of gas molecules determines their kinetic energy and therefore their temperature. If not other processes resulted in vertical transfer of heat, thermo-gravity would determine our lapse rate. However, convection, radiation and even conduction of heat (by collisions) are all much faster than molecular diffusion.
The stratosphere is warmer than the upper troposphere because solar UV is absorbed there. Here the temperature is determined by radiative equilibrium, because it transfers energy the fastest. By acknowledging the reality of the tropopause, Steve Wilde is admitting that molecular diffusion transfers heat more slowly than radiation.
The molar ratios of gases in both the stratosphere and the troposphere don’t vary with molecular weight. The potential energy of gas molecules does vary with molecular weight. We therefore know that the principle of conservation of PE+KE doesn’t determine temperature in these regions – because energy is also being moved by latent heat, PdV work, and latent heat. Above the trubopause at 100 km, the atmosphere is enriched with lighter molecules
The potential energy (mgh) of an expanding gas in a cylinder with a piston doesn’t change, if the piston moves horizontally. According to the principles used to derive thermogravity, the temperature of the gas has no reason to change upon expansion. If the piston moved vertically, the temperature would change. Why Don’t adiabatic expansion problems specify whether the piston moves vertically? The PdV work many order of magnitude greater than the potential energy gain.
The change in potential energy of gas molecules between collisions is many orders of magnitude smaller than the average amount of kinetic energy transferred by a collision. Even in the absence of radiation and convection, an isolated column of gas will be isothermal when molecules are colliding frequently.
Frank February 10, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Not sure if we have the same ideas about convection.
Lets start with a static atmosphere with a 6,5K/km lapse rate all the way to the tropopauze.
Somehow a parcel (bubble) of air becomes heated at the surface, and leaves the surface when its temperature is 3,3K warmer than the surrounding air. This parcel will rise to 1 km where it has cooled 9,8K.
Static atmosphere is here 6,5K colder. So the rising stops here, unless condensation kicks in before the parcel reaches 1km. Somewhere near air from above will sink to the surface to replace the rising air.
I don’t see any heating of the the air at 1km due to convection.
Potential temperatures are calculated values, no real process involved.
The following links give a lot of info about how understand theses various processes:
https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~snesbitt/ATMS505/stuff/09%20Convective%20forecasting.pdf
and
http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html
Best to keep it simple and exclude the wide variety of environmental processes that can interfere with the raw numbers.
A parcel gets warmed by uneven surface heating to a temperature 3.3k warmer than the surroundings.
If the parcel warmed by the surface rises It will cool at the dry rate of 6.5K/km and so at the tropopause it will still be 3.3k warmer than the surroundings.
At the tropopause it hits an inversion layer caused by direct UV heating of a layer of ozone molecules.
It is pushed to one side by warmer air continuing to come up from below and then starts to sink back to the surface.
It warms all the way back to the surface at the dry rate of 6.5km and returns to the surface at the ORIGINAL temperature.
What has happened is that the surface was cooled by 3.3K when uplift occurred and warmed by 3.3K after descent for a net zero thermal effect.
BUT during the formation of the atmosphere the process was NOT net zero during that formation . During the formation the surface was cooled below S-B during the ascent but the energy removed was then returned to the surface at the end of the first convective overturning cycle and then has to be ADDED to continuing insolation to give the surface thermal enhancement above S-B.
And that happens even with a completely non radiative atmosphere.
“Lets start with a static atmosphere with a 6,5K/km lapse rate all the way to the tropopauze.
Somehow a parcel (bubble) of air becomes heated at the surface, and leaves the surface when its temperature is 3,3K warmer than the surrounding air. This parcel will rise to 1 km where it has cooled 9,8K.
Static atmosphere is here 6,5K colder. ”
.
My question is; why would the parcel cool 9.8K when the surrounding air is cooling at only 6.5K.
The rise would be adiabatic and so why would the parcel cool more than the surrounding air?
Seems to me the parcel would retain the 3.3K of energy picked up at the surface until it reaches the tropopause.
”Somewhere near air from above will sink to the surface to replace the rising air.
I don’t see any heating of the the air at 1km due to convection.”
Ben 7:06am, the upper air does not sink to the surface as in Stephen Wilde’s imaginary descending column. Nature is much messier. If you go to youtube and search on convection, then find there are experiments showing what really does happen in convecting nature.
Rising columns are reasonably evident but not descending columns. Some of the same temperature surface fluid is pulled in from the sides at z=0 as the locally warmed fluid rises and the warmer fluid stays at height dispersing its higher than surroundings kinetic energy until it equilibrates. This is how you can see warming of the higher-level fluid due to convection.
Every high pressure cell contains air spiralling downwards and outwards. Such cells comprise half the atmosphere.
Ok, Stephen now instead of imaginary descending columns you imagine air “spiraling” downwards (and outwards). Please point this out actually occuring in nature in one of the youtube convection videos.
Basic meteorology. Air spirals up and inwards towards low pressure and down and outwards from high pressure. Read about isobar maps and you will find that air flows at an angle across lines of equal pressure from high to low.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 7:50 am
Wasn’t thinking about descending columns. A rising thermal is often surrounded by sinking air. Well known effect for (para)gliders.
I think the net effect of a rising thermal is a redistribution of the extra energy it accumulated at the surface, This energy does not show up as a higher temperature at the height where the thermal stops rising, since the thermal stops rising when its density (~temperature) is equal to that of the surrounding air.
”Basic meteorology.”
Basically Stephen’s imagination & straw man. The youtube videos demonstrate convection physics in a fluid warmed from below in a gravity field. The fluid acts as shown.
Geostrophic winds parallel to isobars is changing the proposition.
—-
Ben, the youtube convection videos to a very small extent support your contention that a rising thermal is often surrounded by sinking air. The fluid tends just to rise more slowly as it spreads out. After rising and warming the ambient fluid, the convecting fluid tends to spread laterally way more than sink. A test of this sort is about as high on Willlis’ pyramid as possible.
Ben wrote: “Lets start with a static atmosphere with a 6,5K/km lapse rate all the way to the tropopauze.
Somehow a parcel (bubble) of air becomes heated at the surface, and leaves the surface when its temperature is 3,3K warmer than the surrounding air. This parcel will rise to 1 km where it has cooled 9,8K.
Why did the parcel rise? Surface pressure is (roughly) the same everywhere. So warmer means less dense. Less dense means that as more dense (cooler) fill flow under the parcel as it rises. Thus my term “buoyancy-driven convection” (as opposed to air motion driven by wind, say up the slope of a mountain).
Why does it cool? At 1 km, the pressure will be about 0.9 atm. So the volume of the gas will expand 11%, doing PdV work. Assuming the expansion is adiabatic, the energy needed to perform that work will be taken from the internal energy of the gas. That produces a temperature change of -9.8 K for a rise of 1 km. Unless moisture in the air condenses and releases latent heat. Then the change can be as modest -4.9 K/km for the most humid regions on the planet. In practice, rising parcels of air follow the DALR until the lifting condensation level (LCL) and the SALR (saturated ALR) above. On the average, the lapse rate apparently is above 6.5 K/km because dry descending air chaotically mixes with moist ascending air, but real soundings are highly irregular.
Anyone citing links to skew T/log P plots probably understands some of this better than I do. (I haven’t studied any meteorology.) If you read the link about potential temperature, it simply is the temperature of a parcel at any altitude would have if it were subjected to surface pressure. Moist potential temperature is the temperature the parcel would have if it were subjected to surface pressure and the water vapor present at the surface below released its latent heat into the parcel.
In Ben’s earlier comment, he said: “Convection is mostly limited to the lower 1-2 kilometers of the atmosphere. Exceptions eg the large cumulonimbus clouds that may reach into the tropopauze. Often no convection is happening at all (eg during the night)”
I showed you the plot of moist potential energy to show you the regions of the atmosphere where convection, adiabatic expansion and latent heat determine the temperature. The same moist potential temperature is found as far vertically as convection is needed (and radiative cooling isn’t enough to remove all the heat provided by SWR). (Because these are annual average, the difference in convection between summer and winter is missing).
Hopefully, there are no areas of disagreement left.
Frank
“a 6,5K/km lapse rate all the way to the tropopauze…This parcel will rise to 1 km where it has cooled 9,8K. ”
.
Why would it cool 9.8K if the lapse rate is 6.5K? It would cool 6.5K.
.
“Why does it cool? At 1 km, the pressure will be about 0.9 atm. So the volume of the gas will expand 11%, doing PdV work. Assuming the expansion is adiabatic, the energy needed to perform that work will be taken from the internal energy of the gas. ”
.
Why would it be doing any work to expand as it rises? The entire atmosphere is less dense as the parcel moves upwards. It would only be doing work if it stayed at the same volume.
.
“Convection is mostly limited to the lower 1-2 kilometers of the atmosphere. ”
.
That is a new one. The height of convection depends on the latitude. From 45 deg N to 45 deg S the convection averages 15-17km. Above 45 deg latitude the convection averages 10km.
A sudden vertical displacement in the tropopause occurs where these regions meet.
Frolly: I admire you persistence in trying to get answers from a long thread like this one. Hope what follows helps:
Ben wrote: “a 6,5K/km lapse rate all the way to the tropopauze…This parcel will rise to 1 km where it has cooled 9,8K. ”
.
Frolly asks: Why would it cool 9.8K if the lapse rate is 6.5K? It would cool 6.5K.
Frank replies: Rising and falling air parcels don’t exchange heat via radiation very fast (or physically mix), so we calculate the temperature change associated with vertical convection as if the parcels were completely isolated from their surroundings. The technical term for this is “adiabatic”.
.
Frank replied to Ben: “Why does it cool? At 1 km, the pressure will be about 0.9 atm. So the volume of the gas will expand 11%, doing PdV work. Assuming the expansion is adiabatic, the energy needed to perform that work will be taken from the internal energy of the gas. ”
.
Frolly asks: “Why would it be doing any work to expand as it rises? The entire atmosphere is less dense as the parcel moves upwards. It would only be doing work if it stayed at the same volume.”
Work is force times distance change (dx). For a gas in a cylinder with a piston of area A, that is F/A times
A*dx which is P*dV where dV is the change in volume. Because the air rose, it expanded and did work and cooled. Somewhere else, air subsided and had work done on it and warmed. Stationary air remains at the same temperature (which on the average is 6.5 K/km colder at higher altitudes).
As the parcel of gas rises, the weight of the gas above decreases slightly, meaning the pressure on that parcel decreases slightly. If temperature remained the same, the volume would increase (dV), meaning that PdV work had been done against the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. If nothing else supplied the energy for this work, the law of conservation of energy means it comes from the internal energy of the gas – meaning it cools. Since the temperature has dropped, the gas doesn’t expand as much as it would have if a heat source kept the gas at a constant temperature.
.
Ben wrote: “Convection is mostly limited to the lower 1-2 kilometers of the atmosphere. ”
.
Frolly commented: That is a new one. The height of convection depends on the latitude. From 45 deg N to 45 deg S the convection averages 15-17km. Above 45 deg latitude the convection averages 10km.
A sudden vertical displacement in the tropopause occurs where these regions meet.
Frank replies: Convection occurs because thermal infrared can’t transfer energy through our fairly IR-opaque atmosphere as fast as SWR delivers it. A lot of the opacity is due to water vapor and it drops of rapidly with temperature. When the lower atmosphere gets too warm, the atmosphere beomes unstable toward convection. Convection results in a linear lapse rate. Most climate scientists define the tropopause as the altitude where the lapse rate fall below 2 K/km (too low to be due to convection), but others say 0 K/km. In the tropics, there is a sharp change in lapse rate at about 17 km, but this change is more gradual and begins much lower in the extra-tropics, 9-13 km depending on the season, outside the tropics. However, at high latitudes, the lapse rates lower than 6.5 K/km can be due to radiative equilibrium, so the tropopause may not coincide with the upper limit of convection, as it does in the tropics. I would GUESS Ben’s value of 1-2 km for the upper limit of convection is too low, but opacity to thermal decreases rapidly once water vapor decreases rapidly in the first 1-2 km.
Willis,
As a precursor to your ‘proof’ you approved and thus adopted Robert’s flawed model so any criticism of that is equally a criticism of your ‘proof’. You always refer to both works together.
Unless you deal with the difference between Robert’s model and the real world your ‘proof’ is just meaningless waffle.
>>
M = near-surface atmospheric mean molar mass gm/mol⁻¹
<<
The unit isn’t right. It’s either gm/mol or gm-mol⁻¹. Sorry, I like to nit-pick units.
Jim
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Robert, I believe you can do much better than that. It appears that you don’t understand my objection. I’ll try again.
Let me start with the underlying equation,
PV = nRT.
Or in your equally valid derivation for atmospheres:
PM = ρRT
Now, this law will be satisfied regardless of trajectory, by which I mean the variations in the three variables P, V, and T that led to the current condition. Or in your formulation, P, M, and T.
In terms of your equation 5, it makes no difference whether we add GHGs to an atmosphere or not. It makes no difference if the amount of incoming sunshine varies or not. It is immaterial whether the heating is coming from volcanoes or nuclear reactors. Here’s why.
Once the dust has settled from whatever the heating might be, we will still find that
PM = ρRT
Does this mean, as you claim, that temperature can be calculated from just knowing pressure and molar mass? Sure.
It also means that pressure can be calculated from just knowing temperature and molar mass.
And finally, it means that molar mass can be calculated from just knowing temperature and pressure.
So what? As I asked above, all that means is that gases generally obey the Ideal Gas Law.
But Equation 5 CANNOT tell us how much of the temperature is due to volcanoes and how much is due to nuclear reactors. It can’t tell us the source of any of the heat that got the atmosphere to that temperature.
That’s the problem, and it has nothing to do with CO2. You’ve shown that in an equation with 3 unknowns (pressure, temperature, and molar mass), if you know two of them you can calculate the third, say temperature.
But that doesn’t allow you to conclude ANYTHING about how the planet got to that temperature. Nothing. You can’t say it is or isn’t from volcanoes, nuclear reactors, or GHGs. The Ideal Gas Law will always be satisfied.
I hope this clarifies my objection to your theory.
w.
I had the same objection, but then my reasoning is that we do know that the sun gives an average insolation, and the SB equation functions not at the surface but the effective radiation height(ERH), where(I assume) energy in = energy out. From this height, where the SB temperature exists, the IGL will function to describe downwards the earths surface conditions, and the “greenhouse” warming.
Conversely, the SB equation with that same average insolation and no atmosphere will provide the average global surface temperature(emissivity etc being equal). The authors use of existing P,V, density, will of course give the surface temperature as you say. I agree.. The net temperature difference with the ERH is the “greenhouse warming”.
So far, it works for me. I am not a climate scientist, just a retired Mech Eng.
Willis, what we are saying is that when the when the solar distance variable is factored in, there is little wriggle room for other inputs. Which is how it is in real life. Neptune may be a bit self-powered, IIRC.
Willis,
The point is that if GHGs could successfully heat the surface by creating radiative imbalances then the IGL would NOT be complied with and the atmosphere would be lost.
Planets always observe the IGL because radiative imbalances are successfully neutralised by convective adjustments.
It works for radiative imbalances from material released by volcanoes, it would work for any such imbalances caused by nuclear reactors and it works also for GHGs and any other radiative materials in the atmosphere.
The fact that the IGL is a LAW is itself the demonstration of the truth.
You are on the cusp of realising that with your thunderstorm observations (which were well known to ancient mariners) but you fail to follow the logic through to conclusion.
I do not disagree, if one were to look at one discreet example. Anyone example in itself does not demonstrate where the temperature comes from.
But if temperature had something to do with GHGs, then one would expect to see a difference between atmospheres with high quantities of GHGs (eg Mars that has on a molecular basis more GHGs than Earth’s atmosphere) and those with low quantities of GHGs.
If GHGs were really doing something (whether warming or reducing the rate of heat lost from the surface) it is difficult to understand Mars.
from the NASA website:
1.
Willis Eschenbach
February 7, 2018 at 5:56 pm says:
But Equation 5 CANNOT tell us how much of the temperature is due to volcanoes and how much is due to nuclear reactors. It can’t tell us the source of any of the heat that got the atmosphere to that temperature.
The heat is needed to maintain a gas atmosphere from freezing solid.
T = pM/Rd
T = surface temperatures
p = surface pressure
M = molar mass of gas molecules
d = density of atmosphere
R = gas constant
p is caused by mass of planet
M is mass of gas molecules
d is caused by mass of atmosphere
R is constant
T is caused by mass. The main property of mass is gravity.
T is caused by gravity only
T is not caused by the radiative properties of the gases.
Willis
“PM = ρRT
Does this mean, as you claim, that temperature can be calculated from just knowing pressure and molar mass? Sure.
It also means that pressure can be calculated from just knowing temperature and molar mass.
And finally, it means that molar mass can be calculated from just knowing temperature and pressure.
So what? As I asked above, all that means is that gases generally obey the Ideal Gas Law.
That’s the problem, and it has nothing to do with CO2. You’ve shown that in an equation with 3 unknowns (pressure, temperature, and molar mass), if you know two of them you can calculate the third, say temperature.
But that doesn’t allow you to conclude ANYTHING about how the planet got to that temperature. Nothing. You can’t say it is or isn’t from volcanoes, nuclear reactors, or GHGs. The Ideal Gas Law will always be satisfied.”
.
First you appear to be mixed up. That is not the equation I used, and one cannot find temperature from just pressure and molar mass one need density as well. Are you sure you read my paper?
The formula is; T = P / (R. ρ /M)
You say all it only means is that gases obey the IGL, and I cannot conclude from all this whether GHG caused any warming to a planetary atmosphere or not. I say that any significant warming from the greenhouse gases can be ruled out from this information.
Time for a thought experiment involving two planets!!
Consider; two very Earth-like rocky planets with Earth-like atmospheres orbiting at the same distance (1AU) from the Sun. We provide one with an atmosphere identical in every way to the present Earth’s; let this planet be E1. Now the other planet E2, is going to be identical in every way to E1 except for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will be very similar to E1’s atmosphere but will contain no greenhouse gases. It will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas hypothesis for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 because of its greenhouse gases. The hypothesis presented here, using formula 5, predicts that both planets will have identical temperatures. Notably, the predicted temperature figure for both planets, calculated from formula 5, is the same temperature as that predicted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis for the planet with the greenhouse gases, E1.
How could the possibility be eliminated, that a simple formula such as formula 5, (which contains no reference to the percentage of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere) accurately predicts the temperature of a planet with a very specific percentage of greenhouse gases, such as planet E1? Perhaps it would be informative to have a look at the atmospheres of other planetary bodies, some with up to 96% greenhouse gases in their atmospheres (Venus), and some others with none (Jupiter, Saturn). A simple formula with no reference to greenhouse gases could not be expected to predict the atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three gas parameters. And yet it does.
The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit. Yet, it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure/density/molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non-greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter result – and the same predicted temperature.
Therefore, the greenhouse gas hypothesis must be incorrect.
The molar mass version of the ideal gas law is clear in that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they must also have the same temperature. Yet one of them contains greenhouse gases and the other does not. To conclude, either the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is correct (and both planets are the same temperature), or significant net warming from greenhouse gases is correct (and the planet with GHG is warmer) – both cannot be correct.
frolly February 11, 2018 at 10:48 pm:
“We provide one with an atmosphere identical in every way to the present Earth’s; let this planet be E1. Now the other planet E2, is going to be identical in every way to E1 except for the composition of the atmosphere … [and so on].”
That’s a good argument. Now I’m swinging back to agreeing with the gravitationists!
Regarding Stephen Wilde’s argument that an argon atmosphere would convect: here, it seems, is the crux of the confusion, and naturally someone will correct me if I’m wrong. It doesn’t matter if the atoms of argon are isothermal; the atmosphere will not be. The atoms can have the same temperature but the parcel of gas within which they reside, which are less dense as they rise in altitude, are steadily cooling according to the IGL. So they atmospheric layers cannot be isothermal, even though the argon atoms are.
Are we really just getting confused about heat and temperature? The thermosphere is very hot, but it’s also very cold!! The molecules are travelling very fast; there’s also vast distances between them.
Don,
The confusion is over the definition of internal energy. I have indeed seen sources that refer to internal energy as only kinetic energy but that usage is misleading for present purposes.
For the present discussion internal energy is best described as KE + PE and they are interchangeable in rising or falling gases.
Total internal energy stays the same but the temperature changes as convection up or down switches internal energy between KE and PE during uplift and descent.
So, Argon (or any other gas) cools with expansion during uplift with KE converting to PE.
Argon warms with contraction during descent with PE converting to KE.
The radiative theorists ignore convection altogether because they think it will come to a stop but it never can because uneven surface heating is inevitable and that is all one needs.
Frolly, your argument is simple and elegant and irrefutable. It’s a thing of beauty. It was worth it for me to stick with this entire long-winded, sidetracked, and generally confusing discussion just to hear that.
frolly February 11, 2018 at 10:48 pm
So far, so good.
NO!
Planet E1 will get additional warmth from the downwelling IR from the atmosphere, which planet E2 will not get from its GHG-free atmosphere.
This will perforce leave the surface of planet E2 warmer than the surface of the planet E1. Of course, this additional warmth will also warm the atmosphere.
As a result, the characteristics (pressure, molar mass, and density) of the atmosphere of planet E2 will NOT be the same as that of planet E1. Why on earth would they be the same? It is a very different experimental setup, with different energy flows in different locations moving different amounts of energy, so there is absolutely no reason to assume that the pressure, molar mass, and density would be unchanged.
The underlying Ideal Gas Law equation still works, of course, because it works no matter what. But it will NOT give the same temperature as the result of the equation.
w.
PS—Please note the mechanics of the refutation. You identify the key faulty assumption AND YOU QUOTE IT. Then you show why you believe it to be incorrect. Look at the pyramid. I’m right at the top, refutation of the central point:
Well, Willis, I think you need to direct attention to a planet where that actually happens.
What example can you produce where the amount of GHGs makes a measurable difference to the surface temperature predicted from the other variables?
The fact is that the temperature of any atmosphere at the same pressure is much the same after adjusting for distance from the sun regardless of composition.
Willis,
I don’t understand what GHGs could do to alter the calculation according to the gas laws so that E2 becomes warmer.
Please specify what changes to pressure could be caused by DWIR from GHGs for planet E2.
The problem you have is that, regardless of density or volume, pressure is the same at the surface because the same atmospheric weight is still bearing down on the surface however the atmosphere expands or contracts.
Thus, you cannot change pressure without also altering atmospheric mass or the strength of the gravitational field.
According to the ideal gas law only pressure, mass and gravity are needed to calculate temperature and GHGs cannot change any of them.
Also, I think you mixed up E1 and E2 but no matter. My comment assumes E2 as the one with GHGs and DWIR.
“The atmosphere of E2 will be very similar to E1’s atmosphere but will contain no greenhouse gases. It will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas hypothesis for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 because of its (E1’s) greenhouse gases. The hypothesis presented here, using formula 5, predicts that both planets will have identical temperatures.
Notably, the predicted temperature figure for both planets, calculated from formula 5, is the same temperature as that predicted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis for the planet with the greenhouse gases, E1.”
Willis said;
“NO!”
.
But it must be; YES!
The GHG hypothesis predicts 288K for Earth with the current mix of gases (obviously) – which have the current pressure, density and molar mass associated with them.
Planet E2 has had its non-GHG atmosphere designed so that it has the SAME pressure, density and molar mass as planet E1.
Now – If both planets have the same pressure, density and molar mass then they MUST be predicted to have the same temperature – the ONLY alternative to that is that the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is wrong.
If planet E1 is warmer than E2, then the GHE is correct – but the molar mass version of the IGL has to be wrong.
In this way it is seen that it cannot be possible that both the GHE is correct and the MMV of the IGL is correct. ONLY ONE CAN BE CORRECT!
Willis Eschenbach February 12, 2018 at 9:43 am:
“NO!
“Planet E1 will get additional warmth from the downwelling IR from the atmosphere, which planet E2 will not get from its GHG-free atmosphere.”
OK, let’s grant that argument. So how do we find the temperature of planet E1 according to Frolly’s formula? We take the pressure, molar mass, and density of E1 that has warmed more than E2 because of GHG, plug them into the formula, and we get a temperature. Not a problem; we now have temperature of planet E1 that is, according to Willis, greater than planet E2.
So now we take out all the GHG from planet E2 but we leave pressure, molar mass, and density exactly the same as E1. We can do that, no? We use Frolly’s formula and what to we get? We get the temperature of planet E1.
What’s the problem with the reasoning you presented to us? The problem is that we can’t assume that which we want to prove and then “prove” what we want to prove: we can’t ASSUME that GHGs warm the atmosphere and then use that to prove that GHGs warm the atmosphere. Classic circular reasoning.
Here’s another problem:
When we say an isothermal atmosphere can’t convect, we’re confusing heat with temperature. As a parcel of isothermic gas rises, that parcel MUST cool with decreasing pressure, even though the atoms within the parcel stay the same temperature. Yes or no?
Don,
This is better:
“When we say an isothermal atmosphere can’t convect, we’re confusing energy (KE + PE) with temperature (KE alone). As a parcel of isothermic gas rises, that parcel MUST cool with decreasing pressure, even though the atoms within the parcel retain the same energy. Yes or no?
Stephen: it’s clearer to keep the arguments as simple as possible and focus on the underlying logic, but yes.
Frolly says: “The molar mass version of the ideal gas law is clear in that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they must also have the same temperature.”
If two planets share the same density, pressure and molar mass, they will have the same temperature. Correct. However, the planet with the GHGs will have a lower density because the gas molecules will occupy a larger volume due to its higher temperature.
Frolly says: “[E2] will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.”
Frolly is assuming what he is trying to prove. To see this more clearly, lets put 1 mole of the gases from planets E1 and E2 in a cylinder with a piston. The same pressure is applied to each piston. The density of both gases required to be the same, therefore the volume occupied by both gases must be the same. When P, V and n are the same T must be the same.
Defining the volume of an atmosphere is difficult, because there is no well-defined top. You can characterize the volume of the atmosphere by the altitude of the average molecule.
I thought Anthony disallowed to even discuss the GHE here?!
Then I can not fully agree, neither to Holmes nor Eschenbach on this. You can not completely deny, that the named approach gives quite good approximations, while it is not fully right.
It is all about the definition of “surface”. The solid surface of Venus is certainly not a surface whos temperature could be determined by the Stefan Boltzmann law. I guess only 2.5% or so of solar radiation makes onto this surface. Also only a tiny fraction of its intense surface radiation can go into space.
The question is not so much WHAT heats the atmosphere (the sun obviously), but WHERE. Where is the place, or rather the zone or radial exchange? The Stefan Boltzmann approach will be valid for this region, and this region only.
It should be quite obvious if you think of a gas giant, where the term surface needs to be defined.
Below and above that zone, the adiabatic lapse rate will largely determine atmospheric temperatures, depending on its opaqueness. So the “ideal gas law” approach is essentially not wrong, but very incomplete.
The GHE is a fallacy nontheless, and there are a couple of reasons.
1. The formula is wrong, as it does not take emissivity into account, but only absorptivity, which is completely one-sided and makes things only worse. This error will always indicate a GHE.
2. Consequently we see GHEs thoughout the solar system, on moons and planets which not even hold atmospheres.
3. On the other hand only correcting that main source of error, already gives you much better approximations of surface temperatures of zero atmosphere celestial bodys. That is by assuming absorptivity = emissivty.
4. That approach works even better, if you allow for a) logarithmic averaging of observed surface temperatures (especially with slow rotating, sun-near objects like the moon) and b) conidering, that the surface will be larger by a few percent than that of a perfectly smooth sphere. That factor will reduce oberserved temperatues by a few degrees as compared to the theoretic figures.
5. The GHE on Earth is all about absorptivity = 0.69 while emissivity = 1. A result that can only be achieved by wrongly accounting clouds. The consensus model contradicts itself on that, and that is not just a mistake. It is vital to the claim of a GHE.
In fact there two versions of clouds role within Earths climate system, and they are both “consensus” That chart may illustrate the basic problem.
http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx10/Oliver25/cloud%20absurdity.png
The left side illustrates the role of clouds in the total GH-model, the right side illustrates the specific CF to derive their net effect. Note how their reflection of terrestrial IR is denied, how emissions suddenly flip flop, and how the albedo effects shrinks to fit a modest negative CF.
I was with you until your little chart. What is CF? What are the blue and red arrows? What is the left side..right side?
CF = cloud forcing
left side.. “The Earth-Atmosphere Energy Balance” as presented here for instance.
https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
right side..
“Clouds increase the global reflection of solar radiation from 15% to 30%, reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by about 44 W/m². This cooling is offset somewhat by the greenhouse effect of clouds which reduces the outgoing longwave radiation by about 31 W/m². Thus the net cloud forcing of the radiation budget is a loss of about 13 W/m²”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing with reference to the 1990 IPCC report
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf (page 79)
And the whole story is here..
https://www.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
What this doesn’t show is that the amount that is emitted by the atm varies by night, trying to balance the Gas Eq as the temps fall, and since the WV was balanced at a higher temp during the day, it radiates as required to balance the surface if it can.
Thanks Leitwolf
I must admit that I find that energy chart very suspect, as the short term day/night, clouds/no clouds, functions to limit insolation, and to spread out the cooling, but so what? That is what every troposphere does. That chart says nothing about the time of action of cooling activities. It thus says nothing about heat, only average thermal fluxes.
It says nothing about the NET change (sensitivity) of the entire system to the doubling of CO2. Spread out the cooling more? Limit some extremes?
So what?
The author of this paper calculates a tiny number. He imo is correct. We will never know, unless some rapid 3 to 5 C warming happens soon. So far, there is no evidence outside of natural variation.
1860 – 1880 0.16 C a 20 year warm burst rate per decade
1910 – 1940 0.15 C a 30 year warm burst, includes the dirty ’30’s
1975 – 1998 0.16 C a 20 year warm burst, which we have just experienced.
Trends source: Interview by the BBC with Phil Jones of the Hadley Center for Climate Change at East Anglia University, which puts out probably the most trusted world wide temperature reconstruction called HadCRUT.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
This is the cross-section of temperature in the troposphere and the stratosphere in winter.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00958/rdno1ukmwigx.gif
Willis, about your nitpicking, here am I nitpicking. In the paper, Holmes presents equation 6;
“Alternatively, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law
can be written thus;
T = PM/Rρ”
Holmes forgot the parenthesis though, so yours equation:
T =P M / (ρ R)
is mathematically correct and equal to T = P / (R * p / M).
To prevent further nitpicking the last equation above should be;
T = P / (R * ρ / M)
Yes, that is my preferred equation;
T = P / (R * ρ / M)
So to summarize the extended and not-very-well-organized or moderated argument so far (not a criticism of moderators, but a statement that so far this has been a free-for-all with no attempt to summarize and focus the positions, as if anyone has time to do that) Willis says he’s right and so do those who say that gravity is a source of energy.
But … those who say that gravity is a source of energy don’t say that, do they? I hear a lot of mocking about “‘adiabatic auto-compression’ as a permanent energy source” — Willis’ words– but I don’t believe that anyone has actually claimed that, except those who are opposed to the position that pressure, not GHGs, instigates the lapse rate and is the primary source of the GHE. If so: quote, please?
The source of energy is the sun. Both sides agree on that. When the sun hits the surface of the earth and heats it, that heat is conducted to the atmosphere immediately above it because the atmosphere at that point is under a significant pressure of about 19,000 pounds/square yard/second (someone can surely state this more clearly.) This heat then convects/conducts upward, and as it does so the pressure decreases; as the pressure decreases, the atmosphere is necessarily expanding and cooling. Have I got that right? Correct me or restate this if not. So far I haven’t mentioned anything about gravity being an energy source, and my suspicion is that this is close to a straw man argument– if not exactly one.
Can we confirm this position, please? And then move on from there? Because otherwise we’re not going to be able to collectively think this through, and I’m assuming that rather than start a fight, that’s what Willis intended in the first place.
That is correct as far as it goes.
Next step is to consider the transformation of KE to PE in ascending columns and the opposite in descending columns.
And you should read this:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Many have noted the general principle of atmospheric mass causing a surface temperature enhancement but the above is the only step by step narrative that I know of.
Not so fast! Do those who oppose the “gravitational theory” (GT?) agree with that basic statement, above, and as far as it goes, of what the GT people are asserting? If not, with exactly what do they take issue?
I’ve heard it said here that the atmospheric temp must be invariant without GHGs; is someone going to assert that again and give some logic behind it? Is someone going to take issue with the apparent fact that an atmosphere under significant pressure must conduct surface heat, regardless of the composition of that atmosphere? If this is true, then is anyone going to take issue with the apparent fact that as surface pressure decreases with altitude, the atmospheric temperature must also decrease, all else being equal, and according to laws associated with the properties of gases? Is anyone going to say that the heating of the atmosphere closest to the surface will not convect?
Is anyone who holds the GT theory willing to elaborate on its application to the above statement of the theory insofar as it goes at this point, and just sticking to the simple scheme of sun-heating-surface-conducting-to-atmosphere-under-pressure?
My suggestion is that we stick with the simple explanation of the theory that I laid out at 11:40 and knock it around just a bit before moving on to the next steps, as SW suggested.
Thank you, SW.
Don132 February 8, 2018 at 11:40 am
Solar energy increases the temperature of the surface. The surface loses energy by radiation, conduction and evaporation. Part of the radiation is directly to space (atmospheric window), the rest of the energy transfer is to the atmosphere.
In a non-convecting situation (static atmosphere) the pressure and density decrease with altitude. The atmosphere is NOT expanding/cooling with altitude. This does happen when air is rising. Now the rising volume of air (parcel) is expanding and cooling with the temperature decreasing according the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate or the Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate when condensation occurs within the rising air.
Thank you, BW.
Is not the atmosphere getting thinner as altitude increases? And this is because gravitational attraction decreases? Or are you claiming that gravity has nothing to do with it? So I’m not sure how/why you say “The atmosphere is NOT expanding/cooling with altitude. This does happen when air is rising.” I should have said that the atmosphere was thinning, not expanding; my bad. The point was that the distance between molecules is increasing as we climb in altitude.
In a desert, with no water vapor, what roles do evaporation and radiation play at the surface? If there is no water vapor, and if N2 and O2 don’t absorb or emit any thermal energy to speak of?
I think what we want to figure out is the origins of the lapse rate so would rather not invoke it just yet but instead just try to reason out what’s going on with the atmosphere mostly nearer the surface. It seems to me to be circular reasoning if we say that air is cooling because of the lapse rate, and the reason for this is the lapse rate. But maybe I misinterpret.
BW: I take it back: the atmosphere IS expanding with altitude, and the proof of this is that the circumference of a circle increase as the circle gets bigger.
Don132 February 8, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Pressure and density do decrease with increasing altitude. Gravitational attraction can be considered constant for at least the troposphere.
Obviously gravity is the reason for the pressure, density and the average temperature profile of the troposphere. This is called the Hydrostatic Equilibrium (HE) against gravity our atmosphere is in.
Seems a lot of posters here are unaware of this very fundamental mechanism.
As long as posters claim that eg the Sea breeze, or even the worse the entire Hadley circulation is driven by convection, we can be sure they do not understand the HE.
.A desert on a hot day can have as much WV per m^3 as on a cold foggy day in London.
It is the RELATIVE humidity that is low in hot desert..
Don132 February 8, 2018 at 3:11 pm
This simple fact was equally true a couple of billion years ago when the atmosphere formed.
Expansion is a dynamic PROCES. Decreasing density vs altitude is a static STATE.
Ben Wouters Feb 9, 2018 @ 4:37 pm:
“Pressure and density do decrease with increasing altitude. Gravitational attraction can be considered constant for at least the troposphere.”
You are right and I’m wrong regarding the effect of gravity; the pressure at the surface is due to the weight of the atmosphere, and the pressure decreases as we go up mostly because there’s less atmosphere above, as gravity decreases only very slightly.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, the pressure and density at the surface isn’t just down to a greater force of gravity at the lower height but rather to the weight of the molecules above.
The more relevant relationship is between the downward force of gravity which gives weight to individual molecules and the intermolecular forces which try to keep the molecules apart against the weight from above. At every height those two forces are in balance as long as the atmosphere is at hydrostatic equilibrium.
That is a side issue for present purposes.
Willis has admitted that his ‘proof’ ignores convection and I have shown that that is a non physical scenario so his ‘proof’ is worthless chaff.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 5:35 am
Good. Once you realize that the surface pressure is “contained” by the weight of the atmosphere above, it should also be clear that the surface pressure is independent of the temperature of the air.
Eg at the North pole surface pressure 1030 hPa and temperature -40 C or in a desert with the same surface pressure and temperature +40 C are both possible. Big difference will be the density of the two columns and thus how far they are expanded against gravity.
Ben Wouters Feb 9 , 2018 5:35 am:
“Once you realize that the surface pressure is “contained” by the weight of the atmosphere above, it should also be clear that the surface pressure is independent of the temperature of the air.
Eg at the North pole surface pressure 1030 hPa and temperature -40 C or in a desert with the same surface pressure and temperature +40 C are both possible.”
If you increase the pressure at the North Pole, say to 2060 hPa, then that does nothing to the temperature?
If you decrease the pressure in a desert to 515 hPa, then that does nothing to the temperature?
PV=nRT; T= PV/nR. That looks like a relationship. W
Insolation varies with latitude as does advection of air from other latitudes.
For the planet as a whole the only three relevant parameters are atmospheric mass, the strength of the gravitational field and top of atmosphere insolation but within a real atmosphere there are multiple potential variations from region to region around the average temperature set by the three parameters.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 9:11 am
To double the surface pressure you have to double the atmospheric mass or double the gravity or a combination of both. How do you propose to do that?
But given a double surface pressure you can still have (almost) any temperature.
Will still be valid, as long as the gasses behave as ideal gasses.
It would be nice to see a version of that first graph (planets K vs pressure) with an adjustment of distance from sun (source of heat size). Oh Well.
I generally agree with your critique. The premise is not proved. Then again, there’s lots missing. IMHO the Ideal gas Laws (molar or otherwise) must hold. (Modulo any not-quite-ideal issues) so “Global Warming” also doesn’t explain things.
Agreed.
Let’s hear a proper rationale from those who object to elements of the gravitational hypothesis.
Let them start with the points you have helpfully listed.
Here are my objections to the gravitational hypothesis.
w.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/13/a-matter-of-some-gravity/
Is it listed under ‘Bad Science’?
Willis,
First of all, I think that the elevator speech you requested in that previous essay had been given, in the first place by Stephen Singer:
“1. Planet with mass and GHG free atmosphere.
2. Planets gravity pulls down on the gas compressing it causing heat near the surface.
3. Convection sets in and gas rises. cools then back to step 2.”
There’s no response to that, from anyone, and although step 2 can be stated more clearly, that’s basically it. I’ve noticed other attempts–without wading through all comments there– but these were for the most part ignored.
Secondly, you gave an example of proof by contradiction:
Willis: “The proof is by contradiction. This is a proof where you assume that the theorem is right, and then show that if it is right it leads to an impossible situation, so it cannot possibly be right.
So let us assume that we have the airless perfectly evenly heated blackbody planet that I spoke of above, evenly surrounded by a sphere of mini-suns. The temperature of this theoretical planet is, of course, the theoretical S-B temperature.
Now suppose we add an atmosphere to the planet, a transparent GHG-free atmosphere. If the theories of N&K and Jelbring are correct, the temperature of the planet will rise.[ Won’t the temperature also rise with GHGs?]
But when the temperature of a perfect blackbody planet rises … the surface radiation of that planet must rise as well.
And because the atmosphere is transparent, this means that the planet is radiating to space more energy than it receives. This is an obvious violation of conservation of energy, so any theories proposing such a warming must be incorrect.”
You assume you are correct and then go on to prove you’re correct– sorry, but this is incorrect. Specifically, you assume that since the atmosphere is transparent (to infrared) that means that it’s radiating more energy than it receives. But there’s another explanation that you ignore, and that is that the planet is radiating exactly as much energy as it receives, as is the earth is, but that the mechanism for this involves a lapse rate set up by gravitational pressure, and not by GHGs.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would calmly point out my errors and not call me an ignoramus or any other such names; I’ll return the common courtesy.
Beyond that, let’s stick with the basic proposition that I laid out at 11:40, and maybe call this “statement 1” so we all understand. What are your specific objections to that? If there are none, maybe we can proceed. If there are, we can still proceed. And, thank you.
Don132 February 8, 2018 at 5:29 pm
I’m sorry, I guess my words weren’t clear. There are no GHGs in the atmosphere. As a result, the atmosphere is NOT “radiating more energy than it receives”, because it cannot radiate.
There is only one thing in the system which can radiate. That is the surface. If the surface is heated by gravity or by any such means above the S-B temperature, the surface will constantly emit more radiation than it is receiving … which is not possible.
Why is it possible on earth? Because the atmosphere absorbs some of the outgoing radiation, and radiates its energy with about half going out to space and about half going back down to earth. So the earth ends up only radiating to space the amount of energy that it receives, despite the surface being well above the S-B temperature.
This is totally unclear. But in any case, if it works as you describe it will leave the surface warmer than the S-B temperature, which will leave it radiating more than it is receiving … not possible.
I hope this makes it clearer. If not, ask again.
w.
Willis, a surface at 288k does not radiate to space at 288k if it is simultaneously passing energy to the atmosphere via conduction. Otherwise there is a breach of the first law since energy cannot be in two places at once.
Due to the circular nature of convective overturning the process of conduction from surface to air never stops so that the surface at 288k can never radiate to space at 288k unless convective overturning stops and at that point the atmosphere falls to the ground.
Have you ever read my step by step description of the entire process?
“I hold that with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere, neither the hypothetical “N&Z effect” nor the “Jelbring effect” can possibly raise the planetary temperature above the theoretical S-B temperature. But I also make a much more general claim. I hold it can be proven that there is no possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical S-B temperature.”
So this this bit: “But I also make a much more general claim. I hold it can be proven that there is no possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical S-B temperature.”
Well I would say ozone is not really a greenhouse gas.
I don’t plan on making the case that ozone does warm earth- but it seems things which aren’t greenhouse gases and things which aren’t even gases can be called greenhouse gases or greenhouse effect. If I bother to prove dust can cause warming- are we going to call solid particles
“greenhouse gases”. And clouds aren’t aren’t gases- whether they are droplets of water in earth’s
atmosphere or clouds of droplet of sulfuric acid in Venus atmosphere- which some call “greenhouse gases”: Ie:
“On the global scale, Venus’s climate is strongly driven by the most powerful greenhouse effect found in the Solar System. The greenhouse agents sustaining it are water vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid aerosols.”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effect_clouds_and_winds
So does “a transparent GHG-free atmosphere” allow “sulphuric acid aerosols”?
Next let’s go over “above the theoretical S-B temperature”.
One could mean the theoretical S-B temperature means temperature of lunar surface, which is
about 120 C in noon sunlight. Or referring to ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere which has uniform temperature of about 5 C. Or could referring to Greenhouse effect theory of about -18 C for average temperature of Earth.
At equilibrium temperature non blackbody surface at Earth distance from the Sun can be warmer than 120 C..
And spherical body in a vacuum can have higher average temperature than 5 C.
And planet at earth distance with 1 atm atmosphere without water, or “greenhouse gases” can be have average temperature warmer than -18 C
Pick one which you disagree with?
Willis, in your essay you say “If the total surface radiation remains the same (as it must with a transparent atmosphere)”
It does not.
First, your planet surrounded by suns is a fiction. Infinite suns would gradually heat the planet into a sun.
A one sun planet’s SB temperature is based on 1/4 the insolation. The no atmosphere planet has average temperature T1. The surface temperature is very hot during day, and very cold during night.
A non GHG planet’s atmosphere is warmed by conduction during the day, and cooled by conduction, at night.(mostly) The greater the atmosphre’s density, the greater its heat capacity, the greater the conduction.
During the day, this planet’s OLR, which is a product of T^4, is much less, thus dramatically slowing the planets cooling.
Thus a non GHG planet’s average surface temperature is now above T1, say T2, because the maximum day temperature is less. The greater the atmospheric density, the less is going to be the hottest day temperature, thus increasing T2.
There is your “greenhouse” warming with a non GHG atmosphere. The actual T2 temperature is dependent upon the atmospheric molar density.
Sailboarder
The planets OLR will only drop during the first convective overturning cycle.
Once KE starts to return to the surface when that first cycle completes OLR returns to S-B but the entire surface is left higher than S-B.
Otherwise your comments are broadly correct and Willis needs to answer.
sailboarder February 8, 2018 at 6:53 pm Edit
Yes, and it’s a special kind of fiction called a “thought experiment”. Work with it.
I’m sorry, sailboarder, but I will not play your game. This is exactly why I ask people to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
In fact, what I said was:
In your mind, you think I’ve said something about “infinite suns”. BUT I SAID NOTHING OF THE SORT! You’ve made up a line of total BS, and you are pretending that I said it.
I will not stand for that, nor will I discuss matters with someone trying to stuff words and ideas into my mouth.
I can defend my own words.
I cannot defend your idiosyncratic misunderstandings of my own words.
You segue from your fantasy about “infinite suns” into a meaningless discussion of night and day, viz:
Day? Night? READ THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. See the part where it says “the surface heating is perfectly even”? That means even. No day. No night.
Grrrr … c’mon, folks, up your game! Take a look at the pyramid above, and decide where on that pyramid your proposed comment would fit. If you wish to refute my proof, you can’t do it with handwaving and science by assertion.
w.
wildeco2014 February 8, 2018 at 11:24 pm
Assuming that you are talking about my proof, the atmosphere is at steady-state, with no energy passing between the surface and the atmosphere. This occurs because the atmosphere cannot radiate heat. When the atmosphere can radiate heat, the upper atmosphere can radiatively cool and become cold enough to create the overturning that you describe.
But without GHGs, that cannot happen. The atmosphere stabilizes with the lowest layer at the surface temperature. With no temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere, there is no conduction.
In my proof, of course there is no convective overturning. The surface is at a constant temperature. The atmosphere is at a constant temperature. There is no convection.
No … but it clearly has nothing to do with my proof, where there is no convection.
Thanks,
w.
Willis: OK, I will tackle your mind game, for what it is worth. (I noticed that you ignored my very correct elevator speech about the IGL working for earth. Too bad)
“We might imagine that there are thousands of mini-suns in a sphere around the planet, so the surface heating is perfectly even”
Incoming heat = 1000’s X ONE SB sun. Outgoing heat required = 1000’s X one SB sun.
Atmospheric temperature is such as to take the molar density below where the IGL functions, but the more like a plasma.
Experimental failure!
Willis..
Your 100’s of suns is bogus as a planet cannot be in orbit around 1000’s of suns.
To be true, you are describing a big rock in our universe, where there are millions of suns.
The temperature is near 0 degrees K
There is no atmosphere.
Experimental failure!
Try again please, or try my planet description above where I have shown how a real planet has a higher average temperature due to a non GHG atmosphere.
Willis @Feb 8, 11:45 pm
Willis answered the question I asked further down and I didn’t see this. Apologies.
Willis:
“Assuming that you are talking about my proof, the atmosphere is at steady-state, with no energy passing between the surface and the atmosphere. This occurs because the atmosphere cannot radiate heat. When the atmosphere can radiate heat, the upper atmosphere can radiatively cool and become cold enough to create the overturning that you describe.
“But without GHGs, that cannot happen. The atmosphere stabilizes with the lowest layer at the surface temperature. With no temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere, there is no conduction.”
But, you do agree that at the top of atmosphere the atmosphere is necessarily much thinner? It is, because gravity is much weaker. At some point there would be a great deal of space between the molecules at the very top of the atmosphere, which you claim is isothermal. By what law do the topmost molecules retain their heat whilst they’re surrounded by much colder space?
I said the atmosphere is thinner at the top because gravity is weaker at the top. Obviously this is wrong; the reason is that the pressure is less.
Willis Eschenbach February 8, 2018 at 11:45 pm
wildeco2014 February 8, 2018 at 11:24 pm
“Willis, a surface at 288k does not radiate to space at 288k if it is simultaneously passing energy to the atmosphere via conduction. Otherwise there is a breach of the first law since energy cannot be in two places at once.”
If the surface is at 288K it will radiate to space as a 288K source, if an atmosphere is added which is warmed by conduction the surface will temporarily cool down. However the GHG free atmosphere can not lose heat to space so conduction must eventually cease so eventually radiation balance at the surface is achieved as Willis points out.
Since convection cannot be prevented it follows that conduction never ceases.
Instead there is constant conduction from surface to air under rising air and constant conduction from falling air to surface.
Willis appears to be stumped by my request that he explain how he proposes to prevent convection.
Once one has ongoing convective overturning there will be a surface temperature enhancement without the need for GHGs.
Wills: “There is only one thing in the system which can radiate. That is the surface. If the surface is heated by gravity or by any such means above the S-B temperature, the surface will constantly emit more radiation than it is receiving … which is not possible.
“Why is it possible on earth? Because the atmosphere absorbs some of the outgoing radiation, and radiates its energy with about half going out to space and about half going back down to earth. So the earth ends up only radiating to space the amount of energy that it receives, despite the surface being well above the S-B temperature.”
That makes sense to me– so far. But, in a GHG-free atmosphere, you’re saying that N2 and O2, for example, wouldn’t radiate at all, in any frequency?
And, if I may use a colloquialism, what a cotton-pickin’ minute: (W) “If the surface is heated by gravity or by any such means above the S-B temperature, the surface will constantly emit more radiation than it is receiving … which is not possible.” If a surface is receiving (“more”) energy, then what would constrain it from emitting that energy? More importantly, I don’t think that anyone has claimed that gravity is heating the surface– if so, hands up, please, and explain this. Unless I misunderstand, gravity is not heating the surface: the surface is heating the atmosphere immediately above it, primarily by conduction, and it’s doing so because of the very significant (gravitational) pressure that is pressing that atmosphere hard up against the surface. If the surface heating of the atmosphere is in turn heating the surface a bit more, then it must be doing exactly the same thing even if the atmosphere has GHGs.
It might be helpful for some of those who are experts in GT to clarify this. Does anyone contend that gravity is heating the surface?
Warning: major crash of paradigms ahead, each of which proves the other wrong! I almost don’t want to look.
Again, thank you.
Don, as you point out it could be one process or the other but not both, as my full description points out.
The clincher though is that the gravitational solution must work with or without ghgs so if ghgs then doubled the effect the atmosphere would lose hydrostatic equilibrium and be blown off into space.
As I just pointed out to Willis above such duplication would also breach the first law because the same unit of energy could not be in two places at once.
KE at a surface can either conduct or radiate not do both at the same time.
wildeco2014, what you propose is too radical and punches the radiative paradigm straight in the gut and leaves it lying on the canvas for the 10-count.. I propose to slow it down and take baby steps, and see when and how it all gets tripped up. I would like people to think it through rather than jump to defending paradigms.
I know.
Fun isn’t it 👍
Willis at 12:04: “It doesn’t matter if the claim is that gravity is heating the surface, or if the claim is that it is from, what was it … hang on … oh, yes, “adiabatic auto-compression”. Whatever mechanism is claimed, the only energy entering the system is the energy from the suns.
“And if the surface is warmed by whatever theory, with a transparent atmosphere it will perforce be radiating more energy than it is receiving … which is a contradiction.”
Agreed, only energy entering system is from sun.
So Willis is saying, I believe, that a GHG-free atmosphere can’t warm. I don’t see a quote anywhere to that effect, but it seems to be an assumption. Or have I misinterpreted?
We should back up a bit to my “statement 1”: “When the sun hits the surface of [a planet] and heats it, that heat is conducted to the atmosphere immediately above it because the atmosphere at that point is under a significant pressure of about 19,000 pounds/square yard/second …. This heat then convects/conducts upward, and as it does so the pressure decreases; as the pressure decreases, the atmosphere is necessarily expanding and cooling.”
On your hypothetical planet, with a presumed very high surface temperature, what would be the temperature of, say, the one meter of atmosphere directly above the surface? Can we assume the pressure is the same as earth’s? Can we even assume that the atmosphere is made up of argon? If the atmosphere can’t hold any heat, does that mean that the argon is at 0 degrees? What laws would you invoke to support whatever you say the temperature of the atmosphere adjacent to the surface must be? Would those laws be consistent with gas laws?
This is a sticking point so will be important to think it through and not jump to defending paradigms.
Don132 February 8, 2018 at 11:25 pm
If they radiate then they are GHGs, albeit weak ones. I meant GHG-free, as for example an argon atmosphere.
But it’s not receiving more energy. It is receiving the energy from the surrounding mini-suns. Period.
The answer is yes, lots of folks are claiming that gravity is doing it, either directly or in some indirect manner such as you propose. Here’s the thing. IT DOESN’T MATTER! It doesn’t matter if the claim is that gravity is heating the surface, or if the claim is that it is from, what was it … hang on … oh, yes, “adiabatic auto-compression”. Whatever mechanism is claimed, the only energy entering the system is the energy from the suns.
And if the surface is warmed by whatever theory, with a transparent atmosphere it will perforce be radiating more energy than it is receiving … which is a contradiction.
My pleasure,
w.
[Apologies, this comment is posted twice as the first time I wrongly put it before Willis’ comment.]
Willis at 12:04: “It doesn’t matter if the claim is that gravity is heating the surface, or if the claim is that it is from, what was it … hang on … oh, yes, “adiabatic auto-compression”. Whatever mechanism is claimed, the only energy entering the system is the energy from the suns.
“And if the surface is warmed by whatever theory, with a transparent atmosphere it will perforce be radiating more energy than it is receiving … which is a contradiction.”
Agreed, only energy entering system is from sun.
So Willis is saying, I believe, that a GHG-free atmosphere can’t warm. I don’t see a quote anywhere to that effect, but it seems to be an assumption. Or have I misinterpreted?
We should back up a bit to my “statement 1”: “When the sun hits the surface of [a planet] and heats it, that heat is conducted to the atmosphere immediately above it because the atmosphere at that point is under a significant pressure of about 19,000 pounds/square yard/second …. This heat then convects/conducts upward, and as it does so the pressure decreases; as the pressure decreases, the atmosphere is necessarily expanding and cooling.”
On your hypothetical planet, with a presumed very high surface temperature, what would be the temperature of, say, the one meter of atmosphere directly above the surface? Can we assume the pressure is the same as earth’s? Can we even assume that the atmosphere is made up of argon? If the atmosphere can’t hold any heat, does that mean that the argon is at 0 degrees? What laws would you invoke to support whatever you say the temperature of the atmosphere adjacent to the surface must be? Would those laws be consistent with gas laws?
This is a sticking point so will be important to think it through and not jump to defending paradigms.
So far Willis has asserted that a planet without GHGs would have an isothermal atmosphere: “But without GHGs, that cannot happen. The atmosphere stabilizes with the lowest layer at the surface temperature. With no temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere, there is no conduction. … The surface is at a constant temperature. The atmosphere is at a constant temperature. There is no convection.” (Feb 8, 2018, 11:45 pm)
But, this is impossible. With increasing altitude we have decreasing pressure and we must of necessity have decreasing temperature as the atmosphere expands (the circumference of the atmosphere increases at each hypothetical rise in altitude) until at the very top the atmosphere is so thin that the atmospheric molecules are very far apart. How do those molecules higher up, which Willis maintains are at the same temperature as the surface (unless I grossly misunderstand!) maintain the heat which they acquired at the surface?
It seems to me that we have a temperature gradient; we have a lapse rate; we have convection. It also seems to me that it’s impossible to have an isothermal atmosphere.
What am I missing? Someone will have to explain, in plain English, please, how we can have an isothermal atmosphere.
Once again, please don’t jump ahead and defend any paradigms. Just work with what we have so far.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 9:57 am:
“How do those molecules higher up, which Willis maintains are at the same temperature as the surface (unless I grossly misunderstand!) maintain the heat which they acquired at the surface?”
I’ll answer my own question, and I’m surprised that no one has stated it simply and distinctly: the atoms of argon (or any non-ghg) have no way of convecting or conducting or radiating energy away.
The only option I see is if the argon has absorbed energy (not IR) from the surface and then emits that energy higher up, and that energy loss is a drop in kinetic energy and hence a drop in temperature. But does that happen? When argon collides with other molecules in conduction, does that collision transfer just some kinetic energy or does it involve absorption of frequencies of, say, UV? I haven’t yet been able to find an answer for that. What if the heated molecules on the surface of the planet radiate in the same frequencies as argon can absorb?
I can look all day and find something I can’t quite understand, or someone can say something according to Descartes (that is, clearly and distinctly) that makes sense of it. Or, someone can point me to a reference that isn’t filled with math. Or, I can look all day.
Don,
You are missing that Ke becomes Pe during ascent and Pe becomes Ke in descent.
That is why convective overturning matters.
All the molecules in an atmosphere have the same total energy (Ke + Pe) but Pe which does not register as heat increases with height and Ke declines with height so for a convecting atmosphere there must be a temperature decline with height even in a non radiative atmosphere.
The radiative proponents must address two critical issues:
i) How to get an isothermal, static atmosphere with no convection when it is impossible to arrange perfectly even surface heating. Even the slightest unevenness will allow less dense molecules to rise above more dense molecules. A declining density gradient ensures that once convection starts it will involve the full height of a non radiative atmosphere because a rising parcel of air only expands as fast as the density of the surroundings declines so that the density differential continues all the way to the top.
ii) How to avoid losing the atmosphere when the upward pressure gradient force in the top half of an isothermal atmosphere will exceed the downward pressure from the weight of the less dense molecules above. In that situation hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be achieved.
Until those issues are properly addressed the radiative hypothesis as applied to a non GHG atmosphere is simply a waste of all our time. All the thermal characteristics of a non GHG atmosphere are non radiative and so the radiative hypothesis cannot apply.
All objects emit thermal radiation proportional to fourth power of temperature.
So if the earth had an atmosphere of purely argon, the amosphere would eventually through conduction and convection warm to ~255 degK, earth’s effective temperature.
At that temperature our imagined atmosphere would radiate ~240 W/m2, same as our current, real, atmosphere with all the GHGs does. Lo and behold, it would also backradiate.
Dang… Stefan–Boltzmann law is for blackbodies and argon is a poor absorber/emitter of thermal radiation. Must try harder.
Because of uneven latitudinal solar irradiance our imagined atmosphere of argon would perhaps not be isothermal and temperature gradients, horizontal/vertical, would form.
The question is, would our imagined atmosphere of argon, being not only a poor emitter, but also a poor conductor of thermal energy evolve to be any sort of thermal barrier, insulator? Would tropopause in it form at a much lower altitude as in our current atmosphere and therefore leave temperatures at the earth’s surface lower than we have now, even with adiabatic autocompression.
It’s hard, this speculation.
Something, -one, eats my comments?
(You keep falling into the Trash bin, rescued one) MOD
I do it piecewise. Is it a word I use that shall not pass?
“… rescued one”
One is enough. Thanks.
Willis,
One cannot suppress convection within an atmosphere around a sphere lit by a single sun because there will always be uneven surface heating causing density differentials in the horizontal plane which is all that is needed to cause convective overturning.
You obviously know that because you tried to avoid the issue by proposing multiple suns in order to arrange perfectly even surface heating. Since that scenario does not exist in nature your ‘isothermal’ description is screwed.
Stephen Wilde February 9, 2018 at 12:16 am
My friend, you clearly do not understand the concept of a “thought experiment”. Here’s one of the most famous ones:
Now, that scenario of chasing a beam of light “does not exist in nature” as you say … but it was still an extremely valuable thought experiment.
In fact, the reason we have thought experiments is that they allow us to understand things when we cannot do real experiments.
w.
PS—And no, I am NOT comparing myself to Einstein. I’m discussing thought experiments, and he’s famous for them.
Unfortunately, your thought experiment does not allow us to understand things when we cannot do real experiments.
Instead, you sought to distract from real world observable evidence of what happens when a surface beneath an atmosphere is inevitably heated unevenly.
Try adapting your ‘proof’ to take account of the unavoidable reality of an unevenly heated surface so that convection ensues.
Strange, I’ve tried to answer Willis three times now but it is not appearing. Maybe they will all turn up at once?
–In fact, what I said was:
We might imagine that there are thousands of mini-suns in a sphere around the planet, so the surface heating is perfectly even.-
If you have 1 thousand suns in sphere around a planet, How could not have more than one sun in the sky at any given time.
And if you have more than 1 sun in sky, then going act as if you have magnified the sunlight.
Or going like using multiple mirror reflecting sunlight from one sun onto one area [which magnifies the sunlight and making that one area hotter- as with a solar tower].
It would work if the light from the suns couldn’t be magnified- or you didn’t have direct sunlight.
Willis, your original top post said this:
“The problem is where it goes from there. The author makes the following claim:
In short, the hypothesis being put forward here, is that in the case of Earth, solar insolation provides the ‘first’ 255 Kelvin – in accordance with the black body law [11]. Then adiabatic auto-compression provides the ‘other’ 33 Kelvin, to arrive at the known and measured average global temperature of 288 Kelvin. The ‘other’ 33 Kelvin cannot be provided by the greenhouse effect, because if it was, the molar mass version of the ideal gas law could not then work to accurately calculate planetary temperatures, as it clearly does here.
I’m sorry, but the author has not demonstrated what he claims.”
OK, I agree, the author did not provide an elevator speech on how it happens, so here again is mine:
A (one sun) planet’s SB temperature is based on 1/4 the insolation. The no atmosphere planet has average temperature T1. The surface temperature is very hot during day, and very cold during night.
A non GHG planet’s atmosphere is warmed by conduction during the day, and cooled by conduction, at night. The atmosphere acts as a heat charge, discharge capacitor.
The greater the atmosphere’s molar density, the greater its heat capacity.
During the day, this planet’s OLR, which is a product of T^4, is much less, thus dramatically slowing the planets cooling.
Thus a non GHG planet’s average surface temperature is higher(T2 > T1), as a function of atmospheric molar density, ie, obeying the IGL.
There is your “greenhouse” warming with a non GHG atmosphere.
Sailboarder
Nearly there but lose the day/night aspect because rotation jumbles up the thermal characteristics of the day and night sides.
Better to refer to the OLR being reduced below rising columns of air and the OLR being commensurately raised beneath descending columns of air.
Then you get OLR out still matching solar energy in but the energy tied up in convective overturning is still locked in all around the sphere which raises the average surface temperature from T1 to T2.
BUT you can only get to that new stable scenario after the atmosphere has formed and the first convective overturning cycle has closed its first energy loop.
During the first convective overturning cycle the temperature of the surface viewed from space will appear to be less than T1 for a while because some of the surface energy is being diverted to conduction and convection instead of leaving to space.
Have you read my detailed description yet?
You are over complicating it. I presented an elevator speech. Please refute it at that level. Others use their own approach: Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. & Karl Zeller, Ph.D.
Ok but you could delete this bit:
“During the day, this planet’s OLR, which is a product of T^4, is much less, thus dramatically slowing the planets cooling.”
which is not needed and which provoked my ‘clarification’ because it isn’t quite right. In reality the reduction in cooling is only during the first convection cycle and not a daily event because after that energy in equals energy out once more.
Sorry Steven, but the atmosphere cools during the night, so it gets heated again during the day, ie, like a capacitor.
Yes but you referred to the planet’s OLR and the planet’s cooling not the atmosphere’s.
You could leave that out and the rest still looks good to me.
Steven
The elevator speech is about a non GHG atmosphere, and it can only cool by conduction. The OLR allies only to the surface. I have described how the surface is heated(T2 > T1) by reduced OLR due to conduction.
I know, but the wording doesn’t look right to me as it stands but it is your elevator speech so go with it if you are happy 🙂
— Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2018 at 6:03 am
Sailboarder
Nearly there but lose the day/night aspect because rotation jumbles up the thermal characteristics of the day and night sides.–
How about a slow rotation is more like this 1/4 of sun, but with Earth rotational speed, the night time is too short to lose all the energy absorbed by sunlight- if planet has enough heat capacity.
And with ocean and atmosphere the surface has very high heat capacity.
A Earth desert mostly just has the 10 ton per square meter of atmosphere with sunlight warming few inches of soil, whereas Earth has 70% ocean which has meters of water at surface which can warm per day of sunlight- or water has about 4 times heat capacity per ton as compare to air- 10 tons of air equals 2.5 meters of ocean.
Whereas the Moon has very low heat capacity and in long daylight hours only absorbs about 1/2 meter depth of soil depth and only few inches get very hot from sunlight and loses this high temperature before late afternoon. And it’s long night allows very low temperatures to reached..
gbaike
The weight of the atmosphere on the surface of the oceans also controls how much solar energy the oceans can hold on to by affecting the energy value of the latent heat of evaporation.
Consequently, the oceans cannot affect the long term planetary average surface temperature set by gravity, atmospheric mass and insolation but since the oceans do have that large thermal capacity with a lot of thermal inertia they can cause a lot of short term variability around the average,
I have tables of different areas, all the surface temperature info you might want for that area, by year and by day, including max Enthalpy, and average wet and dry difference to the following days min the next morning. Insolation, temp, and a bunch of other stuff.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/Ver%203%20beta/
That was a good explaination, but
The surface will radiate to space at surface temp 24 hr’s a day. And with no GHG’s it’ll swing between min and max temp daily.
Adding non-condensing GHG’s are like adding color filters, it impacts just that band.
That would cause an increased surface temp based on the increased forcing.
Adding a massive amount of condensing GHG that has a significant Heat of evaporation that is tied to surface air P & T , makes a regulator.
” And with no GHG’s it’ll swing between min and max temp daily.”
No, conduction will reduce the swing.
“Adding non-condensing GHG’s are like adding color filters, it impacts just that band.
That would cause an increased surface temp based on the increased forcing. Adding a massive amount of condensing GHG that has a significant Heat of evaporation that is tied to surface air P & T , makes a regulator.”
No disagreement, but the elevator speech is about non GHG for the moment.
The range will reduce. Dry air is such a good insulator, but it will still swing between min and max 🙂
The falsification of Willis’s explanations, and indeed the GHE itself, comes from the discovery that the temperature at the surface of any planetary body can be described without reference to the composition of its atmosphere. Two planets one with N2 and the other CO2 but equal molar masses will have the same average temperature at the surface, if gravity, insolation and albedo are held constant. Likewise, controlling for albedo and insolation, two planets with differing atmospheric masses will have the same average temperature at the same pressure level ,eg. Venus and Earth. Closer to home, the only reason it is hotter at the bottom of the Grand Canyon than the top is the pressure differential due to gravity. The GHE effect is unphysical as commonly understood because IR absorbed by supposed GHGs is immediately re-radiated and because all planets have open convective atmospheres making the whole heat trapping theory false. See: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/new-insights-on-the-physical-nature-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-deduced-from-an-empirical-planetary-temperature-model.pdf Holmes doesn’t have it quite right, the basic concept is there. Don’t be a gravity denier. 🙂
Indeed, and Willis agree that the IGL works. So what, as he says, how does a non GHG warm the earth? I explained it in an elevator speech above. There is no need to talk about gravity, as it is embedded in Molar mass density. The term “gravity denier” is a non informative slur.
1.
Willis Eschenbach
February 7, 2018 at 5:56 pm says:
But Equation 5 CANNOT tell us how much of the temperature is due to volcanoes and how much is due to nuclear reactors. It can’t tell us the source of any of the heat that got the atmosphere to that temperature.
The heat is needed to maintain a gas atmosphere from freezing solid. It doesn’t matter how much or where it comes from , sun or from below.
T = pM/Rd
T = surface temperatures
p = surface pressure
M = molar mass of gas molecules
d = density of atmosphere
R = gas constant
p is caused by mass of planet
M is caused mass of gas molecules
d is caused by mass of atmosphere
R is constant
T is caused by mass. The main property of mass is gravity.
T is caused by gravity only
T is not caused by the radiative properties of the gases.
sailboarder February 9, 2018 at 4:49 am
I give up. Your literalism is mind-boggling, as is your refusal to quote my words. And once again you are trying your slimy trick of putting words in my mouth.
I said NOTHING about a planet being in orbit around anything. The word “orbit” DOES NOT OCCUR IN MY PROOF POST. You are LYING about what I said. What I said was:
You’re done with me, sailboarder. Take your sailboard somewhere else. I have asked you before to stop trying to put your misguided fantasies into my mouth. I have asked you to quote my words to avoid such misrepresentation.
You have done neither. Instead, you’ve continued to distort my claims and pretend I said things that I never mentioned once.
Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. You’ve used up all of your free passes. Go away.
w.
The concept of an evenly heated blackbody planet in outer space is a misguided fantasy is it not?
The S-B equation itself recognises and takes account of that fact.
Willis only tries to use the impossible concept of even surface heating to get to his misguided fantasy of a non-convecting, isothermal atmosphere.
When dealing with Willis one needs to keep one’s eyes on the pea but his emotional ranting and personal insults do make that difficult.
The essence of sailboarder’s main contention is correct but a minor bit of verbal or conceptual confusion gives Willis the chance to go off on one to distract from the weakness of his own position.
Stephen Wilde February 9, 2018 at 11:24 am
No, it’s a part of a “thought experiment”.
Good enough for Einstein, good enough for a fool like me …
It. Is. A. Thought. Experiment. All kinds of “impossible” things happen in thought experiments.
Google is your friend.
Wonderful. A man complaining of “personal insults” accuses me of “emotional ranting”. Ouroboros smiles in approval.
Folks, here is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Without attempting to quote it or define it, Stephen talks about how “sailboarder’s main contention” is correct. None of us know what that “main contention” might be, likely as many answers as commenters.
Having declared (without quotes, definition, or evidence) that some unknown idea he calls “sailboarder’s main contention” is correct, he uses that to berate me for asking for quotations and evidence.
Stephen, you and sailboarder need to up your game. You’re barely mading it up to the second level of the pyramid …
Regards to all,
w.
Willis, you impune my motives, and I had no ill motives. Why do you assume that I did? I used the planet concept because the word “planet” six times in the article up top.
sailboarder February 10, 2018 at 9:28 am
Once again you haven’t quoted whatever I said that you claim “impunes” your motives, so I cannot respond. Get with the picture.
w.
This: “And once again you are trying your slimy trick of putting words in my mouth.” I think it is fair to say that you imply a deliberate nefarious act on my part. I think you owe me an apology.
sailboarder February 11, 2018 at 12:19 am
After being repeatedly asked to quote what you were referring to, you twice tried to convince people that I had said something I hadn’t said, a.k.a. putting words in my mouth.
And yes, trying to stuff words in my mouth is a slimy trick, and yes, you obviously did it deliberately, since I’d asked you twice not to do it. I don’t “imply” you did it deliberately. I accuse you to your face. You don’t ignore two clear requests accidentally, which means that your actions were deliberate.
So I stand by what I said, it is a slimy trick. And if any apologies are owed, you owe me an apology for not complying with a polite request designed to keep you from making both a fool and a pest of yourself by misrepresenting my words.
w.
Steve McIntyre often said something like “Do not assume ill intent when more simple explanations are available” or something like that. I was responding the way I did because I am suspicious of thought models in general as first they must be validated for unphysical assumptions. Hidden unphysical assumptions can lead to erroneous conclusions. I used the expression rabbit hole to describe this effect.
My own test model makes sense to me, and now the issue is will Argon at an identical molar mass density result in the earths temperature. The author said Reverend Badgers explanation was as good as it gets to describe this equality.
I like my model, as I have the heat charge/discharge capacity of the atmosphere to explain the “greenhouse” effect, by its averaging out the temperature. Maybe the author can chime in. Perhaps he is only one more paper away from proving his case. What he needs to do is calculate the stored heat in the two cases(Argon vs GHG atmospheres) for planet earth, and assume that Entropy will be maximized in either case.
sailboarder February 11, 2018 at 5:23 am
And I agree totally. Which is why, if you re-read my comments, you’ll find that they are about your ACTIONS and not about your MOTIVES. I don’t object to your motives. I object to you trying to put words in my mouth. I object to you not quoting what I said.
As to why you do that strange stuff, I fear you’ll have to answer that one. My own motives are often opaque to me, and the motives of others are generally a total mystery.
w.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 5:13 am
No problem, that happens to us all.
Interesting question. Actually, every atom making up the atmosphere is surrounded by empty space, not just the atoms up at the top of the atmosphere. However, contrary to your assertion, that space is not “much colder”. Space has no temperature at all. Temperature is a measure of the average velocity of atoms and molecules … but if there are neither atoms nor molecules, there is no temperature.
Now, if there are GHGs in the atmosphere the density matters because density affects the odds of a given thermal IR photon striking a GHG molecule before escaping to space.
But without GHGs, the atmosphere by definition CANNOT lose energy to space, because it is not radiating.
Thanks,
w.
Density matters even if there are no GHGs because greater density allows more effective conduction.
We see from the widely separated hot molecules in the thermosphere that have been directly heated by the sun that high temperatures can be reached high up and those molecules are often lost to space because their heat plus their potential energy puts them out of hydrostatic equilibrium. However density at that height is so low that their loss does not affect atmospheric mass much at all.
This is another example of Willis seizing on a badly expressed peripheral point in order to distract from the weakness of his basic position.
Keep your eyes on the pea, chaps.
Stephen Wilde February 9, 2018 at 11:31 am
Another charming gentleman who doesn’t have the cubes to quote what I said when he is accusing me of bad faith …
Stephen, you are destroying your reputation with your insistence on making unsubstantiated, uncited, unsupported, and unpleasant accusations. You barely make it up to the second level on the pyramid. Pathetic.
w.
“Temperature is a measure of the average velocity of atoms and molecules … but if there are neither atoms nor molecules, there is no temperature.”
There is also no temperature when there is less atoms and molecule. There is something like 100 atoms per cubic cm on the Moon, and in Earth’s thermosphere there is more atoms per cubic cm. as compared to the Moon.
And thermosphere, wiki:
“Thermospheric temperatures increase with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation. Temperatures are highly dependent on solar activity, and can rise to 2,000 °C (3,630 °F).” and:
“The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
So space has no temperature and boundaries of atmosphere where there is fewer atmospheric gas molecules, also have no temperature- though velocities of molecules can be quite high and we say it has it has high temperature- or it radiates at such temperature, but it doesn’t warm or cool things like the dense atmosphere of “room temperature”.
And one could ask,at what air density does the air warm or cool?
With Mars and it’s 25 trillion tons of atmosphere, at it’s surface, it’s said there is an air temperature. Roughly Mars pressure is 1/100th of Earth and Earth’s air density is about 60 times
more than Mars- or about .02 kg per cubic meter.
“Day? Night? READ THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. See the part where it says “the surface heating is perfectly even”? That means even. No day. No night.
Grrrr … c’mon, folks, up your game! ”
Obviously the Earth, Moon, Mars and other bodies or planets have higher average temperature at region nearer the equator.
But play the game of having uniform heating of sunlight and have gravity cause warming without
any greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
Elevator speak is
Planet has checker board of two elevations, the white squares are 4000 meters lower than black squares.
And we will call the white squares sea level elevation- though no water, because it’s becomes a greenhouse gas. But temperature is suppose to be -18 C and water at -18 C is ice.
So let’s put 1 meter of water in white square- which become transparent ice- , just for fun.
And size of checker squares is 100 km square.
And the question is will there be a difference of surface air temperature between white squares and black square?
gbaike,
You don’t need such convolutions as a checkerboard.
You just need rising columns of air and falling columns of air and refuse to accept Willis’s bizarre fantasy of an evenly heated surface.
A checkerboard is quite simple- can’t you solve the puzzle?
The checker board with varying elevation could lower, increase, or have no affect on air temperature as compared to checker board without this varying elevation.
One start with something which should be true, the higher elevation black square will be cooler than the lower white squares. Which the same as saying white squares would be warmer than black square.
But if there wasn’t elevation difference would black square be cooler being at higher elevation as compared to black square being at same elevation?
It seems the higher black square would be cooler.
So if make level checker board have a temperature of -18 C, with elevation difference black square is less than -18 C.
With level checkerboard, one would have 1 atm pressure at surface. And density of air depends
on temperature and with the temperature of minus 18 C, it’s somewhere around 1.4 kg per cubic meter. There was chart I saw recently: -20 F = 1.445 and 0 F = 1.382
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-density-specific-weight-d_600.html
-20 F = -28.8889 C and 0 F= -17.7778 C
So for 1 atm at -18 C it’s about 1.38 kg per cubic meter
So with checkerboard of varying elevation what is air density of black square, and/or what is
the pressure?
Since one square went up and other when down, 1 atm pressure mid way between the white and black squares. And you could call that “sea level”. So black square is 2000 meters above “sea level” and white square is 2000 meter below “sea level”.
Roughly you could say this, but it depends upon or varies a bit depending on air temperature at “sea level”- but let’s call it close enough.
And if we ignore the 1 meter of ice on white square, the air should be very dry and have lapse rate
of about 10 C per 1000 meter elevation difference.
And we could wildly jump to idea that sea level air was about -18 C and black square was about -38 C and white square was about 2 C, but we aren’t going to do that and instead get back determining by guess what would be the air density of the black square. Which is suppose to colder that black square without elevation difference.
Now if at “sea level” density is about 1.38 kg per cubic meter, what is density 2000 meters higher?
One could also ask at what elevation is half the mass of atmosphere?
Let’s make it more simple, and go back to level checker board, so air temperature is -18 C
air density is 1.38 kg per cubic meter, lapse rate about 10 C per 1000 meter, and have 10 tons of air per square meter at surface and at what elevation is it 5 tons of air above it?
5000 kg / divided by 1.38 kg is 3623 meters and density must lower with elevation so has to be higher 3623 meters, so say around 4000 meters.
Or 2500 kg divided by 1.38 is 1811 meters and has to be higher to have 3/4 of atmosphere above.
Back checker board of different elevations. At sea level, density will increase as go lower, and decrease as go higher. And could average it so that 1000 meter up balances 1000 meter down or
2000 meter up and 2000 meter down as average density of 1.38 [with assumption the sea level air temperate is -18 C]. But 1/2 of this volume is filled with all the black square- hmm- that alters my assumption of where sea level is- it’s not in middle but a bit higher.
Or checkerboard half goes 2000 meter up and half goes down, and more air mass goes down than the air which is displaced by black square going up, though with air being warmer at lower elevation, it lessen this difference.
Anyhow, what’s density at black square- it’s less than 1.38 and probably more than 1.2 kg per cubic meter. Or it’s similar to sea level air density on Earth with it’s average temperature of 15 C.
Or black square which viewed as high [and huge] mountains on earth has air density similar to sea level Earth. Not sure if anyone knows how significant that is.
Really enjoying the debate. Thanks Anthony, Willis and Stephen W.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 9:57 am
Let me give it a shot.
Suppose we have a non-GHG atmosphere above an evenly heated surface. Remember that this means that the only way the atmosphere can gain or lose energy is by conduction through the surface. The atmosphere cannot radiate energy, either out to space or back to the earth.
And let us further support your idea that the steady-state condition is with temperature decreasing with altitude as you describe. We’ll use that as a starting point.
Now, an atmosphere that is cooler as it goes up as you describe is thermally stable. So your atmosphere won’t overturn. It will be thermally stratified.
HOWEVER:
Air conducts heat, just like any other substance. Oh, it’s slower to conduct heat than say steel or silver or water, but it conducts heat.
AND:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that if there is a thermal path between two objects at different temperatures, that heat will flow spontaneously from warm to cold.
THEREFORE:
Heat will flow from the warmer air at the surface to the cooler air above. At the surface, this will set up a surface-atmosphere temperature difference, which means that heat will also flow from the surface to the atmosphere.
Since the flow is spontaneous, and since the atmosphere CANNOT lose heat by radiation, heat will only spontaneously flow until the atmosphere is isothermal from the surface to the top.
And at that point, no further heat will flow either to or from the atmosphere.
Let me recommend once again “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” …
Regards,
w.
That only works if the surface is perfectly evenly heated.
Any infinitesimal degree of unevenness results in density variations in the horizontal plane, regions of less dense gas rising above regions of more dense gas and there you have convective overturning at which point your proposition fails.
“The atmosphere cannot radiate energy, either out to space or back to the earth.”
Then Willis’ atmosphere has no mass with no radiation. No Cp. No weight. No surface pressure. No defined temperature. No convection. No conduction. And…if Willis’ defined atmosphere can not radiate, any sun or other star can not radiate.
Possibly Willis’ really means to debate with the experimental physics of a 77% N2, 23% O2 atm. with terrestrial surface pressure et. al. At least that would be meaningful physics.
Well, atmosphere on earth doesn’t radiate much.
Ozone radiates a bit, and so do clouds.
If you compare amount which is radiated, which radiates more: Earth’s clouds or Earth ozone layer?
gbaikie, which one can melt snow on earth surface? Answering that ought to get you close.
Trick February 9, 2018 at 1:19 pm Edit
Huh? None of the monatomic noble gases, e.g. argon, either radiate or absorb in the thermal IR range. And yes, we’ve been through this question before on WUWT. All SOLIDS absorb and radiate thermal IR over a broad range of frequencies. GASES, on the other hand, either absorb/radiate only in specific often narrow bands, or don’t absorb or radiate at all in the thermal IR range. Monatomic noble gases are the ones that neither absorb nor radiate.
And if you think e.g. argon does absorb thermal IR, please provide a graph showing the frequencies at which it is absorbing/radiating. I ask because this argument is done to death. I don’t care what you learned in physics class about how everything radiates thermal IR. It only applied to SOLIDS.
The physics of a non-GHG atmosphere are very meaningful. They make the question clear.
w.
” Trick
February 9, 2018 at 2:11 pm
gbaikie, which one can melt snow on earth surface? Answering that ought to get you close.”
Rain can melt a lot of snow. If you have heavy snowfall and you then get a lot rain- expect flooding.
“None of the monatomic noble gases, e.g. argon, either radiate or absorb in the thermal IR range.”
Theses gases all radiate in the thermal IR range Willis as distant past testing for their emissivity has shown. Plug in a temperature and a wavelength and you will get a nonzero radiance from the Planck curve and find each gas emissivity from testing as all mass radiates since the atoms all vibrate (oscillate) in an EM field. You will learn more about real atm.s from discussing N2,O2 as then you have testing to rely upon. Trying to build an argument from non-radiating matter is useless. All matter radiates.
”And if you think e.g. argon does absorb thermal IR, please provide a graph showing the frequencies at which it is absorbing/radiating.”
Ar is absorbing/emitting at all frequencies, all the time, at all temperatures. The radiance graph resembles the Planck curve. Just search out the journals where the emission testing from Ar et. al. was reported long ago. I did this in a discussion around here, it wasn’t very hard. I had to actually visit a college library. And went 2 or 3 ancient journals deep, the results are there for those that expend the effort.
“The physics of a non-GHG atmosphere are very meaningful. They make the question clear.”
The physics of N2,O2 atm. are even more clear & readily available. Increasing GHG mixing ratios can then be understood. The Ar atm. isn’t clear until the interested commenter has spent the 7-10 day effort to find and understand the testing of Ar for its radiative data in ancient nearly inscrutable specialist texts and papers.
Trick February 10, 2018 at 12:11 pm
“None of the monatomic noble gases, e.g. argon, either radiate or absorb in the thermal IR range.”
Theses gases all radiate in the thermal IR range Willis as distant past testing for their emissivity has shown. Plug in a temperature and a wavelength and you will get a nonzero radiance from the Planck curve and find each gas emissivity from testing as all mass radiates since the atoms all vibrate (oscillate) in an EM field. You will learn more about real atm.s from discussing N2,O2 as then you have testing to rely upon. Trying to build an argument from non-radiating matter is useless. All matter radiates.
Not true, vibration and rotation leading to emission does not take place in noble gases. The only absorption that takes place is in the electronic spectrum and requires excitation in the UV. The lowest excitation level in Argon is at about 107 nm, deep in the UV.
Phil., as Willis’ notes please provide the top triangle type of comment, as you know I provided the original testing citations for Ar in the earlier discussions. If it didn’t mean anything to you then, there is no reason to believe it will now. I will go with those documented Ar testing results not a comment on a blog.
Trick February 10, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Phil., as Willis’ notes please provide the top triangle type of comment, as you know I provided the original testing citations for Ar in the earlier discussions. If it didn’t mean anything to you then, there is no reason to believe it will now. I will go with those documented Ar testing results not a comment on a blog.
Yes you provided data for Argon excited by an electrical discharge which has nothing to do with argon in the atmosphere absorbing radiation. The only way that Argon in the atmosphere can be excited is by EUV below ~108 microns. The paper you cited has nothing to do with absorption and was a red herring.
“The first spectra of helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon, excited by discharges in Geissler tubes, operated by direct connection to a transformer, have been explored in the infrared (12000 to 19000 A).
Phil. February 11, 2018 at 10:55 am
Thanks, Phil. It is quite curious, but Trick seems to think that saying he provided something somewhere “in earlier discussions” is an adequate citation to back up his claims.
I didn’t bother going back as you did to find his original non-responsive citation which you re-provide above. My thanks to you for doing what Trick refused repeated requests to do, back up his claim with a link.
And as you note, his link is about excitation of argon via powerful electrical discharge rather than by the much, much weaker thermal radiation.
I saw this coming, and I tried to head off such evidence-free and citation-free claims about argon by saying when I first mentioned it:
But noooo … Trick lived up to his name by trying to pass off his claims without providing the evidence he said he had. Thanks for stepping in to fill the gap.
w.
“Yes you provided data for Argon excited by an electrical discharge..”
Well, the several 1930s research papers describe the lamps illuminating the Ar gas as being plugged in so I guess you could call that an electrical discharge.
“The paper you cited has nothing to do with absorption..”
This response just about reaches the green level of Willis’ pyramid above. Phil. will have to do MUCH better to reach the top triangle.
“..Trick seems to think that saying he provided something somewhere “in earlier discussions” is an adequate citation to back up his claims.”
It is. The Ar radiation research papers are out there for anyone that has an interest in claims Ar does not radiate. The effort to find and understand them only needs to be expended once.
“Trick lived up to his name.”
Thanks. But this barely reaches the 2nd orange level of your own pyramid. To actually reach the top triangle Willis needs to provide experimental evidence for claims that Ar does not radiate and explicitly refute my central point otherwise it is Willis that isn’t providing the evidence & isn’t climbing the pyramid as he demands of others.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 12:42 pm
“Yes you provided data for Argon excited by an electrical discharge..”
Well, the several 1930s research papers describe the lamps illuminating the Ar gas as being plugged in so I guess you could call that an electrical discharge.
“The paper you cited has nothing to do with absorption..”
This response just about reaches the green level of Willis’ pyramid above. Phil. will have to do MUCH better to reach the top triangle.
I did, I highlighted the part that said “excited by discharges in Geissler tubes”, clearly you don’t know what that is!
“A Geissler tube is an early gas discharge tube used to demonstrate the principles of electrical glow discharge, similar to modern neon lighting. The tube was invented by the German physicist and glassblower Heinrich Geissler in 1857. It consists of a sealed, partially evacuated glass cylinder of various shapes with a metal electrode at each end, containing rarefied gasses such as neon, argon, or air; mercury vapor or other conductive fluids; or ionizable minerals or metals, such as sodium. When a high voltage is applied between the electrodes, an electrical current flows through the tube. The current dissociates electrons from the gas molecules, creating ions, and when the electrons recombine with the ions, the gas emits light by fluorescence.”
”..the gas emits light by fluorescence.” Wiki via Phil.
”The paper you cited has nothing to do with absorption..”
Nothing? Which is correct Phil. you or wiki clip? If the gas emits light by fluorescence as you now comment, the gas must have absorbed light.
Actually, this is the first time I’ve run across the fluorescence term in the context of 1930s Ar radiation experiments. Possible I missed it but I’ll look into what I can find, not interested in re-litigating the earlier thread.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 2:59 pm
”..the gas emits light by fluorescence.” Wiki via Phil.
”The paper you cited has nothing to do with absorption..”
Nothing? Which is correct Phil. you or wiki clip? If the gas emits light by fluorescence as you now comment, the gas must have absorbed light.
Me of course. In a discharge tube the ground electronic state is excited by the discharge of electrons through the gas, after the excitation the excitation energy is lost by emission of photons. The nearest situation to fluorescence is when argon is electronically excited by EUV and then you get a cascade leading to multiple emission lines.
If we had an argon atmosphere the upper region would absorb EUV leading to the equivalent of a thermosphere, which will be stable like the stratosphere. In the troposphere of such an atmosphere the atmosphere will heat up by conduction, since there is no way that this gas can radiate energy the gradient must reduce until the troposphere becomes isothermal. Rather like the tropopause shown in the following figure.
Ok, Phil. writes wiki using their description of fluorescence as atomic structure absorption of EMR and emission of EMR is incorrect in their discussion of Geissler tubes light being fluorescence: “the ground electronic state is excited by the discharge of electrons through the gas” not absorption of thermal EMR & “Me of course” is correct.
This means the light from a Geissler tube is independent of the temperature of the Ar gas. Obviously then Geissler tube light is not from field of BB thermal radiation. This is the field of luminescence, the light emitted by fireflies and by substances excited by various kinds of subatomic particles like electrons. Ok, I’ll buy that. In the atm., the hot sun & incandescent light bulbs are in play for illumination & not luminescence.
Photons emitted by a body cannot be interrogated as to their origins: luminescence or thermal emission. All that can be measured is total emission. Since the atm. basically is not a Geissler tube, no constant electric current, then the photons from luminescence are zero, and all atm. gas emitted/absorbed photons are thermal radiation dependent on the temperature of the absorber/emitter.
Geissler tubes are thus a distraction in the context of an Ar atm,. since interested only in thermal radiation meaning BB/S-B radiation dependent on the gas temperature for absorption and emission at each wavelength.
To reach the top triangle of Willis’ pyramid Phil. ”since there is no way that Ar gas can radiate energy” and/or Willis ”None of the monatomic noble gases, e.g. argon, either radiate or absorb in the thermal IR range” now need to provide experimental evidence for their assertions to reach the top triangle of Willis’ pyramid. If not, they will be considered “unclear regarding the process for refutation of a claim or a proof.”
I have, at the expense of about 1-2 weeks of digging, found specialist experimental evidence from the 1930s or so, and later 1960s specialist texts referencing them, that Ar radiates (weakly, takes long exposure times to collect the photons) in the thermal IR by vibrational and rotational quantum jumps but have disappointed Willis in being not interested to dig it out again. That is Willis’ loss not mine.
——
”..the gradient must reduce until the troposphere becomes isothermal.”
Since the Ar atm. fluid would be warmed from below in a gravity field, there would be convection. There would thus be a lapse g/Cp, more accurately the Poisson formula. Up to the stratosphere level where the Ar fluid becomes warmed from above and convection ceases to T(z) constant, isothermal.
—-
ALL this becomes a distraction because Willis could just as well invoke 100% N2/O2 atm. for non-GHG discussions.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 5:59 pm
Geissler tubes are thus a distraction in the context of an Ar atm,. since interested only in thermal radiation meaning BB/S-B radiation dependent on the gas temperature for absorption and emission at each wavelength.
Which was exactly my point, but you brought it up in the mistaken idea that it was relevant.
To reach the top triangle of Willis’ pyramid Phil. ”since there is no way that Ar gas can radiate energy” and/or Willis ”None of the monatomic noble gases, e.g. argon, either radiate or absorb in the thermal IR range” now need to provide experimental evidence for their assertions to reach the top triangle of Willis’ pyramid. If not, they will be considered “unclear regarding the process for refutation of a claim or a proof.”
I have, at the expense of about 1-2 weeks of digging, found specialist experimental evidence from the 1930s or so, and later 1960s specialist texts referencing them, that Ar radiates (weakly, takes long exposure times to collect the photons) in the thermal IR by vibrational and rotational quantum jumps but have disappointed Willis in being not interested to dig it out again. That is Willis’ loss not mine.
Read any college level text on atomic spectra, Herzberg was the one that we used and is still available, and you’ll find that Argon only has electronic energy levels, no vibrational or rotational levels.
Here’s a diagram of the lower energy level structure.
http://www.scielo.org.za/img/revistas/sajs/v107n11-12/a11fig1M.jpg
“Stephen Wilde
February 9, 2018 at 11:10 am
gbaikie
The weight of the atmosphere on the surface of the oceans also controls how much solar energy the oceans can hold on to by affecting the energy value of the latent heat of evaporation.”
Not sure what you mean.
The energy value of latent heat changes a bit depending water temperature, but roughly it’s
“The heat of vaporization of water is about 2,260 kJ/kg,”
And amount evaporation of water depends on water temperature and partial pressure of water vapor in atmosphere-
more water vapor but much lower gravity could have a lower partial pressure of water vapor.
Or less water vapor and much higher gravity could have high partial pressure.
But with Earth, water vapor is lighter than dry air, which basically means evaporation controls rather it is controlled. Or basically water evaporates anywhere on Earth and it’s temperature controls how much. Wet clothes will dry out- higher humidity makes drying slower. Though condensation or rain reverses it.
–Consequently, the oceans cannot affect the long term planetary average surface temperature set by gravity, atmospheric mass and insolation but since the oceans do have that large thermal capacity with a lot of thermal inertia they can cause a lot of short term variability around the average,–
Earth oceans control long term and short term planetary average temperature.
And without going in to any detail, 70% of any surface will control the average [100%] of a surface.
Details, the sun controls the surface temperature. Earth’s average ocean surface is 17 C.
The average land surface is 10 C, and the average is 15 C.
More details: average tropical air temperature is 26 C. Tropics has 80% of surface, being ocean.
And tropics is 40% of surface of Earth. And since tropic is warm and earth average temperature is
only 15 C, it’s cold outside the Tropics as go further from it.Or 1/2 of world near tropics is fair warm and other half is pretty cold. And fortunately land regions say at higher latitude than say 30 degrees are warmed by the ocean- otherwise they would be much colder.
Or UK is about 10 C, it would be much colder without the ocean warming it.
Globally gravity and atmospheric mass is near constant- though insolation isn’t.
The amount of energy required to break the bonds between water molecules varies with pressure.
“It is equal to the increased internal energy of the vapour phase compared with the liquid phase, plus the work done against ambient pressure. The increase in the internal energy can be viewed as the energy required to overcome the intermolecular interactions in the liquid”
from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
So the weight of the atmosphere sets the amount of solar energy that the oceans must accumulate before evaporation can occur. Once evaporation starts the oceans can get no hotter because evaporation just accelerates instead which is why there is a cap on the temperature of tropical surface water as mariners have observed for millennia.
Stephen Wilde February 9, 2018 at 1:03 pm
The amount of energy required to break the bonds between water molecules varies with pressure.
“It is equal to the increased internal energy of the vapour phase compared with the liquid phase, plus the work done against ambient pressure. The increase in the internal energy can be viewed as the energy required to overcome the intermolecular interactions in the liquid”
from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
So the weight of the atmosphere sets the amount of solar energy that the oceans must accumulate before evaporation can occur. Once evaporation starts the oceans can get no hotter because evaporation just accelerates instead which is why there is a cap on the temperature of tropical surface water as mariners have observed for millennia.
Not true, evaporation of liquid water occurs at any temperature above the triple point (273.16K), the temperature of the ocean will increase as long as more energy is added until the vapor pressure is equal to the applied pressure, at which point the temperature can no longer increase until all the water has evaporated.
Thanks, Phil. As you point out, evaporation takes place at all temperatures between freezing and boiling.
Stephen Wilde, on the other hand, claims:
Sorry, but that reflects a profound misunderstanding of the underlying physics.
w.
Question, on Venus what is the dominate surface?
OK I’m going to take a bit of time to digest all this. There are some very interesting comments. Thanks Willis and Stephen for taking the time and energy to explain your points of view, and others for sharing some really good insights. Thank you everyone for being fairly civil and patient with all this. Thanks Anthony for allowing discussion. For myself, I want to make sure I understand what’s going on before I open my mouth again.
Things now seem to hinge on the guest post by Brown! https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
The plot thickens.
OK, here’s a question, directed at anyone who can address it.
All gases radiate; not all gases radiate in IR. If we had an atmosphere of N2 alone, as a parcel of this reaches the top of the atmosphere, what keeps it from radiating its energy out to space so that the energy/motion of N2 slows and the temperature of that parcel of atmosphere decreases? Or are we saying that the motion of the molecules, and hence the heat, is maintained, even as the atmosphere thins?
Naturally I’m having a lot of trouble with an isothermal GHG-free atmosphere. That’s where this is going.
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 3:10 pm
N2 is a very weak GHG, but a GHG nonetheless. So it would radiate, with about half of the radiation going to space and the rest going downwards.
In general, GHGs cool the atmosphere compared to a non-GHG situation. It gives them an additional way to cool.
Do bear in mind that my proof is talking about a non-GHG atmosphere such as argon.
w.
Willis Feb 9 2018 @ 4:31pm:
“Do bear in mind that my proof is talking about a non-GHG atmosphere such as argon.”
OK, argon then. Are you claiming that argon doesn’t radiate in any spectrum? Not UV? Not anything? Are you claiming that as the atmosphere thins, argon isn’t radiating at all to space? That it maintains the vibrational excitement that it acquired at the surface through the electromagnetic energy present there, and it doesn’t let that go?
At the surface, the argon molecules are vibrating rapidly and the atmosphere heats. At the top of the atmosphere, how is this energy, in whatever electromagnetic spectrum it exists, not radiating that energy to space, and thus slowing the vibration of the molecules, and thus cooling?
Don132 February 9, 2018 at 5:01 pm
Nope. I’m claiming what I claimed.
Next you say:
Yep.
I have no clue what you mean by “vibrational excitement”.
Nope. There are no argon molecules. As I noted, it is a monatomic gas. That’s why it neither radiates nor absorbs in the IR.
Thermal IR is captured because it makes a molecule vibrate. The more complex the molecule, the more vibrational modes it has, the more frequencies of IR it can absorb
Argon doesn’t form molecules, so there is nothing to vibrate. As a result, it neither absorbs nor emits in the thermal IR range.
w.
You’re right Willis, no vibrational spectra from Argon, no IR absorption (Brett’s faulty memory notwithstanding). Also Nitrogen absorbs from 4 to 5 microns (and is orders of magnitude weaker than CO2), a region of relatively low emission at the earth’s temperature.
Ahhh, Phil. No, you are incorrect. Look up the testing of Ar in the ancient journals and texts. Ar atoms vibrate in an EM field and rotate, so they radiate. Some instruments can boost and actually detect the very weak signals. As we discussed previously.
“Argon doesn’t form molecules, so there is nothing to vibrate.”
Ar in limited cases does form molecules. Ar atoms do vibrate in EM field and rotate so can radiate, the ancient journals measured the feeble amounts & are available in your nearest college library. This issue is just a distraction. If you want to discuss a GHG free atm. just use O2,N2 atm. and go from there. The interested person can learn a lot from N2,O2 basics and then add GHGs and learn what happens with each species as its mixing ratio increases.
Trick February 10, 2018 at 12:25 pm
So your idea of a scientific citation is to unspecified “ancient journals and texts”?
Really?
Mrs. Henniger, my high school science teacher, would have had a field day with her famous red pencil with that one …
Produce the graph showing where the argon absorption lines are in the thermal IR range or don’t bother.
“Ancient texts” … sheesh …
w.
”So your idea of a scientific citation is to unspecified “ancient journals and texts”? Really?”
Oh hell no. My idea of scientific citation is title, journal, volume, date, page, paragraph. Sentence maybe.
”Produce the graph showing where the argon absorption lines are in the thermal IR range or don’t bother.”
Already did in past threads you participated. I used the top triangle of your pyramid based on testing starting with your friend google to generate the ref.s. Then looked them up. You can too. It is easier though just switch to discuss N2,O2 atm., Ar is a distraction.
For Ar it might take 7-10 days of digging to find the 1960s texts and much earlier original Ar gas testing research (unless you are faster than me) to produce the graph (actually list) of Ar lines found – it runs maybe 10 pages long, small type.
Here’s the “ancient text” but I think it’s irrelevant. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/049/2/v49.n02.a04.pdf
Don, thanks for that ref. This illustrates why it takes so long to find the original testing research detail for Ar in the IR as yours just ref.s the earlier work of Sittner and Peck 1949 for Ar in the IR. So that paper needs to be pulled. And even it may ref. earlier testing as the conclusion notes observing noble gases in the IR over a previous period extending back 30 years from 1952. When I did that work in the last year in a similar debate with Willis and Phil., I found these library journals physically appear aged, brittle, decrepit so I used the word “ancient”. The librarian helping me even found a yellowed library card in one and we both laughed as she said this isn’t exactly in use anymore.
Don132 February 10, 2018 at 1:54 pm Edit
Thanks, Don. It shows that argon indeed has absorption lines … but they are in the near-infrared, not the thermal (far) infrared. It shows exactly ZERO lines in the thermal IR range (typically taken to be something like 5-20 microns).
So no … argon does NOT absorb or radiate in the far (thermal) infrared, which is what we are discussing.
w.
Willis Eschenbach February 10, 2018 at 3:14 pm:
“Thanks, Don. It shows that argon indeed has absorption lines … but they are in the near-infrared, not the thermal (far) infrared. It shows exactly ZERO lines in the thermal IR range (typically taken to be something like 5-20 microns).
So no … argon does NOT absorb or radiate in the far (thermal) infrared, which is what we are discussing.”
Just to be clear, I provided the link for Trick’s convenience. I’m not claiming that argon absorbs in IR, and that is not part of any argument I’m making.
Willis 3:14pm, because Don’s ref. cited Sittner and Peck 1949 reporting on Ar lines specifically in the 1.2 to 1.7 micron range (and notes not all S&P data presented) does not mean there are no Ar lines 5-20 microns. I’d say you are about on the green level of your pyramid “contradiction”. To get to the top triangle like I did previously you need to cite the earlier specialist Ar research using defined long exposure times and photographic plates with sensitivity for 5-20 micron range et. al.
“Don132
February 9, 2018 at 3:10 pm
OK, here’s a question, directed at anyone who can address it.
All gases radiate; not all gases radiate in IR. If we had an atmosphere of N2 alone, as a parcel of this reaches the top of the atmosphere, what keeps it from radiating its energy out to space so that the energy/motion of N2 slows and the temperature of that parcel of atmosphere decreases? Or are we saying that the motion of the molecules, and hence the heat, is maintained, even as the atmosphere thins?”
Molecules of gas don’t slow down when they emit IR.
The temperature of gases in Earth thermosphere:
“The thermosphere lies between the exosphere and the mesosphere. “Thermo” means heat, and the temperature in this layer can reach up to 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit. If you were to hang out in the thermosphere, though, you would be very cold …
:https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/thermosphere/en/
These molecules in thermosphere aren’t slowing down, even though “they can reach up to 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit”
Molecules of gas aren’t hot, or cold or any temperature, but they can go fast, and in the thermosphere they have to go fast and are traveling fast. They have to go fast because they are mass and mass obeys the laws of gravity. It you magical held a molecule up in thermosphere so it’s “not moving” it will be hit by another molecule going fast, and it then goes fast. Or magically held up molecules in the thermosphere are just as “hot” as other fast moving molecules, because they will be hit. Or without being magical held, they fall- and so what stays up are molecules traveling fast.
The N2 molecule cools as it rises because it is part of an expanding parcel of molecules which cools as per the Gas Laws. There doesn’t need to be any radiation for the decline in temperature with height to develop.
The N2 molecule loses no energy but part of its energy is converted to PE which is not heat and does not radiate.
“The N2 molecule cools as it rises because it is part of an expanding parcel of molecules which cools as per the Gas Laws. ”
A molecule doesn’t cool or warm, but a expanding parcel of molecules is cooler.
Molecules traveling with same average velocity but occupy more volume/space
have a lower air temperature. And the reverse is true contracting parcels of molecules
have a higher air temperature if have same average velocity.
“There doesn’t need to be any radiation for the decline in temperature with height to develop.”
correct.
And any radiation transferred either direction doesn’t matter much.
“The N2 molecule loses no energy but part of its energy is converted to PE which is not heat and does not radiate.”
Molecules at higher elevation have more PE.
But molecules don’t have travel up and down and only do this as some kind of wind- Ie updrafts or downdraft. Instead of molecule traveling, the kinetic energy of molecules can transfer to other molecules- or the kinetic energy of molecules can go up and down. Though If there enough of this kinetic energy transfer it does cause wind- does cause molecules [crowd of molecules] to go up and down..
I should mention the creation water vapor [evaporation] causes air masses to be lighter and causes air masses to rise. And evaporation on both land and ocean is primary source/factor related to having winds.
Stephen Wilde February 11, 2018 at 11:29 am:
“The N2 molecule cools as it rises because it is part of an expanding parcel of molecules which cools as per the Gas Laws. There doesn’t need to be any radiation for the decline in temperature with height to develop.
The N2 molecule loses no energy but part of its energy is converted to PE which is not heat and does not radiate.”
So here’s the conundrum: I’ve heard you, Stephen, say that in our own atmosphere radiation takes over at TOA. But in our argon atmosphere, there’s no radiation at TOA, or conduction or convection. There’s no heat loss from the atmosphere. So either the atmosphere is isothermal, meaning that all of the atoms of argon are the same temperature and this is the same temperature as the surface, and it doesn’t matter if there’s convection or not (because where would it be convecting heat to, to radiate away?) or else maybe the planet explodes from the ever-increasing heat.
Even as the IGL holds, that still doesn’t alter the fact that each atom of argon is exactly the same temperature (internal energy) even as the parcel of air “cools.” Heat content goes down; internal energy stays the same.
What do you say?
Heat content and therefore temperature goes down with height because KE declines during ascent. Since that KE does not disappear but instead converts for PE the total internal energy stays the same (KE + PE).
That is entirely consistent with a decline in temperature with height as per real world observations.
Your Argon atmosphere conducts from the surface in ascent and conducts to the surface in descent.
It is then the surface that radiates to space but can only send 255k to space because the other 33k is conducted into the ongoing convective cycle rather than radiated.
Stephen Wilde February 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm:
“Your Argon atmosphere conducts from the surface in ascent and conducts to the surface in descent.”
Now I’m going to say that what you’re saying is impossible. When an argon atom conducts from the surface, there’s no way for it to lose internal energy as it climbs in altitude, so that even when it gets to the TOA it’s the same temperature as it was at the surface, EVEN IF the parcel of gas of which it’s a part has gone down in temperature according to IGL. Since that atom is the exact same temp as the surface, it isn’t conducting anything when it gets back to the surface.
If an argon atom can’t lose heat by radiation or conduction or convection, then how can it lose heat?
Internal energy is KE + PE. PE is not heat. Internal energy stays the same during uplift but KE (heat) declines.
The reverse in descent.
Don132 February 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm
Stephen Wilde February 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm:
“Your Argon atmosphere conducts from the surface in ascent and conducts to the surface in descent.”
Now I’m going to say that what you’re saying is impossible. When an argon atom conducts from the surface, there’s no way for it to lose internal energy as it climbs in altitude, so that even when it gets to the TOA it’s the same temperature as it was at the surface, EVEN IF the parcel of gas of which it’s a part has gone down in temperature according to IGL. Since that atom is the exact same temp as the surface, it isn’t conducting anything when it gets back to the surface.
If an argon atom can’t lose heat by radiation or conduction or convection, then how can it lose heat?
The only way for argon to radiate is to be electronically excited, in the atmosphere the only way that can happen is by absorbing EUV or by an electrical discharge. Otherwise it will just have kinetic energy which it could acquire from the surface, like any other molecule it will exchange that energy with collision partners.
From memory, argon has been measured radiating at just under 2mu in response to NIR light. Why would any molecule vibrating above 0K not produce EMF?
More to our point, our extensive studies show that the GTE builds stars through mass concentration of galactic matter starting at c.3K. There is no other way that I can find, but the presence of some radioactive ‘star stuff’ may complicate matters..
oops I meant atom, because the outer electron shells do the vibrating.
Brett, just under 2 microns is near infrared, the kind that comes from the sun. And argon indeed radiates/absorbs there.
It just doesn’t radiate in the far infrared, also called thermal IR or longwave infrared, which is what is under discussion.
As to your question, ” Why would any molecule vibrating above 0K not produce EMF?”, the answer is, because some of them physically can’t radiate at some frequencies.
w.
Willis seems to like posting rabbit holes for people to go down. Maybe he thinks it is fun, who knows. It is obvious that a uniformly heated sphere will not have a “greenhouse effect”.
The 33 degree extra warming of a rotating planet like earth as compared to an airless planet happens ONLY because of the rotation AND the atmosphere acts as a heat capacitor. The SB equation tells us that the airless planet has soaring daytime temperatures. It is conduction to an atmosphere, with GHGs or not, that moderates that temperature. The net effect is to slow the daytime peak T*4 radiation, ie, it cools less, thus causing net warming. Thats it. Thats all. This effect exists ONLY on a rotating planet. It does not exist in Willis’s rock with a 1000 suns. Lets get back to a real world.
Here is an expanded elevator speech describing the “greenhouse effect” with and without GHGs.
Stefan–Boltzmann law: energy out is a function of temperature to the fourth power T*4
Also the Ideal Gas Law PV=nRT
Here goes:
A planet’s average SB temperature is calculated from 1/4 the insolation (the suns heat input, is on the exposed surface to the sun = 1/4 of the earths spherical surface area).
Base case: A no atmosphere earth using the SB equation has average temperature T1 = 253K. (The surface temperature is very hot during day, and very cold during night. The day time heat output is the area under the T*4 curve, ie, huge. The night time is the area under the declining temperature curve)
Second case: For an earth with a non green house gas atmospher, the atmosphere is warmed by surface conduction during the day, and cooled by conduction at night. The atmosphere acts as a heat charge discharge capacitor.( lets use Argon, it warms/cools by conduction, ie,not radiation)
During the day, this planet’s outbound long wave infrared radiation(OLR), who’s rate is a product of T^4, it is much reduced from the base case.(Some heat is conducted away, thus the surface temperature has to drop, thus a much smaller T*4)
The lower total OLR means that the planet has to warm to T2 until the SB equation is satisfied.(heat out = heat in)
Thus our non GHG planet’s average surface temperature using Argon is higher(T2 > T1)
That is the “greenhouse” warming, without even using GHG’s in the atmosphere.(the term “greenhouse warming is of course wrong, but society is used to that term. A greenhouse warms because the warm air cannot rise out of the greenhouse)
On the real earth, with a real atmosphere with greenhouse gases such as water vapor, CO2, the greenhouse effect is bigger, as the molar mass is higher than Argon, and can be calculated to be T3= 287K, We can see that T3>T2>T1. (the earths atmosphere has a bigger Molar Mass density heat “capacitor”)
As a general principal, the greater an atmosphere’s molar density, the greater its heat capacity.(big fat molecules when they bounce around have more heat energy than small ones, also the more dense it is, the more energy per unit volume)
The doubling CO2 by humans changes the T3 temperature only by the change in Molar Mass density. (CO2 molecules are heavier than N2, O2, but the net change in Molar Mass density is tiny. The net greenhouse temperature change for earth is T3 – T1 = 0.03 C.)
For a deeper understanding:
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
We can relax, as 0.03C is so small that we cannot measure it.
I have done the maths, in case you are interested, but the PDF gets you there. I had to derive the Molar Mass formula myself to feel confident. That gave me the T1 and T3 numbers above.
Enjoy
Thanks for the BB AW, and thanks W for being willing to debate. You both are heros imo.
SB
My apologies to W. His thought experiment was not understood by me. He endeavors to refute the authors hypothesis that the GHE does not exist, that its all about gravity and molar density. If W is correct, which on further reflection, he appears to be, then the 0.03 C warming due to a doubling of CO2 is not correct.
Back to square one for me.
Can’t follow the reasoning there. Please clarify.
The author would conclude that T2=T3, if they both had the same Molar mass density. I would have to agree in that the formula asserts it. However that is a big leap conceptually, which Willis has asserted. Would conduction alone suffice? Quite possibly, and the planets heat equation could be solved to test the hypothesis. The author has another paper to write.
You are looking at it the wrong way round.
If there is no atmosphere then all water evaporates with no energy needing to be added because the internal energy is sufficient.
If an atmosphere bears down on the water surface then the internal energy is not sufficient to maintain the original rate of vaporisation so the rate of evaporation slows down proportionately to the weight of the atmosphere.
It never stops completely as you point out but it progressively becomes a more energy demanding process.
Think in terms of the pressure of the atmosphere supplementing the intermolecular bonds so that more energy is needed to break them.
That comment was for Phil and Willis but is wrongly placed in the thread.
The molar mass form of the gas law IGL is T = pM/Rd
p = pressure, M = molecular mass, R = gas constant d = atmosphere density
The law applies to solar planet atmospheres, near to the surface
this tells us the energy flux from the sun is not the cause of T.
Only sufficient energy flux is needed to maintain the energy content of the atmosphere high enough so it is a gas.
T is caused by planet mass , atmosphere mass and molecular mass.
Planet mass causes pressure,
Atmosphere mass causes density
T is caused by mass and not by radiation flux.
So the question to Willis is, why would T=pM/Rd not apply at the top of his imaginary planet with an argon atmosphere? At the top of the atmosphere, the pressure must have dropped dramatically.
Regarding argon, when that atom is at the surface it’s excited by the energy from the surface and moves faster, increasing the temperature of the parcel of gas of which it’s a part, according to the kinetic theory of gas. As Willis has said, the argon at the surface is the same temperature as the surface; indeed, the entire atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface (or have I misinterpreted?) So– how? Conduction? But what is conduction doing, since I think we’ve already agreed that argon neither absorbs nor emits IR energy?
At the top of the atmosphere, what maintains the velocity of the argon atoms within a parcel of gas?
What I say that an atom of argon is “excited,” doesn’t that mean that it’s being affected by electromagnetic energy? How else would it get excited? How else would its velocity increase? How does it manage to hold onto that energy when it’s at the top of the atmosphere in a thinning atmosphere, farthest from the source of the electromagnetic energy?
These questions are meant to clarify my misunderstanding of Willis’ position.
Don132 February 10, 2018 at 5:36 am
So the question to Don is, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO START QUOTING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? I have no idea why you believe that I think that the equation would not work at the top of an argon atmosphere. I said nothing of the sort.
w.
OK Willis, calm down. It seems to be implied by everything that you’ve said so far that temperature at the top of the argon atmosphere would be the same as at the bottom; I’ve quoted you on that before. If that’s so, then how, if T=pM/Rd? My apologies; you’ll note that all along I’ve been careful to quote what you’ve said and I wrongly assumed that the reference (above) would be obvious.
Here’s your quote on the GHG-free atmosphere again; although not the one I originally used, it says the same thing (Willis Eschenbach February 9, 2018 at 12:19 pm): “Heat will flow from the warmer air at the surface to the cooler air above. At the surface, this will set up a surface-atmosphere temperature difference, which means that heat will also flow from the surface to the atmosphere.
“Since the flow is spontaneous, and since the atmosphere CANNOT lose heat by radiation, heat will only spontaneously flow until the atmosphere is isothermal from the surface to the top.
And at that point, no further heat will flow either to or from the atmosphere.”
I think this is wrong; argon does emit electromagnetic energy (I looked it up) and so the parcel of atmosphere in which it resides must necessarily cool as the atoms lose kinetic energy. If argon cannot emit electromagnetic energy, then it can’t absorb it either, so the argon wouldn’t have heated up in the first place.
I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to find out EXACTLY what you mean, which is more subtle than what you say. Or, conversely, I’m trying to find out exactly what I don’t understand.
A final word. You’ll note that I never said that you said anything! I simply asked why would T=pM/Rd in an isothermal atmosphere, and your answer could have simply been, “it would.” Then we could’ve moved on more efficiently. I’m trying to understand your position; I’m not trying to prove you wrong. For now, the idea of an isothermal GHG-free atmosphere makes no sense to me.
Don132 February 10, 2018 at 9:23 am
Don, I note that you finally have quoted what you are talking about. As a result, I’m much calmer.
You say:
Argon doesn’t emit in the thermal IR range, which is the range we’re discussing. We’ve been through this on WUWT before, which is why I said that if anyone wants to start up with this nonsense again, they need to produce a graph showing the absorption lines. I don’t give a rat’s patootie if you “looked it up”. Graphs, or it is just handwaving. I notice that sadly, you paid little attention to that so now we’re sidetracked with your ignorance.
Finally, you say:
Don, read my comment again. What did I ask for, in capital letters, for the third or fourth time?
A quote of what you were referring to.
Here was your comment:
The clear implication in that is that I said it would not apply. Otherwise, you’d simply ask “So the question to Willis is, would T=pM/Rd apply at the top of his imaginary planet with an argon atmosphere”. So I asked you to quote where I’d said it would not apply.
In any case, the answer to the question you didn’t ask is yes, the Ideal Gas Law applies always and everywhere (with the caveat that no gas is perfectly ideal).
And to return to the subject of this post, that’s why Robert Holmes’s claim is not true. He claims that you can show CO2 doesn’t affect temperature because the Ideal Gas Law works … but the IGL works whether or not the surface is getting extra energy from downwelling thermal IR.
w.
The radiation, on an instanious basis is whatever is there. I think it’s going to vary a lot daily. But what it has little impact on is how much water there is in the air. Most the land areas dry out after a few days without rain. And it seems over the oceans, it just doesn’t make much difference.
But land Min T is invariant to changes in co2, water vapor is far more important and larger.
The energetic state change for the millionth time acts as a regulator. And you see that with the correlation between min temp and dew point.
Willis, you are a bit quick to take offense when none was intended. Nevertheless, I apologize again.
Willis Eschenbach February 10, 2018 at 10:29 am: “Argon doesn’t emit in the thermal IR range, which is the range we’re discussing. We’ve been through this on WUWT before, which is why I said that if anyone wants to start up with this nonsense again, they need to produce a graph showing the absorption lines.”
Now you’re putting words in my mouth: I never said that argon absorbs or emits IR energy. I think you’re assuming my point before I even make it; patience, please. Yes, YOU are talking about IR energy, but right now I am not, and I was not, and there’s a reason for that and it ties into our problem with an isothermic atmosphere without GHGs.
I did request that you not call me “ignorant”? I’m asking easy, elementary questions that should be extremely easy to answer, and I really am digging into it because I want to see if everyone understands what they’re saying– including me, and including you. I think you should be careful with your name-calling.
You have not said how argon heats up in the first place. How? I know it doesn’t absorb or emit IR, but it doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is that ANY electromagnetic energy it absorbs will cause its kinetic energy to rise and hence the velocity of the atoms to rise and hence (if the electromagnetic energy is sufficient) the temperature of a volume of gas composed of those argon atoms to rise. If not, then how does argon heat up on the surface of your imaginary planet in the first place? And if argon absorbs, then it MUST emit.
Spectral lines of argon can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon
Abstract:
“…Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa.” (=100 mbar)
At the moment, I see no way to calculate the surface temperature as a function of latitude, longitude and time of year. Holmes, please refine your method.
Paul Berberich February 10, 2018 at 1:53 am
That’s fairly easy to do. All you need to do is to express the three variables (the average near-surface atmospheric pressure, the average near surface atmospheric density and the average mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere) as functions of lat/lon/elevation/time, and you can do a pretty good job of matching observed temperatures … which only proves that yes, the Ideal Gas Law works always and everywhere …
In this regard you might enjoy “The Temperature Field“.
w.
I agree. But you have to measure at least the near surface atmospheric density as functions of lat/lon/elavation/time. For Venus (surface pressure 92 bar) you should use a real gas law. Gas thermometers are not very easy to use.
“In this regard you might enjoy “The Temperature Field“.”
Thanks, I enjoyed it. 40°N,74°W (New York), January 2014, your method: 15 °C, HADCRUT 4.6 data 0,6°C.
P. Berberich February 10, 2018 at 7:24 pm
My friend, if you were to actually read the article, it is valid only for annual averages … you could do one month by month, but that’s not what I did.
w.
The expression PV = nRT describes the relationship between “stuffs” physical properties of P, V, n and T. There are some suggesting that atmospheric pressure somehow causes atmospheric temperature. Not so, but let’s explore the basic science just a little bit.
But first for something completely different, specific heat capacity which:
for liquid water is 1 Btu/(1 lb 1 F) and for air 0.24 Btu/(1 lb 1 F).
Since these ratios equal 1 they can be inverted without concern:
for water (1 lb 1 F)/1 Btu and for air (4.17 lb 1 F)/1 Btu.
What these ratios represent is this:
for every Btu of energy input to 1 lb of liquid water the temperature will rise 1 F or to 2 lb will rise .5 F or to 0.25 lb will rise 4 F or any similar combinations.
for every Btu of energy input to 1 lb of air the temperature will rise 4.17 F or to 2 lb will rise 2.085 F or to 0.25 lb will rise 16.68 F or any similar combination.
Because of air’s lower density 1 Btu causes a much greater variation in temperature.
Let’s consider a cubicular Block o’ Stuff, BoS, with the following physical parameters (For discussion purposes ONLY!): P = 14.7 psig, 29.4 psia & V = 100 cu ft & n (number of molecules proxied by 100 lb) and T = 60 F, 520 R with a specific heat of 0.24 Btu/lb F.
Let’s add 1,000 Btu to this BoS by placing it in a 350 F oven or on a propane BBQ grille or under a 500 W halogen work light or on the asphalt beneath the midday sun. The BoS system does not care about the source of the Btu’s, just that they cross the boundary.
How will we know 1,000 Btu has been added? Simple. At 10 Btu/lb (1,000/100) the temperature will rise 41.7 F to 561.7 R or an increase of 8%.
What does this have to do with PV = nRT? How does PV=nRT respond to this external forcing?
If PV holds constant then n must decrease by 8%. Install a pressure relief valve set at 14.7 psig which will then lift until 8 lb leaves the system and maintains the cosmic balance.
Suppose the “stuff” is dangerous (H2S) and n must remain constant. If the sides of the BoS are flexible, V expands to 108 cu ft and maintains the cosmic balance.
Suppose BoS is inflexible and V and n are both constant then P must rise by 8 % to 31.75 psia maintaining the cosmic balance.
Consider the ubiquitous classical piston and cylinder. Start with 100 cu ft, push the piston half way into the cylinder – V is now half, P must double. What does PV = nRT have to say about T? NOTHING!! Reversible, adiabatic compression means no increase in T.
Was working a contract assignment in Olathe and staying in Overland Park. I would maintain the Jeep’s tire pressures at 34 psig. When I checked the tire pressure at home found them at about 36 psig. Overland Park is about 800 feet, home 6,300. Baro in OP was about 14 psia, home about 12 psia. 2 psi Δ explained neatly by PV=nRT.
A few years back we bought a new Honda CRV and drove to Phoenix to visit son and new granddaughter. It was cool for Phoenix when we left, low 40’s and as we climbed north out of the valley up I-17 the TPM alarm popped on. Now I didn’t know all the bells and whistles, but learned that the TPM did not use valve stem sensors, but monitored the tire speed with the ABS. The sun rising on the east was heating the right side tires and per PV=nRT the slightly higher pressure on the east side expanded the tires slightly, slowed the relative rotation and triggered the alarm.
Back to the original BoS, but replace it with a 1978 Pacer wagon. (Actually owned one, drove it well over 100k, was a good car.) Let’s place a reflective windshield panel which reflects away 30% of the incoming solar energy (ISR), an “atmospheric” albedo, so to speak. Only 700 Btu make it into the Pacer (ASR) BoS and the temperature rises not 41.7 F, but only 29.19 F. How about that, the “atmospheric” albedo lowers the “atmospheric” temperature in direct contradiction of RGHE.
So, the atmosphere is not like a set of concentric opaque dull spheres (A really dumb comparison, btw.), but like a 1978 Pacer wagon with a reflective sun shade behind the windshield and the side windows opened a bit. As the sun rises the interior air and surfaces gradually warm, peak shortly after the sun does and then begins to cool as the sun sets. Once the sun sets, the interior air and surfaces lose heat to the surroundings through all the heat processes: conduction, convection, advection, latent (Nearby sprinkler system waters it some.) and radiation: aka Q=UAdT.
In fact, actual real NOAA hourly temperature data for soil/ground and surface/air temperature trends demonstrate EXACTLY that. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html)
The science is indeed settled, RGHE and CAGW are as indefensible as phlogiston, luminiferous ether and cold fusion.
Surgical hygiene, plate tectonics, dark matter, et. al. suffered rather harsh beatings by the “consensus” until being accepted.
Seems ironic you support Ridd while your site belie his science positions and behaves more like his corporate assailants.
BTW I have been hammering RGHE/CAGW since 1989 in parallel with an engineering career where I actually really applied these scientific principles to actual real scenarios so with 11 years you’re kinda late to the party.
“Consider the ubiquitous classical piston and cylinder. Start with 100 cu ft, push the piston half way into the cylinder – V is now half, P must double. What does PV = nRT have to say about T? NOTHING!! Reversible, adiabatic compression means no increase in T.”
nickreality65, how does your engineering career where you actually really applied these scientific principles to actual real scenarios explain the diesel engine PV cycle?
The impossibility of an isothermal atmosphere is the key issue.
If it isn’t isothermal then it is convective.
If it is convective then the gases cool from expansion as they rise along the density gradient so that GHGs are unnecessary to create a lapse rate.
What goes up must come down so at any given moment half the atmosphere is descending.
The energy needed to fuel constant overturning must reside at the surface and cannot be radiated out to space if the mass of the atmosphere is to remain suspended off the surface against the downward force of gravity. Something must provide the upward pressure gradient force that balances the downward force of gravity and that can only be ‘extra’ heat at the surface.
That is the reason for the temperature enhancement above S-B for a planet with an atmosphere.
The S-B equation is only valid for a planet with an atmosphere when viewed from space since it is only at the boundary with space that energy transfers are wholly radiative and the S-B equation is wholly radiative.
At a surface beneath an atmosphere non radiative energy transfers are occurring and S-B does not then apply.
Stephen 9:59am: “What goes up must come down so at any given moment half the atmosphere is descending.”
Tests show the convective thermals rising can be replaced from fluid at the surface temperature no descending column evidence. This has been pointed out to Stephen and ignored. Even a foundational meteorology paper showing there is very little PE available to be converted to KE in the planet atm. has been presented which Stephen ignores since if it doesn’t agree with Stephen’s imagination the paper must be wrong.
“The S-B equation is only valid for a planet with an atmosphere when viewed from space since it is only at the boundary with space that energy transfers are wholly radiative and the S-B equation is wholly radiative.
Then IR thermometers would not work in the convective atm. but they do and with good precision.
“Something must provide the upward pressure gradient force that balances the downward force of gravity and that can only be ‘extra’ heat at the surface.”
Only in Stephen’s fertile imagination, the rest of science uses observations and tests to determine the physics of meteorology.
Willis,
I tend to agree with Robert Holmes that IR absorbing gases have little effect on global temperatures other than the daily solar-insolation-caused disruption of stable atmospheric temperature profiles determined by ideal gas laws on a hypothetical planet with an otherwise inert atmosphere receiving a constant energy input.
However, I also agree with you that planets don’t radiate to space more energy than they receive.
So it is a question of what best explains planet surface temperatures, ideal gas laws, S-B theory, or some combination of both, such as Nikolov and Zeller’s Unified Theory of Climate.
The answer is elusory because of the impossibility of testing hypothetical planets.
Willis, is this quote of yours from “A Matter of Some Gravity” correct?
I don’t think that is the conclusion they draw from their theories/hypotheses.
I also object to your disagreement with Hans Jelbring’s gravitational hypothesis on the basis of Robert Brown’s “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates.” Dr. Brown’s thought experiment assumes putting a conduit or shunt from the surface to the top of the cylinder will create a perpetual motion machine. Initially some energy transfer would occur taking advantage of the greater conductivity of the shunt. However, eventually the system will return to an equilibrium with a new temperature gradient adjusted for the new system’s overall conductivity.
Don132 February 10, 2018 at 5:36 am
The energy is indeed moved by conduction. Air, or any gas, conducts energy just like a liquid or a solid, except much slower.
The fact that the argon is not losing any energy over time, because it doesn’t radiate in the thermal IR region.
I don’t know what you mean by that term. In general it does NOT mean “Struck by thermal IR radiation.” Usually it means excited by a strong electromagnetic field, as in neon lights and Northern lights. We’re not discussing that. We’re talking about thermal IR.
See above.
It holds on to the energy because it cannot radiate it. I’m also unclear about the “source of the electromagnetic radiation”. If you mean the thermal IR from the surface, argon is totally transparent to thermal IR, doesn’t interact with it in the slightest.
Thanks, and my best to you,
w.
Thank you but IR energy is a distraction from the real issue, as I explain below. How does argon conduct energy? That is, what happens to argon when that gas gains heat?
Ummm, “above,” I guess comments got shifted around.
This is the crux of the matter as regards an isothermal atmosphere without GHGs:
Don132 February 10, 2018 at 1:40 pm: “[Willis has] not said how argon heats up in the first place. [except through conduction, but that’s not specific enough] How? I know it doesn’t absorb or emit IR, but it doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is that ANY electromagnetic energy it absorbs will cause its kinetic energy to rise and hence the velocity of the atoms to rise and hence (if the electromagnetic energy is sufficient) the temperature of a volume of gas composed of those argon atoms to rise. If not, then how does argon heat up on the surface of your imaginary planet in the first place? And if argon absorbs, then it MUST emit.”
Spectral lines of argon can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argon
A temperature of a gas is due to the number of collision of the atoms or molecules of the gas.
In terms of quantifying, the number and mass of atoms, there average velocity, and in within
a volume of space- say, cubic cm or cubic meter. So in room and at room temperature, one has millions of atom in volume a of cubic cm colliding with each other at the speed of bullets.
Or in cubic meter one has about 1.2 kg of air, which like 1.2 kg of bullets stay within the cubic meter colliding with each other [and there are zillions of them]. And if somehow don’t change there average velocity and don’t reduce the mass, but make the volume there in small, they collide more and therefore are a higher temperature. And instead increase the volume, they collide less and are a lower temperature.
Gases aren’t warmed by radiation, nor are cooled were they radiate radiation, they have a temperature because they collide with themselves and other matter- matter in different states other than gas- liquids, solids, and I suppose plasma [so that’s the four states of matter].
So argon would warm because it hits something warmer- like a surface of planet warmed by sunlight. And liquids and solids are bonded into molecule structures which vibrate and if they vibrate too much they change state- ;liquid, then gas [which has no structure] though if hotter it changes in plasma which does have structural aspect [weird molecular structures- due to the ionize nature of plasma]..
Don132, February 10, 2018 at 2:11 pm:
If I’m understanding Willis’s hypothetical scenario correctly, Don, the argon would be heated solely by conduction from the surface without any radiative input from any source.
You could say that the argon “absorbs” heat from the surface by conduction wherever the surface is warmer than the bottom of the argon atmosphere in contact with it. Conversely, you could say that the argon atmosphere “emits” heat back to the surface by conduction wherever the surface is cooler than the bottom of the atmosphere. No radiative interactions are required for this to occur.
Correct.
Which is why convective overturning is critical.
Critical to what, Stephen? I’m not seeing the connection.
Critical to getting kinetic energy back to the surface again so as to raise surface temperature above S-B.
Stephen, wouldn’t that require the convection cycle to return more KE to the surface than it extracted from the surface at the beginning of the cycle?
Why?
The dry lapse rate is the same both up and down for a completely non radiative atmosphere.
Why did you suggest that your example would cool more than the dry lapse rate on the way up?
Your parcel would still be warmer than the surroundings at the top because the rising parcel cools at the same rate as the surroundings.
Stephen Wilde, February 11, 2018 at 10:03 am:
Because, according to standard physics, the S-B temperature of the global surface is the maximum possible temperature that insolation alone can support. Therefore, it would not be physically possible to achieve a higher global surface temperature (i.e. a “temperature enhancement”) except by the introduction of another energy-source to supplement the insolation. As far as I can see, your concept of “convective overturning” does not do that: it simply returns to the surface the energy that it had previously removed from the surface at the beginning of the cycle and thus leaves the net energy-content of the surface unchanged, still at the S-B temperature.
If you still think that convective overturning can produce a temperature enhancement of 33°K, or even 1°K, on top of the S-B temperature at the surface, I would be grateful if you would point out the source of original energy that must be hidden in it to supplement the energy of insolation, because I can’t see it at the moment.
Where did I suggest that? I don’t think I did.
I don’t think it matters where it is warmer or cooler than its surroundings if at the end of the cycle it is only giving back to the surface the same energy that it took from the surface at the beginning.
Ongoing convection is net zero but the first convective cycle following formation of the atmosphere was not net zero so you then constantly have an additional amount of KE arriving at the surface in addition to continuing insolation for as long as the atmosphere remains in place.
“Ongoing convection is net zero but the first convective cycle following formation of the atmosphere was not net zero so you then constantly have an additional amount of KE arriving at the surface in addition to continuing insolation for as long as the atmosphere remains in place.”
.
Correct.
Come on guys; we have a LOT of down-welling LW radiation to explain! Far more that the energy input from the Sun! Where do you think it comes from?
Get out your pyrgeometers!
Best not to mention pyregeometers or we will be side tracked. The radiative proponents are wrongly interpreting their output but that is for another day.
Stephen just can’t accept the youtube convection experiments, prefers to rely only on his imagination: “..so you then constantly have an additional amount of KE arriving at the surface”
The thermal KE from the warmed surface fluid is transported & conducted, dissipated at altitude as shown by experiment; very little if any of that initial thermal KE arrives back at the surface. The atm. at large is the same way, very little PE is available to be converted to KE but Stephen doesn’t understand, won’t accept basic meteorology papers when they differ with his imagination.
Not a gas. Not a sphere illuminated from a point source. Wholly inapplicable.
Stephen Wilde, February 11, 2018 at 2:12 pm.
Thank you, Stephen, for acknowledging that “ongoing convection is net zero”. I think that means it is not an original source of the extra energy that is required to elevate the surface temperature above the S-B level – i.e. you are admitting implicitly that ongoing “convective overturning” cannot be responsible for causing the surface temperature enhancement which you have invoked it to explain.
Furthermore, although the first convective cycle following the formation of the atmosphere probably was not net zero as you say, I don’t think we do “then constantly have an additional amount of KE arriving at the surface in addition to continuing insolation for as long as the atmosphere remains in place.”. According to standard physics again, such an additional amount of surface K.E. would gradually radiate away into space and decline until the surface-atmosphere system reached radiative equilibrium with its cosmic environment, whereupon that initial charge of surface K.E. would effectively be gone and unable to contribute appreciably to the elevation of the global mean surface temperature above the S-B level.
In the case of Willis’s hypothetical ideal planet with a totally transparent argon atmosphere, I think it is assumed a priori that this initial charge of extra surface K.E. has already been radiated away and the planet is now in radiative equilibrium with its cosmic environment. In the case of the Earth, I think we can safely make the same assumption that the initial charge of surface K.E. has radiated away long ago, although the question of whether the planet can be considered to be in radiative equilibrium with its cosmic environment is currently open to dispute of course.
That initial slug of extra KE is constantly replenished by ongoing convection. If it were not so the atmosphere would fall to the ground.
Stephen Wilde, February 12, 2018 at 1:20 am:
No, it isn’t, Stephen. When the first atmospheric convection cycle came into existence as the atmosphere formed, the surface was boiling lava! The surface had so much K.E. that if it was still retained to this day as you are saying it is, the planet’s surface would still be boiling lava and the surface temperature would be in the 1,000’s of degrees Celsius.
Also, vertical atmospheric convection cycles do not normally replenish any of the K.E. that they extract from the surface. Rather, they tend to function as highly efficient heat-transport mechanisms that remove heat from the surface and deposit it higher in the atmosphere. Heat flows into the cycle at the bottom where the circulating air is warmed by the surface, and flows out of the cycle at the top where the circulating air is cooled by its colder surroundings. So the heat that is absorbed from the surface at the beginning of the cycle is not returned to the surface at the end of the cycle (because it has already left the cycle at the top) and the K.E. of the surface is not replenished as you say it is.
I don’t think so. The atmosphere would be sustained in its gaseous phase by on-going insolation. No additional support from residual primaeval energy would be necessary.
The lava heat was radiated to space by the surface. That primaeval heat is long gone but is nothing to do with my hypothesis.
The only heat I refer to is that which continues to be engaged in convective overturning to this day.
For a non GHG atmosphere there is no way of losing it to space other than by returning it to the surface again in convective descent. It then departs to space from the surface in the usual way but is replaced by continuing conduction from the surface.
It is indeed obtained from solar energy and is replenished from the surface and delivered back to the surface constantly in a never ending loop whilst the atmosphere still exists.
Without it the atmosphere would fall to the ground.
Stephen Wilde, February 12, 2018 at 5:31am:
I’m not following you. Did you not just say above, February 12, 2018 at 1:20 am, “That initial slug of extra KE is constantly replenished by ongoing convection.”? If, by “that initial slug”, you were not referring to the monstrous charge of kinetic energy that the first atmospheric convection cycle must have received from the primaeval surface at 1,000’s of degrees Celsius, to what were you referring exactly?
And if that vast “initial slug” is still being replenished to the surface today, why has the surface not been restored to its original temperature and still boiling?
This is not making any sense to me, Stephen.
Agreed.
I think you are overlooking conduction here. It might act more slowly than convection, but it does act. Also, I think convective descent could not occur in such an atmosphere at equilibrium. (Hence, no convection at all, in fact.) This is because no cooling could occur at the top of the atmosphere to make the air there contract to a greater density to enable it to sink.
I’ was simply referring to the energy conducted and convected from surface to air and back again to the surface when the first convective cycle closed the loop.
I was assuming a background surface temperature of 255K as per S-B and an additional component of 33K from the convective process.
If you read y complete narrative you should not be confused and I have linked to it several times in this thread already.
Stephen Wilde, February 12, 2018 at 12:24 pm:
But that would have been when the surface was still boiling lava.
I think those assumptions are wrong. Lava doesn’t boil at 255K.
Also, you cannot get an extra 33K “temperature enhancement” at the surface without introducing an extra energy-source to support it, as I’ve already pointed out above. Convection merely redistributes energy within the surface-atmosphere system and does not provide any more energy than insolation is already providing, so it cannot serve as the additional energy-source that your theory needs it to be to explain where the energy that supports the surface temperature enhancement is coming from – unless you are happy for it to violate basic physical laws like the 1st law of thermodynamics, of course.
I never said that I was confused. I said that your argument does not make sense to me.
Willis says,
All that Robert Holmes has shown is that the atmospheres of various planets obey, to a good approximation, the Ideal Gas Law.
… So what?
I mean that quite seriously. So what? In fact, it would be a huge shock if planetary atmospheres did NOT generally obey the Ideal Gas Law. After all, they’re gases, and it’s not just a good idea. It’s a Law …
T =pM/Rd is a law because it represents what happens. It is also a physical model.
It tell us that it does not matter how much energy is entering and leaving the system as long as there is enough to keep the system as a gas
They will ALWAYS generally obey the Ideal Gas Law, no matter how they are heated
Or how much, as long as it keeps the atmosphere as a gas
And more to the point, this does NOT show that greenhouse gases don’t do anything, as he incorrectly claims
More CO2 will change p,d and M. But as CO2 is only 0.04% even doubling that will have very little effect.
Is it T causes p/d or p/d causes T
Eschenbach says
sun, CO2 causes T
T causes p/d
Holmes says
sun and chemical history cause p/d
p/d causes T
I think the evidence supports Holmes
“sun and chemical history cause p/d
p/d causes T”
And, the earths rotation, with the atmosphere becoming a charge/discharge heat store, results in an overall 33C warming, the so called “greenhouse effect”. IE, the GHGs make no difference, other than the change in Molar Mass density.(0.03 C)
Whether an all Argon atmosphere for our earth could do the same is very doubtful in my mind, because I cannot imagine conduction, especially at night, being adequate to discharge that stored heat. Daytime winds might quickly warm the Argon atmosphere, thus cooling the earth.
sailboarder February 11, 2018 at 6:04 am
Heat storage capacity of the entire atmosphere is equal to that of 2-3 meter water.
Sun warms at least the upper ~120 meter of ocean.
http://www.oc.nps.edu/nom/day1/annual_cycle.gif
Seems to me the oceans are the major heat store for solar energy
Atmospheric heat obtained from the surface beneath rising columns of air is returned to the surface beneath descending columns of air.
Ben you said “Seems to me the oceans are the major heat store for solar energy”
I don’t think it matters what the heat store is. The 33C increase in GAT over a bare rock can be provided by any charge/discharge mechanism. That is the corollary of the authors rejection of the need for a GHG. The obvious conclusion is that “something else” provides the 33C. I think you are right, that the oceans are a massive heat capacitor taking away the hottest time of the day, and thus the prevention of earths maximum cooling rate. (T*4). In general then the “greenhouse effect” on any planet is not knowable without probes to determine the existence of heat charge/discharge features. If I recall, Willis used a moon probe or landing measurement data of the regolith to calculate the surface heat absorption/discharge ability. His moon AT calculations were remarkably accurate.
sailboarder February 11, 2018 at 4:21 pm
If we use the moon as our bare rock, its GAT is ~197K. Dayside temperatures are roughly radiative balance temperatures, nightside is way above radiative balance (~3K). So to explain why the GAT on Earth is ~90K higher than on our moon I don’t think the atmosphere will provide the answer. Imo we need to understand how the deep oceans can be some 70K warmer than GAT of the moon. Starting from there solar energy is perfectly capable of INCREASING the temperature of the surface layer of the oceans some.
All the atmosphere has to do is slow the energy loss to space, no warming of the surface and deep oceans required or possible.
Ben ” So to explain why the GAT on Earth is ~90K higher than on our moon I don’t think the atmosphere will provide the answer.”
That’s why I suggested that the author or his colleagues have another paper to write. If it even comes close to validating that Argon and our atmosphere gives the same warming of 33C.. that would be a blockbuster. If not..
Roger Clague February 11, 2018 at 4:44 am
Is it T causes p/d or p/d causes T
Eschenbach says
sun, CO2 causes T
T causes p/d
Sun and GHG causes T
P due to mass of atmosphere
V depends on T
M depends on composition which doesn’t change significantly
Holmes tries to hide the fact that V is one of the variables. Change the heat transfer properties of the atmosphere and the T will change and consequently the V will change.
Except that T does not change from the introduction of GHGs so V can be ignored.
“Except that T does not change from the introduction of GHGs..”
Proven false in numerous independent lab experiments.
Stephen Wilde February 12, 2018 at 1:37 pm
Except that T does not change from the introduction of GHGs so V can be ignored.
Not true, that’s your supposition, and of course it invalidates the ‘frollly’ argument based on his improper use of the IGL.
When what happens is we are dealing with mass in the gas phase, and the gas laws rule as even Willis admits, all else is fluff. Thoughties can never come near the empirical and tested facts, just blind rabbit holes. The only ones worth looking at at all are to remove governing factors one by one and figure what that does. Then things become obvious if still no substitute for the data we have. A lot of that came to us when JPL was run by a fellow Kiwi’ so no nonsense. Grin.
Argon would radiate, but as SW noted years ago, we might lose the atmosphere…. But it is irrelevant.Trumped by reality.
As per expts shown to Willis before, Argon radiates at similar power to CO2. That is admitted to be too little to matter, hence the false positive effect on water ghe claimed. Just tripe.
As pointed out several times here Argon does not radiate at all, you are mistaken.
“As pointed out several times here Argon does not radiate at all..”
If so, then Phil. has discovered what dark matter is made of – argon gas atoms! A note to PNAS would be helpful here Phil., to get the word out. Solves a lot of astronomy and cosmology questions.
Trick February 12, 2018 at 6:00 pm
?zoom=2
“As pointed out several times here Argon does not radiate at all..”
If so, then Phil. has discovered what dark matter is made of – argon gas atoms! A note to PNAS would be helpful here Phil., to get the word out. Solves a lot of astronomy and cosmology questions.
No need they already know that argon will not absorb wavelengths above EUV and despite your assertions to the contrary you’ve failed to produce any links to the data you claim exist. Here’s the actual data:
“they already know that argon will not absorb wavelengths above EUV”
Phil. now admits that Ar does radiate, counters his own assertion that Ar does not radiate at all. Ok, I then agree no PNAS article needed, Ar is not any longer Phil.s candidate for dark matter.
As I wrote above I’m not interested in re-spending the time re-litigating that Ar weakly radiates in the thermal IR from rotational and vibrational quantum jumps shown in experiments that were a research topic of the 1930s applying Planck’s earlier research in thermal radiation. Any actually interested party in the science can find the experimental research at the local college library up in the stacks just as I did. By allowing a research librarian to happily do their job.
PS: I will add a note Phil. does not give a ref. for his chart.
Trick February 13, 2018 at 6:17 am
“they already know that argon will not absorb wavelengths above EUV”
Phil. now admits that Ar does radiate, counters his own assertion that Ar does not radiate at all. Ok, I then agree no PNAS article needed, Ar is not any longer Phil.s candidate for dark matter.
I admitted nothing of the sort, I was referring to my earlier posts in the context of this discussion which was that argon does not radiate when illuminated with IR. As you know well since in the earlier comments you claimed that 1930s experiments said that it did so. Of course the only reference you gave was to an experiment using an electronic discharge not IR, tricky by name tricky by nature!
As I wrote above I’m not interested in re-spending the time re-litigating that Ar weakly radiates in the thermal IR from rotational and vibrational quantum jumps shown in experiments that were a research topic of the 1930s applying Planck’s earlier research in thermal radiation. Any actually interested party in the science can find the experimental research at the local college library up in the stacks just as I did. By allowing a research librarian to happily do their job.
And you won’t find any such papers. It’s not that hard to do and does’t require accessing the stacks of your library, just go to the Phys Chem section and take a look at Herzberg’s “Atomic Spectroscopy” as I told you before, and you’ll find that there are no rotational or vibrational levels to jump to!
PS: I will add a note Phil. does not give a ref. for his chart.
Well on my computer the reference shows up and I’ve actually linked to the numerical data from which it’s made before. That graph can be found in a number of places, I thought that one was a very good example.
Google ‘argon energy levels’ and you’ll get a bunch of them.
The one I showed came from here:
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532011000600011
What it clearly shows is that the lowest excited state requires excitation by nearly 12 eV, not accessible by IR.
”I admitted nothing of the sort, I was referring to my earlier posts in the context of this discussion which was that argon does not radiate when illuminated with IR.”
A clarification/change from 1:39pm, you now use more precise language. Which has been experimentally proven inaccurate. You simply reach the green level of Willis’ pyramid again.
Your link does not contain the graph you claim unless it is one of the ref.s & googling “argon energy levels” does produce the chart you linked previously but, again, no ref. given.
I’m truly not interested in re-litigating experimentally determined rotational and vibrational monatomic Ar thermal IR lines (weak intensity, long photographic exposure times) as it took 1-2 weeks effort to find the original research in the college library stacks the first time and I gave you the cites once before, they are not on the ‘net that I could find at the time as they were from the ~1930s. It is your loss not looking them up & reading to discuss them then & not mine as I learned from reading the specialist experimental papers & specialist text passages citing them.
Search this site, find the original discussion if interested in learning & discussing. Been there, done that.
–And here’s the abstract:
” Abstract: It has always been complicated mathematically, to calculate the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with a thick atmosphere. Usually, the Stefan Boltzmann (S-B) black body law is used to provide the effective temperature, then debate arises about the size or relevance of additional factors, including the ‘greenhouse effect’. Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 10kPa.”–
….
–Dang … “adiabatic auto-compression” as a permanent energy source. Is it patented yet?
Please forgive my sarcasm, I just get tired of endless claims of endless energy … onwards. Here is a look at the various planetary atmospheres:–
It doesn’t say it’s energy source.
And not many people think greenhouse effect is energy source, either.
And no one has predicted a planet’s average temperature by using the the greenhouse effect theory, but this “adiabatic auto-compression” idea is used, but as said, it’s called lapse rate.
If you know temperature at certain elevation, the air temperature decrease as you go higher and increase if go lower in elevation.
When the Mediterranean Sea Dried Up Five Million Years Ago — ScienceDaily
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090211122529.htm
which is called Messinian salinity crisis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis
It known that at bottom of dried up basin that air temperatures would be hotter, and there is
evidence of this high air temperature.
And I would say that such air temperature would be highest air temperature found anywhere and any time on earth- and occuring in a glacial period. Unless there times with a deeper dried up basin. We talking +70 C or much warmer the highest air temperature recorded in Death Valley California, 56.7 C in 10 July 1913.
Anyhow having a dried out sea, isn’t an energy source, it’s just the result of lapse rate or “adiabatic auto-compression”.
And it’s realized that the heated air comes from warmed regions around the basin- or heated air occurs at higher elevation than basin floor.
And I would say the same thing occurs with Venus- the air is heated at level of the Venus clouds.
Oh, re: “no one has predicted a planet’s average temperature by using the greenhouse effect theory”
Earth’s average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land surface temperature is 10 C. The greenhouse effect theory didn’t predict this.
Stephen Wilde February 11, 2018 at 7:44 am
DALR (dry rate) is ~9,8K/km.
So while the rising air cools 9,8K during its ascend the static atmosphere at 1 km is 6,5K colder.
Here stops this rising parcel.
My slip up.
You were using the dry rate and the average rate. The difference is due to water vapour but we are discussing a non radiative atmosphere without water vapour. In that case the dry rate is all that matters.
Stephen Wilde February 11, 2018 at 10:46 am
Huh? Convection stops when the atmosphere is thermally stable. In general, this occurs most nights. So the stopping of convection is quite common.
Next, in my proof, conduction from the surface to the atmosphere as well as convection both cease once the atmosphere is at the temperature of the surface. After that, there is no ∆T anywhere to drive conduction or convection.
No, that’s just your fantasy. Willis has never seen your request until this very comment.
If your question regards my proof as to how convection is prevented, it is prevented by the evolution of an isothermal non-GHG atmosphere. That non-GHG atmosphere cannot lose energy by radiation.
As a result, if the atmosphere started out colder than the surface, it will gain energy from the surface by conduction/convection until there is no longer any vertical thermal gradient.
At that point, both conduction and convection would cease permanently.
I suspect that your confusion is that you think that the lapse rate is inherent in the atmosphere. It is not. Read “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” for a clear explanation of why.
The short explanation goes like this. Imagine a very tall perfectly insulated sealed pipe containing air. IF the lapse rate (decrease of temperature with altitude) exists as an inherent feature of the final steady-state condition of the air inside the insulated pipe, then there would be a permanent temperature difference between the air at the bottom and the top of the pipe.
And if that were so, we could use a heat engine to extract work from that permanent temperature difference … but that is a perpetual motion machine which we know is impossible.
Regards,
w.
I agree that convection ceases when an isothermal condition exists. Technically, conduction could still flow transferring heat in a steady state situation.
However, I don’t think Prof. Brown’s “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” can be used as definitive proof of an isothermal atmosphere. His thought experiment assumes the pipe from the surface to the top of the cylinder will continue to transfer heat indefinitely. Initially some energy transfer would occur taking advantage of the greater conductivity of the pipe. However, the system will return eventually to an equilibrium with a new temperature gradient adjusted for the new system’s overall conductivity.
Chic is correct.
Willis: ”Read (the link) for a clear explanation of why.”
See the integral of eqn. 5 in the link. T(z) is taken out from under the dz integral without explanation. Thus, T is assumed constant over z (as is M,g,R).
Then the conclusion eqn. 6 is said to describe a gas that is: “2. In thermal equilibrium. There is no thermal gradient in the gas to drive the conduction of heat.”
Of course there is no thermal gradient, that simply follows from the earlier assumption T was constant over z in the integration!
”And if that were so, we could use a heat engine to extract work from that permanent temperature difference…”
No, you could not. The entropy is maximized at that point & can no longer be increased, there is no possibility of running a heat engine. If you drop in a silver wire, you have added entropy which will proceed to increase until a higher maximum entropy is reached. The heat engine will then stop & still exhibit a lapse T(z) as Chic writes. This was proven in Bohren 1998 Chapter 4.4. Top triangle on Willis’ pyramid.
“However, I don’t think Prof. Brown’s “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” can be used as definitive proof of an isothermal atmosphere. His thought experiment assumes the pipe from the surface to the top of the cylinder will continue to transfer heat indefinitely. Initially some energy transfer would occur taking advantage of the greater conductivity of the pipe. However, the system will return eventually to an equilibrium with a new temperature gradient adjusted for the new system’s overall conductivity.”
Silver is good conductor, but taking about conducting over hundreds of meter and with low temperature difference. Or forget a silver wire, a silver cylinder encasing the gas would be problematic in terms conducting much heat over a 10 meter distance. But if you could have magical material, it seems the result would a better average or uninform molecular velocity- rather than higher temperature
better answer: one could make the air column, not effected by gravity, as much. Or a solid silver pole would conduct heat better than having silver cylinder filled will air. But filling with air could save cost of using solid silver.
I think you could have similar thing happening with water vapor- it’s improving or nullifying the effect of gravity. So maybe silver and wet air could get something like 3 or 4 C per 1000 meter.
Or a metal temperature isn’t affected by gravity, though conic shape of metal transfers less heat via conduction,
“As a result, if the atmosphere started out colder than the surface, it will gain energy from the surface by conduction/convection until there is no longer any vertical thermal gradient.”
So the conduction/conduction would stop during the night and begin again in day, as per what you said: “Convection stops when the atmosphere is thermally stable. In general, this occurs most nights. So the stopping of convection is quite common.”
And would stop “forever” when hottest part of day wasn’t hot enough to cause conduction/convection.?
Because the air was too warm to continue to warm even at hottest part of the day
And roughly speaking, in clear day and when sun at zenith, on Earth surface ground temperature is about 70 C and air temperature is about 50 C.
Then air stays at 50 C and ground cools during the night?
Now I would say is that ground conducts/convects heat to atmosphere when ground is warmer than air, and ground is warmest near noon, but if air was 50 C, then by around 4 pm, sun wouldn’t heat ground higher than 50 C, so it couldn’t warm air.
Or if you don’t have warm air, one doesn’t need to wait until night.
And on earth one could have cloudy days where sunlight doesn’t warm the ground.
With no greenhouse gases, one would always have clear days- unless it was dust storm or a volcanic eruption.
So anyhow, without greenhouse gases, the tropics would have an average air temperature of about 50 C as compared to our tropics of 26 C?.
Wouldn’t colder air of rest of world cool the 50 C tropics so that it could warm up, again- thereby warm up rest of the world’s air temperature by some amount?
“I suspect that your confusion is that you think that the lapse rate is inherent in the atmosphere. It is not. Read “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” for a clear explanation of why.”
What is inherent is density gradient of the gases of an atmosphere.
And if average velocity of the gases is the same in column of air then air will
warmer at bottom of column as compare to top and this is due to gravity and the weight
of the gases.
And mass of gas could be 1.2 kg per cubic meter and weight of 1000 meters is 1200 kg
though there is density gradient when vertical, so might be 1.2 at bottom and 1.1 kg per
cubic meter at the top and reduction by about 10% of mass of gas molecules that makes the air
temperature colder at higher elevation. Or KE = 1/2 mass time velocity squared.
KE is kinetic energy but it also air temperature [air temperature is solely kinetic energy].
Or standard .atm:
0 meters : 15 C and air density is 1.225 kg per cubic meter
1000 meter 8.5 C and air density is 1.112 kg per cubic meter
And if air wetter than standard atm there would less difference in temperature
and if air was drier, that standard there would more difference in temperature
So if have sealed cylinder with nitrogen only and was 1 km long and had 1.2 kg of N2
per cubic meter, and went from being level with ground to be vertical to ground.
The gas would increase in temperature, increase in pressure and increase in density
at bottom, and would decrease temperature, pressure and density at the top.
And if let pressure at bottom, out, until psig of 0, you get the dry lapse rate, so if 15 C at bottom
then its about 5 C at the top..
Willis:
“Huh? Convection stops when the atmosphere is thermally stable. In general, this occurs most nights. So the stopping of convection is quite common.”
Only when the surface cools faster than the air to form an inversion layer. That layer is quickly broken down by insolation the next day and convection resumes so that is not a useful example.
Insolation is always uneven so convection cannot be prevented. No atmosphere around a sphere illuminated from a single sun can ever become thermally stable, or do you have a better suggestion?
“And if that were so, we could use a heat engine to extract work from that permanent temperature difference … but that is a perpetual motion machine which we know is impossible.”
That is not correct any more than power from a water wheel is perpetual motion.
If one could power anything from ongoing convection then one would simply be drawing energy from the ongoing flow of solar energy through the system and the vigour of convection would decline infinitesimally thus observing conservation of energy.
Furthermore an isothermal atmosphere could never be in hydrostatic equilibrium.
“Furthermore an isothermal atmosphere could never be in hydrostatic equilibrium.”
Come on Stephen, read up on meteorology, the standard Earth atm. has the stratosphere isothermal for about 9-10km of z height and for the most part in hydrostatic equilibrium.
Observations show that you can have an isothermal layer within an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium because equal and opposite lapse rate slope adjustments are made elsewhere by convective changes.
Anyway, that isothermal layer is caused by radiative ozone flattening the lapse rate slope but the radiative theory says radiative gases create the lapse rate slope so you have a problem there.
No problem Stephen. The lapse rate above tropopause goes to zero as the stratosphere gases including O3 absorb radiation from above thus that fluid is warmed from above (convection ceases) NOT warmed from below by surface radiation, convection and conduction as in the troposphere.
The argument is over: the gravitationists have won, and Frolly has demonstrated this through an irrefutable argument: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2741567
It’s no use arguing from your paradigm to counter what Frolly has laid out; we all try to reason things out from our paradigms, but in this case there is simply nowhere for you to turn: you’ve been defeated through a simple and elegant logic. That logic was I was looking for in the first place when I took on trying to understand what everyone was saying in this discussion.
The gracious thing would be for Willis and Anthony to admit this and to remove the Holmes paper from the “bad science” category.
Signed,
A Logician
Agreed.
Frolly has reduced it to its simplest elements but to understand WHY and HOW you need to read my step by step narrative:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/stephen-wilde-how-conduction-and-convection-cause-a-greenhouse-effect-arising-from-atmospheric-mass/
Anthony really should remove the ‘bad science’ label or make it clear that he is referring to Willis’s critique.
Trick February 11, 2018 at 1:34 pm
The rising fluid does NOT warm the ambient fluid: Adiabatic assumption.
When the rising fluid reaches its max height, its density (~temperature) is equal to that of the surrounding fluid. The excess energy collected at the surface has been spent in expanding against the surrounding fluid during ascent. Nothing left to warm ambient fluid.
The adiabatic assumption for gases (NOT liquids) is actually that the rising parcel cools at the same rate as the surroundings so that the temperature differential remains all the way to the top unless an inversion layer is reached along the way.
Once at the top the parcel is pushed to one side by warmer air coming up from below until the flow from below no longer supports it whereupon it sinks back to the surface and gets back to the surface with the excess energy intact.
Thus it never warms the ambient gases but it does warm the surface when it gets back down to it.
What gets taken from the surface adiabatically gets returned to the surface adiabatically.
Stephen Wilde February 12, 2018 at 6:59 am
Sorry, but this shows you have no clue what atmospheric convection actually is.
Suggest to start with eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate
(forget the greenhouse nonsense someone sneaked in)
I assure you that is correct for the pure adiabatic process after stripping out all confounding factors. There is nothing in your link that say otherwise.
For an argon atmosphere it would be the pure process.
Anyway, just apply logic. Since the surroundings cool at the same rate as the parcel of gas then how would the temperature differential change?
“The rising fluid does NOT warm the ambient fluid: Adiabatic assumption.”
Only for a fluid parcel that doesn’t rise (not buoyant) on its own Ben, a parcel on the DALR or if moist MALR. The convection process depends on the warmed fluid being buoyant in the gravity field, rising while dumping off avg. internal kinetic energy until it cools to upper fluid ambient T & stops rising. This process warms the fluid above the rising convection columns. The surface fluid as experimentally shown moves in beneath the rising columns at surface ambient to a major extent, descending columns are not generally observed in nature, only in Stephen’s imagination.
Stephen Wilde February 12, 2018 at 9:12 am
Don’t know where you got the impression that rising air cools at the same rate as the temperature in the surrounding air decreases with altitude.
Average from many temperature profiles is ~6,5 K/km (Standard Atmosphere). The DALR is ~9,8 K/km.
The release of latent heat reduces the DALR to the MALR as long as latent heat is available.
So no, the internal temperature of rising (or sinking) air changes independently of the surrounding (static) air.
We were discussing the raw adiabatic assumption free of other factors such as water vapour. The average in ascent is less than the dry rate because water vapour releases latent heat of condensation. However, in so far as that latent heat release sends convection higher the energy involved in uplift is fully recovered in the subsequent descent because of the greater lapse rate in descent so the effect of water vapour nets out to zero.
The raw adiabatic assumption is as I said.
Trick February 12, 2018 at 5:06 pm
Yes, but the rising air does not use internal kinetic energy to rise. It is pushed up by the pressure of the air below as long as the parcel is not at the correct height given its density (~temperature)
The internal kinetic energy is is not lost to the surrounding air, the temperature reduces since the parcel expands into the lower pressure of the surrounding air.
“The internal kinetic energy is is not lost to the surrounding air, the temperature reduces since the parcel expands into the lower pressure of the surrounding air.”
For the adiabatic parcel which is NOT buoyant. It sits still.
The convecting fluid parcels in the video that are rising convective columns are warming the surroundings in the videos at the expense of losing internal kinetic energy i.e. cooling diabatically. When they equilibrate T with surroundings T they stop ascending.
Ben is confusing adiabatic expansion with diabatic convective rising columns of parcels.
Trick February 13, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Obviously one of us is confused. I’m confident it’s not me.
See eg http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/501/
or http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
The assumption is that rising (or sinking) parcels do so adiabatically. Otherwise the simple -g/Cp would obviously not be possible.
I do hope you’re not one of the many people who believe that -g/Cp has anything to say about the temperature profiles of our atmosphere.
”The assumption is that rising (or sinking) parcels do so adiabatically.”
Only for deriving g/Cp. A parcel actually rising (buoyant) or descending (heavier than surrounding fluid) as shown in the convection videos is not on the g/Cp slope, they are diabatic. Parcels exactly on the g/Cp slope aren’t buoyant or too heavy, as they are virtually moved along the slope so any virtual displacement for these parcels is assumed ideally adiabatic. No real process is adiabatic and the videos are real processes.
g/Cp slope is derived from assumptions the instantaneous parcel being at the same temperature and the same pressure as its surroundings so it is neutral stable, neither buoyant nor too heavy.
Trick February 14, 2018 at 8:13 am
No. The assumption is that the rising parcel adjusts to the pressure of the surrounding air (NOT the temperature) and thus increases its volume, doing work in expanding. This results in the cooling rate of -g/Cp.
The adiabatic assumption holds since air is a lousy conductor, the volumes involved are large and the time span of the process is small.
Stephen Wilde February 13, 2018 at 1:03 pm
The adiabatic assumption includes the release of latent heat by condensation. The WV content of a rising parcel is a given from the moment a parcel starts is ascent.
For a simple summary:
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/501/
More elaborate:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/atm_phys.html
But here’s the thing: if we start relying too much on the how and why then we start getting into arguments over the how and why– this is amply demonstrated above. Then each person starts arguing from their self-consistent paradigms and the result is a mess, frankly. If we can stick to the logic of the arguments insofar as this is possible and just try to get clear about what we’re saying, then we’re much more likely to find out what and where our errors are.
If we want to defend our paradigms we can do that until we’re blue in the face, and since our paradigms are (hopefully!) internally self-consistent, we make perfect sense to ourselves and to those who share our paradigm. And we get nowhere. Surprise!
Frolly has cut through all this with Occam’s razor. His argument has great clarity. Here it is stripped-down even more:
Major premise: GHGs raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
_______________________________
Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.
Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has GHGs and the other does not.
Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.
_______________________________
Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else GHGs do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
The conclusion is irrefutable, unless one of the minor premises is refutable.
Signed, an (ignorant) Logician
Once again I placed my comment in the wrong place. This was a reply to Stephen Wilde February 12, 2018 at 5:46 am: “Frolly has reduced it to its simplest elements but to understand WHY and HOW you need to read my step by step narrative….”
“Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else GHGs do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.”
Add: If GHGs do not raise the temperature, then earths 33C “greenhouse effect” is due to the atmospheric damping the cooling, leading to a warmer earth. Argon would do the same, as Entropy is always maximized.
sailboarder: why complicate what’s already a simple, elegant, and powerful argument? All you need is what Frolly stated.
True, but the layman, especially politicians, will only understand the latter.
“All you need is what Frolly stated.”
Well, and NASA measuring the various density(z) for each planet used by Frolly to compute P=density*R*T. Nothing new or novel in what Frolly has essentially back calculated, the IGL is useful tool for atm. fluids. I wouldn’t call it bad science, just non-useful science.
It is certainly bad science to claim as Frolly does that “there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth” and that “near-surface temperature is actually caused by adiabatic auto-compression.” The NASA measured density(z) would contain those effects.
Since NASA hasn’t measured exoplanet density(z) the top post process can not be used to find exoplanet T(z). However using radiative balance at the exoplanet orbits both T(0) and to a certain extent T(z) are readily estimated.
Trick February 12, 2018 at 5:23 pm:
“Well, and NASA measuring the various density(z) for each planet used by Frolly to compute P=density*R*T. Nothing new or novel in what Frolly has essentially back calculated, the IGL is useful tool for atm. fluids. I wouldn’t call it bad science, just non-useful science.”
Nice try, Trick. The temperature of earth has been directly measured, and all you need is that one example that Frolly/Holmes laid out to prove the theory of GHG warming wrong.
Who was it that said you only need one experiment to prove a theory wrong? In this case, it was an experiment in the logic of the claim that GHGs warm an atmosphere. That logic failed utterly and completely. Either the gas laws are wrong, or greenhouse gases don’t warm an atmosphere: there is no escape from that conclusion.
The problem as I see it is that the radiative paradigm has captured our imaginations and allegiance but it’s apparently only a small part of the story of how our atmosphere works. People who have lived with this paradigm don’t want to give it up, and they don’t have to; they just have to put it in its proper place. Still, even that’s a big step.
“Either the gas laws are wrong, or greenhouse gases don’t warm an atmosphere: there is no escape from that conclusion.”
These are both correct Don, the science is well tested. All Frolly did was use NASA neasured density in his calculations which he obtained from the listed ref.s. Frolly would not have been able to make the calculations with data if NASA hadn’t been there first using the same IGL formula – shown in his listed ref.s.
Trick February 13, 2018 at 6:02 am:
“All Frolly did was use NASA measured density in his calculations which he obtained from the listed ref.s.”
OK, just use PV=nRT and results are still very close.
I doubt that the science is “well-tested,” as you say. I suspect that the only thing that has happened is that answers have been found that confirm the paradigm used.
Those bullet points have been clear to some of us for a long time.
In order to get it across to others it has been necessary to go messily into the how and why and as for that my narrative is the only step by step description I have ever seen.
Unfortunately there are many who just do not accept that which you now accept.
No, Stephen. All you need are the bullet points. Nothing else is needed. The details are merely details that MUST follow the basic logic.
We’re having trouble with this because people have abandoned logic and instead defend paradigms.
Sadly the bullet points haven’t worked thus far. Hopefully they might in future but there is one huge mountain to climb against the establishment view.
Most people do not trust bullet points unless backed by a plausible narrative. They already get too much in the way of bullet points in marketing efforts on a daily basis.
It’s not about bullet points. It’s about people opening their minds, stop defending paradigms, and listening to the facts and the logic: the stuff they supposedly teach in college.
I don’t disagree. That is what should happen. What are you going to do about it?
I’m doing it right now.
Good, keep at it. I’m ten years in 🙂
Don132 February 12, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Couldn’t agree more. The whole idea that our atmosphere (low density, low temperature, low heat storage capacity) can INCREASE the surface temperatures (and thus the deep oceans and maybe even the increasing temps in the crust?) by whatever mechanism is bizar.
Don wrote: “Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.
Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has GHGs and the other does not.
Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.
_______________________________
Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else GHGs do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
Don, your formula depends on pressure and density. The density of a planet’s atmosphere is not a fundamental property of a planet*.
The pressure at various altitudes in various atmospheres is determined by the weight of the gas overhead. That is fundamental.
The density of various atmospheres is determined by BOTH temperature and pressure according to the IGL.
n/V = P/RT.
What controls temperature? Radiation! More precisely, irradiation by the sun, planetary albedo, and planetary emissivity. (We can define the effective emissivity for a whole planet in terms of surface temperature, to a avoid the complications of dealing with the emissivity of semi-transparent gases whose temperature varies with altitude.) In the long run, the temperature will change until incoming and outgoing radiation are equal (since outgoing radiation is determined by planetary temperature).
Imagine a very simple model for a parcel of atmosphere: a cylinder with a movable piston filled with some of that atmosphere. The piston is pushing on the gas with the same force/area = pressure as found at the surface or any other altitude. Move the cylinder to outer space. Increase the force on the piston, the volume shrinks, the gas warms and the density of the gas increases. Decrease the force and everything returns to original state. Now send the cylinder 10X further away from the sun. What happens? The cylinder radiates more thermal IR than it receives from the sun as SWR. Keeping the same force/area on the piston, what happens? The temperature drops, the volume drops and the density increases. Now move the cylinder to interstellar space. The force pushing on the piston hasn’t changed, but the temperature has dropped to 3 K.
Clearly, pressure doesn’t produce temperature. Right?
Pressure is set by mass and gravity. Temperature has no effect on pressure because however much the atmosphere expands or contracts the weight bearing down on the surface stays the same. That is why a piston analogy is not appropriate.
Pressure controls density by packing molecules closer together.
Densely packed molecules can conduct energy from the surface more readily and so density controls the amount of energy that the atmosphere will take from the surface and recycle back to the surface via convective overturning.
That affects temperature.
The surface temperature above S-B is set by mass, gravity and insolation acting via conduction and nothing to do with radiation.
DWIR is simply a by product of radiative material spread along the lapse rate slope and has no additional surface heating capability because its effect is already included in the lapse rate structure. That is why there need be no separate term for radiative capability within the gas laws and why the standard atmosphere works without involving radiation.
Frank February 12, 2018 at 12:30 pm:
“Don, your formula depends on pressure and density. The density of a planet’s atmosphere is not a fundamental property of a planet.
“The pressure at various altitudes in various atmospheres is determined by the weight of the gas overhead. That is fundamental.”
No argument with that, although I’m curious why density isn’t a property of an atmosphere?
“Clearly, pressure doesn’t produce temperature. Right?” I don’t think anyone is claiming this in just the way you state it! Your thought-experiment works but is missing the point.
What’s the point? The point is that you have no more room to maneuver; Frolly has stated an irrefutable logic. You can argue from your paradigm all you want to and assume that back-radiation warms a planet, but then you’re arguing from your paradigm and not from the facts and the bold, and perhaps cruel, logic.
The problem is that we get lost in our paradigms. Of course our paradigms are self-consistent! But when simple logic tells us our paradigm is wrong, we have to admit it or else abandon reason. If we abandon reason then we can all go around yelling at each other about how right we are– and of course we are! It says so from the paradigm through which we’ve been looking all these years!
— Stephen Wilde
February 12, 2018 at 1:06 pm
Pressure is set by mass and gravity. Temperature has no effect on pressure because however much the atmosphere expands or contracts the weight bearing down on the surface stays the same. That is why a piston analogy is not appropriate.–
One can say if increase global temperature from say 10 to 40 C, it doesn’t effect pressure- other than addition of water vapor. If increase amount of gas, it increases atmosphere mass which increases pressure- minor unless temperature is boiling oceans.
But on regional scale [rather then global] warmer air create weather, called high pressure systems.
But otherwise, roughly pressure is set by mass and gravity
–Pressure controls density by packing molecules closer together.
Densely packed molecules can conduct energy from the surface more readily and so density controls the amount of energy that the atmosphere will take from the surface and recycle back to the surface via convective overturning.
That affects temperature.–
That’s true with dry land surface, but Earth’s surface is mostly covered with water, and it rains on the 30% of Earth’s land surface.
For example if had much higher pressure than earth’s pressure, the ground surface and air surface temperature would closer to each other. Or they are rarely around the same temperature- unless the ground is wet. So in desert on could have the sand temperature around 70 C and air could be 40 to 50 C. Whereas with ocean surface temperature of about 30 C, with have surface air temperature of about 30 C.
–The surface temperature above S-B is set by mass, gravity and insolation acting via conduction and nothing to do with radiation.–
Yes but most of Earth has little to do with S-B. Or if the ocean had something to do with S-B it would have surface temperature as high as 70 C.
–DWIR is simply a by product of radiative material spread along the lapse rate slope and has no additional surface heating capability because its effect is already included in the lapse rate structure. That is why there need be no separate term for radiative capability within the gas laws and why the standard atmosphere works without involving radiation.–
Yeah.
DWIR doesn’t warm the surface, nor evaporate water. Think about it, if evaporated water we would have no clouds. The significant of DWIR is related to it’s possible reduction of heat leaving earth, and it’s fairly minor effect. Or it’s so small we can’t measure an increase in global temperature due to an increase in CO2 levels.
Don132 and others: If you have an open mind, you can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES the basic concept of thermogravity fail.
Molecular dynamics calculations allow chemists to visualize the motion of molecules by applying Newton’s Laws of Motion to them. A molecular dynamics teaching tool for the behavior of gases can be found online at:
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/md/InteractiveMD.html
This program includes the ability to turn gravity on and off. If you play with the parameters, you can have a box of gas molecules moving randomly in the absence of a gravitational field. The density is uniform. The speed of each molecule is color coded, the temperature is the average of these colors. There is no temperature gradient in the box. Turn on gravity and what the average molecule fall and speed up. The molecules near the bottom of the box are moving faster, a temperature gradient exists. But only temporarily. Within a few seconds, you will see the density gradient remain and the temperature/kinetic energy gradient vanish. Why? Because collisions transfer kinetic energy vertically. That is called thermal diffusion. Gravity doesn’t create a temperature gradient.
… unless you have only a few molecules in the box that collide only rarely. Then a kinetic energy gradient exists due to changes in potential energy. And it also does so in the Earth’s upper atmosphere above about 100 km (the turbopause). Unfortunately, when molecules are not colliding frequently, they don’t have a stable mean kinetic energy – and temperature is undefined.
The collective properties of a large collection of colliding gas molecules can not be determined by simple reasoning about KE and PE. We all know that expanding gases cool, but conservation of KE and PE can’t explain that phenomena. It doesn’t explain entropy. PdV and TdS are forms of energy that emerge only from large groups of colliding molecules. This collective behavior of large groups of colliding molecules is studied in a branch of physics called statistical mechanics.
This site will also let you watch the expansion of a gas. Do it with a few molecules and the kinetic energy remains constant. Do it with many, and the average kinetic energy drops. Large groups of colliding molecules DO NOT follow your intuition, even though the molecules in this simulation are following Newton’s laws of motion!!!!
Warning. These gas molecules are not hard sphere. They have a Leonard-Jones 6-12 field that makes molecules stick together slightly when they are close, but repeal when they get too close. This produces van der Waals attraction between molecules, allowing the gas condense and solidify when it gets too cold. This is a “non-ideal gas”, the molecules have a volume and intermolecular forces. When hotter, the non-ideal behavior is negligible. (Water molecules in our lower atmosphere occasionally stick together as you see here.)
A box is not a sphere and insolation needs to be added because it is the flow of insolation through the system that prevents the temperature gradient from vanishing. Not an adequate analogy.
Wilde wrote: “A box is not a sphere and insolation needs to be added because it is the flow of insolation through the system that prevents the temperature gradient from vanishing. Not an adequate analogy.”
None of which has the slightest thing to do with this demonstration. The demo shows that “turning on” gravitational field, causes:
1) the average gas molecule falls, converting PE to KE and higher temperature.
2) this produces a density and temperature gradient.
3) the density gradient remains, but the temperature gradient dissipated through collisions despite the continued presence of the gravitational flied.
Gravity – and the pressure/density gradient it produces – does not produce a permanent temperature gradient in a gas.
The ability to run these demonstrations with a few molecules or many rapidly colliding molecules shows simple KE+PE considerations apply to a few molecules (a situation where temperature is undefined), but not bulk gases, where PdV work becomes important and TdS.
So now “insolation” is necessary? If so, that heat produces an unstable lapse rate in the lower atmosphere where GHGs prevent thermal IR from escaping to space as fast as heat is provided by the sun. That is the conventional theory of why a -g/Cp lapse rate exists.
Frank February 12, 2018 at 1:09 pm:
“Molecular dynamics calculations allow chemists to visualize the motion of molecules by applying Newton’s Laws of Motion to them. A molecular dynamics teaching tool for the behavior of gases can be found online at:”
I love that tool! Thanks for the link.
But, if I turn up the gravity (there’s a “x10” box to check) it shows me the exact opposite of what you claim. I may be misinterpreting this. The molecules congregate on the bottom half of the box. Even if the temperature of the molecules remains the same, the upper half of the box must be cooler than the bottom.
If you want to convince us, break it down to the very simplest concepts that a ninth-grader would understand. Then apply logic.
Frank February 13, 2018 at 12:13 am
Not sure if we’re on the same page here. Conventional theory about -g/Cp lapse rate has always been and still is that this lapse rate is ONLY applicable for for parcels moving vertically in an environment that is in Hydrostatic Equlibrium and that the process is adiabatic.
Frank wrote: “If so, that heat produces an unstable lapse rate in the lower atmosphere where GHGs prevent thermal IR from escaping to space as fast as heat is provided by the sun. That is the conventional theory of why a -g/Cp lapse rate exists.”
Ben commented: “Not sure if we’re on the same page here. Conventional theory about -g/Cp lapse rate has always been and still is that this lapse rate is ONLY applicable for for parcels moving vertically in an environment that is in Hydrostatic Equlibrium and that the process is adiabatic.
We have two processes that can control temperature in the atmosphere: Radiative equilibrium and convection (which I like to call buoyancy-driven convection because it depends on density).
In a simple “gray atmosphere” with equal optical density at all wavelengths, temperature increases linearly with optical density as you travel from the TOA to the surface. That means that the temperature increases exponentially (like pressure) as you approach the surface. There are estimates that the surface of the Earth would be about 340 K without convection – ie with pure radiative equilibrium.
However, we both appear to agree that the atmosphere is unstable toward convection when the lapse rate is above g/Cp. Therefore, when radiative equilibrium produces an unstable lapse rate, convection moves heat aloft until the lapse rate is stable. This is called radiative-convective equilibrium and was first describe by Manabe in the 1960’s. That changed our focus from surface energy balance (how much does DLR increase with rising GHGs?) to a focus on what happens at the TOA (why much does radiative cooling to space slow due to rising GHGs?).
It is interesting to contemplate what would happen as GHGs were added to an atmosphere that started with very little. At first, there wouldn’t be a need for convection. Then, when the exponential lapse rate reachs a critical slope of -G/Cp, convection would start, but only for a short distance until radiative cooling through the thinner atmosphere was adequate to remove all of the heat provided by SWR.
Don: You might try Volume 10,000, 1000 molecules, no gravity and T =1.5 (which seems to give roughly equal numbers of all four colors (which is indicative of speed). I use a time step of 0.001 s (the most accurate) and a steps per frame from 1-5 (when I want to watch carefully) to 100+ when I want the system to reach a steady state quickly. The temperature is adjusted coarsely by faster and slower and delicately by -1% and +1%. Pause the simulation. Turn up the gravity to 0.05 and resume the simulation at a slow frame rate. You can pause at any time. Beginning at about 20 s, you will see a deficit of yellow (faster moving) molecules near the top and a lot more yellow molecules near the bottom that have been accelerated by gravity (thermogravity). A density gradient has also developed. At about 40 seconds, the yellow colored molecules begin rising due to collisions from below. Yellow molecules reappear in the top half of the box by 60 second. Then turn up the frame rate to see what sort of steady state develops. Note that the temperature has risen to 2.2 as the average height of the molecules has fallen and some PE is converted to KE. So there are more yellow molecules and fewer blue ones. (The size of the box and the strength of the gravity determine how much PE gets converted to KE). To my eye, the fraction of yellow molecules at all heights appears to be the same, but I haven’t done a proper experiment and tried to collect data (which is possible).
Now put only 10 molecules in the box. Crank up the temperature to 100 briefly to equilibrate. Then return to T = 1.5. In this situation, the molecules are faster moving in the lower half of the box and slower moving in the top. As those who believe in thermogravity predict.
Temperature is defined (as the mean kinetic energy) only for a large collection of frequently colliding molecules. The temperature of a single molecule is meaningless – it constantly changes, Given the Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds, the speed of any particular molecule doesn’t tell you its temperature, the mean kinetic energy of its neighbors. (So if a photon was emitted by one molecule and absorbed by a second, it can go from a faster-moving molecule to a slower moving one – or vice versa – because molecular speed is not temperature) When energy is entering or leaving a system much faster than it can be shared among colliding molecules, you no longer have a Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds – or a well defined temperature. In our simulations, when PE is converted to KE with 10 molecules, collisions aren’t frequent enough to keep a Boltzmann distribution of molecular speeds. However, with 1000 molecules, no molecule fall very far between collisions. In the atmosphere at 1 atmosphere pressure and 288 K, molecules travel about 30 molecular diameters between collisions. The PE to KE change if motion is vertical is something like 10^10 less than the mean kinetic energy of a gas molecule. This simulation has a gravitation field massively stronger than on Earth to you can visualize the effect of gravity in a box that is less than 100 molecular diameters in size. So certain aspects of this simulation aren’t realistic.
Expansion is the phenomena that most clearly shows that collections of rapidly colliding molecules (with pressure and temperature) behave differently than a small number of infrequently colliding molecules. Pause a simulation and expand the box from 50×50 to 100×100. If you do this with 10 molecules, the temperature remains the same. With 250, it drops. When dealing with a small number of gas molecules that collide infrequently (between collisions with the walls), the only thing that is important is KE. When dealing with a large number of molecules that collide frequently with each other between collisions with the walls, other factors become important. I’d like to tell you that PdV work causes the temperature to drop, but that isn’t accurate. The gas isn’t pushing against any force as it expands so it doesn’t do any work. PdV work applies to a reversible expansion, not a “free expansion”. The temperature drops because of the increase in entropy (TdS). For systems with colliding molecules, KE, rotation, vibration, PdV and TdS are all important components of energy. Thermogravity consider only KE and PE.
Good luck.
Frank February 14, 2018 at 1:05 am
Thank you for your detailed discussion. I think that if we can sort out what you’re saying this will do a great deal to clarify the argument we’re having.
My first technical problem is that I don’t get how to adjust T, temperature.
I’ve attempted to follow your steps but as indicated I seem to be missing something. But let me tell you what I do see.
Settings:
Number of atoms=1000
Box size = 80
Gravity = 0.05
Time step = 0.018
Steps per frame= 50
Atom color by speed
I conceive of the box height as the same as the height of the troposphere; I see no reason why I can’t do that. So the bottom of the box is the surface and the top is the tropopause. There is no mistake that the atoms congregate on the bottom 1/2 of the box. According to the gas laws, the top, which has fewer atoms/less pressure, must be colder, and it doesn’t matter if the proportion of faster moving molecules at the top is the same as the proportion of faster moving molecules at the bottom.
We have a gravity-induced temperature gradient, no?
What am I missing?
Frank February 13, 2018 at 9:54 pm
Not sure what you mean with radiative equilibrium. To me it exists when incoming radiation heats a surface to such a temperature that it radiates the same amount as it receives. On the moon (day side) we have more or less radiative balance temperatures, reaching ~400K on the equator just after noontime.
On earth we do not have radiative balance, but we do have an energy balance. Incoming solar and outgoing radiation at TOA closely match.
That would be called Absolute Instability. Even dry air convects.
Normally it takes condensation (latent heat release) for convection to continue to considerable heights.
I could use some sparring/help in formulating my ideas about the temperatures on earth. I think I have a solid explanation how the Earth GAT can be ~70K higher than lunar GAT.
If you’re willing to hear me out, my email is “ben at wtrs dot nl”
Ben commented: “Not sure what you mean with radiative equilibrium.”
You examples were correct. To apply these principles to an atmosphere, see:
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/08/08/vanishing-nets/
frolly February 11, 2018 at 2:07 pm
I believe Frank answered most of your questions.
The surrounding air is NOT ccoling with increasing altitude. The lapse rate I gave of 6,5 K/km is a temperature PROFILE, a “measurement” of the state of the atmosphere.
see eg. http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
Frank February 11, 2018 at 9:32 pm
I agree with what you wrote upto and including “In practice, rising parcels of air follow the DALR until the lifting condensation level (LCL) and the SALR (saturated ALR) above.”
The 6,5 K/km is the lapse rate for the Standard Atmosphere, afaik the average of a lot of temperature profiles at mid latitudes.
Not sure where the dry descending would come from.
The (moist) potential temperatures are just calculated values, NOT the result of atmospheric processes, to be better able to compare the ACTUAL temperatures in an atmosphere. They also give an indication of the groundtemperature required for convection to reach a certain altitude.
Also for oceans potential temperatures and an adiabatic lapse rates are used.
To predict the possibility of serious convection imo CAPE is better suited.
http://www.tornadochaser.net/capeclass.html
Very nice:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/anim=off/overlay=cape/winkel3
Ben asked: “Not sure where the dry descending would come from [that leads to an average lapse rate of 6.5 K/km].
I’m not sure I fully understand that either. In the convective towers of tropical thunderstorms (and summer thunderstorms in the mid-latitudes), turbulent horizontal mixing introduces dry subsiding air into the moist convecting core. The grid cells of AOGCMs are too big to model this phenomena and use an “entrainment parameter”. The entrainment parameterization in AOGCMs has the biggest effect of all parameters on climate sensitivity (up to 1 degC). However, I don’t fully understand this process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_(meteorology)
If you consider the Hadley circulation, rising and descending air masses are not close enough to mix. Nevertheless, the descending branch – which is so dry that it should have a lapse rate of 9 K/km – isn’t 90+ K warmer when it descends more than 10 km to the top of the boundary layer. I assume there is some horizontal mixing here also.
I never meant to say the average lapse rate was ABOVE 6.5 K/km. You can see average soundings for various locations (and the US standard atmosphere) at the link below:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Ben complains: “The (moist) potential temperatures are just calculated values, NOT the result of atmospheric processes, to be better able to compare the ACTUAL temperatures in an atmosphere.”
Yes. These values tell you what the temperature for every parcel would be at the surface after accounting for PdV work and release of latent heat. When the moist potential temperature rises with altitude, the lapse rate was not determined by convection. If moist potential temperature falls with altitude, the atmosphere is unstable towards buoyancy-driven convection.
You’ve both got lost in the small scale detail.
If you look at a synoptic pressure map you will see the entire atmosphere divided into high and low pressure cells with isobars around them.
High pressure is above about 1000 millibars and the cells contain air spiralling downwards.
Low pressure is below about 1000 millibars and the cells contains air spiralling upwards.
The stratosphere upwards works differently but there is convective overturning in the stratosphere via the Brewer Dobson Circulation. It is likely to be present higher up as well but the air is too thin for us to have discerned it.
And looking at the synoptic pressure UK Met office map for today 0700 2/12, there is lotsa’ area where p=1000mb. So NOT ALL the globe is high or low pressure at any given time. No ascending or descending spiraling area! I will let Stephen guess the percentage of the globe not high or low pressure in the manner he imagines.
Pressure is only 1000mb exactly below the isobar lines for that pressure. The volume involved is therefore infinitesimal.
“The volume involved is therefore infinitesimal.”
Ok, go a 3 feet or a meter beyond the isobar perpendicular, on either side only very, very small, very slight change in p, then multiply by the length of the isobar. Not so infinitesimal. The point is Stephen, that there are large volumes of not very high or low pressure and these can not be ignored as you do. They are large volumes with ignorable spriraling (Stephen term). These are called calm days and nights at the surface.
Frank February 12, 2018 at 11:48 am
The air sinking in the high pressure areas of the Hadley Circulation sinks very slowly (10s meters/hour.)
The adiabatic assumption isn’t valid on these timescales. In long lasting High pressure areas you may see a lapse rate that approaches the DALR.
To make sure, the Hadley Circulation is not driven by convection in any way.
Thanks Ben. I don’t have much feel for rates of ascent and subsidence (except that the net flux must be zero). 10 m/h is 240 m/d. 40 m/hr is 1 km/day. A week or two to come down.
Water vapor remains in the air for an average on 9 days between evaporation and precipitation (5 days in the tropics). However, it could be spending most of that time traveling to a convecting region, not ascending.
I left you guys to sort this out and started writing another paper, but then saw you all lose your way going down Willis’s rabbit-holes.
Glad to help out!
1000Frolly aka Robert Holmes
Thanks for that, Frolly!
Great Physicists can sometimes do thoughties well, because of the breadth and depth of their understanding. This means they can see the pitfalls and unintended consequences. The rest of us, NO! Rabbit holes at best, Alice in Wonderland. Brett
I think I have resolved the conundrum around DWIR and downward convection by considering the gas laws.
Both are separate means by which the atmosphere returns energy to the surface having acquired the energy during the initial formation when the atmosphere was lifted off the surface against gravity.
The amount of energy required in the formation is set by atmospheric mass and the strength of the gravitational field at any given level of insolation.
In order to stay in hydrostatic equilibrium an atmosphere must return energy to the surface at precisely the same rate that energy is taken from the surface otherwise it will upset the radiative balance with space and be lost.
It does not matter whether that return is effected by DWIR or downward convection because the gas laws ensure that they are mutually exclusive and not additive.
For a non radiative atmosphere all energy must be returned to the surface in downward conduction at the end of the descent phase of the convective overturning cycle.
For a radiative atmosphere some is returned by DWIR and the amount returned by downward conduction drops accordingly.
The reason is related to density at the surface.
If DWIR is present then it contributes to surface heating above S-B but in doing so it expands the air near the surface and reduces density. Reduced density causes the efficiency of conduction to drop so that the vigour of convection declines and less energy is then returned to the surface in the descent phase. DWIR causes a weakening of the vigour of convection instead of raising surface temperature.
The net effect is that the surface temperature enhancement above S-B stays exactly the same as before.
Instead of a non GHG atmosphere being isothermal the truth is that it is radiative gases that cause an atmosphere to trend towards the isothermal state by reducing the need for convective overturning. A non GHG atmosphere actually has the most vigorous convection.
“In order to stay in hydrostatic equilibrium an atmosphere must return energy to the surface at precisely the same rate that energy is taken from the surface otherwise it will upset the radiative balance with space and be lost.”
Not observed. Sure there are windy days. Please explain where the energy would come for the atm. molecules to hugely speed up to escape velocity and “be lost”.
“For a non radiative atmosphere all energy must be returned to the surface in downward conduction at the end of the descent phase of the convective overturning cycle.”
Descending columns are not observed in the real convecting atmosphere and there are large areas of observed calm days/nights at the surface.
“to surface heating above S-B…surface temperature enhancement above S-B..”
Has never been observed. What is always observed is surface thermometer T exactly at S-B.
I’m not sure why I persist, but I’ll give it another shot.
The Idea Gas Law allows you to calculate any of the variables involved … but only if you know the other variables. It works at all times and all places. So as Robert Holmes points out, it works for the globe as a whole, and it also works at the South Pole.
HOWEVER, the ability to calculate the atmospheric temperature using the ideal gas law does not allow us to say anything about how the atmosphere got to that temperature. For example, the IGL says that the South Pole and the global surface have different average temperatures.
But it can tell us NOTHING about why the temperatures are different, or why the temperatures are what they are.
For example. The world as a whole is mostly warmed by the sun. However, at the poles, there is more warming coming from the tropics by way of the ocean and the atmosphere than there is coming from the sun.
So here’s the important question.
Can we tell from the South Polar version of the Ideal Gas Law how much of the polar heat is coming from the sun and how much is coming from the movement of heat from the tropics?
Of course not, don’t be daft. From the Ideal Gas Law, we can calculate atmospheric temperature, but we can’t tell anything about WHY the atmosphere is the temperature that it is. The South Pole could be heated by the sun or by horizontal movement of heat, but we can’t tell one thing about that from the IGL.
Similarly, from the Ideal Gas Law we cannot tell whether the earth is warmed by internal radiation, by the sun, or by the sun with the aid of greenhouse gases. We can tell NOTHING about how it was warmed from the IGL.
Here’s another example. It seems that Jupiter and the Earth are warmed in different ways, because Jupiter is still collapsing gravitationally and gets some portion of its heat from the inside. Can we determine how much is heat from Jupiter’s core is added to Jupiter’s solar input by using the Ideal Gas Law?
Of course not. Not possible. Nor can we determine from the IGL how much additional energy the Earth gets from CO2, for the same reason. The IGL can tell us what the temperature is, but not WHY the temperature is what it is.
Which is why I’ve called Robert Holme’s work “Bad Science” … it’s built on a total misunderstanding of what the IGL can and cannot do.
w.
“The IGL can tell us what the temperature is, but not WHY the temperature is what it is”
Can it tell us the change in GAT due to a doubling of CO2, given that CO2 does not create heat, but assists in maximizing entropy.
Willis, I believe you are once again assuming that which you wish to prove. You are assuming that the IGL can’t tell us how an atmosphere warms in order to prove that the IGLs tell us nothing about how an atmosphere warms. Asserting it’s so doesn’t prove that it’s so. Your arguments are valid up to a point, and that point is where you attempt to refute the irrefutable argument that Holmes has laid out.
However, even if we can’t tell how an atmosphere warms according to IGL, as you claim, we can still use the IGL in an argument to prove that earth isn’t warmed by GHGs. Holmes has used the IGL to assist in his argument. His minor premises, which I have laid out, are irrefutable. It’s as simple as that! If the minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true. So, what do you want to do? Your choice is that you can abandon the IGLs or you can abandon the GHG theory. What will it be?
You must remove Holme’s work from the “bad science” category. That’s the only honorable thing left to do.
If the atmosphere is to remain in hydrostatic equilibrium a planet must shed all energy received which is in excess of that which comes in from space.
So, if it is receiving a proportion of its heat from the inside then it must radiate to space what comes from space PLUS the heat from inside otherwise the atmosphere could not be retained. It will permanently radiate more than comes in from space. That is fine as long as that heat from inside is an additional energy source. However S-B would not apply because the S-B equation does not include a term for heat emanating from the interior. It only deals with what comes in from space.
If one applies that principle to heat from GHGs then one is treating those GHGs as an additional energy source and again the planet would permanently have to radiate out more than it receives. It clearly does not.
In fact those GHGs are simply recycling radiated or conducted energy originally received from space up and down within the atmosphere and that energy does not leave otherwise there would be no extra kinetic energy at the surface above S-B to hold the weight of the atmosphere off the ground against gravity and to fuel ongoing convective overturning.
Whether it is radiation up and down or conduction up and down doesn’t matter because the two processes are mutually exclusive and not additive as I explained above.
One cannot treat heat from GHGs as an additional energy source in the way you suggest.
The solution is set out in my above post at February 12th 2018 at 6.29 pm.
Actually, I have just shown how you can accommodate both the IGLs and the radiative theory on the basis that the downward conductive and radiative flows are mutually exclusive and not additive by virtue of the effect of DWIR on air density at the surface.
wildeco2014 February 13, 2018 at 3:48 am:
“Actually, I have just shown how you can accommodate both the IGLs and the radiative theory on the basis that the downward conductive and radiative flows are mutually exclusive and not additive by virtue of the effect of DWIR on air density at the surface.”
Whatever that means! But seriously, what I should have said is that according to the logic Holmes has laid out in his E1, E2 thought experiment, you can’t say that the IGL is correct and at the same time say that the theory of significant radiative warming of the atmosphere by GHGs is correct.
Don,
Have you read my post at 6.29pm on the 12th ?
I am clearly saying that radiation from GHGs cannot warm the surface to a point any higher than it would be warmed in any event by the operation of the Ideal Gas Law in a non radiating atmosphere.
Stephen Wilde February 13, 2018 at 5:14 am:
“Have you read my post at 6.29pm on the 12th ?
I am clearly saying that radiation from GHGs cannot warm the surface to a point any higher than it would be warmed in any event by the operation of the Ideal Gas Law in a non radiating atmosphere.”
OK. Can you condense it into maybe a few sentences? You make me work too hard to understand what you’re saying, and right now I’m just plain tired. Simplicity and clarity of expression. You’re bombarding me and I have to stop and think about every little thing. Make it so a bright ninth-grader can understand.
No, you’re not “clearly saying” anything! Sorry. I think you’re probably right but I have to wade through too much to get there. Break it down, see what’s essential for your audience to understand your point, and throw out the rest.
wildeco2014 February 13, 2018 at 3:42 am:
Are you replying to me? If so, what’s your point? If not, then please address your comment to whoever it is you’re replying to.
”If the atmosphere is to remain in hydrostatic equilibrium a planet must shed all energy received which is in excess of that which comes in from space.”
Not at all. Today measurements show our planet is not shedding all energy received over decadal time periods which is in excess of that which comes in from above the surface by about 0.6W/m^2. And yet the atm. remains to a great extent in hydrostatic equilibrium. Stephen dreams about atm. science; Stephen doesn’t bother with observations, measurements or tests. Or have the expertise to read basic meteorology papers.
”otherwise there would be no extra kinetic energy at the surface above S-B”
There is no constituent KE in temperature above S-B, the KE in thermometer temperature is at S-B, all the time.
”One cannot treat heat from GHGs as an additional energy source in the way you suggest.”
This actually is true; the sun warms the surface above 255K as GHGs are added from near zero to natural amounts up to the observed global avg. thermometer temperature 288K.
”the downward conductive and radiative flows are mutually exclusive and not additive”
Yes, they are independent processes. Their energy IS additive by conservation of energy thru 1LOT.
Clearly, added radiation from GHGs enable the sun to warm the surface to a point higher than it would be warmed in any event by the operation of the Ideal Gas Law in a much weaker-radiating atmosphere.
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 5:08 am
Of course you can. Under your assumption, the IGL should be able to tell us how much of Jupiter’s heat comes from the interior … can it do that?
NO!
w.
Willis Eschenbach February 13, 2018 at 10:06 am:
Of course you can [say that both IGL is correct and that GHG theory is correct]. Under your assumption, the IGL should be able to tell us how much of Jupiter’s heat comes from the interior … can it do that?”
I never said it could, or claimed that it has to! And neither has Holmes/Frolly. There is no necessity for the IGL to say where the heat came from.
BUT … in the context of the E1,E2 experiment that originated from Reverend Badger and that Frolly set forward here, the IGL is telling us where the heat could NOT have come from.
OK, I don’t know much about physics– granted. But this stuff is basic logic! You have nowhere to turn; there is no way out of the conclusion. The ONLY way you can get out is by showing that one of the three minor premises is false:
Major premise: GHGs raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
_______________________________
Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.
Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has GHGs and the other does not.
Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.
_______________________________
Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else GHGs do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
If you want to refute Frolly/Badger’s/Stephen’s, etc., argument, then you must refute one of the minor premises. Focus on that. If you can’t refute one of the minor premises, then graciously accept that you’ve been arguing from a paradigm that MUST be false. Since the logic has been laid out it should be vigorously attacked to test it, BUT let’s not venture off trying to prove it wrong by bringing in what the argument says nothing about.
Badger’s argument (i.e., Frolly’s argument, first proposed by Reverend Badger) says:”these non-greenhouse gases [of E2] will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.”
There is no way out!
“Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.”
Then do so for an object that NASA has not yet measured the density(z). Using only IGL. The top post referred paper is careful to only choose objects where the density(z) has been measured by a probe and T(0) found from inputting known density and pressure into IG in the paper’s ref.s..
“Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has GHGs and the other does not.”
Where? What planets?
“Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.”
IGL would not do so. The avg. density(0) would be different even if avg. pressure and Rspecific are the same.
Trick February 13, 2018 at 6:08 pm:
Trick, you’re not following the argument closely so at this point I’m not going to respond. I may be forced to respond in the future, and if so, I will.
Read Frolly/Badger’s argument again carefully, and then read my outline of the argument carefully.
Exactly Willis, that’s why it’s called an equation of state, it relates the state variables, P, V, T, & n, says nothing about how they get to that state. Need a different one for the lower Venusian atmosphere because the IGL doesn’t work so well there.
True, Phil, and it’s not at all clear why this idea is so hard to get across.
w.
It’s hard to get across because you’re arguing from a paradigm that is internally consistent but has fatal flaws, that’s why.
Agreed Willis, too many don’t understand the IGL I guess?
Try a lab scale experiment.
Two identical insulated cylinders, each containing an electric heater, and each sealed by a weighted piston which is free to move up or down.
Pressurise both with the same gas at the same pressure and the piston will be at the same height so P1=P2, V1=V2, M1=M2, T1=T2 thus satisfying the IGL.
Now heat one of the cylinders to T’1, the volume will increase to V’1 but P1 and M1 remain the same such that: P1V’1=RT’1 thus satisfying the IGL.
Redesign the experiment so that the gas in each cylinder contains a GHG and set it up in exactly the same way again you’ll get exactly the same P,V,T relationship, pass the appropriate IR through one of the cylinders and the temperature and volume will increase exactly as before.
The same is true for the atmosphere, change the energy balance of the atmosphere and T and V will change appropriately, while at all times IGL is obeyed.
Forcing the volume to be invariant as Holmes does is a violation of the IGL which is why his analysis is flawed.
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 11:59 am
Agreed. However, you then say …
I didn’t see anywhere that Holmes forced the volume to be invariant. To me the error is the claim that the IGL somehow “predicts” what the temperature will be.
The IGL is
PV = nRT
R is a constant. So if we know any three of the four variables, we can calculate, not predict but calculate the fourth.
What Holmes did mathematically is legit. He’s recast the IGL in terms of molar mass and density, vis:
PM = ρRT
This doesn’t force volume to be invariant, it just recasts it in different variables.
Holmes’s problem isn’t the math. It is the subsequent claim that somehow the IGL can magically show how much of the temperature is from the sun and how little is from GHGs. Can’t be done. As you point out the IGL is an “equation of state”, and can tell us NOTHING about how it got to that state.
Whether the incoming energy that got the atmosphere to that temperature is from the sun, from nuclear reactors, from GHGs, from the collapse of the core as with Jupiter, or from cosmic rays is simply not determinable from the Ideal Gas Law, as Holmes incorrectly asserts.
w.
OK Willis, but he implies that it’s constant in his example.
Consider; two very Earth-like rocky planets with Earth-like atmospheres orbiting at the same distance (1AU) from the Sun. We provide one with an atmosphere identical in every way to the present Earth’s; let this planet be E1. Now the other planet E2, is going to be identical in every way to E1 except for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will be very similar to E1’s atmosphere but will contain no greenhouse gases. It will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas hypothesis for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 because of its greenhouse gases. The hypothesis presented here, using formula 5, predicts that both planets will have identical temperatures. Notably, the predicted temperature figure for both planets, calculated from formula 5, is the same temperature as that predicted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis for the planet with the greenhouse gases, E1.
By doing this he forces the two atmospheres to have the same density and temperature and therefore the same volume and n. It’s a fake example. A realistic example would be two identical non GHG atmospheres to one of which a potent GHG would be added, P and M remain the same but T increases and therefore density and volume change to follow the IGL. His thought experiment sounds plausible at first blush but he’s forced an impossible situation.
Phil
The problem that you and Willis have is that the non GHG planets will have a temperature higher than S-B without having any GHGs involved. By your argument that should not be the case.
You then say that adding a GHG would raise the temperature even further.
If that were the case then the IGL calculation would be wrong, but in reality it never is.
You really do have to choose. Either the IGL is wrong or the radiative theory of gases is wrong. No way out as Don says.
The reason GHGs fail to raise the temperature further than that which the IGL predicts is that convective adjustments neutralise radiative imbalances:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
It occurs to me that there are 2 cases where the radiative “greenhouse” effect need not be included as a parameter in a model:
– An atmosphere transparent to thermal radiation, about which many rabbit holes have been explored above.
– And an atmosphere practically opaque to thermal radiation, which represents real planetary bodies, including Earth, completely neglected in the above discussion I’ve seen. In such a “saturated greenhouse”, convection and allied processes dominate heat transfer in the troposphere.
I argue that both cases are subject to adiabatic lapse rate, but that invokes subtleties of thermodynamics in a potential field, neglected in undergraduate physics classes. The chief difference I see between the two cases is where in the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium with deep space.
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 1:18 pm:
“A realistic example would be two identical non GHG atmospheres to one of which a potent GHG would be added, P and M remain the same but T increases and therefore density and volume change to follow the IGL.”
PLEASE STOP ASSUMING WHAT REMAINS TO BE PROVED IN ORDER TO PROVE WHAT YOU WANT!
And yes, I’m shouting because it’s so obvious that this basic circular reasoning mistake is being made over and over. Stop.
The paradigm that says that GHGs raise the temperature of earth is wrong. That paradigm is internally consistent but fails a basic test of logic, which test steps outside of the paradigm and subjects it to a test of consistency with known and certain facts. So far the reality of this test (which has been stated in different forms by different people) has been glossed over by those who are defending the paradigm because they simply don’t want to give up the paradigm. Stating the problem in bare-bones logic (hopefully) allows us to see it clearly, and makes it much more difficult to ignore.
Willis Eschenbach February 13, 2018 at 12:34 pm:
“Holmes’s problem isn’t the math. It is the subsequent claim that somehow the IGL can magically show how much of the temperature is from the sun and how little is from GHGs. Can’t be done. As you point out the IGL is an “equation of state”, and can tell us NOTHING about how it got to that state.”
I’ve already stated why what you say doesn’t matter in the context of the argument, but you’re ignoring it: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2742979
Errors in logic will lead you down rabbit holes. Be careful.
The ONLY way to refute Badger/Frolly’s argument is to refute a minor premise. You are avoiding that harsh truth.
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 1:43 pm
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 1:18 pm:
“A realistic example would be two identical non GHG atmospheres to one of which a potent GHG would be added, P and M remain the same but T increases and therefore density and volume change to follow the IGL.”
PLEASE STOP ASSUMING WHAT REMAINS TO BE PROVED IN ORDER TO PROVE WHAT YOU WANT!
The earth is in a state of radiative balance, it’s basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. If you change the transparency of the atmosphere the temperature must change.
And yes, I’m shouting because it’s so obvious that this basic circular reasoning mistake is being made over and over. Stop.
And the obvious error in Holmes analysis of the two similar planets indicates he doesn’t apply the IGL correctly. If the temperature of the atmosphere is changed for any reason the volume must change and any atmosphere within the range of the IGL will obey it, but applying it in the constant volume form is incorrect.
The paradigm that says that GHGs raise the temperature of earth is wrong. That paradigm is internally consistent but fails a basic test of logic, which test steps outside of the paradigm and subjects it to a test of consistency with known and certain facts.
Which test is that? If you restrict the the heat loss from the planet then the temperature must increase until a balance is reached.
Stephen Wilde February 13, 2018 at 1:26 pm
Phil
The problem that you and Willis have is that the non GHG planets will have a temperature higher than S-B without having any GHGs involved. By your argument that should not be the case.
That would contravene thermodynamic laws,it is not the case.
You then say that adding a GHG would raise the temperature even further.
If that were the case then the IGL calculation would be wrong, but in reality it never is.
No it would not, an increase in the T would necessarily increase V (and therefore density) and the IGL would balance.
No it would not, an increase in the T would necessarily increase V (and therefore density) and the IGL would balance.
Should be …and therefore reduce density).
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 4:35 pm:
“The earth is in a state of radiative balance, it’s basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. If you change the transparency of the atmosphere the temperature must change.”
Except that it doesn’t. That is what the logical test was. You are assuming that if the transparency of the atmosphere changes then the temperature must change, and you use this to prove that if the transparency of the atmosphere changes then the temperature must change.
The “test” is blatantly obvious. It’s a logical test, but it’s based on known and certain facts which so far no one has refuted, and those facts constitute the three minor premises in the argument I laid out, with which I’m assuming you’re familiar. If the minor premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. It doesn’t matter what you believe about radiative gases, it doesn’t matter what the transparency of the atmosphere is, it doesn’t matter what theory you’re using, it even doesn’t matter what evidence you’re using: it simply cannot be true. Your paradigms, your facts, your evidence, must be wrong. That’s the brutal logic of the argument; if you want to refute it, you MUST refute one of the minor premises. There is no other way.
You cannot assume you’re right in order to prove you’re right, and the beauty of logic is that it prevents us from doing this. Yet I see this being done over and over by people who I assume are knowledgeable and accomplished scientists.
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 5:07 pm
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 4:35 pm:
“The earth is in a state of radiative balance, it’s basic heat transfer and thermodynamics. If you change the transparency of the atmosphere the temperature must change.”
Except that it doesn’t. That is what the logical test was. You are assuming that if the transparency of the atmosphere changes then the temperature must change, and you use this to prove that if the transparency of the atmosphere changes then the temperature must change.
No I don’t.
However Holmes compares two planets with identical atmospheres except that one contains a GHG, he then assumes that density, molar mass and P are the same in those two atmospheres therefore the temperature can not change. That is circular reasoning because if the temperature changed the density would also change, but he has already precluded that by his assumption.
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 5:49 pm:
“However Holmes compares two planets with identical atmospheres except that one contains a GHG, he then assumes that density, molar mass and P are the same in those two atmospheres therefore the temperature can not change. That is circular reasoning because if the temperature changed the density would also change, but he has already precluded that by his assumption.”
You need to bone up on what a circular argument is. It’s no wonder everyone is so confused if they can’t even tell one when they see one!
Am I really talking to scientists? This is scary.
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 5:49 pm:
“However Holmes compares two planets with identical atmospheres except that one contains a GHG, he then assumes that density, molar mass and P are the same in those two atmospheres therefore the temperature can not change. That is circular reasoning because if the temperature changed the density would also change, but he has already precluded that by his assumption.”
You need to bone up on what a circular argument is. It’s no wonder everyone is so confused if they can’t even tell one when they see one!
Whatever you want to call it it’s a logical error on Holmes’s part and invalidates his two planet argument.
He claims that changing heat transfer to the atmosphere will not change the temperature of an ideal gas atmosphere which is nonsense.
Phil. February 13, 2018 at 6:36 pm:
“Whatever you want to call it it’s a logical error on Holmes’s part and invalidates his two planet argument.
He claims that changing heat transfer to the atmosphere will not change the temperature of an ideal gas atmosphere which is nonsense.”
And you’re assuming that changing the GHG content of the atmosphere will change the temperature! See what you’re doing? You’re not allowing the logic of the argument to proceed but are instead inserting your assumption along the way! You can’t assume that which you BELIEVE is true in order to prove you’re right.
Holmes has not assumed anything; he has proved it. You, on the other hand, are assuming that you’re correct! Anyone can win an argument that way.
Willis,
If the atmosphere is to remain in hydrostatic equilibrium a planet must shed all energy received which is in excess of that which comes in from space.
So, if it is receiving a proportion of its heat from the inside then it must radiate to space what comes from space PLUS the heat from inside otherwise the atmosphere could not be retained. It will permanently radiate more than comes in from space. That is fine as long as that heat from inside is an additional energy source. However S-B would not apply because the S-B equation does not include a term for heat emanating from the interior. It only deals with what comes in from space.
If one applies that principle to heat from GHGs then one is treating those GHGs as an additional energy source and again the planet would permanently have to radiate out more than it receives. It clearly does not.
In fact those GHGs are simply recycling radiated or conducted energy originally received from space up and down within the atmosphere and that energy does not leave otherwise there would be no extra kinetic energy at the surface above S-B to hold the weight of the atmosphere off the ground against gravity and to fuel ongoing convective overturning.
Whether it is radiation up and down or conduction up and down doesn’t matter because the two processes are mutually exclusive and not additive as I explained above.
One cannot treat heat from GHGs as an additional energy source in the way you suggest.
The solution is set out in my above post at February 12th 2018 at 6.29 pm.
Willis Eschenbach
February 13, 2018 at 2:15 am
Similarly, from the Ideal Gas Law we cannot tell whether the earth is warmed by internal radiation, by the sun, or by the sun with the aid of greenhouse gases. We can tell NOTHING about how it was warmed from the IGL.
The question is not how the Earth warmed.
The question Holmes asks is what is the cause of T
They are not the same question
Eisenbach assume T is caused by energy flux, such as sun, internal, CO2 in atmosphere. It is not.
Energy flux is needed to produce the gas state.
The history of the planet ( emissions , reactions, collisions) creates pressure and density
The causer of T is the ratio of pressure to density, p/d.
p is energy density ,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html
d is mass density,
d/M is number ( of molecules ) density
T is caused by energy density / number density.
The amount of CO2 does not affect this.
Should be Eschenbach not Eisenbach
Willis,
You are a bit of a donkey – but I like you. You cannot see the obvious, that the thought experiment has revealed GHG cannot cause net warming in the troposphere – unless the IGL is wrong.
Maybe I will try another tack.
You stated this;
.
“Similarly, from the Ideal Gas Law we cannot tell whether the earth is warmed by internal radiation, by the sun, or by the sun with the aid of greenhouse gases. We can tell NOTHING about how it was warmed from the IGL.”
.
That statement is incorrect.
We can learn something about what caused a change in temperature from the MM version of the IGL, by the changes which must occur in the three gas parameters – under a known set of inputs.
For example, let’s say we instantly add to the E1 (Earth’s current) atmosphere, 0.03% of a non-GHG mixture with an average molar mass of 44, and a density ~60% higher than air.
This quantity is 100% known; we know it’s molar mass, we can estimate pretty well how this addition will change the averages of the three gas parameters, as I did in the paper.
And the net change in atmospheric temperature then comes directly out of this in formula 5.
There is NO reason to suppose that the addition of 0.03% of CO2 instead, could have an ‘anomolous’ effect, and multiply the above changes caused by the non-GHG up to 100-fold, as the IPCC claims. The reason is that the MM version of the IGL makes NO DISTINCTION between gases, and cares only about how their addition changes the averages of pressure, density and molar mass…
frolly February 13, 2018 at 2:29 pm
Willis,
You are a bit of a donkey – but I like you. You cannot see the obvious, that the thought experiment has revealed GHG cannot cause net warming in the troposphere – unless the IGL is wrong.
Maybe I will try another tack.
You stated this;
.
“Similarly, from the Ideal Gas Law we cannot tell whether the earth is warmed by internal radiation, by the sun, or by the sun with the aid of greenhouse gases. We can tell NOTHING about how it was warmed from the IGL.”
.
That statement is incorrect.
We can learn something about what caused a change in temperature from the MM version of the IGL, by the changes which must occur in the three gas parameters – under a known set of inputs.
For example, let’s say we instantly add to the E1 (Earth’s current) atmosphere, 0.03% of a non-GHG mixture with an average molar mass of 44, and a density ~60% higher than air.
This quantity is 100% known; we know it’s molar mass, we can estimate pretty well how this addition will change the averages of the three gas parameters, as I did in the paper.
Such a change will not effect the energy balance of the planet, but adding the same amount of a GHG will.
So let’s increase the insolation by 10%, the Temperature will go up and the density will go down so that the IGL will still be obeyed.
The IGL does not solely control the conditions of the atmosphere you must simultaneously solve the energy transfer equation.
Frolly/Holmes: another clear explanation! How many more will it take?
Phil is continually assuming that which remains to be proved. He’s apparently unaware of this elementary logical error.
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 4:05 am
Frolly/Holmes: another clear explanation! How many more will it take?
Phil is continually assuming that which remains to be proved. He’s apparently unaware of this elementary logical error.
You’re mixing me up with Holmes, he’s the one who said take two identical planets, one with a transparent atmosphere and one with a GHG atmosphere, assume they have the same atmospheric temperature, that proves there’s no GHG effect!
“In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.”
The with atmosphere temperature of 288 K is a number pulled out of IPCC’s/WMO’s consensual collective [pruned].
The without atmosphere temperature of 255 K is actually a theoretical S-B BB calculation for the OLR of 240 W/m^2 at ToA. Uhh, that’s THEORETICAL & WITH an atmosphere.
The 33 C difference between these two fabricated, estimated, calculated, hypothetical, made up numbers is useless, meaningless crap. S-B & PV=nRT have zip to say about it.
The earth without an atmosphere would be like the moon, barren, no ice snow or water, dusty pock marked, blazing hot on the lit side, wicked cold on the dark. Earth and every other planet is colder with their albedos/atmospheres than without.
The earth’s surface is warmer than ToA because of Q=UAdT, the universal thermal blanket insulation equation.
— nickreality65
February 13, 2018 at 7:21 am
“In short; there can be no 33°C ‘greenhouse effect’ on Earth, or any significant ‘greenhouse effect’ on any other planetary body with an atmosphere of >10kPa.”
The with atmosphere temperature of 288 K is a number pulled out of IPCC’s/WMO’s consensual collective [pruned].
The without atmosphere temperature of 255 K is actually a theoretical S-B BB calculation for the OLR of 240 W/m^2 at ToA. Uhh, that’s THEORETICAL & WITH an atmosphere.–
Yes with atmosphere one can’t, simply take amount emitted and pretend you are dealing with something like a ideal thermal conductive blackbody, as in Earth emits on average 240 watts per square meter and if ideal thermal conductive blackbody emitted 240 watts it would have uniform temperature of 255 K.
I think one can use an ideal thermally conductive blackbody at 1 AU from sun to get a rough idea of how warm a planet should be at 1 AU from the sun. And so Earth should be around 5 C.
Or ideal thermally conductive blackbody would emit uniformly, about 340 watts. And 340 watts
is about 278 K about 5 C.
And one can do same thing with Venus- ideal thermally conductive blackbody at Venus distance should emit uniformly about 675 watts and have uniform temperature about 330 K [57 C].
And allowing for fact that Earth and Venus have an atmosphere. Earth is about 5 C and Venus is about 57 C.
That earth surface can become as warm as around 70 C, is not surprising as blackbody surface can become about 120 C- or the lunar surface does get this hot.
That Venus rocky surface can become around 737 K (464 C) is surprising or can’t be explained
by highest blackbody surface at Venus distance from the sun- which should limited to around
467 K [194 C].
What this should tell you about venus is that the sunlight is not directly warming the rocky surface-
but idiots think that it does.
So question to begin with, is what surface on Venus is being warmed by the sunlight?
And one can assume that this surface can not be warmed higher than about 194 C.
The alternative is that Venus temperature of about 737 K is not being warmed by the sunlight.
Earth
1,368 discular ISR, .30 albedo means 957.6 absorbed ASR discular, emits 239.4 (957.6/4) over entire spherical ToA. This does NOT represent physical reality.
Yes, 342 W/m^2 emits at about 278 K, but 342 W/m^2 ISR as averaged over spherical ToA does not exist.
1,368 W/m^2 emits at 394 K. Lit side of moon approaches that temp as would earth.
Venus with 2,614 W/m^2 ISR and .77 albedo absorbs 601.2 W//m^2 discular ASR & emits over entire ToA (601.2 / 4) OLR 150.3 W/m^2 and 226.9 K. Venus ToA emits at a lower temp than Earth.
This K-T type heat balance does not work!
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15855-Venus-amp-RGHE-amp-UA-Delta-T
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6324679342349705216
” nickreality65
February 13, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Earth
1,368 discular ISR, .30 albedo means 957.6 absorbed ASR discular, emits 239.4 (957.6/4) over entire spherical ToA. This does NOT represent physical reality.”
Something can be hot and not absorb any energy. The lunar surface at 120 C isn’t absorbing much energy. Or a blackbody surface which is insulated can reach an equilibrium temperature [not be absorbing energy] of 120 C at 1 AU. Or one can have block of material, have all sides insulated except side facing the sun which is blackbody surface- and chunk material can reach 120 C.
So start with block at say 10 C, and when it’s warming it’s absorbing energy, and increasing in temperature and it have some heat gradient. and once surface reaches 120, it will not have heat gradient and block will not absorb any more energy- it will not get warmer- it’s at equilibrium temperature at 1 AU from the sun- in terms of blackbody surface [btw, if it’s a non blackbody, it could get hotter than 120 C]. And at Venus distance from sun it’s .about 467 K [194 C]
On earth one does not normally get a equilibrium temperature, desert sand at 70 C is fairly close.. An greenhouse or parked car can also get pretty close. As can a solar pond reach near equilibrium temperature,
So with solar energy the distance from the sun determines equilibrium temperature of blackbody surface.
Now with ideal thermally conductive blackbody sphere, the idea is it’s absorbing all the sunlight
and equilibrium temperature is related to the area which radiate- which 4 times diameter of sphere. So you will have surface of this sphere in sunlight with sun at zenith forever, and that surface is about 5 C- and on night of planet it’s also 5 C. So you have all energy absorbed and equal amount of IR radiant energy is emitted.
Now it put a piece what paper above that surface, the paper would warm to higher temperature than 5 C, blacken piece of paper can warm to about 120 C. And say use some aluminum foil, And it could be about, say 200 C. Or insulated aluminum 6061-T6 has equilibrium temperature of 450 C according to Space mission Analysis and design, third edition.
And OSR has -51 C
OSR is quartz over silver. The reflective silver has quartz glass over it, The glass has high emissivity and silver is reflective and conducts heat well to the quartz glass which radiates the heat- so can quite cold in 1367 watts per square of sunlight.
Anyhow, aluminum 6061-T6 does not absorb much energy from sunlight [0.379 ] but has a low emissivity of IR:.[0.0346]. And if painted with black paint, it’s 0.975 and emissivity of IR of 0.874
and cool to 136 C as it’s equilibrium temperature
Anyhow with atmosphere almost the opposite of OSR, the atmosphere covering earth doesn’t radiate much and silver is replace something which absorbs endless amounts of sunlight energy- ie, the ocean.And ocean evaporate most of it’s energy absorbed rather than radiating it.
Trick February 13, 2018 at 5:57 am
Our measurements are nowhere near accurate enough to determine a global imbalance of 0.6 W/m2. The CERES data have been ARTIFICIALLY ADJUSTED to give a global imbalance of 0.6 W/m2, for the dumbest reason in the world … care to know why?
Because James Hansen’s “peer-reviewed” paper said the earth was in an imbalanced state, based on his climate models and such … I discussed this over a decade ago here.
w.
“I discussed this over a decade ago..”
Willis has some catch up reading to do, CERES data has moved past being ARTIFICALLY ADJUSTED as in that linked piece.
CERES calibration science efforts have progressed a lot since that piece based on models in Hansen 2004. The EBAF data calibration through Ed2.5 was indeed based on later publication of that work Hanson 2005 in Science. Starting with Ed2.6 CERES Team started using ARGO data 2006-2010 for CERES data calibration and the latest Ed4.0 uses ARGO 2006-6/2015.
With the latest calibration efforts detailed in Loeb 2016 updated from Loeb 2012 and others, CERES Team shows daytime LW flux 1/2003 to 12/2014 now calibrated accurate to C.I. +/-0.4 W/m^2 per decade in the data Willis downloads now.
P.I. Dr. Norman Loeb used to have his personal website with all the relevant papers freely available & a couple years ago I took the time to read thru them. Very impressive work. I can’t find his website anymore or would link it. To confirm all this to top of your pyramid triangle level, the CERES site can show you to Table 5-1 in this link:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/DQ_summaries/CERES_EBAF_Ed4.0_DQS.pdf
Free access N.G. Loeb (NASA Langley Research Center, Va.) 2016 CERES Instrument Calibration:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/8/3/182
Thanks for that link, Trick. Looking there, I find:
Not exactly as you described it, but that’s no surprise. And for reasons that I’ve posted before, I don’t trust the OHC error estimates …
I also don’t trust their “ice warming and melt, and atmosphere and lithosphere warming”. They claim that we can measure these to both a precision and an accuracy of a few hundredths of a degree per decade … not buying that.
As to your ugly assertion that I have some “catch up reading to do”, I could have been doing nothing but reading my whole life and I’d still have “catch up reading” to do. There are on the order of 2.5 million new scientific papers published every year. No one can possibly keep up. There are papers I haven’t read, just as there are papers you haven’t read. So you can gently place your charming comments where the solar constant equals zero …
w.
“As to your ugly assertion..”
Willis’ response in part reaches only step 1 in his pyramid. Of course, lotsa’ reading but on this topic it is limited to the specialist papers since 2005. You know, a handful, 2 will do Loeb 2012, 2016. See Table 4 in the 2016 Loeb paper linked for the improved C.I. past your 2015 clip & the supporting reasons. Appears though you aren’t interested in climbing further up your own pyramid of response types.
Too many rabbit holes for me to counter here.
I see it be very simple and have described it simply enough for open minds.
Objectors are desperately introducing irrelevant side issues to avoid the inevitable conclusion that convective changes neutralise radiative imbalances.
That is not my invention.
See here:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf
I have simply described the step by step mechanism by which it works.
From Stephen’s link: ”The atmosphere is very close to hydrostatic balance most of the time…For many applications, it is enough to replace the vertical momentum equation by the hydrostatic equation.”
So even that link disagrees with Stephen’s imaginary descending columns over half the globe. The link does agree with fundamental meteorology that there is little to no PE available for conversion to KE most of the time in the general atm. for Stephen’s unobserved in nature constantly descending (or spiraling down) columns. Since: “The atmosphere is very close to hydrostatic balance most of the time…”
No desperation Stephen, only a reading of fundamental meteorology papers with an open mind for learning from them. Try it!
The link is referring to averages. The atmosphere is divided into multiple rising and falling columns.
Note the diagram which shows the circular up and down convective motion between surface and tropopause.
I see that Don132 has declared absolute victory on behalf of the “gravitationists” (February 12, 2018 at 5:38 am) and proposed that Willis and Anthony should admit their total defeat at the hands of Frolly (a.k.a. Robert Holmes, the paper’s author) and remove his paper from the “Bad Science” category. Frolly/Holmes has responded to this (February 12, 2018 at 2:12 pm) in condescending manner by crowing smugly:
“I left you guys to sort this out and started writing another paper, but then saw you all lose your way going down Willis’s rabbit-holes.
Glad to help out!”
What vain self-conceit and self-delusion! Don132 proclaims Frolly/Holmes’s argument to be “irrefutable”. But meanwhile, back in reality, Willis had already refuted it in his lead article at the top of the page by pointing out, quite simply and clearly, that Frolly/Holmes had merely demonstrated that greenhouse atmospheres obey the ideal gas law just as non-greenhouse atmospheres do, which we should expect them to do anyway since it is a universal law that applies automatically to all kinds of gases irrespective of their radiative and chemical natures. So how does Frolly/Holmes’s “irrefutable argument” prove that greenhouse gases in a planet’s atmosphere have no effect on its surface temperature? It doesn’t, simply because it doesn’t test for that condition. Consequently, all that Frolly/Holmes’s argument has demonstrated is that the ideal gas law is irrelevant to the question!
Only, Frolly/Holmes and his fellow “gravitationists” don’t see it. And it’s not just that they have somehow misunderstood Willis’s simple argument, or that they have understood it but are holding serious objections to it that they think are valid and reasonable. If their complete non-addressing of it in their comments here is anything to tell by, they are not even conscious of its existence! How can that be, when Willis’s argument has been there at the top of the page for them to read all the time and when he has bent over backwards to explain it further and to relate to their objections in the comments below? Why is it that after so much concentrated effort has been expended on communicating his argument to them, they still haven’t even grasped what it is? Are they simply dull-minded? Are they mentally blocked, perhaps? Or have they just not been paying it any attention?
Anyway, whatever the answer to this question might be, I’m inclined to agree with Don132 that Frolly/Holmes’s paper does not belong in the “Bad Science” category. I think it belongs in the “No Science At All” category, because that’s essentially what it is.
Cassio, what you say is, to put it bluntly, absurd. What you want to do is say that your paradigm of radiative heating of the atmosphere is true, regardless of whether or not it fails a test of consistency with known and certain facts! It’s true because it’s internally consistent– surprise!– and because you say so. I don’t think so!
I think Willis is a great guy and I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him, but it’s crystal clear that he’s continually made arguments by assuming the conclusion and using that to prove his conclusion: classic, blatant, circular reasoning, and it’s painful to watch that continue, just as it’s painful to hear someone play the violin and continually miss hitting the notes just right. Apparently they can’t hear it; either they’re tone-deaf or they’re not paying attention.
My advice: pay attention!
I find it incredible that you feel you can post such thoughtless nonsense.
The gravitationists HAVE won. There is no way out.
“The gravitationists HAVE won. There is no way out.”
Not sure what you mean by gavitationist. However, if you are convinced the IGL wins out, then pick an object for which NASA has not measured the atm. density with a probe. Compute the global avg. surface temperature. Try an exoplanet for example. Use only IGL compute, global avg. surface T.
Radiation balance estimates are what they use today; none of that is allowed as input. You can’t even use the object’s orbit or sunload as that is not input to IGL in any form. All you have is P, R, density to get T. Remember R is gas specific.
Cassio
Thanks for your input, which was liiuminating.
I actually thought that WUWT was a skeptical site which pursued advances in climate science through logical debate.
From your post here, it is now difficult to distinguish between this site and many others who have abandoned scientific inquiry in favor of ad-hominems and pseudoscience.
Your inability to understand something, does not mean that the line of argument is wrong, or that the people advancing it are deluded.
The only saving grace I can see is that there are folk here who are open-minded and ready to debate science in order to advance knowledge.
” A realistic example would be two identical non GHG atmospheres to one of which a potent GHG would be added, P and M remain the same but T increases and therefore density and volume change to follow the IGL.”
What if space aliens came and took all our saltwater?
Or can’t add water to a planet like Earth or it would planet with average depth of water about 3000 meter deep- or you need deep ocean basins to provide the planet with that much water a land surface. But one could compare planet completely covered with ocean and planet without any oceans.
Since our planet, has average ocean temperature of 17 C, I would say planet covered with ocean would average temperature of 20 C or warmer, and of course there could not be permanent ice caps at the poles- or need a land surface to make a polar ice cap. And any polar sea ice formed in winter would float around.
And earth without ocean and ocean basin, would be less than 5 C. With hot daytime tropics and much colder and one goes towards the poles.
Mars poles in winter it can get to about -120 C, and poles on earth without water and with no sunlight for 6 month should also get as cold. And regions without the sun getting more than 20 degree above horizon, would have sun going a lot atmosphere and hitting the surface at low angle
and be unable to warm surface during the day.
Or with clear weather and pointing a solar panel at the sun [rather lying level to surface] you getting about 200 watts, rather than 1000 watts with sun near zenith. So quite cold where sun isn’t getting high over horizon.
And the hot tropical day, is going to cool to lower temperatures than hot deserts on earth cool during the night.
.
Cassio February 13, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Is this true? Is “Frolly” merely a sock-puppet for Robert Holmes?
Tell me it’s not so, someone. That would be … well … wildly against site policy …
w.
Willis
Is science also against site policy?
frolly February 13, 2018 at 3:38 pm
Don’t be daft. WUWT was voted three times the best science blog on the web.
More to the point, are you a sock-puppet for Robert Holmes? Because if so, that is definitely against site policy, viz (emphasis mine):
So … are you or aren’t you Robert Holmes pretending to be someone else?
w.
I fear that it is true, Willis, if Frolly himself is to be believed. See his self-outing at February 12, 2018 at 2:12 pm.
Cassio February 13, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Man, that is the lowest of the low! Pretending to be someone else, someone who supports and agrees with your ideas, is the action of a deceptive charlatan.
w.
Stop with the cheap tricks, please. Frolly said who he was. I suspect you’re just looking for an excuse to dismiss an argument you cannot win.
Play the ball, not the man!!
Willis,
No.
I am not Robert Holmes ‘pretending to be someone else’!
I am Robert Holmes who also runs the YouTube site 1000Frolly.
Sometimes my computer signs me in as Frolly, as it did here; there is no ‘pretense’.
If I was ‘pretending to be someone else’ I would hardly admit it myself would I?
Would not be surprised if you carried out your threat to delete all my posts – since you have clearly lost the argument here.
If Willis and Anthony delete your comments and this argument, that would truly be the lowest of the low. I frankly cannot believe that Willis would stoop so low.
I know from experience that sometimes I’m signed in as another alias; I take care to remain anonymous, and consistently Don132, on this site. But I understand how it can happen.
132? Beethoven’s string quartet Opus 132.
Play the ball, not the man!!
Don132
Very many people posing here are anonymous, and I can understand it in this field.
I had to be anonymous on YouTube because of all the real threats of violence I was getting from climate activist/fanatic’s against my family.
Now the kids are older and leaving home I am not so worried and don’t care so much if my real name gets out.
Frolly, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation that Willis and Anthony should accept. I am fairly well-known locally– as my real self– for my anti-consensus views, and although there are many good people here I have two young children and find myself holding back out of concern for the consequences they might face if I speak up too forcefully or too loudly.
You have not attempted to deceive anyone! You already said plainly who you are, well before you were supposedly outed by “Cassio.”
This is getting ugly. I’m counting on Willis and Anthony to take the high road.
frolly February 13, 2018 at 5:24 pm
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 5:36 pm
Neither Anthony nor I say that nobody should be anonymous. Some people have valid reasons. And some don’t. And neither of us said that Frolly shouldn’t be anonymous.
What we say is that nobody should run a sockpuppet as frolly did. That’s active deception. In that regard, I note that Frolly is once again fooling people who joined the thread late and missed his microscopic confession upthread … but nooo, he won’t give it up.
No big surprise there.
w.
frolly February 13, 2018 at 4:22 pm
So this is the “my computer made me do it” defense? Right, no dog, blame it on your computer … it signed you on as “frolly” and you never noticed us all responding to “frolly”, you just overlooked that detail?
That’s your excuse?
Really?
Frankly, Frolly, I have no clue what you would do and would not do. You are certainly not the first sockpuppet in my own experience to out themself, so I know someone can certainly be a sockpuppet and then reveal it for any of a dozen reasons … why not you?
I didn’t threaten to “delete all your posts”, that’s a damn lie. Plus I don’t have the authority to do it—I’m a guest AUTHOR, not a guest MODERATOR. Finally, you’re lost in your paranoia, I don’t WANT to delete your posts.
All I did was to quote the site policy verbatim, in case you were unaware of it. I had no intention, and I have no desire, to erase the evidence of your duplicity and of your incredible beliefs. Why would I do that? They’re my evidence that you don’t have a clue and you have no problem being a sockpuppet … I don’t want that to disappear in any sense.
w.
Willis, this is not the 1st time false outrage has been used here to attack a winning argument. Extra low base lines may be needed for the triangle….Grin. Brett
I cannot tell you how disappointed I’d be if Willis used Frolly’s supposed “deception”– when he outed himself!– to dismiss the arguments here. Rest assured that what transpires here is seen and cannot be swept away. I encourage everyone to save the complete webpage as a record, in case we do find the arguments deleted.
Don132 February 13, 2018 at 5:23 pm
Paranoid much? I have no desire to see him banned, and WUWT doesn’t erase stuff in general, that’s all you. But heck, fill your whole hard drive up uselessly, fine by me …
As to what you try to dismiss as his “supposed ‘deception'”, “frolly” made a number of comments clandestinely supporting himself. I note that you, I and others answered him and there was much discussion BEFORE he outed himself.
That’s scummy sock-puppetry that is specifically forbidden in the site policy.
Finally, you seem to think that the fact that he confessed to his deception somehow exonerates him … funny how the justice system doesn’t work that way. All confession does is maybe get you a bit of consideration from the judge, IF the person confessing is repentant.
Which Robert is not, and which you support.
So no, Don, or Jane, or whatever your real name is … I’m not trying to get Robert banned. I’m just pointing out that he’s engaging in very deceptive practices.
And finally, obviously when a man is desperate enough to invent a fake person to pretend to support him, he has very little faith in his scientific arguments …
w.
Willis, Frolly did not ” confess” after Cassio outed him; he stated who he was well before then: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2742226
I’m glad you’re not resorting to cheap tricks. And no, it doesn’t take much memory to copy a webpage. I don’t know exactly how you operate here at WUWT but I know from experience that sometimes if they don’t like what you say, the comments get deleted. So yes, maybe a bit paranoid. This is an important argument and I do not want to see it disappear.
You are making far, far too much of Holme’s use of a pseudonym; he has explained himself.
And yes, my name is Don. I don’t say who I am to protect my young children.
Willis
“Paranoid much?”
.
You are the paranoid one, or delusional anyway.
Making up hateful, fake stories about people in an attempt to discredit their science only because its demonstrably far better than yours.
.
“frolly” made a number of comments clandestinely supporting himself..”
.
There was only two posts (on the 11th Feb) before I ‘outed myself’ and they was not specifically supporting myself either – and occurred only because my computer had switched itself over to Frolly, which I did not notice then.
As soon as I noticed it – the next day – I outed myself, so that everyone here would know that Frolly was me, Robert Holmes.
.
“I’m just pointing out that he’s engaging in very deceptive practices…when a man is desperate enough to invent a fake person to pretend to support him, he has very little faith in his scientific arguments …”
.
This is so delusional its really very funny.
All you are pointing out to everyone here is that you are not only deluded and paranoid, but that you fear the line of argument being advanced here so much that your only line of defense is to attack the man instead of his science.
Somehow I have seen this a million times before on my YouTube account, used by other fanatical AGW believers, so I can recognize this fraudulent way of ‘debating’ easily.
To be frank (Oops, I don’t mean that I am Frank as well) I don’t give a rats arse about WUWT’s very odd intrigues, plainly run by very small unimaginative men.
Ok enough of this, you’ve had you say (or rant in this case) time to choose an identity and stick with it, and then get back to the real issue of the article, not this distraction and name-calling. Further posts like this go to the bit-bucket.
The fact that you have “frolly” at all suggests that you have a need to hide on occasion. Otherwise it wouldn’t exist. So be one or the other.
Willis,
The internet is a truly brutal place and folk’s desire for anonymity here is well founded.
Posting using WordPress is challenging if you want to preserve your anonymity elsewhere because, although WordPress allows you to change your handle, this cannot always be checked prior to posting.
I find it best to only use one persona per browser, for example Firefox, Chrome, IE and Brave will all act independently and so this forces WordPress to request separate logins for each browser, this way you can keep your anonymity (and keep your family safe) if you need to.
Philip Mulholland
Philip Mulholland February 13, 2018 at 7:47 pm Edit
Thanks, Philip, but that’s not quite true. The internet is a truly brutal place and some folk’s desire for anonymity here is well founded. However, there are undoubtedly others for whom it’s just a way to avoid taking responsibility for their words.
What the anonymous often fail to understand is that it costs them credibility. They can say anything at all, walk away, change their screen name, and bear absolutely no responsibility for what they have said.
You and I, on the other hand, must choose our words much more carefully, because we need to stand behind them even years later. And since we have to back our words, that gives them more credibility than the same words from some random anonymous internet popup.
w.
Willis,
You are the most disingenuous and ignorant person!
As anyone can see, I used my OWN name right from the start here!
When my computer accidentally used my U-tube screen name Frolly, I immediately corrected this the next day!
You are simply using this accident as a diversionary tactic, just like the planet with its ‘Argon atmosphere’ and its 1,000 suns. When are you going to admit that you actually have no answers to Don132, Stephen Wilde, the Reverend Badger, Roger Clague or me?
My reply to Willis, yesterday, seems to have been lost.
As I pointed out then, Holmes stated who he was long before Cassio supposedly outed him, as Cassio himself acknowledged. So Holmes “confessed” to nothing.
Also, my name really is Don. I use an alias to protect my young children. Whether my fears are unfounded or real, these are my children and I’m not taking any chances.
Robert Holmes February 13, 2018 at 11:58 pm
You used your own name AT the start, not FROM the start.
Yes … after posting three more comments before correcting it. Four comments with a number of people replying to you as “Frolly”, and you want me to believe you corrected it “immediately”??? Pull the other one!
I’m using a proof that your scientific claims are wrong as a “diversionary tactic”? Dude, what are you smoking?
I’ve answered your questions quite patiently. I’ve made many good-faith efforts to show you exactly where you are wrong, including in the head post. I have offered explanations. I’ve given you two complete proofs that you are wrong. What more do you want??
The problem is not that I “have no answers”. It is that you are unwilling to engage with the answers that I have given.
But hey, rock on. You’re obviously beyond my poor ability to add or detract … none so blind as those who will not see.
Regards and regrets,
w.
Willis
I want to expose your lies and nonsense so much I examined the entire train, took me two hours.
You said; “You used your own name AT the start, not FROM the start.”
.
I used my name FROM the start, and here are my post to prove it;
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 6:21 pm
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 6:46 pm
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 9:35 pm
Robert Holmes February 6, 2018 at 10:21 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 4:23 am
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 3:59 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 4:23 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 7:00 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 7:15 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 9:09 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 9:27 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 9:36 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 9:40 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 10:25 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 11:14 pm
Robert Holmes February 7, 2018 at 11:27 pm
Robert Holmes February 8, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Robert Holmes February 8, 2018 at 3:08 pm
Robert Holmes February 8, 2018 at 4:29 pm
Robert Holmes February 8, 2018 at 4:59 pm
Twenty-two posts to be exact, and no ”sock-puppet” to be seen. Then I gave you guys a break while I had a computer update, which the computer obviously did not like much – because the next post I made was accidentally under “Frolly” here;
frolly February 11, 2018 at 2:07 pm
Which I corrected as soon as I noticed, this was 24hrs and 5 minutes later here;
frolly February 12, 2018 at 2:12 pm
“I left you guys to sort this out and started writing another paper, but then saw you all lose your way going down Willis’s rabbit-holes.
Glad to help out!
1000Frolly aka Robert Holmes”
And I see you have posted yet another diversionary rabbit-hole for us to run down.
Yes this was really an unnecessary diversion and looks like another attempt to evade Badger’s [Holmes’] irrefutable argument.
>>
Yes this was really an unnecessary diversion and looks like another attempt to evade Badger’s [Holmes’] irrefutable argument.
<<
The Badger/Holmes argument is not irrefutable–it’s a magic trick. If planets E1 and E2 have the same surface temperature and E2 has no GHGs, then the atmosphere of E2 is undefined by those facts. The real test would be to make the atmosphere of E2 have the same total mass as E1. Because the energy flows will be different, then the surface temperature of E2 can’t be the same.
For starters, E1 (Earth) has three windows (due mostly to water vapor), one between 5 centimeters and 11 meters (used by radio astronomers), one between 300 nanometers and 1100 nanometers (that our eyes take advantage of), and one between 8 microns and 12 microns (that the planet uses to cool itself–the so-called IR window). Although some like to extend the IR window to 14 microns so it looks like CO2 has more of an effect (14.99 microns).
E2 would have no windows and would be free to radiate at all wavelengths. That alone would change the surface temperature.
Jim
Jim,
Its no trick, its a real scenario which could theoretically be carried out in reality.
Certainly GHG have an effect, no-one here is denying that. What we are saying is that negative feedbacks in the climate system reduce the warming effect to zero.
Try this short version of the thought experiment for simplicity;
What I am doing here, is pointing out that if the GHG in E1 do cause anomalous warming, then they can ONLY do this by altering the three gas parameters in a way in which non-GHG can not..
BUT since a NON-GHG mix (E2) can also be created which matches these exact three E1 parameters, (and IF the MM version of the IGL is correct – and so E2 must form the same temperature as E1) then the GHG’s cannot be creating any net anomalous warming by altering the three gas parameters in an unusual way.
Looks like you missed some other instances. In any event, pick one persona and stick with it, as our site policy on multiple identities is very clear. Also, tone down your angry rhetoric.
“frolly” now goes to the bit bucket.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
Willis is correct. It seems Mr. Holmes has had at least 4 separate identities here in addition to “frolly” on further investigation, I find we have these variances:
Our site policy on multiple identities is very clear. From now on, “frolly” goes direct to the bit bucket.
>>
What I am doing here, is pointing out that if the GHG in E1 do cause anomalous warming, then they can ONLY do this by altering the three gas parameters in a way in which non-GHG can not..
<<
True, I agree with you here.
>>
BUT since a NON-GHG mix (E2) can also be created which matches these exact three E1 parameters, (and IF the MM version of the IGL is correct – and so E2 must form the same temperature as E1) then the GHG’s cannot be creating any net anomalous warming by altering the three gas parameters in an unusual way.
<<
The problem here is that to get to E1’s same parameters, you must alter E2’s atmosphere to get those parameters (it’s what you and Badger claimed). That would make E2’s atmospheric mass different from E1’s atmospheric mass. I doubt that with different energy flows you can make E1 = E2. And since E1’s atmosphere is different from E2’s atmosphere, those GHGs must be having an effect.
Jim
Jim Masterson February 14, 2018 at 2:57 pm:
“The problem here is that to get to E1’s same parameters, you must alter E2’s atmosphere to get those parameters (it’s what you and Badger claimed). That would make E2’s atmospheric mass different from E1’s atmospheric mass. I doubt that with different energy flows you can make E1 = E2. And since E1’s atmosphere is different from E2’s atmosphere, those GHGs must be having an effect.”
Jim, that cannot be.
Assume that E1’s atmosphere is warmed by GHG. How warm will it be? Let’s use Frolly’s formula to find out. This formula will take the pressure, density, and molar mass and find the temperature, and do this pretty accurately. Then the only thing we’re doing is taking the pressure, density, and molar mass of E1 and transferring them to E2– EXACTLY, except without GHGs. We can do this, so we are in essence mimicking E1’s atmosphere.So then what will E2’s temperature be? According to Frolly’s formula, it will be exactly what E1’s temp is.
I don’t understand how we’d be altering the mass of E2. Wouldn’t it be EXACTLY the same as E1’s?
Once again, I believe you are probably assuming that GHGs must have an effect, and that effect cannot be accounted for in E2 except by altering the mass of E2, since it has no GHG. Do you see that you are assuming the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion?
>>
I don’t understand how we’d be altering the mass of E2. Wouldn’t it be EXACTLY the same as E1’s?
<<
What do you mean by “EXACTLY the same?” The atmosphere of E1 doesn’t equal the atmosphere of E2 because one contains GHGs and the other doesn’t. So you need to pick another parameter to compare them. I choose total atmospheric mass. Given that, the surface of E2 is free to radiate at all wavelengths–that alone should make E2’s surface temperature different.
Yes, I think GHGs have an effect. My experience with deserts and tropical jungles tells me that these two regions have different temperature profiles–especially at night. The only main difference is the presence of moisture in the air–a GHG.
With equal total atmospheric mass and T1 not equal to T2, then to make the Holmes version of the IGL work out the density and molar mass of E2 must be different. Altering the density and molar mass of E2 so it matches the density and molar mass of E1 says absolutely nothing about the total atmospheric mass of E2. Neither you, Holmes, or Badger can demonstrate that the total atmospheric mass of E1 equals E2 in such a case. If you can, show me.
>>
Once again, I believe you are probably assuming that GHGs must have an effect, and that effect cannot be accounted for in E2 except by altering the mass of E2, since it has no GHG. Do you see that you are assuming the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion?
<<
Assuming that GHGs don’t have an effect is also assuming the conclusion to prove a conclusion. Except, I have a reason to make my assumption–GHGs actually do interfere with the flow of energy.
I also expect E2 to have lots of dust devils–like Mars and dry regions here on Earth.
Jim
Well my desktop PC logs me in as Stephen Wilde and my ipad as wildeco2014. I don’t regard that as a deception.
Anyway, to summarise the science so far:
i) The ideal gas law gives a useful prediction of the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere regardless of whether GHGs are present or not and regardless of their quantity.
ii) That prediction invariably gives a higher temperature than that predicted by the radiation only S-B equation
iii) The only ways that energy in an atmosphere can get back to the surface in order to raise it above S-B are by conduction and/or radiation.
iv) If an atmosphere is non radiative then the only way is by conduction so the fact of back conduction heating a surface cannot be denied.
v) If one then adds a radiative gas then the DWIR energy reaching the surface below alters the density patterns at the surface so as to compromise the efficiency of conduction between atmosphere and surface. Conduction is more effective when the gases are denser or where the density variability in the horizontal plane is greater.
vi) It follows that more DWIR means less conduction and the surface temperature remains set at that predicted by the ideal gas laws.
vii) The ideal gas laws predict a maximum surface temperature that cannot be further enhanced by radiative gases in the atmosphere.
The above is a duplicated post that I thought had not gone through.
Well my desktop PC logs me in as Stephen Wilde and my ipad as wildeco2014. I don’t regard that as a deception.
Anyway, to summarise the science so far:
i) The ideal gas law gives a useful prediction of the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere regardless of whether GHGs are present or not and regardless of their quantity.
ii) That prediction invariably gives a higher temperature than that predicted by the radiation only S-B equation
iii) The only ways that energy in an atmosphere can get back to the surface in order to raise it above S-B are by conduction and/or radiation.
iv) If an atmosphere is non radiative then the only way is by conduction so the fact of back conduction heating a surface cannot be denied.
v) If one then adds a radiative gas then the DWIR energy reaching the surface below alters the density patterns at the surface so as to compromise the efficiency of conduction between atmosphere and surface. Conduction is more effective when the gases are denser or where the density variability in the horizontal plane is greater.
vi) It follows that more DWIR means less conduction and the surface temperature remains set at that predicted by the ideal gas laws.
vii) The ideal gas laws predict a maximum surface temperature that cannot be further enhanced by radiative gases in the atmosphere.
wildeco2014 February 14, 2018 at 1:10 am
Well my desktop PC logs me in as Stephen Wilde and my ipad as wildeco2014. I don’t regard that as a deception.
Anyway, to summarise the science so far:
i) The ideal gas law gives a useful prediction of the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere regardless of whether GHGs are present or not and regardless of their quantity.
The IGL is incapable of predicting the surface temperature, all it says is if you measure three of the parameters you know what the fourth value is (that’s not a prediction). Measure only two of them and you have no idea what the other two are, just what their relationship is.
Typically you’d need to solve the heat balance equation to determine the other two.
For example Titan has a surface pressure of 1.45 bar and a Molar mass of about 28, well in IGL range what can you say about its temperature?
Robert (Holmes), I’m unwilling to leave it there, so lets set all of that aside and go back to the science.
Assume we have two identical planets with identical atmospheres containing GHGs. They are both warmed to 255K by the sun. On planet E1, the greenhouse effect works, and this boosts the temperature by 33K to a final temperature of 288K.
On planet E2, on the other hand, the greenhouse effect doesn’t work for unknown reasons. Fortunately, on this planet adiabatic auto-compression kicks in as Robert Holmes postulates. And purely by chance this also boosts the temperature by the same 33K to a final temperature of 288K.
Now, both planets end up at 288K, with identical molar mass, density, and pressure. As a result, the temperature as calculated by the IDL is right around 288K for both planets.
So here is the important question:
Using just the Ideal Gas Law, can you tell which planet gains additional warmth from GHGs and which planet gains additional warmth from adiabatic auto-compression?
I say no. The IGL cannot tell us anything about the CAUSES of the temperature. It can only allow us to calculate the temperature, and even then only when we know the three other variables. But it gives us no information about CO2, adiabatic auto-compression, or any other cause for the temperature. It can only give us the temperature.
So what say you to that question? Can the IDL used BY ITSELF tell us which planet, E1 or E2, is warmer because of GHGs and which is warmer because of autocompression?
Thanks in advance for your answer,
w.
Both planets are capable of gaining additional; warmth from both processes but the more DWIR there is the less adiabatic auto-compression there is so that the IGL is complied with.
You see, in the process of warming the surface DWIR makes the surface gases less dense so that proportionately less conduction can occur which feeds through the convective overturning cycle to produce less auto-compression.
The important fact for the AGW theory is that one cannot exceed the surface temperature predicted by the gas laws by increasing GHGs.
Stephen, that’s interesting but I fear you haven’t come close to answering my question. It was:
Using just the Ideal Gas Law, can you tell which planet (E1 or E2) gains additional warmth from GHGs and which planet gains additional warmth from adiabatic auto-compression?
If you say “yes”, please explain how.
w.
Stephen, I’m sure you’re right; I just can’t understand what you’re saying! Pretend we’re bright ninth graders and slow down a bit! What are the basic concepts?
Yes, because the gas laws will operate with auto-compression if GHGs are not available.
Thus the one with the GHGs switched off gets all additional warmth from auto-compression.
The one with GHGs still working gets some of the additional warmth from DWIR and the rest from a correspondingly reduced amount of auto- compression.
The proportions cannot be calculated from the IGL but the maximum attainable temperature from the two processes combined is calculated from the IGL.
The figure of 33K is not attained by chance, it is a consequence of the gas laws fixing the amount of additional surface energy required to hold the atmosphere off the ground in hydrostatic equilibrium against gravity. The IGL does not care whether the necessary energy comes from DWIR or auto-compression but will adjust to the individual situation by varying surface densities as necessary to switch between the two.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 1:15 am:
“So here is the important question:
Using just the Ideal Gas Law, can you tell which planet gains additional warmth from GHGs and which planet gains additional warmth from adiabatic auto-compression?”
Willis, it doesn’t matter. Badger’s argument (OK, the one Holmes/Frolly used, but which he attributes to Reverend Badger; I’ll consistently call it “Badger’s argument” from now on unless someone objects) is not concerned with WHY something is heating; you’re reading too much into it. It’s only concerns proving why something CANNOT be heating from a particular source, in this case, GHGs. Please read the argument carefully. Let’s not get confused about what the argument is actually saying.
Willis,
I agree with you, there is a problem of too many variables. So I want to go back to the basics, the real basics of planetary atmospheres. How many variables can we identify that are completely independent?
Well #1 on my list is the size of the planet. Planetary mass determines the strength of the gravity at the solid surface upon which the atmosphere rests (the datum level for the potential energy equation). The planet’s gravity at the surface determines the escape velocity; it is the escape velocity that determines the minimum molecular weight of a species of gas that can be retained in the atmosphere under a given loading of incoming solar radiation.
So that means that #2 on my list is the average orbital distance of the planet from its parent star. This distance (and orbital trajectory) determines the maximum surface temperature that a solid planet without an atmosphere can achieve. Mercury, with an escape velocity of 4.3 km/s, does not retain an atmosphere. The moon Titan, orbiting the Sun at the distance of Saturn, has a lower escape velocity of 2.64 km/s and so retains a cold nitrogen rich atmosphere that is denser than the Earth’s.
The next independent variable on my list #3 (and possibly the most contentious one) is the speed of the planet’s rotation. The speed of a planet’s daily rotation determines the latitudinal reach of the primary atmospheric cell, the Hadley Cell. On Earth, a fast rotating planet, the Hadley Cell is constrained by the “Coriolis force” and does not extend beyond the tropics due to the conservation of planetary angular (rotational) momentum. Poleward moving air at the top of the Hadley Cell is eventually forced down and returns to the surface. This forced descent allows the development in the Earth’s atmosphere of two more high latitude cells, the Ferrel Cell and the Polar Cell. On Venus however, a slowly rotating planet that does not have an equatorial bulge, the Hadley Cell extends across each hemisphere from the equator to its poles. It is the latitudinal reach of a planet’s Hadley Cell that determines the amount of solid surface area that can achieve direct ground to space radiative cooling. So in essence the faster a terrestrial planet spins the more it is able to cool.
So now let’s look at the gaseous constituents of planetary atmospheres and how these are affected by variables #1 & #2. The closer a planet is to a star, and the smaller its mass and escape velocity, the higher will be its atmospheric mean molecular weight. This is because the solar radiation loading will effectively “boil off” the lower molecular weight gases with elapsed time. Therefore Venus, with a lower escape velocity of 10.36 km/s than the Earth’s 11.18 km/s, and its closer orbit to the sun, can only retain the high molecular weight gas carbon dioxide rather than the low molecular weight gases such as nitrogen and critically water vapour. Add to this the slow rotational speed of Venus and its consequent poor ability to loose atmospheric heat by ground thermal radiation to space and we have a credible explanation for the dense carbon dioxide nature of the Venusian atmosphere.
So back let us go back to the use of the Ideal Gas Law to predict the average surface temperature of a terrestrial planet. Gravity is an independent variable that determines the maximum particle velocity of a species of gas that can be retained under a given thermal loading. This then means that planetary atmospheres evolve with time to have a molecular weight that is in balance with these forces.
The higher a planet’s mass, the greater its escape velocity and so the greater can be the mass of its retained atmosphere and consequently the higher its surface pressure can be. This is the potential energy part of the hydrostatic balance equation. The greater the radiation loading of a planet the higher will be its atmospheric mean molecular weight. This is the kinetic energy part of the hydrostatic balance equation. Therefore we can use two variables of surface atmospheric pressure (potential energy) and surface mean molecular weight (kinetic energy) to predict the third unknown, the average surface temperature of a terrestrial planet.
h/t Stephen Wilde
Thank you Stephen. This is the explanation I remember from my meteorology course in Environmental Science too many years ago.
Vertical structure of the atmosphere – Hydrostatic balance
Philip,
Everything in a good logical order; I might lift this whole and put in my next paper!
Next your explanation, we have the IPCC/Wilis saying “No; Man-Made CO2 Controls 98% of Everything!
Robert,
No worries. See if you can include the term “Comparative Planetology” in the title of your paper.
Philip
Willis,
This is just another obvious straw man you are throwing up – and is yet another diversionary tactic you are using. No-one has even claimed that the IGL itself can tell us the causes of a temperature change.
However, we can learn something about what caused a change in temperature from the MM version of the IGL, by the changes which must occur in the three gas parameters – under a known set of inputs.
For example, let’s say we instantly add to the E1 (Earth’s current) atmosphere, 0.03% of a NON-GHG mixture with an average molar mass of 44, and a density ~60% higher than air.
This quantity is 100% known; we know it’s molar mass, we can estimate pretty well how this addition will change the averages of the three gas parameters, as I did in the paper.
And the net change in atmospheric temperature comes directly out of this in formula 5.
There is NO reason to suppose that the addition of 0.03% of another gas with very similar properties (CO2) instead, could have an ‘anomalous’ effect, and multiply the above changes caused by the non-GHG up to 100-fold, as the IPCC certainly claims it would. This is because the MM version of the IGL makes NO DISTINCTION between gases, and cares only about how their addition changes the averages of pressure, density and molar mass.
BUT; as Don 132 said, the version of the IGL can tell us where the heat could NOT have come from. This is where the afore-mentioned E1 and E2 thought experiment comes in.
For your pleasure, I include Badger’s thought experiment here (just tidied up a little);
Consider; two very Earth-like rocky planets with Earth-like atmospheres orbiting at the same distance (1AU) from the Sun. We provide one with an atmosphere identical in every way to the present Earth’s; let this planet be E1. Now the other planet E2, is going to be identical in every way to E1 except for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will be very similar to E1’s atmosphere but will contain no greenhouse gases. It will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas hypothesis for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 because of its greenhouse gases. The hypothesis presented here, using formula 5, predicts that both planets will have identical temperatures. Notably, the predicted temperature figure for both planets, calculated from formula 5, is the same temperature as that predicted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis for the planet with the greenhouse gases, E1.
How could the possibility be eliminated, that a simple formula such as formula 5, (which contains no reference to the percentage of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere) accurately predicts the temperature of a planet with a very specific percentage of greenhouse gases, such as planet E1? Perhaps it would be informative to have a look at the atmospheres of other planetary bodies, some with up to 96% greenhouse gases in their atmospheres (Venus), and some others with none (Jupiter, Saturn). A simple formula with no reference to greenhouse gases could not be expected to predict the atmospheric temperature of eight such widely differing planetary atmospheres, by the measurement of just three gas parameters. And yet it does.
The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.
Yet, it would be theoretically possible to change the pressure/density/molar mass in exactly the same way numerically – by using non-greenhouse gases to reach the same parameter result – and the same predicted temperature.
Therefore, the greenhouse gas hypothesis must be incorrect.
The molar mass version of the ideal gas law is clear in that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they must also have the same temperature. Yet one of them contains greenhouse gases and the other does not. To conclude, either the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is correct (and both planets are the same temperature), or significant net warming from greenhouse gases is correct (and the planet with GHG is warmer) – both cannot be correct.
Thank you, Holmes, for continually beating them over the head with logic, which they’ve apparently spent a long time ignoring.
Robert,
An important phrase is ‘significant net warming from greenhouse gases’.
My description shows how a net warming from GHGs is avoided because auto-compression reduces to neutralise such warming when GHGs are present.
If one had sufficiently intense DWIR to account for ALL warming above S-B then radiation from above and conduction from below would merge to create an isothermal atmosphere with no auto-compression at all.
We can see an example of such a radiatively induced isothermal scenario in the section of our atmosphere just above the tropopause.
For a few kilometers vertically our atmosphere is isothermal as a result of ozone’s radiative ability cancelling out the lapse rate slope and preventing convection. A similar section exists between the mesosphere and the thermosphere because the radiative molecules in the thermosphere also heat up directly from receipt of incoming solar radiation.
In contrast, the non GHG atmosphere has the steepest lapse rate slope, the most vigorous convection and most auto-compression.
That is the means by which atmospheres with highly variable radiative characteristics all manage to observe the IGL.
Are E1 and E2 the same in terms of moderating the swings in temperature? The “greenhouse” effect could be the charge/discharge effect of atmosphere, and oceans. Less OLWR at T^4 means warming the average temperature.
Let T0 be the avg temp of an no atm earth.
Let T1 be the avg temp of an argon atm earth
Let T2 be the avg temp of the current earth
Let T3 be the avg temp of current earth with double the CO2.
At the current time, we cannot assert that we know T1 or T3. MM equations alone cannot answer the question: Will the earths avg temp be higher/lower with no GHGs atm or more GHGs atm? We cannot know because we cannot compute the shifts in wind, convection, conduction, dust, avg insolation, etc.
We can say that the likely change of T2 to T3 is very small, as low as 0.03 C, and unlikely to be as high as 1.2 C, the theoretical amount.
There is also the possibility of an average cooler earth.
None of the above violates the IGL.
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 4:11 am
For your pleasure, I include Badger’s thought experiment here (just tidied up a little);
Consider; two very Earth-like rocky planets with Earth-like atmospheres orbiting at the same distance (1AU) from the Sun. We provide one with an atmosphere identical in every way to the present Earth’s; let this planet be E1. Now the other planet E2, is going to be identical in every way to E1 except for the composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of E2 will be very similar to E1’s atmosphere but will contain no greenhouse gases. It will be an almost identical mixture of the same gases as E1, but these non-greenhouse gases will be designed and mixed in such a way, that E2’s atmosphere possesses exactly the same measured atmospheric pressure, density and molar mass on the near-surface as E1 does.
Clearly the existing greenhouse gas hypothesis for Earth predicts that E1 should have a much higher (33K?) surface temperature than E2 because of its greenhouse gases. The hypothesis presented here, using formula 5, predicts that both planets will have identical temperatures. Notably, the predicted temperature figure for both planets, calculated from formula 5, is the same temperature as that predicted by the greenhouse gas hypothesis for the planet with the greenhouse gases, E1.
It does no such thing, you have assumed that they have the same temperature by setting three parameters the same. The correct way to do it is to set the atmospheres to have the same pressure and molar mass then predict the temperature and density.
By assuming that three variables are the same if you correctly ‘predict’ the measured temperature all you’ve done is show that it’s an ideal gas.
The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure/density/molar mass in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.
Which is exactly how the IGL works, in order to obey thermodynamic laws the temperature goes up and therefore to follow IGL the volume increases (and hence the density decreases).
The molar mass version of the ideal gas law is clear in that since these two planets have the same density, pressure and molar mass, they must also have the same temperature. Yet one of them contains greenhouse gases and the other does not. To conclude, either the molar mass version of the ideal gas law is correct (and both planets are the same temperature), or significant net warming from greenhouse gases is correct (and the planet with GHG is warmer) – both cannot be correct.
But it’s an assumption which you have made, not an observation!
“Which is exactly how the IGL works, in order to obey thermodynamic laws the temperature goes up and therefore to follow IGL the volume increases (and hence the density decreases).”
If density decreases then conduction becomes less efficient and less auto-compression occurs whereupon the surface temperature drops back again.
Net effect of GHGs = zero.
Phil. February 14, 2018 at 7:12 am:
“you have assumed that they [E1,E2] have the same temperature by setting three parameters the same. The correct way to do it is to set the atmospheres to have the same pressure and molar mass then predict the temperature and density.”
OK, what about Holme’s other argument
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 4:11 am:
“However, we can learn something about what caused a change in temperature from the MM version of the IGL, by the changes which must occur in the three gas parameters – under a known set of inputs.
For example, let’s say we instantly add to the E1 (Earth’s current) atmosphere, 0.03% of a NON-GHG mixture with an average molar mass of 44, and a density ~60% higher than air.
This quantity is 100% known; we know it’s molar mass, we can estimate pretty well how this addition will change the averages of the three gas parameters, as I did in the paper.
And the net change in atmospheric temperature comes directly out of this in formula 5.
“There is NO reason to suppose that the addition of 0.03% of another gas with very similar properties (CO2) instead, could have an ‘anomalous’ effect, and multiply the above changes caused by the non-GHG up to 100-fold, as the IPCC certainly claims it would. This is because the MM version of the IGL makes NO DISTINCTION between gases, and cares only about how their addition changes the averages of pressure, density and molar mass.”
Stephen Wilde February 14, 2018 at 7:25 am
“Which is exactly how the IGL works, in order to obey thermodynamic laws the temperature goes up and therefore to follow IGL the volume increases (and hence the density decreases).”
If density decreases then conduction becomes less efficient and less auto-compression occurs whereupon the surface temperature drops back again.
Net effect of GHGs = zero.
Again that’s entirely your assumption, and the heat transfer isn’t only due to GHGs, it could be changed by albedo (e.g. clouds) or solar.
Stephen,
“My description shows how a net warming from GHGs is avoided because auto-compression reduces to neutralise such warming when GHGs are present.”
.
You raise very good points Stephen, well you are the meteorologist here!
I knew there must be strong negative feedbacks which effectively eliminated any ‘extra’ warming from GHG – but were not sure of the details. And you have detailed these very well!
Phil,
“It does no such thing, you have assumed that they have the same temperature by setting three parameters the same. The correct way to do it is to set the atmospheres to have the same pressure and molar mass then predict the temperature and density.
By assuming that three variables are the same if you correctly ‘predict’ the measured temperature all you’ve done is show that it’s an ideal gas.”
.
No.
I have done more than ‘show its an ideal gas’.
What I am doing here, is pointing out that if the GHG in E1 do cause anomalous warming, then they can ONLY do this by altering the three gas parameters in a way in which non-GHG can not..
BUT since a NON-GHG mix (E2) can also be created which matches these exact three E1 parameters, (and IF the MM version of the IGL is correct – and so must form the same temperature as E1) then the GHG’s cannot be creating any anomalous warming by altering the three gas parameters in an unusual way.
Stephen 7:25am: ”Net effect of GHGs = zero.”
Not observed. When GHGS in the form of clouds arrive on clear, calm nights, the temperature warms – there is no conduction becoming less efficient and less auto-compression occurring whereupon the surface temperature drops back again. T remains warmer until the clouds depart.
When the clouds clear to a starry night, the temperature invariably does drop again. This is observed by being outdoors and in every weather station data, radiometer data at which Stephen and Robert care to look. The night clouds cause the surface density to decrease then when they depart density increasse. Pressure may vary randomly during these events.
IGL and GHGs working at the same time in observations. No problem. IGL and GHGs are not mutually exclusive.
Trick,
Sure when its cloudy, it stays warmer longer – it also stays cooler longer when the sun is blocked!
This is a local effect which probably balances out globally.
The net effect of GHG can still be net zero planet-wide.
You should read this excellent paper, which outlines just how powerful the negative feedback from clouds is;
Cederlöf, M. (2014). Using seasonal variations to estimate earth’s response to radiative forcing.
”Sure when its cloudy, it stays warmer longer – it also stays cooler longer when the sun is blocked!”
Thus Robert now admits there is a greenhouse effect locally on Earth since calm, cloudy nights with added GHGs are also in his experience warmer than clear sky nights. The IGL and GHG effect are then clearly not mutually exclusive given this evidence and instrumental observations.
The Cederlöf pdf also discusses this GHG radiative effect globally.
Trick,
“Thus Robert now admits there is a greenhouse effect locally on Earth since calm, cloudy nights with added GHGs are also in his experience warmer than clear sky nights. The IGL and GHG effect are then clearly not mutually exclusive given this evidence and instrumental observations.”
.
I don’t know why some of you seem to have got the impression that I do not think that the greenhouse effect exists, or that greenhouse gases do not have different properties to non-GHG gases! No-one here is saying that.
What we are saying (quite clearly I thought) is that any warming from those greenhouse gases is subjected to a 100% negative feedback in the climate system.
What makes us think that? Many reasons, already detailed here and in my paper. The upshot of all this is that the null hypothesis for climate is wrong, and has been for decades, since it was first assumed that there was a net warming from GHG.
What we need to do is to re-define the null hypothesis of climate to reflect empirical science.
This will be addressed in my next paper, which I have already submitted and it is due out soon.
Willis Eschenbach
February 14, 2018 at 1:15 am
Assume we have two identical planets with identical atmospheres containing GHGs. They are both warmed to 255K by the sun. On planet E1, the greenhouse effect works, and this boosts the temperature by 33K to a final temperature of 288K.
Eschenbach starts by assuming his radiative theory is correct . The radiative theory has 2 wrong assumptions
1. T caused by energy flux ( flow) J/s/m^2
2. This energy is partly from the sun and partly from CO2 in the atmosphere
The question asked by Holmes is what causes the surface temperature.
It not energy flow, J/s/m^2. It is energy density J/m^3 and mass density, d.
Gravity cause energy density , pressure, p and also
Gravity cause mass density, d.
There is evidence for the gravity theory
The gravity theory is simpler .
Radiative warming has 2 very different sources energy
To summarise the science so far:
i) The ideal gas law gives a useful prediction of the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere regardless of whether GHGs are present or not and regardless of their quantity.
ii) That prediction invariably gives a higher temperature than that predicted by the radiation only S-B equation
iii) The only ways that energy in an atmosphere can get back to the surface in order to raise it above S-B are by conduction and/or radiation.
iv) If an atmosphere is non radiative then the only way is by conduction so the fact of back conduction heating a surface cannot be denied.
v) If one then adds a radiative gas then the DWIR energy reaching the surface below alters the density patterns at the surface so as to compromise the efficiency of conduction between atmosphere and surface. Conduction is more effective when the gases are denser or where the density variability in the horizontal plane is greater.
vi) It follows that more DWIR means less conduction and the surface temperature remains set at that predicted by the ideal gas laws.
vii) The ideal gas laws predict a maximum surface temperature that cannot be further enhanced by radiative gases in the atmosphere.
To avoid criticism please be aware that my desktop PC logs in with my real name but my ipad uses wildeco2014
I have mentioned that previously.
Stephen Wilde February 14, 2018 at 2:06 am
I’m sure you did, but I hadn’t come across it. How about you fix the ipad so it uses your real name? Because from my perspective, and I’m sure for many other people, it’s been a sockpuppet. I seriously thought that someone had entered the conversation and was agreeing with you … and that’s not on.
w.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 2:24 am
Willis, I figure out many months ago that Stephen was wildeco2014. It wasn’t that hard. It was pretty obvious.
Not convenient to change my ipad for various reasons so you will have to live with it.
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 2:52 am
Well, aren’t you special! Do you want a participation trophy?
For us ordinary mortals, and particularly for people who just drop in to read occasionally, it is not “obvious” in the slightest.
w.
Stephen Wilde February 14, 2018 at 2:54 am
I love this planet! It’s not “convenient” for you to stop being a sockpuppet so we all have to put up with you breaking site policy? You’re as bad as Robert Holmes with his “my computer made me do it”.
Dude, you are VERY lucky I don’t run this website. I’d bounce you permanently for continued sockpuppetry in a millisecond.
w.
(Stephen Wilde February 14, 2018 at 2:06 am Edit
To avoid criticism please be aware that my desktop PC logs in with my real name but my ipad uses wildeco2014
I have mentioned that previously.) MOD
Our site policy on multiple identities is very clear. Pick one persona and stick with it, whether it’s “convenient” or not. That goes for Robert Holmes too.
Otherwise, these alternate identities go straight to the bit bucket.
Sockpuppetry involves an intention to deceive. Such intention is not apparent where users simply have different devices with different log in names.
That said, if the Mods do object then let them say so and I’ll just use my desktop.
Here is a helpful tool presented by Frank: http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/md/InteractiveMD.html
In this tool, you can see what happens when you introduce a gravity field to an atmosphere.
You can turn gravity on or off and play with it. Here are the settings I’m using:
Number of atoms: 1000
Box size: 100 (volume=10000)
Gravity = 0.02
Time step = 0.016
Steps per frame = 25
Assume that the height of the box represents the height of the troposphere.
Assume that the gas laws are in force, and do not confuse temperature with heat (although in the model it should be clear even if you do confuse them!)
What do you see? Are you not witnessing a gravity-induced temperature gradient? Or, to put it another way, aren’t you witnessing a pressure-induced temperature gradient?
Check the x10 button near the gravity setting if necessary.
That website says that the gravitational effect is ‘utterly negligible’.
So let me ask you this, Phil. Regardless of how accurate the gravity slider is for the scale used, imagine that the box is the height of the troposphere and we don’t care if the gravity slider matches earth or not, we only want to know the effect of any gravitational force on the atoms in the atmosphere. Whether we apply lots of gravity or a little gravity, do you not see a gravity-induced temperature gradient?
Anyone else? It’s a cool tool to try out and I think it’ll be helpful in sorting things out.
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 8:38 am
Nope. I see a gravity-induced PRESSURE gradient, which is a very different thing.
w.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 9:17 am
“Nope. I see a gravity-induced PRESSURE gradient, which is a very different thing.”
You’re right, Willis.
Now, would someone please refresh my memory regarding what happens to a gas as the pressure decreases? I believe it has something to do with the ideal gas laws.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 9:17 am
“Nope. I see a gravity-induced PRESSURE gradient, which is a very different thing.”
We’ve been through this before and I don’t believe anyone has refuted the conclusion I stated: as a gas parcel expands it necessarily loses pressure, and according to the gas laws it necessarily losses heat (as distinguished from the temperature, or velocity, of the atoms.) Even in an “isothermic” atmosphere, a temperature gradient must exist. Why? Because although the temperature (velocity) of the atoms stays the same, there are fewer collision between those atoms: the heat content of any parcel of air must decrease as the pressure of that parcel goes down, even if the temperature of the atoms remains the same.
That is what our molecular model shows.
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 9:53 am
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 9:17 am
“Nope. I see a gravity-induced PRESSURE gradient, which is a very different thing.”
You’re right, Willis.
Now, would someone please refresh my memory regarding what happens to a gas as the pressure decreases? I believe it has something to do with the ideal gas laws.
It expands!
>>
Don132
February 14, 2018 at 10:26 am
. . . and according to the gas laws it necessarily losses heat . . . .
<<
There’s no heat (or mass) loss for an adiabatic process–look up the definition.
Jim
Jim Masterson February 14, 2018 at 10:34 am:
“There’s no heat (or mass) loss for an adiabatic process–look up the definition.”
Wikipedia: In thermodynamics, an adiabatic process is one that occurs without transfer of heat or matter between a thermodynamic system and its surroundings. In an adiabatic process, energy is transferred to its surroundings only as work.
I believe Stephen has already answered this objection.
So you’re contending that as a parcel of air loses pressure, its heat remains the same? What exactly are you claiming?
>>
So you’re contending that as a parcel of air loses pressure, its heat remains the same? What exactly are you claiming?
<<
I’m simply using the thermodynamic definitions of terms. The thermodynamic definition of heat is the transfer of energy across a system boundary due to a temperature difference. So a bucket of very hot water contains no heat. However, if the surrounding environment is cooler than the bucket of hot water (the bucket and water is our system), then there should be an energy loss across the system boundary. That energy loss can be identified as heat. Heat and work are boundary phenomenon.
The term that people here seem to be groping for is “internal energy.” When your packet of air rises, it is neither losing or gaining heat. However, its temperature will most likely fall because of pressure-volume changes. The product of pressure and volume is work and has the units of energy.
Jim
Jim Masterson February 14, 2018 at 11:33 am:
Thank you. It seems, then, that even an isothermal gas must cool as pressure decreases. Is anyone debating this, or are we agreed?
Does the “molecular action model” (linked to earlier) demonstrate the establishment of a temperature gradient through gravity? Does it demonstrate a pressure gradient? If a gas cools with decreasing pressure, then why would lower pressure not lead to lower temperature of a parcel of gas, even if this gas maintains internal energy (ie, is isothermal)?
I will brush up on my understanding of “temperature.”
Would Willis be so kind as to explain why a pressure gradient in a gas does not imply a temperature gradient?
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 8:38 am
“So let me ask you this, Phil. Regardless of how accurate the gravity slider is for the scale used, imagine that the box is the height of the troposphere and we don’t care if the gravity slider matches earth or not, we only want to know the effect of any gravitational force on the atoms in the atmosphere. Whether we apply lots of gravity or a little gravity, do you not see a gravity-induced temperature gradient?”
And here is Willis’ reply, which seems to deny a temperature gradient: Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 9:17 am:
“Nope. I see a gravity-induced PRESSURE gradient, which is a very different thing.”
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Sure. Because it would violate the Second Law. If it did, all we’d have to do is build tall insulated cylinders filled with air, and run a heat engine off the temperature difference between the top air and the bottom air … which is a perpetual motion machine forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.
Your question was:
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 9:53 am Edit
Temperature drops, as you point out implicitly, as the pressure decreases. Now, imagine a tall insulated cylinder filled with air in an existing gravity field.
Where in it is the pressure decreasing?
The answer is “Nowhere”. The pressure at any given point inside is unchanging, whatever it might be. So your argument is inoperative.
Now, “heat” is defined as the spontaneous flow of energy from warm to cold. And thermodynamic laws apply inside the cylinder as well as outside. As a result, IF there is a temperature imbalance anywhere in the air in the cylinder, heat will flow spontaneously to that parcel of air. This will continue until the air inside the cylinder is perfectly isothermal.
Regards,
w.
”If it did, all we’d have to do is build tall insulated cylinders filled with air..”
Good idea. That has been done for real after being suggested in the 1880s. The various Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) installations that produce electricity fill them with a better fluid and place them in the ocean. They are demonstrated to work, no violation of 2LOT.
“…heat will flow spontaneously to that parcel of air. This will continue until the air inside the cylinder is perfectly isothermal.”
This was Maxwell’s suggestion in the late 1800s, however Bohren 1998 Chapter 4.4 proves isothermal T(z) is a slightly lower entropy solution than the non-isothermal solution which is obtained by maximizing entropy for the ideally insulated cylinder.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 5:25 pm:
Don: Would Willis be so kind as to explain why a pressure gradient in a gas does not imply a temperature gradient?
Willis: “Sure. Because it would violate the Second Law. ”
But would it, or are you simply making an assertion? For now I’m just going to make that observation. I believe that Stephen has already answered that argument, although I do not yet fully understand it (I’m working on it!) so I’m not qualified to repeat it here. I suspect you’re throwing up a smokescreen, because later on you say: “Temperature drops, as you point out implicitly, as the pressure decreases.” No Willis, I pointed that out explicitly.
Willis continues: “Now, imagine a tall insulated cylinder filled with air in an existing gravity field.
“Where in it is the pressure decreasing?
“The answer is “Nowhere”. The pressure at any given point inside is unchanging, whatever it might be. So your argument is inoperative.
“Now, “heat” is defined as the spontaneous flow of energy from warm to cold. And thermodynamic laws apply inside the cylinder as well as outside. As a result, IF there is a temperature imbalance anywhere in the air in the cylinder, heat will flow spontaneously to that parcel of air. This will continue until the air inside the cylinder is perfectly isothermal.”
That’s a wonderful thought-experiment but I’m afraid it proves nothing. It’s does not clarify anything, either; in fact, it confuses things.
The pressure inside the cylinder at each point remains the same: true enough (maybe!) But thanks to our wonderful molecular motion model (which Frank pointed us too; I trust we all understand what this is) we can see that even as the gravity at any point remains constant, the number of atoms at each point does not. We can visualize our molecular motion model as your cylinder, only fatter. It is the height of the troposphere. We can claim that when we apply gravity, at each point the pressure remains the same! And, as you say, we can also acknowledge that heat is transferred to each atom/molecule in turn until the cylinder is isothermal– but what does “isothermal” mean? It means that the internal energy of all the atoms and molecules that are the same mass, etc, is the same. Does that mean that the temperature of the atmosphere is the same at each point? No. Why not? Because there are more atoms on the bottom of the cylinder than at the top, and we can measure the temperature of the cylinder at the top and then at the bottom to confirm this.
So to answer your question regarding where the pressure is decreasing in your imaginary cylinder, the answer is, paradoxically, nowhere and everywhere. For the cylinder as a whole, the pressure remains the same, and so we can make the dubious claim that at each point the pressure remains the same. But since gravity is at play, the pressure at the bottom must necessarily be greater than at the top: the amount of pressure from point to point is constantly changing, even if we make the assertion (which seems to me not quite accurate) that the pressure at each point is unchanging.
Willis, who is hand-waving here?
Don132 February 15, 2018 at 1:16 am
Let’s build a cylinder (internal diameter 1 m^2) all the way into space, top can be open so radiation can still leave to space. At the bottom a heating element mimicking solar energy warming Earths surface.
First at 1m we have a plate perfectly containing the air we let in at the bottom.
Letting in air at surface pressure, the plate has to be weighted with ~10.000 kgs to contain the atmospheric pressure at the surface.
Now we move the plate to ~5500 m. again letting in air at the bottom. The plate now has to weighted with ~5.000 kgs to contain the pressure of the atmosphere.
Remove the plate completely and the cylinder will fill up.
Obviously we have a pressure gradient, contained by the weight of the air above the height we measure the pressure. The air is in Hydrostatic Equilibrium against gravity at every level.
This means pressure is lower at each higher altitude, but remains constant OVER TIME at each altitude,
NO expansion.
The temperature gradient depends on the amount of energy the heater at the bottom supplies, and how fast this energy is transported to space.
Introduce a second heater inside the cylinder around 20 km up, and the temperature increases around this heater, mimicking solar UV interacting with oxygen/ozone in the stratosphere.
>>
Willis Eschenbach
February 14, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Because it would violate the Second Law.
<<
Except that atmospheres, which are usually modeled as “closed systems,” need not obey the second law. The second law only applies to “isolated systems” or systems where isolation can be assumed. The Universe obeys the second law, but the Universe is assumed to be an isolated system.
Jim
Phil. February 14, 2018 at 7:27 am:
“There’s an optional uniform downward force, controlled by the Gravity slider. The magnitude of this force, however, is not meant to be realistic. Earth’s gravitational constant is utterly negligible in the units used here (a little over 10−13 for argon).”
Do we care if the magnitude is realistic, so long as we can observe the effects of any magnitude of gravity?
Don: FWIW, you can use the molecular dynamics simulator to see how the volume of the atmosphere increases. With a strong gravitational field and a low temperature, essentially all of the molecules will stay in the bottom half of the box. As you increase the temperature, the height of the average molecule will rise, increasing the volume (area in this 2D demo) and the density at any height will go done. (Once a significant number of molecules to bouncing off of the top of the box, you are simulating a closed container, not an atmosphere held in place by gravity.)
Perhaps this will allow you to see that those who create problems with a defined a surface pressure and a defined surface density simultaneously defined a surface temperature. The surface temperature doesn’t arise alone from the surface pressure, it arises from a combination of surface pressure and surface density. If more GHGs warm the surface, then the surface density will fall, the top of the atmosphere will rise and the height of the average molecule will increase.
Upthread I’d asked Robert the following question, which to date he has not answered:
It is an important question because Robert has claimed that he can use the Ideal Gas Law by itself to establish that the warming of the earth is NOT from the poorly-named “greenhouse effect”, viz:
My question is designed to find out just how that is supposed to work.
Onwards,
w.
PS—Distractions are useless, I’m a patient man. Just answer the question. It’s a simple “yes/no”. Can the IGL by itself distinguish between planets E1 and E2?
Willis,
“My question is designed to find out just how that is supposed to work.”
.
I wish it were.
I made no answer because your question is yet another attempt to muddy the waters by creating another thought experiment, even using the same E1 and E2 (but meaning different things) that ‘our side’ used before.
You are doing this because you have no answers to our thought experiment.
On top of that, your thought experiment is disingenuous because it is un-physical – our is not.
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 2:08 pm
To be clear, Robert, I didn’t understand your thought experiment so I let it be.
Whoa, whoa. E1 is the earth as I think it exists, with the greenhouse effect working and the adiabatic autocompression not working.
And E2 is the earth as you think it exists, with the greenhouse effect not working and the adiabatic autocompression working.
Which of those are you claiming is “unphysical”?
Look, Robert, I don’t care if you don’t want to answer a very simple question. Here it is. Two earths. One the way you say it works, one the way I say it works.
Can the Ideal Gas Law by itself distinguish between the two earths?
Answer or not, your choice, but don’t bother me with excuses if you are unwilling to answer.
Now, if you’d like to state your thought experiment equally clearly, I’ll give a shot at answering it … but please recall, I am not the one defending a novel and untested theory here. That would be you.
It’s not my theory, it’s yours, so whether or not I answer questions about your theory is meaningless. But when you refuse to answer questions about your own theory, I fear that’s a very bad sign.
As such, it would behoove you to answer simple questions about your theory, and stop with your excuses for you not answering.
w.
I will answer your hypothetical.
Your hypothetical is un-physical and has no sensible answer, because on one planet the GHE works, and on the other it doesn’t.
This invalidates the exercise – making it meaningless and self-contradictory.
Why?
Because we know from the accuracy of the MM version of the IGL across 8 disparate planetary atmospheres in the calculation of temperatures, (from 0% GHG up to 96% GHG) that if GHE gases create anomalous temperatures, then this effect MUST affect one, two or all three of the gas parameters in anomalous ways on all planetary bodies which do have some GHG. i.e.; GHG must be ‘special’ and different to other gases in relation to their effects on the parameters in the MM version of the IGL.
Yet it is clear that a non-GHG mix could theoretically be chosen in such a way as to mimic all three parameters on all 8 of the bodies – and so therefore their resultant average temperatures.
In this way, either the MM version of the IGL is correct or anomalous warming from the GHG is correct; both cannot possibly be correct.
Also remember; to my knowledge no-one here has claimed that the GHE does not ‘work’ and that GHG are ‘not’ GHG. What we are saying is that there is no anomalous net warming from GHG such as CO2 in the troposphere. The proof is above.
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Also remember; to my knowledge no-one here has claimed that the GHE does not ‘work’ and that GHG are ‘not’ GHG. What we are saying is that there is no anomalous net warming from GHG such as CO2 in the troposphere. The proof is above.
This is not a proof, it’s an assertion!
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Well, you may indeed answer it, but so far you haven’t. I know, because it’s a yes-or-no question, and you haven’t taken either position.
Here’s my “hypothetical” for those just joining the thread. Two planets, identical atmospheres, same gases, same density, same pressure, same molar mass, same temperature.
One planet works as I claim, where the greenhouse effect is real and the “adiabatic auto-compression isn’t real and has no effect.
The other works as you claim, where the greenhouse effect isn’t real and has no effect, and the “adiabatic auto-compression” is real. So the “hypothetical” has been and still is:
Can we tell the difference between the two planets USING NOTHING BUT THE IGL, as you claim above, viz:
And if you can distinguish between the planets based solely on the IGL as you claim above, please let us in on the secret.
w.
It is a process of deduction.
The IGL tells you approximately what the surface temperature enhancement should be for a given set of parameters.
For your two planets that is assumed to be identical.
The only two ways that the atmosphere could heat the surface are by radiation or by auto compression and you can apply logic from there.
Starting from that information you then need to know whether DWIR is present in the two atmospheres.
For a planet with no DWIR the gas laws tell you that it must all be auto compression because there is no other option.
If DWIR is present then the gas laws tell you that there needs to be an apportionment between the surface heating effects of DWIR and auto compression because there are two active processes ongoing.
If DWIR provides the full amount of the surface temperature enhancement then the gas laws tell you that auto compression must drop to zero because there is no other option.
Logically there are no other possible scenarios otherwise you end up with a surface temperature enhancement different to that indicated by the application of the IGL.
Whether that satisfies your definition of the IGL doing the telling is neither here nor there.
Anthony,
I understand the rule on sockpuppetry, and agree with it.
However there was no intention to deceive on my part (or I believe on Stephen’s part).
Anyway, henceforth I will ensure that any posts I am silly enough to put on Willis’s WUWT trains, will only be in my name.
Robert, I would hope that you’d continue with this argument, as you’re the only one who can answer for yourself and you are the primary target.
And, I need help.
I was about to give up on this thread because the points I have made several times are just not sinking in. I’ll give it a bit longer.
I replied ‘yes’ to Willis’s question as to whether one can tell from the IGL what is causing the warming.
The reason I gave was that if there are no GHGs then ALL surface warming must be down to auto compression otherwise the IGL will not work.
If there are GHGs then the surface warming is a result partly of DWIR from those GHGs and the rest is down to auto compression otherwise the IGL will not work.
Also, if the GHGs could ever account for ALL the warming then auto compression would cease because convection would cease.
I would like to hear Willis’s response.
The thing is that if the IGL is to work in the whole variety of situations then the only way it can happen is if auto compression declines when DWIR increases.
I have given a plausible mechanism for that namely that heating from DWIR would reduce surface air density which would compromise conduction and therefore auto compression.
The opponents to the gravito-thermal hypothesis have yet to respond to that suggestion.
It seems to me that such a proposition satisfactorily accommodates both the radiative AND gravito-thermal hypotheses into a single scenario that accords with observations and various well known physical laws.
If someone has an objection free of bias then let’s hear it.
Stephen, it’s my belief that you are so familiar with the material and so quick-minded that I simply can’t follow you, for the most part. This is my fault.
But for now, our collective task is to demonstrate the flaws in Willis’ argument– or, alternatively, to concede defeat if necessary. So far it seems to me that the most reasonable and logical arguments are given by the gravitationists.
I’ve noticed that a common problem is that people gloss over/dismiss arguments without giving them any real consideration, and I’m sure that’s happening with your comments.
So I hope you’ll stick with it. For my part, I’ll try to break down the arguments and the flaws in logic. At present it seems to me that at least we’re getting them to concede that an atmosphere under gravitational influence forms a pressure gradient that leads to a temperature gradient– which is some progress. I believe that your explanations are the key to resolving this particular dispute, although your arguments are glossed over and dismissed by those who assume you must be wrong.
I wish I knew more, but I’m just a dumb philosopher (but learning every day.) On the other hand, it seems that we are in desperate need of a philosopher.
Don
“I’ve noticed that a common problem is that people gloss over/dismiss arguments without giving them any real consideration, and I’m sure that’s happening with your comments.”
.
The fact that Anthony/Willis listed my paper (and even Prof. Svensmark’s!) under ‘Bad Science’ with the ‘shrinking beetles’ and the ‘THE CONCEPTUAL PENIS’ tells you everything you need to know about their bias.
Really wasting our time here.
The battle against AGW and the CO2 fraud will be fought in the literature and then in the media, not here where people have made up their minds already, and have chosen the wrong side.
Yes, that has been happening all along and dealing with multiple objectors in parallel is very difficult.
When they make points I sit back and think ‘what if they are right, what follows on from that’ and usually I find a flaw or a different way of looking at it that provides a different conclusion.
Unfortunately they tend not to give my points similarly thoughtful consideration because they are stuck in a paradigm and cannot get out.
The reason that I continue is that the objections have steadily crystallised my own ideas such that they are now becoming simpler and more accessible but they still require level of broad background knowledge that few contributors have so they find it difficult to believe what I tell them , especially about meteorology which is a highly specialised and rarely studied discipline.
Robert:
“The battle against AGW and the CO2 fraud will be fought in the literature and then in the media, not here where people have made up their minds already, and have chosen the wrong side.”
I believe we are close to either forcing a concession, or else making it crystal clear that WUWT is simply playing games with logic: avoiding checkmate by moving the king off the board and to the other side, and pretending nothing happened. I still have faith that most people will realize what’s going on.
Stephen Wilde February 14, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for the reply, Steph. I understand that, but I still don’t see how you are saying that the Ideal Gas Law can distinguish between the two.
Here’s the problem. All of the variables in the IGL are the same in both earths—T1, the temperature in one Earth is equal to T2, the temperature of the other Earth. And the same is true for pressures P1 and P2, and so on for all variables.
Since all variables in the IGL are IDENTICAL for the surface of the two earths … how can the IGL tell what is causing the warming?
Regards,
w.
It is a process of deduction.
The IGL tells you approximately what the surface temperature enhancement should be for a given set of parameters.
For your two planets that is assumed to be identical.
The only two ways that the atmosphere could heat the surface are by radiation or by auto compression and you can apply logic from there.
Starting from that information you then need to know whether DWIR is present in the two atmospheres.
For a planet with no DWIR the gas laws tell you that it must all be auto compression because there is no other option.
If DWIR is present then the gas laws tell you that there needs to be an apportionment between the surface heating effects of DWIR and auto compression because there are two active processes ongoing.
If DWIR provides the full amount of the surface temperature enhancement then the gas laws tell you that auto compression must drop to zero because there is no other option.
Logically there are no other possible scenarios otherwise you end up with a surface temperature enhancement different to that indicated by the application of the IGL.
Whether that satisfies your definition of the IGL doing the telling is neither here nor there.
–Stephen Wilde
February 14, 2018 at 2:32 pm
I was about to give up on this thread because the points I have made several times are just not sinking in. I’ll give it a bit longer.
I replied ‘yes’ to Willis’s question as to whether one can tell from the IGL what is causing the warming.
The reason I gave was that if there are no GHGs then ALL surface warming must be down to auto compression otherwise the IGL will not work.
If there are GHGs then the surface warming is a result partly of DWIR from those GHGs and the rest is down to auto compression otherwise the IGL will not work.
Also, if the GHGs could ever account for ALL the warming then auto compression would cease because convection would cease.
I would like to hear Willis’s response.
The thing is that if the IGL is to work in the whole variety of situations then the only way it can happen is if auto compression declines when DWIR increases.
I have given a plausible mechanism for that namely that heating from DWIR would reduce surface air density which would compromise conduction and therefore auto compression.–
Well water vapor does reduce density.
The obvious is that water vapor is greatest GHGs, and obviously it affects lapse rate, but I would say it’s due to water vapor not being an ideal gas- it condenses at earth pressure and temperature- or not to do with the radiant properties of water vapor.
The there is idea that GHGs can actually increase the kinetic energy gases- or actually warm atmospheric gas.
And this would occur a lower elevation and it seems to me to be minor effect, though again water vapor would have the largest effect.
–The opponents to the gravito-thermal hypothesis have yet to respond to that suggestion.–
What seems to missing from GHE theory and gravito-thermal hypothesis is warming effect of the water of the ocean. Or earth oceans have average temperature of 17 C and land surface average is 10 C- that doesn’t seem to me to be explained by either.
I would say if you add ocean of water to Mars, Mars average temperature would increase, obviously Mars water vapor of about 210 ppm would increase, but I would say it’s the ocean which is doing most of the warming. Or if seal the oceans so they don’t evaporate and don’t increase Mars global level of water vapor, it would increase the average temperature of the surface of Mars- particularly in tropical zone of Mars- or would less effective say, about 45 degree latitude or higher. Though similar to solar pond which works at 45 degree or higher latitude on Earth, they would likewise work on Mars..
Well since I wrote about the ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’ some years ago I agree with your concern about accounting for the oceans but that doesn’t affect the background baseline for a gaseous atmosphere because the weight of the atmosphere itself controls the amount of solar energy that the oceans can store.
Best keep off that for present purposes because things would get side tracked otherwise.
I was trying to find the difference of solar pond at higher latitude. And sort found it- but in brief search I found something on “natural solar ponds” rather than human built ones, which I though was interesting:
https://books.google.com/books?id=nbH1QDIv11gC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=Comparison+of+Caribbean+Solar+Ponds+with+Inland+Solar+Lakes+of+British+Columbia&source=bl&ots=fF_bCN5owC&sig=2ZclRQ5t_9eU1hD-XXxw1GNJbH0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOxrSg6KbZAhVP32MKHbSKB8YQ6AEILjAC#v=onepage&q=Comparison%20of%20Caribbean%20Solar%20Ponds%20with%20Inland%20Solar%20Lakes%20of%20British%20Columbia&f=false
If that doesn’t, tiny:
https://tinyurl.com/y7zly6zg
“Well since I wrote about the ‘Hot Water Bottle Effect’ some years ago I agree with your concern about accounting for the oceans but that doesn’t affect the background baseline for a gaseous atmosphere because the weight of the atmosphere itself controls the amount of solar energy that the oceans can store.
Best keep off that for present purposes because things would get side tracked otherwise.”
But I live to be side tracked.
So can you tell me the temperature of solar pond on Mars?
Put greenhouse with .1 psi, air pressure over a solar pond, at say the equator of Mars.
My problem with the greenhouse effect theory is it doesn’t predict, jack.
So call it pseudoscience, because science predicts.
So with your on track idea, predict,
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-jupiter-58.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/how-gravity-continuously-does-work-on.html
A tunnel might be drilled right through Earth, and insulated perfectly against geothermality. The atmosphere would follow the lapse rate to the centre from both ends. For instance, 7000km times 7K is 49000K, and there happens to be no net gravity either at the true centre. That just leaves insolation, pressure and its mass backing. Game over. Of course, the tunnel has an opposing force from the other end acting for gravity’s pseudoforce.
GHG effects are not obvious, which is why we can discount them, but any deviation from IGL would have an explanation. Geothermality would show up as what you must subtract to get that 49000K. Jupiter above would be a case in point, though IIRC measurements taken show a normal IGL lapse rate as far as they go. However, a big enough gas giant is a sun once it ignites atomically. To posit a GHE inside IGL is not rational. It is what it is, the IGL, and it stands alone. Any deviations can be accounted for by variations from the assumed nil effect of molecular volume in the pretty empty spaces of gases.
“A tunnel might be drilled right through Earth, and insulated perfectly against geothermality. The atmosphere would follow the lapse rate to the centre from both ends. For instance, 7000km times 7K is 49000K, and there happens to be no net gravity either at the true centre. That just leaves insolation, pressure and its mass backing. Game over. Of course, the tunnel has an opposing force from the other end acting for gravity’s pseudoforce.”
A 7000 km radius sphere is 1.44×10^12 cubic km
A 3000 km radius sphere as 1.13×10^11 cubic km
1.44×10^12 cubic km – 1.13×10^11 cubic km = 1.327 ×10^12 cubic km cubic km.
1.327 ×10^12 = 13,27 ×10^11
13,27 ×10^11 / 1.13×10^11 is 11.74
If sphere had uniform density, a 7000 km radius sphere with 3000 km radius hole
in middle of it is 11.74 times more massive
than same density sphere of 3000 radius.
Gravity is related to mass.
Or when goes down 4000 km of 7000 sphere, one will have more mass below you
but you will also have considerable amount of mass above you, which will lessen
the acceleration of gravity.
A 1000 km radius sphere is 4.19×10^9 cubic km.
So at 6000 depth, one still has more mass below you, but difference is less with mass above
you. And at 7000 depth it’s balanced with zero gravity.
Now how big is hole in terms of diameter. Let’s make it small: 10 meter diameter.
so area of 10 meter is 78.53975. So 1000 meter depth is 78539.75 cubic meters
and 1000 km is 78,539,750 cubic meters. Hmm
let’s go with 100 km. And make simply lets say its close to Venus: 737 K and density of 65. kg/m3
And keep it at 65 kg per cubic meter below 100 km.
So 1000 km at 65. kg/m3 is 78,539,750 times 65:
5105 million tonnes of air. So unless density increase a lot [and it would, probably not by more than say by factor of 100] not enough mass to worry about. But much bigger diameter hole could be a different matter. Or wondering if enough in comparison to Earth entire atmosphere- but anyhow. Hmm if hole was mad 1000 or 2000 km, would it “self-drill”?
Now I have a basic problem with idea in general- I don’t think you increasing the velocity of the gas molecules, rather one increasing the density of a gas. And Co2 is become a liquid like thing, under enough pressure:
“More specifically, it behaves as a supercritical fluid above its critical temperature (304.25 K, 31.10 °C, 87.98 °F) and critical pressure (72.9 atm, 7.39 MPa, 1,071 psi), expanding to fill its container like a gas but with a density like that of a liquid.” wiki
Or doesn’t work with liquid but is property or nature of gases.
But a problem with that is you can’t make oxygen or Nitrogen a liquid with pressure.
But whole idea of increase density is that molecules of gas will increase their amount collision with themselves [if going at same average velocity] and things which aren’t gases like liquids and solids.
So, I could guess that at some increase in density, that a gas doesn’t get in increase in the amount of collision with itself and other things.
But it seems the nature of O2 and N2 of it having weird aspect of not becoming a liquid with just pressure [you can easily make liquid oxygen and nitrogen a liquid by cooling them], tend to indicate they might need to be quite dense before reaching this- imagined point.
Oh well it’s late, but it’s been fun..
— You’re right, Willis.
Now, would someone please refresh my memory regarding what happens to a gas as the pressure decreases?
Temperature drops, as you point out implicitly, as the pressure decreases. Now, imagine a tall insulated cylinder filled with air in an existing gravity field.
Where in it is the pressure decreasing?–
The pressure decreases as you go up the tall cylinder- both density and pressure.
An column of air decreases in pressure and in density as you go up- and increase pressure
and increases density as go down [obviously].
And how slowly or quickly depend upon amount of gravity- no gravity is none, 2 gees is more than 1 gee Earth. And don’t need “natural gravity” it works with artificial gravity- with centrifuges one making high levels of artificial gravity. Also things like a spin cycle of a washing machine.
Generally gravity is regarded as weak force though works over large distance. So any dramatic effect will be with very tall cylinder- km vs meters. But more manageable distance are possible with the higher gee artificial gravity machines.
gbaikie February 14, 2018 at 6:36 pm Edit
That’s the pressure on me as I go up or down inside the cylinder, not the air pressure. The air doesn’t change temperature because the pressure on me is changing.
The issue is that there is no location inside the cylinder where the air pressure itself is changing, so there is no ongoing pressure, density, or temperature change.
Thanks,
w.
-That’s the pressure on me as I go up or down inside the cylinder, not the air pressure.–
The pressure on you is same as the air pressure
“The air doesn’t change temperature because the pressure on me is changing.”
Right, it’s not pressure affecting temperature, it’s air density which affects air temperature;
Or air temperature is Kinetic energy. And Kinetic energy – mass time 1/2 times velocity squared.
So density is mass of air molecules and velocity = average velocity of molecules. of a volume of air.
And pressure does not have factor in: KE = mass 1/2 times velocity squared,
But there is relationship of pressure to air density- pressure is mass of air molecules above you-. it’s weight- and weigh depends upon gravity.
So kinetic energy of air is average velocity of the air molecules and mass of volume of air- say cubic meter of air which at sea level about 1.2 kg and the pressure is the 10,000 kg of weight weight which is above this cubic meter of air.
“The issue is that there is no location inside the cylinder where the air pressure itself is changing, so there is no ongoing pressure, density, or temperature change.”
Air pressure is lower the higher elevation of the air in a very tall cylinder.
Or 50 km tall cylinder has 14.7 psi at bottom and close to 0 psi at the top
If it’s 5,5 km tall, it’s about 14.7 / 2 = 7.35 psi
” For example, in Earth’s atmosphere the pressure at a height of 5.5 kilometers is only 50% of the surface pressure.”
And:
“About 99% of the total atmospheric mass is concentrated in the first 20 miles (32 km) above Earth’s surface.”
Or pressure at 32 km is low. Or about 14.7 times .01 = .147 psi
So pressure is related to density of air.
There two ways to increase air temperature- increase mass or increase average velocity
of gas molecules.
If push gas molecules into smaller volume, you increase mass per volume.
That increase temperature. If have volume of air and increase the volume- less molecules per a volume, you decrease air temperature.
Or you keep the volume the same and heat the air- increase the average velocity of air molecules.
Or to cool the air- lower the average velocity of molecules, which can slowed by air heating the cooler container walls.
With a fixed volume controlled by pressure vessel, if heat gas, it increased pressure, and when you cool air, it decreases pressure.
Earth’s atmosphere is not a pressure vessel, though if you wish one call it a one sided “pressure vessel” with gravity forcing gas to the earth surface [which is the one side]
A pressure vessel with have uniform pressure- Earth’s “one side vessel” doesn’t.
But if you have a very tall pressure vessel, Earth gravity will cause a pressure vessel to have uneven pressure- it will have more pressure at sea level than at 5.5 km height- don’t think it will have twice the pressure- but it will be more pressure.Though if pressure is 14.7 psi at sea level and same temperature as earth’s air temperature, it will be twice the pressure as compared 5.5 km.[or one can assume a pressure vessel has pressurized gas in it- which could be 50 or 100 or whatever psi, Also one could different gases in vessel which alters it- but whatever gas and whatever pressure it will have higher pressure at sea level as compared to at 5.5 km higher in the pressure vessel ],
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 8:12 pm:
“That’s the pressure on me as I go up or down inside the cylinder, not the air pressure. The air doesn’t change temperature because the pressure on me is changing.
The issue is that there is no location inside the cylinder where the air pressure itself is changing, so there is no ongoing pressure, density, or temperature change.”
That’s word-play that gets us absolutely nowhere, except to confuse the issue. Do you really think anyone is so unperceptive as to buy that?
I think people are perceptive enough to notice what is actually going on. So let me try to break through to you another way, by noting that gases cool AS THEY EXPAND. They don’t take up different temperatures because they are at different pressures. We can have three tanks of gas, each at a different temperature, but all at the same pressure. The gas only changes temperature WHEN IT EXPANDS.
So please point out to us all, just where in the tall insulated cylinder the gas is expandING … that’s right, nowhere.
I suspect that you are confusing what happens when you turn on gravity (the upper part expands and cools, the lower part compresses and warms) and what happens in the long run (neither the upper or lower part are expanding or compressing, so no warming or cooling).
In any case, if you think some part of the air in the cylinder is expanding, please point it out to me so we can discuss it. Otherwise, I continue to hold that THERE IS NO EXPANSIVE OR COMPRESSIVE COOLING OR HEATING INSIDE THE CYLINDER.
w.
Willis Eschenbach February 15, 2018 at 10:08 am:
“So please point out to us all, just where in the tall insulated cylinder the gas is expandING … that’s right, nowhere.”
Don’t gases cool as the pressure decreases? How could they not? At the very bottom of the cylinder the atoms (for example) are all bunched together so there’s a great deal of internal energy there and hence the collective energy (temperature) is relatively high; at the top of the cylinder there are almost no atoms, so the collective internal energy there (which must equal the temperature) is much lower.
Put your hand in the thermosphere, in which the molecules are moving very fast (high internal energy) yet the pressure is very low. What do you feel?
When a gas expands, it lowers the pressure. How else does that expanding mechanism work? Please explain.
The three tanks of gas you use for illustration aren’t the same as an atmosphere. We’ve already examined how the heat will conduct out in the case of a gas compressed in, say, a bicycle tire. In your insulated cylinder, is that possible? With the three tanks of gas, are they all insulated?
Did no-one read my paper?
This has been solved experimentally;
Graeff, R. W. (2007). Viewing The Controversy Loschmidt–Boltzmann/Maxwell Through Macroscopic Measurements Of The Temperature Gradients In Vertical Columns Of Water. Preprint. Additional Results Are on the Web Page.
A temperature gradient was found to form in vertical sealed tubes of both water and air.
Don132 February 15, 2018 at 10:36 am
Absolutely … but there is no location inside the cylinder where the pressure is either increasing or decreasing. It is in steady state, with no parcel of gas anywhere which is increasing or decreasing in pressure.
All you’re doing is measuring the pressure at different points within the cylinder … but that does NOT mean that a gas parcel in the cylinder is changing pressure.
You also say:
You seem to think that it is impossible for the gas to be isothermal, that it violates the Ideal Gas Law or something. It is not impossible. All that is required is that the Ideal Gas Law be satisfied everywhere. The IDL says that PV = n RT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is number of atoms, R is a constant, and T is temperature.
So let us compare a cubic centimeter of air at the top and bottom of the cylinder. We get two calculations:
P(b) V(b) = n(b) R T(b)
and
P(t) V(t) = n(t) R T(t)
where (b) means the bottom and (t) means the top.
Now, let’s assume for the discussion that the column is isothermal, same temperature top and bottom. In that case T(b) = T(t), which we’ll call just “T”.
Solving both equations for T and setting them equal we get
P(b) V(b) / n(b) R = T = P(t) V(t) / n(t) R
Since the volumes are equal and the constant “R” is the same on both sides, this simplifies to
P(b) / n(b) = P(t) / n(t)
Now, what has to happen to make that condition true? All it needs is for n to vary proportionally to P, so that if P doubles, n doubles, and if P goes to half, n goes to half.
But this is exactly what happens in the real world. We know that from the ideal gas law itself—if all other variables are held constant, n varies as P. Other things being equal, twice the pressure means twice the number of atoms in one cc of the gas.
So an isothermal insulated vertical column of gas in a gravitation field does NOT violate the IGL. Pressure varies from top to bottom, as does “n”, the number of atoms, but the temperature is the same top to bottom.
w.
Trouble is that using a cylinder is not a good shape to use to model the vertical profile for the atmosphere of a planet.
It appears that you might need to use something else, more likely an inverted cone.
General relationships between pressure, weight and mass of a hydrostatic fluid
Use what you like, cone or cylinder, it will still end up isothermal.
w.
It won’t for a sphere with convective overturning.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020
“A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. ”
This might be about right. But I would say it has to do with air density rather than pressure,
but around 1/10 of 1 atm should have enough air density.
Or at higher elevation with less air density, one will have faster molecules, but there not enough molecule colliding with themselves or anything else to have measurable temperature. Or space has very fast velocity molecules but space has no temperature. Or the thermosphere of Earth is said to be very hot- but all it means is the gas molecules are going very fast [have high average velocity] but they do not warm or cool things- they have no temperature.
Or the kinetic energy of gases of atmosphere above 0.1 bars can be ignored, in terms warming the lower atmosphere. Or a warmer lower atmosphere doesn’t warm the atmosphere above 0.1 bars. I would tend to also ignore the radiant effect of gases higher than 0.1 bars upon lower atmosphere or surface. Though would not rule out all possible effect.
For example it’s thought that if you “blow up” impactor before hits earth, so that instead of rock hitting, the impactor’s “dust cloud ” hits earth, that could heat up earth a lot- and basically the dust cloud of what was once a rock, would be heating atmosphere above 0.1 bar. Not sure it would heat the Earth as much as it’s imagined it would, but I think would heat earth by more than a noticeable amount.
Or say something like supernova too close to earth would also heat the upper atmosphere. So some kind of extreme effect would have an effect.
“In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds”
I don’t think so, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, and Saturn are heated by their internal heat.
I’ve listened to the arguments of Willis and others regarding that the IGL does not tell us how a planet is heated. I even put that into a logical argument, and for a moment I thought I’d have to concede Willis’ point.
So let’s review Badger’s argument:
Major premise: GHGs raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
_______________________________
Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.
Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has GHGs and the other does not.
Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.
_______________________________
Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else GHGs do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
Let’s take this argument and assume that volcanoes, and not GHGs, are heating the planet up– we assume, say, they’re making it 10C warmer:
Major premise: Volcanoes raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
_______________________________
Minor premise: We have a formula derived from the IGLs that can predict the temperatures of all atmospheres reasonably accurately.
Minor premise: We have two identical planets except that one has volcanoes and the other does not.
Minor premise: The formula derived from the IGLs gives the same temperature for both planets.
_______________________________
Conclusion: Either the IGL are false, or else volcanoes do not raise the temperature of an atmosphere significantly.
So is Willis right? Because if volcanoes really are raising the temperature of the planet, our argument says they cannot be! Badger’s argument is wrong!
And then I realized the answer: If we say that the pressure, density, and molar mass of the volcanoe-less planet (E2) is due to other causes– it’s heated more by solar insolation, for example and that’s why the pressure, density, and molar mass are the same as E1– then in that case we don’t have identical planets but for the fact that one has volcanoes, do we? And in fact if it really is the case that if we have IDENTICAL planets except for the fact that we SUPPOSE one is heated by volcanoes, and the IGL gives us the same temperature, then it MUST be false that volcanoes are heating the planet!
Yes, that may sound absurd, but that is the only logical conclusion, and it proves, I think, that Badger’s argument is sound. Our assumption that volcanoes were heating the planet was wrong; there is no escape from that conclusion.
Don
This may seem like a curved ball but the molar mass equation that Robert Holmes uses to calculate the Mean Surface Temperature of the Earth can also be used to determine how the Snowball Earth ended.
Using Robert’s equation and values and assuming a rise in carbon dioxide in the Snowball Earth atmosphere to ~0.12 bar of atmospheric CO2 (Hoffman et al. 1998) and a consequent mean surface molecular weight of 32.44 g/mol, then the average surface temperature would rise to:-
T= 113.3*32.44/8.314*1.37 = 322 Kelvin.
The result is that the Earth’s atmosphere would rise in temperature to a surface average of 49C. This pressure induced average annual surface temperature would release the Earth from the Snowball without any need to invoke the radiative greenhouse mechanism at all.
OK, now my head is spinning.
I will lay this out for comments. Thanks to Phil and Frank for pointing this out to me in a way that I could understand.
Suppose that GHGs really do warm the atmosphere. With Badger’s argument, that means that E1 has warmed significantly, and consequently it’s pressure, density, and MM have been altered from a non-ghg state. Now consider E2, without GHGs. If it’s true that GHGs have warmed E1, then E2’s pressure, density, and MM will not match E1’s because it’s cooler. HOWEVER, in Badger’s argument we are asserting FROM THE START that the two planets have the same pressure, density, and MM; in other words, we are forbidding E2’s temperature to drop from the very onset!
That seems to me to be a fatal flaw in Badger’s argument: it is assuming the conclusion. That does not mean that Holmes, etc., are wrong. It only means, for now, that Badger’s argument seems to be flawed.
And no, I’m not trying to get both sides pissed at me. It is what it is.
Well that’s why you need auto compression to decline when DWIR increases.
If that happens then the situation is stable at the IGL temperature and all the parameters remain identical for the two planets.
Stephen Wilde February 15, 2018 at 6:47 am:
“Well that’s why you need auto compression to decline when DWIR increases.
If that happens then the situation is stable at the IGL temperature and all the parameters remain identical for the two planets.”
Stephen, please point me to where you explain this so I can read it again.
Are you agreeing that Badger’s argument fails, even if the general ideas you’re presenting are true? Or are you still saying that Badger’s argument is correct?
Don
“To summarise the science so far:
i) The ideal gas law gives a useful prediction of the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere regardless of whether GHGs are present or not and regardless of their quantity.
ii) That prediction invariably gives a higher temperature than that predicted by the radiation only S-B equation
iii) The only ways that energy in an atmosphere can get back to the surface in order to raise it above S-B are by conduction and/or radiation.
iv) If an atmosphere is non radiative then the only way is by conduction so the fact of back conduction heating a surface cannot be denied.
v) If one then adds a radiative gas then the DWIR energy reaching the surface below alters the density patterns at the surface so as to compromise the efficiency of conduction between atmosphere and surface. Conduction is more effective when the gases are denser or where the density variability in the horizontal plane is greater.
vi) It follows that more DWIR means less conduction and the surface temperature remains set at that predicted by the ideal gas laws.
vii) The ideal gas laws predict a maximum surface temperature that cannot be further enhanced by radiative gases in the atmosphere”
Badger just needs to alter his submission to the effect that introducing GHGs does not cause any net warming because convection changes to neutralise their effect.
In that situation both planets retain identical IGL parameters but will show differences in lapse slopes and the vigour of convection.
Stephen Wilde February 15, 2018 at 7:53 am:
“Badger just needs to alter his submission to the effect that introducing GHGs does not cause any net warming because convection changes to neutralise their effect.”
I’m not sure those who hold the GHG position will allow that! I think the whole argument needs to be recast, or else another argument needs to be constructed.
Some of your points below are obvious but some need more elaboration. You’ve done this earlier but right now I don’t have time to look through comments.
Then they have to show that when DWIR warms a surface it does not reduce density such as to slow down the rate of conduction.
They also have to show that auto-compression PLUS DWIR are together able to create a surface temperature higher than that predicted from the IGL.
They currently deny auto compression altogether yet a GHG free atmosphere still fits the IGL so how do they suggest that is achieved without DWIR
Not easy, and until they do they should not be indulged by any serious researcher.
Stephen Wilde February 15, 2018 at 9:14 am:
“They currently deny auto compression altogether yet a GHG free atmosphere still fits the IGL so how do they suggest that is achieved without DWIR”
Yes, I think this is the next area of attack because it seems to me that those who say that gravity by itself can’t induce a temperature gradient are wrong. So: either I don’t understand, or they’re getting concepts jumbled up, or I’m getting concepts jumbled up, or a little of everything.
DWIR=downwelling infrared?
The goal isn’t to “win”– at least, not for me. The goal is to sort it out. Yes, I do have a prejudice, but I think I’ve demonstrated that I can set that aside and simply follow the logic.
It may be, as suggested earlier, that everyone is “right” up to a point. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Well the concept of DWIR (Down Welling Infrared Radiation from GHGs) AND the concept of auto-compression can both be accommodated if they are mutually exclusive and they must be otherwise the IGL could not hold in all the varied scenarios.
However, it will still meet opposition because it drives a stake through the idea that there must be net warming from GHGs.
I agree, if they are saying that gravity by itself can’t induce a temperature gradient, they are clearly wrong. That this is the case is obvious from the thermal gradient observed on all planetary bodies from a pressure of 10kPa upwards;
Robinson, T. D., & Catling, D. C. (2014). Common 0.1 [thinsp] bar tropopause in thick
atmospheres set by pressure-dependent infrared transparency. Nature Geoscience, 7(1), 12-15.
Robert Holmes February 14, 2018 at 1:37 pm
Phil,
“It does no such thing, you have assumed that they have the same temperature by setting three parameters the same. The correct way to do it is to set the atmospheres to have the same pressure and molar mass then predict the temperature and density.
By assuming that three variables are the same if you correctly ‘predict’ the measured temperature all you’ve done is show that it’s an ideal gas.”
.
No.
I have done more than ‘show its an ideal gas’.
What I am doing here, is pointing out that if the GHG in E1 do cause anomalous warming, then they can ONLY do this by altering the three gas parameters in a way in which non-GHG can not..
BUT since a NON-GHG mix (E2) can also be created which matches these exact three E1 parameters, (and IF the MM version of the IGL is correct – and so must form the same temperature as E1) then the GHG’s cannot be creating any anomalous warming by altering the three gas parameters in an unusual way.
So you have a fixed pressure and Molar mass please explain how you can change the density without changing either of those parameters?
Everyone genuinely interested in getting to the truth of this matter should read Harry Huffman’s article: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
But some words of instruction and caution, before you start reading it;
1. Approach it with an enquiring mind, fully open and receptive to new arguments and reasoning. For some, the words may cause some mental anguish, but do not stop until you reach the end of the article: I assure you that the discomfort will be worth it. Do not duck your responsibilities as a free, independent thinker – do not attempt to read the article’s discussion thread to seek self-assurance.
2. Once you’ve read the article do nothing else (but have a cup of tea) and contemplate what you have read. If necessary, re-read the article again in order to allow you to complete your contemplation of what you have read.
3. Judge the article as it is presented to you – no previous concepts or beliefs should be allowed to obstruct your thinking. Be assured, the author has been entirely truthful i.e. he is not attempting to deceive you or allow you to hold a position that differs from his own. All the figures are from actual empirical data. Mankind has successfully landed craft on the surface of Venus, six times. Many more Venus missions have successfully returned atmospheric data. The figures used in the article are NOT theoretical. They are 162 million miles away from a “Thought Experiment”. All you have to do, on your own, with your own mind only, is decide whether what he has said is the TRUTH (remember there’s a difference between ‘truthful’ and ‘truth’).
4. Until you have decided whether what you have read (in just that article) is the TRUTH or is a FALSEHOOD, do not seek to read any other opinions or commentaries on the article or of the author. Remember YOU are an independent thinker. YOU are NOT a lemming.
5. Once you have decided (using only your own rational thinking mind) tell someone of your decision. Be proud to own your decision – if you find you are not proud enough of your decision, perhaps you have no capacity for independent thought / decision making (but beware that this unfulfilment will inevitably leave you with some cognitive dissonance, so you MUST decide – and you are urged do so with your own independent mind, unassisted by anyone else’s thoughts or opinions: just you and the article: TRUTH or FALSEHOOD?
6. Either way that you decide, the cliff-edge is fast approaching when Nature itself will reveal the truth or falsehood of the IPCC’s Greenhouse theory and their computer model projections. Don’t you think you owe it to yourself to be on the correct side of the argument before that time comes? That’s a rhetorical question by the way – your opinions and commentaries are not needed by free-thinking individuals.
Oh dear.
The only thing that Harry said that is relevant here is to point out that within the atmosphere of Venus the temperature is the same as the Earth’s at the same atmospheric pressure after accounting for distance from the sun.
That was not unique to him.
Until now nobody ever explained in a step by step manner how that outcome was achieved.
So at 55km on Venus the pressure is ~0.5 atm and a temperature of 27ºC, at 50 km it’s ~1atm and a temperature of 75ºC
If you are saying that the proposition about Venus’s temperature and pressure relationship is wrong please supply a detailed link.
For example:
Blumenthal, Kay, Palen, Smith (2012). Understanding Our Universe. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. p. 167. ISBN 9780393912104.
Is there a problem with this?
“The Magellan spacecraft recorded temperature and pressure data for Venus’ atmosphere.
At ~1000 mb it recorded ~66°C – ~339 K.
At ~1000 mb Earth’s surface temperature is ~ 15°C – ~288K.
Venus’ average orbital radius is ~108.21 million km.
Earth’s average orbital radius is ~149.6 million km.
The Inverse Square ratio for temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the square root of Venus’ orbital radius divided by the square root of Earth’s orbital radius multiplied by Venus’ temperature gives Earth’s temperature.
Hence the square root of 108.21/149.595 = ~0.8505 times 339 K = ~288.3 K for similar pressure of ~1000 mb.”
Don132 February 15, 2018 at 1:16 am Edit
I GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, JUST BELOW THE LINE YOU QUOTED, OF WHY IT WOULD VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW! Instead of haring off on yet another tangent, how about you pay more attention to what you read?
w.
Well, if you have a sphere open to space (instead of a container) plus convective overturning as is unavoidable in a real atmosphere you do get a pressure gradient AND a temperature gradient without violating the second law.
Jim Masterson February 15, 2018 at 10:08 am
>>
Willis Eschenbach
February 14, 2018 at 5:25 pm:
Because it would violate the Second Law.
<<
Jim: "Except that atmospheres, which are usually modeled as “closed systems,” need not obey the second law. The second law only applies to “isolated systems” or systems where isolation can be assumed. The Universe obeys the second law, but the Universe is assumed to be an isolated system."
Thank you, Jim. It might be a good time to sort this out so we have no more disputes over this. Does Willis agree with this? Does anyone else dispute this?
Also, I find it confusing that these threads are all over the place so that it's hard to keep arguments grouped neatly together. I suppose there's no way around that.
Well I found this:
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process.”
On that basis a planet is not an isolated system because energy and matter are free to enter and leave.
It also seems that a planetary atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium is not a breach of the 2nd law and nor is adiabatic ascent and descent which are fully reversible.
“The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases…”
Stephen, pay attention to that phrase I clipped here from your clip, ideality is not of this world. There are always losses, always some sort of friction, no real process is reversible where you can just run the film backwards. There are no descending columns in the real world of fluid convection.
And by the way, Willis, since I was able to figure out who wildeco was long ago, and I also noted when “Frolly” stated clearly “aka Holmes,” I suggest you might be the one who needs to pay more attention to what you read.
Well aren’t you the shining star! Should we give you a participation trophy?
Me, I refuse to spend even one instant trying to find out who is hiding behind what new alias. Anonymous people are of no interest to me, I’m only interested in their scientific ideas.
If you wish to spend your time suspecting people and trying to figure out if they are really someone else, that’s your choice, but that doesn’t give you the high moral ground you think … me, I prefer to do science and write it up, and as a result, I don’t spend one second on your kind of detective work. I take people at face value, I assume that they are not scummy sockpuppets … so sue me.
w.
Willis, it’s a simple matter of paying attention to what you read. I don’t spend nearly as much time on this site as you do, I can assure you of that, except for the present instance, and yet I noticed who wildeco and Frolly were. It was obvious: Frolly, for example, signed off as “aka Holmes.” It takes no “suspicion” at all to notice that.
You know what? I don’t give a rat’s arse either way. But if want to accuse me of not paying attention to what I read, as you did, then right back at ya.
Please knock off the attacks on my character or my attention and the gratuitous mockery. I prefer to keep the conversation elevated; what do you prefer?
Don
You are right; the rudest and most obnoxious person here is Willis.
I find it hard to distinguish between him and the climate fanatics I often have to ban from my channel, actually.
By starting another thread, Willis’ comment removes his comment from the previous thread, but it belongs it that thread. This is confusing.
Willis Eschenbach February 14, 2018 at 5:25 pm
Don132 February 14, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Would Willis be so kind as to explain why a pressure gradient in a gas does not imply a temperature gradient?
Willis: “Sure. Because it would violate the Second Law. If it did, all we’d have to do is build tall insulated cylinders filled with air, and run a heat engine off the temperature difference between the top air and the bottom air … which is a perpetual motion machine forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.”
We could not build a perpetual motion machine because “it is impossible to extract an amount of heat QH from a hot reservoir and use it all to do work W . Some amount of heat QC must be exhausted to a cold reservoir. This precludes a perfect heat engine.” This has nothing to do with the the tall insulated cylinder itself. It appears to me that your statement was a distraction. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c3
You may want to defend your position regarding the 2nd law, and that’s OK; I’m patient, too.
In any case, and more importantly, I’ve queried you about your mysterious cylinder again elsewhere: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/comment-page-1/#comment-2744961
It’s up to you to explain what you mean regarding expansion, pressure and temperature so we can clear this up. Just as I was willing to concede the Badger argument, I’m willing to concede here as well, if you’re correct.
Don132, I give up. I have explained this over and over. I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
w.
You are evading. I’m not asking you to understand it for me; I’m simply asking you to define your terms clearly and distinctly. Let’s try again: when a parcel of air expands, it cools. By what mechanism is this cooling accomplished? Expansion, great, yes, I get it. Tell me whether or not you believe that expansion means decreasing pressure, and that is the mechanism whereby an expanding parcel of gas cools according to the gas laws. Or if this isn’t it, then define this mechanism of how expansion works to cool a gas, please.
Furthermore, we once again seem to be dancing around the confusion between internal energy and temperature.
Don132 February 15, 2018 at 2:55 pm
Huh? This is all laid out in the ideal gas law. Other things being equal, if V increases, T goes down. I was unaware you were suffering any confusion about this. I can assure you I’m not.
What you don’t seem to get yet is that inside an insulated, sealed cylinder at steady-state, V is not increasing anywhere, nor is P. No expansion, no cooling.
Since I haven’t said one single word about internal energy, not one, I have no clue what you’re dancing around. Again I have to say, QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO! This is getting very old, your inane assumption that everyone can understand what you are thinking. We can’t. You have to spell it out.
w.
Simple, simple question Willis: when V increases, WHY does T go down? Please explain. By what mechanism does an increase in V cause a decrease in T?
I know the answer. Do you?
Internal energy, which no, you have not used but perhaps should, is the “isothermal” temperature of those atoms residing in an isothermal gas, which gas will nevertheless not have the same temperature if the pressure decreases. Don’t believe it? Put your hand in the thermosphere.
But please, I beg of you, answer the question of why V causes T to go down, this is far more important than our dispute over an isothermal atmosphere.
You’re absolutely right, Willis, I do have to spell it out, and so do you. That’s my tactic! We need to be crystal clear about what we’re saying or this will all descent into a food-fight.
Don asks: ”when V increases, WHY does T go down?”
Depends on the conditions of the precise thought experiment. Consider a precise gas universe:
PV=nRT=conserved quantity of energy=constant in this universe
You start with the diagram as shown in Fig. 1 of “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” the perfectly insulated column of ideal gas (“adiabatically isolated column of an ideal gas”), a universe to itself, BUT divided into two halves vertically, all the ideal gas on the left side V1. Vacuum on the right side.
Inside this container universe energy is conserved by 1LOT.
Now punch a hole in the partition and allow the gas freely to occupy both chambers for larger gas volume V2. Because the gas is ideal, its temperature does not change when its volume increases (no heating or working has been done on or by the gas, P*V = constant)!
Why? Since P*V = constant to conserve universe energy then so is n*R*T and as n, R are constant so then is T constant. Well, only if you want to buy the IGL and 1LOT. NB: in this process the entropy of this universe does increase.
If you really do this experiment where there is no such thing as ideality, T does change slightly as measured but that is not the subject of top post: Ideal Gases.
Clear? Crystal.
Willis, you are shouting again. It is unbecoming, and rather sad. I think we should just leave you to it, inside your tin sphere. Cheerio, Brett.
Man, if that’s all it takes to rid this thread of folks like yourself, I’LL SHOUT SOME MORE!
w.
Willis, the author is quite right, actually. I did the same analysis of Venus’s dense CO2 atmosphere with identical results, showing that the gas law (I actually used Gay-Lussac’s law) alone would account for the high temperatures at the surface, and it would swamp any possible greenhouse effect from the CO2. Also, I pointed out that the atmosphere was not a closed system, so convection would quickly remove heated gas from the surface, greatly lowering the temperature that one would find if the atmosphere were confined.
davidbennettlaing February 15, 2018 at 11:46 am
There are dozens of authors quoted in this thread. Even if I knew which author, what are you claiming that they are right about? Holmes makes 2 claims. One is that the Ideal Gas Law works. Duh.
The other is that the Ideal Gas Law “totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.” Wrong.
In short, what I am saying is GET UP OFF OF YOUR DEAD OKOLE AND QUOTE WHATEVER IT IS YOU ARE BABBLING ABOUT! What is it about following a simple polite instruction that you can’t seem to grasp?
w.
This is in reply to Willis 2/15/18. I don’t know why Don 132 came up.
Willis, why must you be so uncivil? I meant Robert Holmes.
davidbennettlaing February 15, 2018 at 6:15 pm Edit
Don132 came up because you uncapped your electronic pen WITHOUT telling us what you were talking about.
Are you really this dense? I asked you to QUOTE what you were referring to, to spell out whatever it is that you blithely claim is “quite right, actually”. But nooo … you’d rather whine about my tone than quote whatever it is that you think is “quite right”. That might be interesting. This is just complaining.
As to why I get uncivil, I am faced with a constant parade of people like you, charming folk who are either unwilling or unable to comply with my polite request to QUOTE WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE REFERRING TO!!!
Since you insist on not following a polite request, why on earth would you think you are entitled to whine that someone treats you less than politely?
w.
Willis, a proper response to davidbennettlaing might have been:
“Sorry, I do’t know which author you mean. Please quote exactly what you’re referring to– this is my standard request to avoid misunderstandings.
Can you please describe your work with Venus more? How exactly does it refute what you claim it does?”
I point this out because it seems you’ve been getting a bit rude lately. And yes, I can quote it. So can others.
Willis
“The other is that the Ideal Gas Law “totally rules out any possibility that a 33°C greenhouse effect of the type proposed by the IPCC in their reports can exist in the real atmosphere.” Wrong.”
.
Willis, you appear to be in total ignorance about my paper. Except of course for this one cherry-picked sentence which you must have read and then copied it here out of context – and without all the backing arguments. On top of that you have, and continue to repeatedly misquote what I actually said, even in the one sentence you do cite. I did NOT say that the “IGL totally rules out…” etc. In fact I did not even use the IGL in any of my calculations, only a derivative of it.
Are you sure you are an open-minded skeptic, who regards the IPCC’s reports as exaggerated?
Don had asked:
I said it would violate the Second Law if it automatically implied a temperature gradient.
Jim responded to my answer above by saying
Jim Masterson February 15, 2018 at 10:08 am
Thanks, Jim. I illustrated my claim by saying, in the rest of my sentence which for some reason you didn’t quote:
If you have a problem with that example, let me know.
Now, can an open planetary system have a decrease of temperature with height in the atmosphere? Sure … unless there are no GHGs in the atmosphere as in my proof. In that case, the atmosphere becomes isothermal.
However, the question was whether a pressure gradient automatically and always implies a temperature gradient as was claimed, and the answer is no, it doesn’t. To verify that, I showed it doesn’t work in a closed system. You can indeed have different parcels with different pressures at the same temperature, the temperature is not implicit in the pressure.
w.
“If you have a problem with that example, let me know.”
The problem is these devices have been constructed so are in compliance with 2LOT. Don and Willis should be interested to know that heat engines run off the temperature difference between the top air and the bottom air are not perpetual motion machines forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics since they have been routinely constructed and shown to work. In addition to atm. air, they can also be constructed in the ocean & the process is called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC).
Also the ideal tall air cylinders are now proven to become non-isothermal at thermodynamic equilibrium, Maxwell’s lower entropy isothermal thesis has been improved in modern times.
Trick February 15, 2018 at 2:24 pm
Say what? Point us to the tall sealed insulated cylinders of air where the heat difference bottom to top is driven by gravity alone, which is what these folks claimed and which is what we are discussing. I say they don’t exist.
Yes, you can exploit existing temperature differences using a heat engine, whether in the air or in the ocean. What you can’t do is drive the temperature differences by gravity in a sealed insulated container as folks are claiming
w.
”If it did, all we’d have to do is build tall insulated cylinders filled with air, and run a heat engine off the temperature difference between the top air and the bottom air … which is a perpetual motion machine forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.”
is what we are discussing.
”I say they don’t exist.”
Right, “they” are only theoretical. You add “driven by gravity alone”. I am not sure what you mean by doing so.
The thought experiment in “Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates” is a heat engine driven by gravity alone. The heat engine will cease at thermodynamic equilibrium with a certain T(z). It doesn’t exist as no real column is adiabatic (“adiabatically isolated column of an ideal gas”) – every real column is diabatic.
”What you can’t do is drive the temperature differences by gravity in a sealed insulated container as folks are claiming.”
What you can show theoretically is to drive a temperature difference T(z) in a gravity field in a perfectly sealed, perfectly insulated container as the modern theory has proven at thermodynamic equilibrium i.e. maximum entropy (ref. Bohren 1998 Chapter 4.4).
>>
Thanks, Jim. I illustrated my claim by saying, in the rest of my sentence which for some reason you didn’t quote:
If it did, all we’d have to do is build tall insulated cylinders filled with air, and run a heat engine off the temperature difference between the top air and the bottom air … which is a perpetual motion machine forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.
If you have a problem with that example, let me know.
<<
If you want to argue thermodynamics, Willis, I’m game.
The Kelvin-Plank statement (of the second law): It is impossible to construct a device that will operate in a cycle and produce no effect other than the raising of a weight and the exchange of heat with a single reservoir.
The Clausius statement: It is impossible to construct a device that operates in a cycle and produces no effect other than the transfer of heat from a colder body to a hotter body.
Those two statements are equivalent, actually. And there is this:
A perpetual motion machine of the first kind would create work from nothing or create mass-energy, thus violating the first law. A perpetual motion machine of the second kind would violate the second law, and a perpetual motion machine of the third kind would have no friction and thus run indefinitely but would produce no work.
Now the thermodynamic definition of heat: the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems.
I looked those up in my thermodynamics text, just to be sure.
Your statement:
doesn’t really match the actual definition.
So why would your tall cylinder violate the second law? Of course, you’d have pump a fluid between the two sections of the cylinder–against gravity. Now that may cut into the efficiency of your heat engine. You do know that thunderstorms routinely utilize that temperature difference and create an incredible amount of work from it? Do thunderstorms violate the second law?
The second law is also defined as ΔS ≥ 0 for an isolated system. Your cylinder doesn’t define a system, boundaries, heat and work flows, nothing. It’s hard to say if your example violates anything, let alone the second law.
Jim
Jim 4:23pm: “the form of energy that is transferred across the boundary of a system at a given temperature to another system (or the surroundings) at a lower temperature by virtue of the temperature difference between the two systems.”
And the discrete physical form of energy transferred is the KE of the two systems constituent particles (atoms, molecules) where heat is only a measure of that transferred energy. Most modern thermo. texts will have a sentence that heat does not exist within any system, object, body. You should check closely for that line in your text.
>>
Most modern thermo. texts will have a sentence that heat does not exist within any system, object, body. You should check closely for that line in your text.
<<
Thank-you Trick, and I’m aware of that. I already informed Don of that earlier here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/06/ideal-gases/#comment-2744117.
Jim
Yes Jim, and your comment was very helpful, thank you. I was paying attention, and I’m now researching that in more detail.
“So a bucket of very hot water contains no heat.”
Fine modern science Jim. Too many forks in these comment threads to follow or follow-up.
Just like a very cold bucket of water contains no cold.